Clarification: So we see that she requires either a Get or Miy'un, because otherwise, she would not be called an Almanah - a Kashya on Ula who says that she doesn't even need Miy'un?

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that it is speaking by 'Shidchu', which will explain why she is called an Almanah?

Answer: Because, since he was Meshadech her, it is equivalent to where her father betrothed her, in which case back comes the Kashya - 'How can he sell her, seeing as "A man cannot sell his daughter to Shifchus after Ishus" '?

Answer (cont.): But there is no problem according to Shmuel, who establishes the case by Lo Shidchu, and it calls her an Almanah because she requires Miy'un, and the Kashya is only on Ula.

Question: Why does the Gemara not also ask from a Gerushah to a Kohen Hedyot?

Question (cont.): Because if it is speaking by Shidchu, how can he then sell her, seeing as 'A man is not permitted to sell his daughter ... '? ...

Question (concl.): And if it is speaking by Lo Shidchu, where she only requires Miy'un, how can it call her a Gerushah, seeing as she is not forbidden to marry a Kohen?

Answer: It is speaking by Lo Shidchu, but where she did not make Miy'un, but he divorced her, in which case she becomes forbidden to marry a Kohen on account of that Get ...

Precedent: Like a Yesomah who is married off by her brother and mother, who is not forbidden to a Kohen if she makes Miy'un, but who is, if her husband divorces her ...

Answer (concl.): But there is no question that she only requires Miy'un.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Shema Lo Nisratzah le'Rishon' is superfluous ...

Reason: Because even if she did accept the Kidushin of the first one, as long as she did not accept the Kidushin of the second one, Kidushin will take effect on her sister ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Seeing as Achos Chalutzaso is only mi'de'Rabbanan, as the Gemara will state shortly, and people will say that Kidushin does not take effect, and permit a married woman to marry without a Get.

Explanation #2: Whereas Rabeinu Shimshon from Coucy maintains that 've'Lo le'Sheini' is also superfluous - because even if she would have accepted the Kidushin of both of them, one can expect people to say that Kidushin will not take effect on her sister, when min ha'Torah, they do ...

Reason: Because as far as the fact that she accepted the Kidushin of the first one, Achos Chalutzah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and with respect to the Ma'amar of the second one, that too is mi'de'Rabbanan, since Ma'amar by a Yevamah is not d'Oraysa ...

Reason (cont.): And that being the case, one can suspect that people will say that Kidushin does not take effect on her sister on account of the Get - which explains why they required Miy'un.

Question: In that case, why does the Tana mention 'Lo Nisratzah' at all?

Answer: The Ri explains that he means to say 'No need to mention' - 'No need to mention where she accepted the Kidushin of the first one, since, since she did, irrespective of whether she accepted the Kidushin of the second one or not, one can expect people to say that Kidushin does not take effect on account of the Get ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas it is obvious that it does, because, if she did not accept the Kidushin of the second one, she is only Achos Chalutzaso, which is only de'Rabbanan ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas even if she did accept the Kidushin of the second one, the second one's Ma'amar is only de'Rabbanan ...

Answer (cont.): But even if she did not accept the first one's Kidushin, in which case, in the event that she accepted the Kidushin of the second one, Kidushin will not take effect on her sister, seeing as the second one's Kidushin is a proper Kidushin ...

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, one can suspect that she did not accept Kidushin from the second one, and Kidushin will therefore be effective on her sister, only people will say that it is not ...

Answer (concl.): Therefore the Tana says 'Lo Nisratzah' by both of them.

Question: On what basis is Miy'un necessary? Since she requires Chalitzah, we clearly suspect that she accepted the first one's Kidushin. In that case, even if she accepted the Kidushin of the second one, Kidushin will take effect on her sister, as Tosfos just explained - since Achos Chalutzaso is only mi'de'Rabbanan? ...

Question (cont.): And if it is because of the second one's Ma'amar, that too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan. So how can people err and say that Kidushin does not take effect on her sister - So why do we need Miy'un?

Answer: If not for Miy'un, one can suspect that people will say that the Chalitzah doesn't prove anything, because people will think that in fact, she accepted the second one's Kidushin, and not the first one's ..

Reason: That is because the first one acted incorrectly by betrothing her without her father's consent - for which reason she may well not have accepted it ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the second one, who did not act as incorrectly as the first one - since he thought that she was Zakuk (attached) to him ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, it may well be that she accepted his Kidushin.

Implied Question: And the reason that they necessitated Chalitzah ...

