Explanation #1 (Rashi): David decreed about them that they should not enter the Kahal (marry Yisre'elim). This was due to servitude (they were made slaves), like we say in Yevamos (78b).

Objection #1 (R. Tam): The Gemara (Amud B) connotes that the Isur of Nesi'im is mid'Oraisa, for it says that they argue about a Mamzeres and a Nesinah. According to the opinion that [the fine depends on] Heter to marry her...

Inference: [The Isur] is mid'Oraisa, for they argue about verses.

Objection #2: In Yevamos (85b), we say that they argue about [whether there is a Kesuvah for] a Mamzeres and a Nesinah [married to a Yisrael]. According to the opinion that [it depends on whether the Isur is] mid'Oraisa, also this is mid'Oraisa.

Objection #3: A Mishnah (Makos 13a) says "the following are lashed... A Mamzeres or a Nesinah [who has Bi'ah] with a Yisrael."

Inference: He is lashed for her mid'Oraisa, just like all the other [Aveiros] listed there.

Answer (to all objections): In all of these, we can say that Nesinah was mentioned along with Mamzeres [but really, only Mamzeres is mid'Oraisa].

Support: We must say so according to Rava, according to his Hava Amina in Yevamos (76a) that when they convert, there is no Isur to marry them.

Objection #4: In any case, R. Tam disagrees with Rashi's Perush, for Rava concludes in Yevamos (there) that after they convert, there is an Isur to marry them;

Wherever Nesinah is listed with Mamzeres, it is after conversion, like here, for when she is a Nochri, there is no fine;

This is like we said above (11a) "will we give to her a fine, and she will consume it when she is a Nochris?!"

Also in Kidushin (66b), a Mishnah teaches that wherever there is Kidushin and an Aveirah, e.g. a Mamzeres or Nesinah [married to a Yisrael]...

Objection #5: According to Rashi, since he decreed real slavery on them, this forbids them to Kahal, due to "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh";

If so, why does she have a fine? Our Mishnah explicitly teaches that a Shifchah has no fine!

Suggestion: Perhaps it is because [a Shifchah does not guard herself, so she is not Muchzekes to be a Besulah, but] a Nesinah guards herself.

Rejection: The Yerushalmi says that a Shifchah has no fine even if she was guarded.

Objection #6: A Mishnah (Kidushin 69a) permits freed slaves and Nesinim to intermarry;

Question: What is the reason? A freed slave is forbidden to a Shifchah, like the Mishnah (Gitin 41a) says "[a half-slave] may not marry a Shifchah" [because she is forbidden to his free half]!

Answer: We could say that he did not decree true slavery to forbid them due to "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh."

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): A Nesinah is forbidden mid'Oraisa due to "Lo Sischaten", like Rava concludes in Yevamos (76a);

David decreed on them only that they must work, but did not forbid them to Bnos Yisrael, for they were already forbidden due to the Lav "Lo Sischaten." Rather, it was so they not assimilate into Yisrael.

Implied question: Why did he decree about them more than about others forbidden to Kahal?

Answer: It is because they are an entire nation.

Implied question: It says there "anyone who has these three Simanim, it is proper to cling to them..." (This connotes that had they had proper Midos, we could marry them!)

Answer: This does not mean that [if they have the Midos] they may marry them (Yisre'elim). Rather, they should be free, like them.

Implied question: It says there "in the days of Rebbi, they wanted to permit the Nesinim. Rebbi said "if we will permit our share, who will permit the Mizbe'ach's share?"

Answer: This does not mean that they wanted to permit them to Kahal, for mid'Oraisa they are forbidden;

Rather, they wanted to exempt them from servitude, to be free, and Rebbi told him that they cannot uproot the Mizbe'ach's share.

Implied question: We hold that Hefker Beis Din Hefker!

Answer: That is only for a need. This was not such a need.

Support (for Explanation #1): However, the Yerushalmi in Kidushin (4:1) connotes like Rashi. It says there that Yehoshua distanced [the Nesinim], only due to Pesul Mishpachah (for it is improper to cling to them);

Citation (4:1): If you would say that it was due to Pesul of slavery, if so, there should be no fine for one who has Bi'ah with a Nesinah!

Inference: Because Yehoshua decreed about them, they were disqualified from entering the Kahal. The decree of Yehoshua and David was all one, like is proven in Yevamos (79a).

