1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a man who declares 'Kidashti Es Biti ha'Ketanah, Kidashtihah v'Gerashtihah'. He is believed as long as his daughter is still a Ketanah (incorporating a Na'arah), but not if she is a Gedolah (a Bogeres).

(b)In the Seifa, where the father says 'Nishbis u'Tehorah Hi' he is not believed, even if his daughter is still a Ketanah.

(c)The Halachic ramifications of whether we believe the father or not are that if we do, she will become forbidden to marry a Kohen (either because she is divorced [in the Reisha] or because of Safek Zonah [in the Seifa in which case she would also be forbidden to eat Terumah]).

(d)The reason that we initially give for this distinction between the Reisha and the Seifa is that, in the former, as long as she is still a Ketanah, the father still has jurisdiction over her (it is b'Yado) to marry her off and to receive her Get, so why should he lie ('Mah Lo l'Shaker'); whereas once she has become a Gedolah, she leaves his jurisdiction completely. In the latter, on the other hand, the father never has the right to hand her over to a Nochri in the first place, even when she is a Ketanah.

2)

(a)He is not believed in the Seifa on the grounds that he could marry her ...

1. ... to a Chalal because our Tana holds like Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah, who considers a bas Yisrael a Mikvah Taharah for Chalalim (and a child born to a bas Yisrael from a Chalal is Kosher).

2. ... to a Mamzer because he also holds like Rebbi Akiva, who invalidates the Kidushin of all Chayavei Lavin (so it is not b'Yado).

3. ... to marry her off and receive her Get (which is how we currently explain the Reisha anyway) because that would only forbid her to marry a Kohen, but not to eat Terumah (as the father's current claim does).

(b)Rebbi Sima'i learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yikach ... v'Lo Yechalel" that the child of an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol (and from other Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah) is a Chalal, but not a Mamzer, in which case, the Kidushin will take effect even according to Rebbi Akiva.

(c)Nevertheless (in spite of Rebbi Sima'i), the Tana of our Mishnah, does not believe the father (on the grounds that, assuming that she is an Almanah, he could have married her off to a Kohen Gadol [or a Gerushah, to a Kohen Hedyot]) since he holds like Rebbi Yesheivav who (explaining Rebbi Akiva) says that the product of every forbidden Bi'ah is a Mamzer.

(d)Rebbi Yesheivav himself disagrees with this because, he argues, Rebbi Akiva declares too many Jews Mamzerim.

3)

(a)This answer will only work however, on the assumption that Rebbi Yesheivav is expressing his own opinion in which case, he is including all cases in the category of Mamzerus, even Mitzvos Aseh (such as Mitzri and Edomi), but not if he is coming merely to counter Rebbi Sima'i in which case he will only be referring to Isurei Lavin, but not to Isurei Aseh.

(b)The problem will then be that the father will still have rights over his daughter to invalidate her from Kehunah, by marrying her to a Mitzri or an Edomi, so why is he not believed in the Seifa?

(c)In any event, Rav Ashi concludes, the very concept of 'be'Yado' was really a misconception. He refutes ...

1. ... first b'Yado l'Garshah' on the grounds that the father has no jurisdiction whatsoever, over his daughter's divorce.

2. ... and then even 'be'Yado l'Kadshah because even there (where the Torah has conferred upon him the rights to marry her off), he is still dependent on the consent of the Chasan, for the Kidushin to be valid (in which case, it is not b'Yado).

4)

(a)Rav Ashi therefore bases the distinction between the Reisha and the Seifa on Rav Huna Amar Rav, who learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei ...

1. ... "Es Biti Nasati"- that a father is believed to declare his daughter betrothed, forbidding her on the whole world.

2. ... "la'Ish ha'Zeh" that he is believed to specify which man, thereby permitting him to marry her.

(b)Rav Ashi subsequently differentiates between the Reisha ('Kidashtihah v'Gerashtihah') where the Torah believes him, and the Seifa ('Nishbis u'Fedisihah') where it does not (and where two witnesses are therefore required, as is usually the case).

(c)A father is believed to say 'Kidashtihah v'Gerashtihah' (despite the fact that the Pasuk "Es Biti Nasati ... " refers exclusively to Kidushin because of the principle 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir' (which is why he is only believed 'Toch Kedei Dibur' [within a couple of seconds] of 'Kidashtihah').