Answer: Is an extra Din (not a basic Halachah) - on account of people who are not logically-minded, and whose minds it will enter that she accepted the Kidushin of the first one.

Answer (concl.): So they required her to make Miy'un, to let it be known that we are in doubt - that perhaps she is not the second man's wife, and Kidushin will now take effect on her sister.

Source: As the Mishnah states in Yevamos, (Daf 41a) 'Someone who makes Chalitzah with his Yevamah and whose brother married her sister and dies, the sister makes Chalitzah but not Yibum ...

Source (cont.): But if he divorces his wife, and his brother marries her sister and dies, the sister is Patur from both Chalitzah and Yibum ...

Reason: Since as the sister of his divorced wife, she was an Ervah in her lifetime ...

Source (concl.): And it is on this Mishnah that Resh Lakish says 'Here Rebbi taught ... '.

Question: Why does she not have to perform Miy'un even if did not make Ma'amar? ...

Reason: Why do we not suspect that people will conclude that 'Kidushin will not take effect on his father or on his brother's son' ...

Reason (cont.): Because they will say that she accepted Kidushin from the first one, in which case she is the daughter-in-law of his father and the aunt of his son ...

Question (cont.): Consequently, we ought to require her to perform Miy'un, to make it known that she did not accept Kidushin even from the first one, in which case the Kidushin of the father or of the son will subsequently take effect?

Answer: It is uncommon for the father to betroth her, once she had dealings with his son, because a person does generally become attracted to his daughter-in-law, to the points that he wants to marry her, even if assuming she would be permitted to him ...

Answer (cont.): Such as this case, where she did not accept the Kidushin of either man ...

Reason: Because a daughter-in-law, in principle, is forbidden even after the death of his son.

Answer (concl.): Unlike his wife's sister, who is permitted after death, and who is therefore on his mind, and with whom he is acquainted.

Reason: That is why the Chachamim made a Takanah, in case it happens that he betroths her.

Clarification: When the Gemara said earlier 'We suspect that she accepted the Kidushin of the first one' - Rashi explains that this refers to Ravina, who does not agree with Shmu'el's ruling ...

Implied Question: Although Ravina said that 'Even according to those who hold "Chaishinan", perhaps the father gave his consent' ...

Answer: That is not because he holds like that, but he mentioned just to make the point.

Halachah #1: The Rif and the She'iltos of R. Acha'i (in Parshas Mishpatim, Si'man 59) Pasken like Ravina, who is the latter opinion, and who lived at the end of the era of Hora'ah (Bava Metzi'a, 86a) - and Rabah bar Shimi concurs with him ...

Halachah #1 (cont.): We do therefore not suspect that the father gave his consent, and neither a Get nor Miy'un are required - even in a case of Shidchu.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara above asked in surprise 'Even Shidchu?!' ...

Answer: The 'Ika de'Amri' does not hold like that.

Refuted Explanation: That being the case, one no longer needs to explain be'Dochek like the Ri did earlier - that 'She doesn't even need Miy'un' speaks specifically by Lo Shidchu ...

Refutation: Since we can learn like Rashi, and it speaks even by Shidchu.

Implied Question: And as for the Gemara's Kashya 'Even Shidchu?!' ...

Answer: One can explain that from the 'Ika de'Amri' and onwards holds differently - probably inasmuch as even by Shidchu she does not need Miy'un, since that is what Ravina holds.

Halachah #2, Opinion #1: Furthermore the She'iltos of Rav Acha'i Paskened in a case where the father of a Ketanah went overseas, that she is permitted to accept Kidushin mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Precedent:Like the Din of a Yesomah who has no father, for whom the Rabbanan instituted Kidushin, on account of 'Hefker' ...

Precedent (cont.): And this girl, whose father went overseas, is like a Yesomah for the same reason,

Halachah #2, Opinion #2: ha'Rav R. Menachem from Yuni however, disagrees.

Incident: And when an incident occurred regarding someone who traveled to a distant land and whose daughter then betrothed herself ...

Ruling: Rav Menachem from Yuni forbade her husband to retain her ...

Reason: Because, he said, we suspect that perhaps her father will betroth her to somebody else in the country where he is, and it will transpire that her current husband will be having relations with a married woman

Question: Rabeinu Tam however, sent him a message 'According to you, if the father were to die overseas, she would never be allowed to marry anyone, in case her father married her off overseas, and we don't know to whom?

Answer: To which R.Menachem replied that this is something with which we do not contend, because we take into account the possibility that he will betroth, but not that he has already betrothed ...