Rejection #1 (of Support): We can say the Yerushalmi holds like Rava initially thought in Yevamos, that after they convert there is no Isur. (However, the Bavli holds like Rava's conclusion, that the Torah forbids them after they convert.)

Rejection #2: Also, we can say that [even though the Torah forbids them], he distanced them so Yisrael will not assimilate among them.

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (68b) 'what is the source that Kidushin does not take effect on a Nochris? We learn from "Lo Sischaten Bam".' (R. Tam says that this forbids the seven Kena'ani nations!)

Answer (R. Tam): It alludes to the end of the verse "u'Vito Lo Sikach l'Vanecha." The beginning of the verse discusses [the seven Kena'ani nations] after conversion.

Support: We find like this in Yevamos (79a). It asks about Bnei Sha'ul 'it says "Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim"!', and you are forced to say that it asks only from the Seifa "Ish b'Chet'o Yumasu";

We establish the Reisha to disqualify relatives for testimony, in Bava Kama (88a) and in Sanhedrin (27b).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He holds that Kusim are Gerei Arayos, and the Lav of Lo Sischaten applies to them.

Observation: This is according to his opinion, like we initially thought in Yevamos (76a) that there is an Isur to marry them when they are Nochrim.

Objection #1 (R. Yitzchak ben R. Meir): You cannot say that he holds that Kusim are Gerei Arayos, for if so she is a Nochris, and she has no fine!

This is like we said above (11a) "will we give to her a fine, and she will consume it when she is a Nochris?!"

Objection #2: The Gemara establishes our Mishnah like R. Meir, and R. Meir holds that they are Gerei Emes!

Implied question: The entire Mishnah is not like R. Meir. The Gemara says that it is unlike him regarding Bito! (R. Meir holds that there is a fine for raping one's daughter, unlike our Mishnah.)

Answer: Regarding that [Kusim are] Gerei Emes, it is like him.

Source: In Bava Kama (38b), we conclude that if a Yisrael's ox gored a Kusi's ox, he is exempt due to a fine;

R. Meir fined them monetarily, even though letter of the law he is liable, for they are Gerei Emes.

The Gemara asked from here, that a Kusis receives a fine. If (when a Yisrael's ox gored a Kusi's ox) R. Meir fined them monetarily, also here he should fine them!

Inference: Our Mishnah here holds that they are Gerei Emes.

Question: If so (they are Gerei Emes), what is the Chidush [of our Mishnah]? Surely she receives a fine. She is a total Yisraelis!

Answer: One might have thought that we do not give a fine to her [to help distance them], so Yisrael will not assimilate among them.

Question: According to the opinion in Kidushin (76a) that the Pesul of Kusim is because a slave and Shifchah assimilated among them, why does she receive a fine?

We should say to her "bring a proof that you are not a Shifchah, and [then] you will receive", according to Shmuel, who says that we do not follow the majority in monetary cases!

And even according to Rav (who follows the majority), if [the Bo'el] went to her [and have Bi'ah with her in her house], this is [a case of an Isur] Kavu'a, and every Safek [about an Isur] Kavu'a is like an even Safek!

Answer: We establish each [Kusis] on her father's Chazakah that they were Kusim [and not slaves].

Implied question: Regarding Pesul, we do not establish her in her Chazakah!

Answer: Regarding the fine we establish her in her Chazakah, lest a sinner profit.

If a slave had Bi'ah with a Kusis, the child is a Mamzer, and (even if the Kusis descends from the slave, so she is a Mamzeres) she receives a fine.

Question: Why don't we teach also a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a Gerushah or Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot?

Answer #1: We do not discuss Pesulim to Kehunah.

Implied question: Why don't we teach a Mitzri and Edomi?

Note: It seems that Tosfos asks about a Yisrael who raped a Mitzris or Edomis. See the note after Answer #2 below.

Answer #1: It is because they have a Heter (the third generation may enter the Kahal).

Answer #2: Our Tana lists only Chayavei Lavin. (An Isur Aseh forbid converts from Mitzrayim and Edom.)

Note: Tosfos did not ask why we didn't teach an Amoni or Mo'avi who had Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, which is a Lav, and Answer #2 would not suffice. If one would say that since females are permitted, it is considered that they have a Heter, Tosfos should have proved that Answer #1 is correct! Also, he could have asked from Petzu'a Daka, for which neither answer suffices! Rather, we list Na'aros with a Pesul, but not when the Pesul is only in the man. If so, the question was specifically about a Mitzris or Edomis.

