1)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah, a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah, transgresses two Lavin "Lo Yikach" and "Lo Yechalel".

(b)This Chidush extends to all Isurei Kehunah, as we explained above.

(c)Rav Yehudah does not include the Lav of "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o", to make it three Isurim since he is speaking when the Kohen did not complete his Bi'ah (since even though Ha'ara'ah is considered Bi'ah, it cannot produce children).

(d)Rav Yehudah ...

1. ... interprets the Beraisa 'Almanah u'Gerushah Lokeh Mishum Shnei Sheimos' to mean two Sheimos for Almanah and two for Gerushah.

2. ... amends the Seifa 'Gerushah va'Chalutzah, Eino Chayav Ela Mishum Achas' to read 'Eino Chayav Ela Al Achas' (but not on Chalutzah which is only an Isur mid'Rabanan, and on Gerushah he is Chayav two sets of Malkus, as we explained)

2)

(a)Chalutzah, as we just explained, is only mid'Rabanan, and when the Beraisa learns Chalutzah from the extra 'Vav' in "v'Ishah Gerushah me'Ishah" it does so in the form of 'Asmachta' (a support from the Torah for a Rabbinical institution).

(b)According to Abaye, a Kohen Gadol receives Malkus for the Kidushin of an Almanah, as well as for the Bi'ah. Rava disagrees because "Lo Yikach ... v'Lo Yechalel" implies a Kidushin that leads to Bi'ah. Consequently, since the Bi'ah has been not yet taken place, there is no Malkus for the Kidushin.

(c)

1. Abaye extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon ... Lashuv Lekachtah Lih'yos lo l'Ishah" that a Machzir Gerushaso only receives Malkus if the Kidushin is followed by Bi'ah (like Rava holds by an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol).

2. Rava extrapolates that if a Kohen Gadol has relations with an Almanah without Kidushin, that he nevertheless receives Malkus (because although the Kidushin depends on the Bi'ah, the Bi'ah does not depend on the Kidushin).

(d)They both agree however that a Machzir Gerushaso who was Bo'El without Kidushin does not receive Malkus, because the Torah is clearly referring to a regular marriage process).

3)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah says 'bas Ger Zachar k'bas Chalal Zachar', which the Beraisa attempts to support with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Chalal, who was born to Jewish parents, and yet his daughter is Pasul (how much more so a Ger, whose parents were Nochrim).

(b)We query this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, with the Pircha that a Chalal, on the other hand, was formed through a sinful relationship, whereas a Ger was not. We counter this Pircha by bringing the case of an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, whose daughter is a Chalalah even though her parents were not formed through a sinful relationship.

(c)So we learn 'bas Ger Zachar' from the combination ('Tzad ha'Shaveh') of Chalal and Kohen Gadol b'Almanah, which are both exceptions. The advantage that a Chalal has over a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah is that the daughter of a Chalal and a Yisre'elis was not born from a sinful relationship, whereas the daughter of an Almanah and a Kohen Gadol was.

(d)The Pircha on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' is that a Ger has an advantage over both a Chalal and a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah -inasmuch as there is no aspect of sin with him at all, whereas a Chalal was born from a sin and a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah actually performing one.

4)

(a)The Pircha on the Limud from a Mitzri Rishon and a Mitzris Rishonah (which replaces Kohen Gadol b'Almanah), who are neither formed through sin nor do they commit one, is that they are not fit to enter the Kahal.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah finally learns 'bas Ger Zachar k'bas Chalal Zachar' from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' between Chalal and Mitzri Rishon.

(c)We refute the Pircha 'Mah l'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Kein Poslin b'Bi'asan (Tomar b'Ger, she'Eino Posel b'Bi'aso') on the grounds that, based on this very 'Mah ha'Tzad' Rebbi Yehudah invalidates whoever performs Bi'ah with a Ger from the Kehunah.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov and Rebbi Yosi disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's 'Mah ha'Tzad'. They validate the daughter of a Ger by refuting Rebbi Yehudah's 'Mah ha'Tzad' (from Chalal and Mitzri) on the grounds that Chalal and Mitzri may well both be exceptions, but their respective Pesulim are so different (the former is Kosher to enter the Kahal, the latter is not), that they simply cannot combine to form a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'.

5)

(a)Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Matos "v'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim Hachayu Lachem" that a Giyores under the age of three is permitted, and he extrapolates it from the person who went to war with them (and who is incorporated in "Lachem"). This refers to Pinchas, who was a Kohen.

(b)The Rabanan counter Rebbi Shimon's proof by establishing the Pasuk with regard to taking the women (not as wives, but) as slaves.

(c)In fact, we conclude that the four Tana'im in our Mishnah all derive their respective opinions from the same Pasuk in Yechezkel "Almanah u'Gerushah Lo Yikachu ... Ki Im Besulos mi'Zera Beis Yisrael". We will interpret "mi'Zera Beis Yisrael", according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah ('bas Ger Zachar ... ') to mean 'Kol Zera mi'Yisrael' (meaning Ikar Zera, that her father must be a Yisrael).