Precedent: Similar to the S'vara cited in Perek Kol ha'Get (Gitin, Daf 28b) where, we do not contend with the possibility that he may have died, whereas perhaps he will die is a Machlokes Tana'im - and we Pasken like Rebbi Yossi, who argues with Rebbi Meir who says that we suspect that he may die ...

Halachah: Since when Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue, we rule like Rebbi Yossi (Eruvin, 46b).

Counter-Argument: And on this, Rabeinu Tam countered - 'Now that you say that, even when she is a Ketanah she is permitted ...

Reason: Because, since we do not suspect that he may have betrothed her, she remains permanently permitted - because at any given time we will say that he has not betrothed her yet ...

Reason (cont.): So even though we do suspect that he may still betroth her, since at any time, we can say that he has not yet done so, she is constantly permitted.

Counter-Argument (cont.): Nor can it be compared to the case of 'Shema Yamus', because there it speaks where he forbids his wife to eat T'rumah the moment that 'an hour before death' arrives, in which case it is possible that he will die immediately ...

Counter-Argument (cont.): And it transpires that at all times she is forbidden to eat T'rumah, since it is possible that he dies immediately ...

Counter-Argument (concl.): Whereas here, where she is not forbidden until such time as the Kidushin that her father arranged for her there takes effect, one can constantly say that it has not yet taken place, as Tosfos explained.

Proof: And Rabeinu proves his point from the Halachos Gedolos, who writes in Hilchos Kidushin that 'A Ketanah whose father is overseas and whose mother marries her off ...

Proof (cont.): This She'eilah came before the Rabbanan, and they ruled that the mother acted correctly ...

Reason: Since they instituted marriage on behalf of a Ketanah - If the father is there, then he betroths her min ha'Torah; and if not, then she is married via a Tikun Chachamim ...

Reason (cont.): When she grows up, the marriage grows with her, and when her father arrives, he does not need to betroth her again.

Clarification: 'Zarah' that the Gemara mentions is not a Zarah d'Oraysa, bearing in mind that min ha'Torah, an Arusah may eat T'rumah ...

Clarification (cont.): He must therefore mean a Zarah mi'de'Rabbanan.

Implied Question: And even though neither 'Simpon' nor 'Perhaps she will feed her family' apply here ...

Reason: Because, since she entered the Chupah, he designated a place for her and examined her ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the Chachamim did not draw a distinction between one Arusah and another Arusah

Answer (cont.): In other words, bearing in mind that her father can object, her Chupah was not a complete one, the Rabbanan did not distinguish between this case and one where she did not enter the Chupah at all.

Opinion #1: It would seem that the Halachah is like Rav Asi, seeing as Rav retracted.

Opinion #2: But Rabeinu Tam Paskened like Rav ...

Reason: Since Rav Asi was his Talmid, and throughout Shas, wherever a Rav argues with his Talmid, the Halachah is like the Rav - among the early Amora'im up to Abaye and Rava ...

Reason: Though after that we Pasken like the latter opinion - because they were more particular than the earlier Amora'im about firmly establishing the Halachah.

Implied Question: And the fact that Rav took into account the opinion of Rav Asi ...

Answer: Does not mean that he retracted; it was only a personal stringency that he adopted ...

Introduction to Precedent: Like we find in the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 5a) where Rav said that 'The Megilah in its time, can be read by an individual; but not in its time, only communally'

Introduction to Precedent: Whereas Rav Asi holds that 'Either way, it requires ten' ...

Precedent: There was a case, and Rav took into account the opinion of Rav Asi - Nevertheless, we Pasken like Rav ...

Proof: Since Rebbi Yochanan holds like him, in the sedcond Perek of Megilah (Daf 19b), where Rebbi Chiya bar Aba citing Rebbi Yochanan said that 'If someone reads the Megilah from where it is written in Kesuvim, he is not Yotzei ...

Proof: But he then qualified his statement - only be'Tzibur, but not by a Yachid ...

Proof (concl.): From which we see that there are times that a Yachid can read the Megilah - i.e. in its time, like Rav.

Implied Question: Even if he is Muchzak on the Nechsei Milug, it is not under his jurisdiction but under that of his wife's heirs ...

Answer: Seeing as he took them for himself not according to the Halachah.

Implied Question: And although Rav permits her to eat T'rumah ...

Answer: That is because, min ha'Torah, a betrothed bas Yisrael may eat T'rumah, as Rashi explains.