Question #1: Why didn't it teach one who remarried his divorcee after she married [someone else] and had Bi'ah [with her second husband] Lo k'Darkah [so she is still a Besulah, and is forbidden to her first husband]?

Suggestion: We say in Kidushin (78a) that all agree that that if one had Bi'ah [with his divorcee] without Kidushin, he is not lashed. (This shows that there is no Lav.)

Rejection: According to R. Akiva, who say that Kidushin does not take effect with Machazir Gerushaso (he must hold that there is a Lav), it should be taught!

Question #2: It could have taught a Yevamah l'Shuk!

Answer #1: The Tana omitted cases.

Note: Seemingly, to Question #2 we could have given Answer #1 above (we do not teach Isurim with a Heter). Granted, some cases cannot be permitted, e.g. if the Yavam is a deaf-mute, he cannot do Chalitzah. However, also if a Mitzris is sterile, the Heter of the third generation does not apply to her! (E.g. she drank a sterility potion. R. Meir says that there is no fine for an Ailonis only because she is never a Na'arah. No one says that sterility uproots the fine.) Perhaps we say that Yevamah l'Shuk has no Heter, for it depends on the Yavam. Perhaps he insists on doing Yibum, and not Chalitzah!)

Implied question: In Kidushin (16b), we inferred "the Tana said 'these'. How can you say that he omitted cases?!"

Answer: Here, since the Seifa teaches "and these do not receive a fine", we cannot infer this.

Support: We find in Zevachim (84a) that it taught "these Pesulim are b'Kodesh... and these Pesulim are not b'Kodesh", and the Reisha and Seifa omitted cases.

Answer #2 (to Questions (k), (p) and (q)): Here we taught only [girls] forbidden to Kahal.

Implied question: Why did the Tana teach Chayavei Lavin by themselves, and a convert a freed Shifchah, who are Kesheros, by themselves (i.e. it repeats "one who has Bi'ah with"), and Chayavei Kerisos by themselves?

Explanation: This is because he wanted to teach in the Seifa "even though there is Kares [he pays a fine]."

Distinction: In Makos (13a) it taught only once "ha'Ba Al" regarding all forbidden Bi'os.

Citation (R. Chananel - Yerushalmi Sof Terumos 7:1) Question: Eshes Achiv is a Yevamah. She is Zekukah to him. (She is a Besulah, so she has no children.) How do a fine and Kares apply? (He has a Mitzvah to have Bi'ah with her, even against her will!)

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, he has children from another wife. We discuss when he died during Eirusin.

Observation: Alternatively, we could have established it when he divorced her.

Question (Riva): According to Rav Papa, who establishes our Mishnah to discuss a Mefutah (one who was enticed), in Sanhedrin (74a), how can he establish it this way?

If she became Mekudeshes and was divorced [or widowed], she receives the fine (and not her father - below 38a);

Since she receives the fine, there is no fine for a Mefutah, like the Gemara says below (40a, 42a), since she consented!

Suggestion: The Tana of our Mishnah holds like R. Akiva in the Beraisa, that her father receives the fine.

Rejection: If so, still the Seifa is difficult. It teaches that one who has Bi'ah with his daughter is exempt, due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei (if one is Chayav Misah for an Aveirah, he need not pay for obligations incurred at the time);

He should be exempt because the fine is to her father (himself)! If it were hers, it is difficult, for she [consented to Bi'ah, and] pardoned it. In any case the Seifa is difficult!

Answer #1: The Yerushalmi establishes it when he had Bi'ah with her before he died, and he died [before Beis Din ruled about it. Had someone else had Bi'ah with her, and he father died before Beis Din ruled, she would get the fine. When her father enticed her, he is exempt due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei, therefore his heirs need not pay her - Maharshal].

The same applies if he had Bi'ah with her before Bagrus, and she became a Bogeres [before coming to Beis Din].

Answer #2: Based on what the Yerushalmi says, that a Mefateh is exempt only for Boshes and Pegam, but she cannot pardon the fine, this is fine.

Disclaimer: However, the Bavli connotes that she does not receive even the fine, for we establish (below, 32a) the Mishnah "these are lashed" to discuss an orphan Mefutah, who has no fine.