(d)The reason that the father is not believed in the Seifa d'Reisha, where his daughter has become a Bogeres" is because the Torah only believes him that he betrothed his daughter as long as he has jurisdiction over her (to betroth her). And, as we just explained, 'Gerashtihah' is only believed when 'Kidashtihah' is believed.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah believes a man who declares on his death-bed that he has sons, but not one who declares that he has brothers.

(b)The ramifications of the fact that he has ...

1. ... sons are that his wife is exempt from Yibum.

2. ... brothers are that she is obligated to perform Yibum.

(c)We try to establish our Mishnah not like Rebbi Nasan, but like Rebbi, who rules both ...

1. ... in a case where a man declared at the time of his betrothal that he has sons (in which case his wife was not subject to Yibum), and just before he died, he says that he does not (in which case she is), and ...

2. ... in a case where he first declared that he had no brothers (in which case his wife was not subject to Yibum), and then declares that he has (in which case she is) that we accept his first statement.

(d)Rebbi Nasan believes both of the man's latter statements, for reasons which we will now clarify.

6)

(a)Rava attempts to reconcile Rebbi Nasan with our Mishnah by stressing that Rebbi Nasan speaks specifically when he retracts from what he previously said, because the fact that he retracts on his death-bed indicates that he has repented for having initially issued a false testimonial. But in our Mishnah, where this is not the case, he will agree with Rebbi that we accept his first statement.

(b)Abaye disagrees with Rava. He counters Rava's explanation with a 'Kal va'Chomer' If when we know that he lied in one of his testimonials, we nevertheless believe one of them, then we ought certainly to believe him where there is no indication that he is lying.

(c)To reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Nasan, Abaye therefore establishes it when there is no Chazakah at all, and the Beraisa, when there is. The man ...

1. ... is believed when he declares on his death-bed 'Yesh li Banim' because he is merely consolidating the woman's initial Chazakah (since if there are no brothers and no sons, she is exempt from Yibum anyway).

2. ... is not believed when he declares 'Yesh li Achim' because he then clashes with the Chazakah.

7)

(a)According to Abaye, the Beraisa speaks when there is a Chazakah that he has brothers (but not sons) not witnesses (whose testimony would be final), but hearsay.

(b)When he ...

1. ... refers to 'Mah lo l'Shaker' (in connection with the husband), he means that when, at the time of Kidushin, he said 'Ein li Achi', he is believed because, in order to exempt his wife from Yibum, he could have simply promised to give her a Get shortly before his death, without needing to lie.

2. ... explains that Rebbi holds 'Mah lo l'Shaker k'Edim Dami' he means literally that 'Mah lo l'Shaker' has the strength of witnesses, and it therefore overrides the Chazakah.

(c)Whereas Rebbi Nasan holds that 'Mah lo l'Shaker' only has the strength of a Chazakah. Consequently, it cannot negate the first Chazakah completely and she remains Chayav to perform Yibum.

(d)The significance of the fact that he retracted on his death-bed (and stated 'Yesh Li Achi') is that, had he not done so his original statement 'Ein Li Achi' (based on the Sevara 'Ein Adam Chotei v'Lo Lo'), would have weakened the original Chazakah, and the mere fact that he did not retract before he died would have been sufficient indication that he really had no brothers, permitting her to marry. But now that he did retract reinforces the original Chazakah, and she is forbidden to marry before performing Chalitzah.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'ha'Mekadesh Es Bito Stam, Ein ha'Bogros bi'Chelal' because a Bogeres is not under her father's jurisdiction.

(b)Assuming that he has daughters from two consecutive wives, and he declares 'Kidashti Es Biti ha'Gedolah', all his daughters are now Safek Mekudashos, except for the youngest, according to Rebbi Meir seeing as each one is older than the ones who are younger than her (even the youngest daughter from the first wife is older than the oldest from the second).

(c)Rebbi Yosi maintains that all the daughters are permitted except for the 'Gedolah she'bi'Gedolos'. In his opinion, a person does not enter into a Safek that he will later be unable to clarify. Consequently, 'Gedolah' means 'Gedolah she'bi'Gedolos'.

(d)And if he declared 'Kidashti Es Biti ha'Ketanah', according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir all his daughters will be forbidden except for the very oldest.

2. ... Rebbi Yosi they will all be permitted except for the very youngest.

9)

(a)We infer from 'Ein ha'Bogros bi'Chelal', that all the Ketanos are included, even though he cannot live with any of them because each one is Safek Achos Ishto.