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov ('Yisrael she'Nasa Giyores, Bito Kesherah li'Kehunah') to mean 'Afilu Miktzas Zera' (as long as one of the parents is Jewish).

3. ... Rebbi Yosi ('Af Ger she'Nasa Giyores ... ') 'Mi she'Nizre'u b'Yisrael' (as long as the daughter was conceived from parents who are now Jewish).

4. ... Rebbi Shimon 'Mi she'Nizre'u Besulehah b'Yisrael' (as long her Besulim arrived after she converted (even if her parents are both Nochrim.

6)

(a)When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava about an apparent discrepancy between the first half of the above-mentioned Pasuk in Yechezkel and the second half (which reads "v'ha'Almanah Asher Tiheyeh Almanah mi'Kohen Yikachu") he was referring to the fact that the first half of the Pasuk (which forbids marrying an Alamanah) is speaking to a Kohen Gadol, and the second half (which permits it) to a Kohen Hedyot.

(b)To which Rava replied that this was indeed the case, and that there was nothing wrong with it.

(c)And Rava proved his point from the Pasuk in Shmuel "v'Ner Elokim Terem Yichbeh" which clearly refers to the Heichal of Mishkan Shilo, whereas "u'Sh'muel Shochev b'Heichal Hash-m" which can only refer to the Ezras ha'Leviyim, where the Leviyim who guarded the Mishkan, used to sleep.

7)

(a)When the Navi writes "v'Almanah Asher Tiheyeh Almanah mi'Kohen Yikachu" (implying that one Kohen is forbidden to marry the Almanah of another Kohen) he really means that a Kohen other than the Kohen Gadol, may marry an Almanah.

(b)This is also the opinion of the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, though Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. And when Rebbi Yehudah says 'min ha'Masi'in li'Kehunah Yikachu' he means that they may marry only an Almanah who is permitted to marry a Kohen (but not if she is a Giyores).

(c)What he said above that conforms with this statement was 'bas Ger Zachar k'Bas Chalal Zachar'.

(d)The statement of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with which Rebbi Yehudah also conforms is ' ... v'Chol sh'I Atah Nosei Es Bito, I Atah Nosei Almenaso'.

8)

(a)

1. Rav Hamnuna quoting Ula rules like Rebbi Yosi.

2. The Kohanim following the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash says Rabah bar Chanah, followed the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov.

(b)Rav Nachman quoting Rav Huna, makes a similar statement. He said that if a Kohen ...

1. ... came to inquire about the Halachah they would permit him to marry the daughter of a Ger, provided one of her parents was a born Jew.

2. ... actually married the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores they would not obligate him to divorce her.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah states that if someone declares his son to be a Mamzer he is not believed because a person is never believed to testify for or against a close relative.

(b)If both parents declare that the fetus that the mother is carrying is a Mamzer they are not believed either.

(c)The Tana finds it necessary to add ...

1. ... here that the mother testifies too because she is better acquainted with the history of the baby that she is carrying than the father (and we would have thought that she is believed).

2. ... this case (in addition to the Reisha) because, unlike the Reisha, there was never a moment that the child had a Chezkas Kashrus (so perhaps its parents would be believed, even though in the Reisha, they are not).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah says that they are indeed believed.

10)

(a)We know that a father is believed to declare his son a Bechor so that he should inherit a double portion from the Sevara of 'Migo', seeing as he has the power to present it to him as a gift whenever he wants.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Ki Im ha'Bechor ben ha'Senu'ah Yakir" that the father is believed even when there is no 'Migo' (as we shall see shortly), and moreover, that he is even believed to testify that he is a ben Gerushah (or even a Mamzer).

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava what the Rabanan learn from "Yakir", to which he replied 'be'Tzarich Hekeira', by which he meant that the father is believed even there where his son arrives from overseas and it is not known that he is a Bechor.

(d)To refute the question that it is obvious because of 'Migo', as we just explained, we establish the case with regard to property that the father received later (which he could not given him at the time that he made the declaration).

11)

(a)The current ruling is based on the principle 'Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam'.

(b)We conclude that, according to Rebbi Meir, we need "Yakir" with regard to property that the father receives when he is a Goses because he holds ' Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam' ...

(c)... only he concedes that without a Pasuk, he would not be believed with a 'Migo' seeing as he was not in a fit state to give a Matanah.

(d)We did not answer that the property fell to the father after his death because a Bechor does not receive a double portion of any property that falls to the father after his (father's) death ('Ein ha'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim ba'Ra'uy k've'Muchzak').

12)

(a)If, after asking a Shali'ach to betroth his daughter on his behalf, the father goes himself and betroths her then we go after whichever transaction took place first.

(b)If they do cannot ascertain which one took place first then each man must give her a Get.

(c)Alternatively one of them gives her a Get, enabling the other one to marry her.

(d)In the equivalent case, where it is the woman who accepted Kidushin after asking her Shali'ach to accept Kidushin on her behalf the same ruling will apply.