Question: What is his source? Perhaps [it says Na'arah] to exclude only Bogeres!

In Sanhedrin (66b), regarding the Mishnah "one is liable only if she is a Na'arah Besulah Me'orasah"...

... Had it taught only Na'arah Besulah... we would have established it even like Rabanan [who obligate a fine for a minor]. We would not exclude a minor, only a Bogeres!

Answer (Ritzva): He relies on the Seifa of our Mishnah, which teaches (40b) "whenever there is a sale (one can sell his daughter to be a slave, i.e. as long as she is a minor), there is no fine."

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): We expound everything from one "Na'arah" - it could have written [without a Hei at the end, as if it said] Na'ar, [and had the Torah wanted to teach only one extra Drashah, it would have written] Na'arah, [and in order to teach two extra Drashos, it wrote] ha'Na'arah.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): The only time "Na'arah" is written full with a Hei is regarding Motzi Shem Ra! This is clear from the end of our Perek.

Objection #2 (R. Yitzchak): Why do we need one for Gufei (the simple meaning)? There is another "Na'arah" in the Parshah!

Explanation #2: Rather, Rashi's Perush is primary. (It says "Na'arah" twice, and one of them has a Hei at the beginning, i.e. ha'Na'arah.)

Explanation #1: Also here, R. Chananel explained that we expound everything from one word.

Objection: We would not need one for Gufei. Another "Besulah" is written! (Rather, it says "Besulah" twice, and one of them was written differently, i.e. ha'Besulos.)

Question (Rivam): Still, we should say that one of them is needed to include Chayavei Aseh, and one to include Chayavei Lavin. What is the source for Chayavei Kerisos?

Answer (Rivam): One verse suffices for Chayavei Lavin and Aseh, for had the Torah not written "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah", which connotes that he can be Mekadesh her and it is permitted to keep her, we would not need a verse to include them;

Therefore, from one inclusion we include one whom it is not proper to keep, i.e. Chayavei Lavin and Aseh, since he can be Mekadesh her;

The other inclusion is for Chayavei Kerisos.

According to the opinion that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Lavin, one inclusion is for Chayavei Aseh, and the other is for Chayavei Lavin and Chayavei Kerisos.

Question: The Torah should not have written Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah, and we would not need these inclusions!

Answer: It needed to write v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah to teach that it is only if she wants.

Explanation: One inclusion is written regarding Ones, and one regarding Mefateh.

Question: What is the source that one of them includes Chayavei Kerisos? Perhaps both come to include Chayavei Lavin. One is for Ones, and one is for Mefateh!

Answer: We do not need separate sources for them. From a Gezeirah Shavah we learn Ones and Mefateh from each other.

Explanation: [It is unlike] the Tana (author) of the Beraisa;

It is unlike both Tana'im mentioned in the Beraisa.

Note: "Hai Tana" refers to one Tana. One might have thought that it can be like the other Tana in the Beraisa. Tosfos Yeshanim explains that it is unlike the Tana who taught both opinions in the Beraisa, i.e. it is unlike both of those opinions.

Implied question: Shimon ha'Teimani explicitly argues with R. Akiva in Yevamos (44a, 49a)!

Answer: Here we challenge R. Shimon ben Menasiya. If he holds like R. Akiva, what do they argue about?

Explanation: How does he argue with Shimon ha'Teimani? Since he said "proper to keep her", and did not say 'Kidushin Tofsin in her', this implies that there is a case that is not proper to keep her, but Kidushin Tofsin in her!

Inference: One depends on the other. Since [the child] is not a Mamzer, Kidushin Tofsin.

Support: Also Yevamos 45b connotes like this. Just like Kidushin does not take effect on Eshes Av, and the child is a Mamzer...

Also R. Akiva, because he learns in Yevamos that [the child] is a Mamzer from Chayavei Lavin, said that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Lavin.

Question: Even though R. Yehoshua holds that the child is not a Mamzer from Chayavei Kerisos [without a Chiyuv Misas Beis Din], like he learns in Yevamos (49a), he agrees that Kidushin does not take effect in Chayavei Kerisos!

The Gemara asks like this in Yevamos (53a) "do we need to teach that Kidushin does not take effect in Chayavei Kerisos?!"