(b)We reject the proof from here that 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah, Havu Kidushin (like Abaye in the previous Perek) by establishing the Mishnah when there is only one Bogeres and one Ketanah.

(c)The Tana nevertheless says 'Bogros' (in the plural) because it refers to Bogros in general.

(d)In that case, it seems obvious that the father betrothed the Ketanah and not the Bogeres (who is not under his jurisdiction anyway). Assuming that ...

1. ... the Bogeres merely appointed her father to be her Shali'ach the Tana is teaching us that even though he accepted her Shelichus, he will nevertheless give his younger daughter priority over her, bearing in mind that he receives her Kesef Kidushin.

2. ... she even permitted him to keep the money of the Kidushin the Tana is teaching us that he would not give a personal undertaking precedence over a Torah obligation.

10)

(a)Having taught us the Din of ...

1. ... 'Biti ha'Gedolah', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat that of 'Biti ha'Ketanah' because we might otherwise have thought that Rebbi Meir only includes all the daughters in Safek Gedolah, because he wants to honor them all with the title 'big', but when it comes to Biti ha'Ketanah', he would concede to Rebbi Yosi that he obviously meant the very youngest.

2. ... 'Biti ha'Ketanah', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat that of 'Biti ha'Gedolah' because we might otherwise have thought that Rebbi Yosi only restricts 'Biti ha'Ketanah' to the very youngest daughter, because he would not want all his big daughters to feel small, but when it comes to Biti ha'Gedolah', he would concede to Rebbi Meir, that all the daughters except for the youngest fall into the Safek.

11)

(a)The Mishnah in Nedarim rules that in a case where someone declares a Neder forbidding something ...

1. ... 'ad ha'Pesach' he means until the arrival of Pesach.

2. ... 'ad she'Yehei ha'Pesach' he means until after Pesach.

(b)If he said 'ad Pnei ha'Pesach', Rebbi Meir compares it to 'ad ha'Pesach' Rebbi Yosi, to 'ad she'Yehei ha'Pesach'.

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is that, according to Rebbi Meir, a person does not enter into a Safek which he cannot resolve (and each day of Pesach is the 'Pnei' of the next one). So he must have meant until the arrival of Pesach; whereas according to Rebbi Yosi, a person does enter into a Safek.

(d)Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi Amar Rav reconciles their respective opinions with what they say in our Mishnah by switching their opinions in Nedarim to conform with their opinions here (and we know that this is correct, because that is how their opinions are recorded in a Beraisa).

12)

(a)Abaye establishes the case of 'Biti ha'Gedolah' in our Mishnah specifically when there are two sets of daughters from two wives. If there was only one set from one wife he says 'Gedolah' would refer specifically to the oldest and 'Ketanah' to the youngest.

(b)Abaye also maintains that the middle daughter in one set is called 'Emtza'is' and is not included 'Gedolah' or 'Ketanah'. The reason that Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah forbids all the daughters of both groups except the very youngest, and not the middle daughters in the second set is because the Tana speaks when there are no middle daughters.

(c)And he proves this from the fact that the Tana said 've'Eini Yodei'a Im Gedolah she'bi'Gedolos ... O Gedolah she'bi'Ketanos' and did not add 'O Emtza'is she'bi'Ketanos'.

(d)He then goes on to explain that the Tana does not mention the middle daughter in the first set either, even though it is obvious that she is included in the Safek (because she is big compared to all those in the second set) simply because (due to the fact that if the youngest member of that set is included, then how much more so her older sisters) it is unnecessary. In the second set on the other hand, since the youngest daughter is not included in the Safek, if the middle one was, then the Tana ought to have mentioned her.

13)

(a)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua asked Rava from the Mishnah of 'ad Pnei Pesach' on Abaye, who restricts the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah to when there are two sets of daughters. If so, he asked him, why do they argue there whether 'ad Pnei Pesach' incorporates the days in between the beginning of Pesach and the end or not. According to Abaye (whose opinion is not directly disputed), bearing in mind that it is similar to one set, they ought to agree that the middle days are not included in Pnei.

(b)To which Rava replied that the Machlokes there has nothing to do with the previous She'eilah (of whether a person lets himself into a doubt or not, like we thought previously). It is in fact, based on whether 'ad Pnei Pesach' implies until before Pesach or until Pesach has passed.