1)

(a)Abaye equates the Din of Nidah with that of a Sotah inasmuch as a child born from either of them is not a Mamzer, and that, in the event that someone betroths either of them, his Kidushin is effective.

(b)When Abaye says 'ha'Kol Modim b'Ba Al ...

1. ... ha'Nidah' he is referring to Shimon ha'Teimani, who holds 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayavei Kerisus'.

2. ... ha'Sotah' he is referring to Rebbi Akiva, who holds 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayavei Lavin'.

(c)Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "u'Sehi Nidasah Alav" that Kidushin with a Nidah is effective.

(d)From the Pasuk in Naso "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" that Kidushin with a Sotah is valid.

2)

(a)Rav Acha bar Yakov learns all the other Arayos from Yevamah l'Shuk from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (if Kidushin with a Chayavei Lav is not valid, how much more so with Chayavei Kerisus and Miysos Beis-Din.

(b)The problem with the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Ki Siheyenah l'Ish Shtei Nashim ha'Achas Ahuvah v'ha'Achas Senu'ah" is why would one even think that the inheritance of the birthright would depend on the love or the hatred of the firstborn's father towards his mother.

(c)Rav Papa therefore interprets the Pasuk to refer to the legality of the marriage (in other words, 'Senu'ah' refers to the fact that the parents had transgressed a Lav, and she is hated [by Hash-m] in her marriage).

(d)We now learn from here that the Kidushin of Chayavei Lavin is valid.

3)

(a)Rav Papa's explanation will not work according to Rebbi Akiva since, in his opinion, the Kidushin of Chayavei Lavin is invalid.

(b)Therefore according to him, we initially establish the Pasuk "Ki Siheyenah l'Ish ... " ('Senu'ah b'Nisu'ehah') by Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, like Rebbi Sima'i, who extrapolates from "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o that the children of Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah are Chalalim, but not Mamzerim (in which case, Kidushin is effective, too).

(c)This answer however, will not work according to Rebbi Yesheivav, who says in Rebbi Akiva ' ... Kol she'Ein Lo Bi'ah b'Yisrael ha'Vlad Mamzer'. According to him, assuming that he ...

1. ... merely comes to counter Rebbi Sima'i we will establish the Pasuk by Chayavei Aseh.

2. ... is speaking independently we will establish it by a Be'ulah l'Kohen Gadol (a woman whom he marries when she is not a virgin).

(d)A Be'ulah l'Kohen Gadol is different than a Mitzri and Edomi in this regard because it is an Aseh that is not common to all (and is therefore considered a weak Aseh).

4)

(a)A Be'ulah is not forbidden to a Kohen Gadol on the grounds that she is a Zonah (despite the fact that she is neither a Gerushah nor an Almanah) because a Zonah is a woman who has relations with someone to whom she is forbidden (as we learned in a Mishnah in Yevamos) but not as a result of every illicit relationship.

(b)We just learned that the Rabanan establish the Pasuk by Chayavei Lavin. They decline to establish the Pasuk ...

1. ... by two Mitzriyos because they are both Senu'os (and we are searching for a case when one of the women is an Ahuvah and the other, a Senu'ah.

2. ... by a Yisre'elis and a Mitzris because the Pasuk implies that the two women share the same nationality.

3. ... by a Yisre'elis and a Be'ulah l'Kohen Gadol because the Pasuk makes no mention of a Kohen here.

(c)Rebbi Akiva nevertheless establishes the Pasuk in this way because (in spite of the Rabanan's argument) he says that we have to allow the Pasuk to establish itself (since we already know from a Yevamah that the Kidushin of Chayavei Lavin is ineffective). Consequently, if the only way to explain the Pasuk is by establishing it by a Kohen, so be it.

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with Eliezer prior to the Akeidah) "Sh'vu Lachem Poh Im ha'Chamor" that Kidushin with an Eved is invalid.

2. ... (in connection with an Eved Ivri and a Shifchah Kena'anis) "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tiheyeh la'Adonehah" that the children of a Shifchah Kena'anis are Avadim.

(b)And we learn from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan ...

1. ... "v'Lo Sischaten Bam" (written in connection with the seven nations of Kena'an) that Kidushin with a Nochri is invalid.

2. ... "Ki Yasir Es Bincha me'Acharai" that the children of a Nochris are Nochrim.

6)

(a)Based on the previous Pasuk ("v'Lo Sischaten Bam, Bitcha Lo Siten li'Veno, u'Vito Lo Sikach li'Venecha"), Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Shimon explains that the Pasuk "Ki Yasir Es Bincha me'Acharai" ...

1. ... refers to "Bitcha Lo Siten li'Veno", and it is about their son (who is a Yisrael) that the Torah is speaking.

2. ... not referring to "u'Vito Lo Sikach li'Venecha", because their son is a Nochri.

(b)Ravina extrapolates from there that the child of a Nochri and a bas Yisrael is considered a Yisrael (though it is unclear what Ravina is adding to what Rebbi Yochanan has already said [See Tosfos (DH 'Bincha')].

(c)We try and extrapolate from Ravina (from the fact that, in spite of the Kidushin of a Nochri and a Yisre'elis being invalid, their child is considered a Yisrael) that, like other children who are born from unions where the Kidushin is not valid (i.e. Chayavei Kerisus), the child is a Mamzer.

(d)We refute this suggestion however by conceding that the child is not Kosher, but by then referring to him (not as a Mamzer, but) as a Yisrael Pasul.

7)

(a)The Pasuk "v'Lo Sischaten Bam ... Ki Yasir ... ", from which we learned that Kidushin with a Nochri is not valid, is confined to the seven nations of Kena'an. We reject the proposal to extend this to other Nochrim because the Torah writes "Ki Yasir" (to include anyone who will lead your grandsons astray) on the grounds that this Derashah is only valid according to Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens the Torah's reasons even when they are not written, and according to whom "Ki Yasir" would therefore be superfluous.

(b)Rebbi Shimon says this in Bava Metzia where he restricts the Mitzvah of returning a security to a poor widow, because he ascribes the reason for the Mitzvah is so as not to give her a bad name (since he will be obligated to come to her house each evening to return her article, and to retrieve it each morning, or vice-versa). Consequently, he permits taking a security from a rich widow, who does not need the article to be returned.

(c)According to the Rabanan, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki Yasir" that it is only the seven nations that one is obligated to destroy, because their total dedication to idolatry poses a spiritual danger to Klal Yisrael (unlike other nations, who only serve their idols by rote, because they are following their tradition, and who will not necessarily attempt to force their beliefs on Yisrael).

2. ... in Ki Setzei (in connection with an Eshes Yefas To'ar) "v'Achar-Kein Tavo Eilehah u'Ve'altah" that the Kidushin of a Yisrael with a Nochris (even if she is not from the seven nations [or vice-versa]) is not valid.

3. ... there, "Ki Sih'yenah l'Ish Shtei Nashim ... v'Yaldu lo" that, wherever Kidushin is valid, the child is Mis'yaches to his father, but where it is not (i.e. when the woman is from a different nation), then it is Mis'yaches to his mother.

(d)We ask why we cannot learn the equivalent Din by Shifchah from there too, and we answer that indeed we do.

8)

(a)To explain the function of the now superfluous Pasuk "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah ... ", we cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili rules that if someone sets his Shifchah free but retains her unborn child, the child follows her to freedom. According to the Rabanan the master's condition stands.

(b)The Tana continues 'Mishum she'Ne'emar "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tiheyeh la'Adonehah". Rava connects this Limud to the words of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili (in spite of their position in the Beraisa), according to whom they were obviously said.