In Yevamos (44b) it says according to R. Yehoshua that the child of Chayavei Kerisos is [not a Mamzer, but he] is Pagum (forbidden to Kehunah), because he made the mother a Zonah [through Bi'ah];

Zonah results only when Kidushin cannot take effect [between the parties to the Bi'ah], like is proven from Temurah (29b).

We say also in Yevamos (44b) that all agree that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer. Who is "all agree"? It is Shimon ha'Teimani;

Even though he says that the child is not a Mamzer from Chayavei Lavin, that refers to Chayavei Lavin in which Kidushin Tofsin. A Nochri or slave [cannot have Kidushin with anyone].

It did not say 'all agree' is R. Yehoshua, i.e. Even though he says that the child is not a Mamzer from Chayavei Kerisos, that refers to Chayavei Kerisos in which Kidushin Tofsin..."

Inference: R. Yehoshua holds that Kidushin does not take effect in Chayavei Kerisos, and even so, the child is not a Mamzer. Therefore, we could not say that he agrees about a Nochri or slave (that his child from a Yisraelis is a Mamzer).

Answer: According to Shimon ha'Teimani and R. Akiva, surely these depend on each other. There is no union in which there is no Kidushin, and the child is Kosher;

Just because [the union] resembles Eshes Av (i.e. there cannot be Kidushin, suffices to make the child a Mamzer).

However, according to R. Yehoshua, even though Kidushin does not take effect in Chayavei Kerisos, like we learn in Kidushin (68a), the child is a Mamzer only from Chayavei Misas Beis Din, like R. Yehoshua learns in Yevamos (49a).

Question: If so, according to R. Yehoshua, Kidushin does not take effect in a widow to a Kohen Gadol according to Rava, who says in Temurah (4b) that whenever the Torah said not to do [an act], Iy Avid Lo Mehan (if he did it, it did not help);

Citation (4b) Question: Regarding a widow to a Kohen Gadol, the Torah said not to marry her, and a Mishnah teaches "wherever there is Kidushin and an Aveirah, e.g. a widow to a Kohen Gadol..."

Citation (cont.) Answer: Rava can say that there is different, for the Torah said "Lo Yechalel" - he makes (his children) Chalalim, but he does not make Mamzerim.

Summation of question: We cannot answer like this according to R. Yehoshua! (He holds that often Kidushin does not take effect even when the child is not a Mamzer, e.g. Chayavei Kerisos.)

Question: In Kidushin (67b), when we find that Kidushin does not take effect on Eshes Av, what did we ask there "perhaps both [verses] teach about Eshes Av. One forbids [marrying her] l'Chatchilah, and one teaches b'Dieved [she is not Mekudeshes]"?

Why don't we learn from there that wherever there is a Mamzer, there is no Kidushin, since one depends on the other, like we explained?

Answer: We still do not know Mamzerus regarding other Chayavei Kerisos, until we bring R. Yonah's Hekesh;

From "Lo Yikach [Ish Es Eshes Aviv] v'Lo Yegaleh [Kenaf Aviv]", which discusses Eshes Achiv and a Shomeres Yavam who fell to his father, we do not learn from Mamzerus through Eshes Ish and Achos Ishah, since these Isurim can be permitted (through a Get, or death of his wife) and all similar [Isurim];

However, at the end, when we bring R. Yonah's Hekesh, we can learn in general, like we explained.

Support #1: It connotes like this in Sanhedrin (53a) that no one argues; [all agree that] Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Kerisos.

Support #2: There are 15 women (Arayos) that [are exempt, and] exempt their Tzaros (co-wives) from Chalitzah (Yevamos 2a. Some of them are Chayavei Kerisos without Misas Beis Din);

If Kidushin takes effect on Chayavei Kerisos, they would need Chalitzah, just like Chayavei Lavin;

It says there in Yevamos (20b) "presumably, since Kidushin takes effect on Chayavei Lavin, they do Chalitzah."

That Mishnah is like everyone, for it says "[the Tana] does not discuss [matters about which there is] an argument.

Question: Why didn't we say that they argue about a Sotah who was engaged and was Mezanah during Eirusin Lo k'Darkah, and he divorced her?

All agree that he can be Mekadesh her, like it says in Yevamos (49b) "all agree that if one had Bi'ah with a Sotah, the child is not a Mamzer"!