Question: Why may a girl married mid'Rabanan to a Kohen eat Terumah, but a Chereshes may not?

(Mishnah): R. Yochanan ben Gudgada testified that if a man married off his Chereshes daughter she may be divorced, and that a minor married (mid'Rabanan) to a Kohen eats Terumah.

Inference: A Chereshes does not eat Terumah.

Answer: We decree to forbid, lest a Chereshes married to a Cheresh (Kohen) eat.

Question: Why shouldn't she eat? We need not stop a minor (or a Chereshes, who is also exempt from Mitzvos) from eating forbidden food!

Answer: We forbid a Chereshes married to a Cheresh lest a Pikachas married to a Cheresh eat.

Question: Since she is married mid'Rabanan, she should be permitted to eat Terumah mid'Rabanan!

Answer: We decree lest she eat Terumah mid'Oraisa.

Question: Why does a minor have a Kesuvah, but a Chereshes does not?

Answer: If a Chereshes had a Kesuvah, no man would marry her;

Question: What is the source that a minor has a Kesuvah?

Answer (Mishnah): The following have no Kesuvah: one who did Mi'un, a Sheniyah, and an Ailonis.

Inference: If a minor was divorced, she would have a Kesuvah.

Question: What is the source that a Chereshes has no Kesuvah?

Answer (Beraisa): If a Cheresh or lunatic married a Pikachas, even if he became healthy, she has no claim against him. If he wants to remain with her, she has a Kesuvah;

If a Pike'ach married a Chereshes or lunatic, even if he wrote her a Kesuvah of 10000 Zuz it is valid, because he chose to give away his property.

Inference: This is only because he chose to give. If not, she has no Kesuvah.

This is because if she had a Kesuvah, no man would marry her.

Question: If so, we should enact a Kesuvah for a Pikachas who marries a Cheresh. If not, women will not marry deaf men!

Answer: Women (will marry in any case, for they) are more eager to marry than men are.

Rav Malkiyo married off a Cheresh to a woman; he wrote her a Kesuvah of 400 Zuz from the man's property.

Rava: This was very smart! If the man wanted a slave to serve him, we would buy one for him. Now, he also gets a wife!

Version #1 (Shmuel): If another man had Bi'ah with a Cheresh's wife, (we do not consider her a Safek Eshes Ish, so) he does not bring an Asham Taluy.

Support (Mishnah): There are five types of people cannot separate Terumah, even b'Di'eved: a Cheresh, a lunatic, a minor, one who does not own the produce, and a Nochri who separated a Yisrael's produce, even with permission.

Rejection: Shmuel holds like R. Elazar (who considers a Cheresh to be a Safek Pike'ach);

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): If a Cheresh separated Terumah, one may not treat it like Chulin, because he is a Safek (Pike'ach).

Question: If Shmuel holds like R. Elazar, he should obligate an Asham Taluy!

Answer: (He holds that) one brings an Asham Taluy only for a Safek based on two objects (one of which was Vadai forbidden).

Question: R. Elazar does not require that there were two objects!

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): One must bring an Asham Taluy for eating Chelev of a Koy (a Safek Behemah, Safek Chayah).

Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Elazar regarding a Cheresh, but not regarding Asham Taluy.

Version #2 (Shmuel): One brings an Asham Taluy for Bi'ah with a Cheresh's wife.

Question (Mishnah): Five types of people cannot separate Terumah...

Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Elazar.

Question (Rav Ashi): What is R. Elazar's reason?

Does he hold that a Cheresh always has the same weak Da'as (understanding), and he is unsure whether or not his Da'as is clear?

Or, is he sure that his Da'as is weak and (normally) unclear, but at times it is clear?

Question: What difference does it make what his reason is?

Answer: It determines whether or not he may divorce his wife;

If he is always the same, his Get is as valid as his Kidushin!

If he alternatives, he can Mekadesh but cannot divorce (we must be concerned lest his Da'as was clear at the time of Kidushin, but unclear when he divorced)!

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah): If she went insane...

(R. Yitzchak): Mid'Oraisa, a man can divorce a lunatic; just like a Pikachas is divorced against her will.

Chachamim said that she may not be divorced, lest she be treated like Hefker.

Question: What is the case?

If she can guard her Get and herself, she will not be like Hefker!

If she cannot guard her Get nor herself, she cannot be divorced mid'Oraisa!

(D'Vei R. Yanai): "V'Nasan b'Yadah (he will put a Get in her hand)" discusses a woman who has a Yad (power of acquisition) to accept divorce herself;

A lunatic has no such Yad!

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "He will send her from his house" discusses a wife who is expelled and does not return.

A lunatic will return to him!

Answer: The case is, she can guard her Get but not herself.

Mid'Oraisa, she can be divorced, since she can guard her Get;

Mid'Rabanan she may not be divorced, lest she be like Hefker.

Support (Abaye - Mishnah): If she went insane, he may not divorce her. If he went insane, he may never divorce her.

'Never' connotes that this is mid'Oraisa. When she went insane, it is only mid'Rabanan (that he cannot divorce her).

(Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Nuri) Question: (Why do we say that if she goes deaf he may divorce her, but if he goes deaf he cannot?)

Question: Was the case of a man (who went deaf) clear to R. Yochanan ben Nuri, and he was unsure about a woman (who went deaf)?

Or, was the case of a woman clear, and he was unsure about a man?

Answer #1 (Mishnah - Chachamim): A man who divorces is unlike a woman who is divorced. A woman is divorced willingly or unwillingly, and a man divorces only willingly.

This shows that R. Yochanan ben Nuri was unsure about a man.

Rejection: To the contrary! Since they (brought R. Yochanan ben Gudgada's testimony, and) said 'Also she has the same law', this shows that R. Yochanan ben Nuri was unsure about a woman!

Answer #2: R. Yochanan ben Nuri (had no doubt. He) addressed Chachamim according to their reasoning;

I hold that just like a deaf man cannot divorce, a Chereshes cannot be divorced. Why do you distinguish?

They answered that a man who divorces is unlike a woman who is divorced...

(Mishnah): R. Yochanan ben Gudgada testified (that a Chereshes married mid'Oraisa may be divorced).

(Rava): This teaches that if a man tells witnesses 'watch me give this Get', and tells his wife (before giving it) 'take this loan document', she is divorced.

R. Yochanan ben Gudgada taught that divorce works even if she has no understanding. The same applies here!

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that since he said 'take this loan document', he invalidated the Get. R. Yochanan teaches that this is not so;

Had he invalidated it, he would have told the witnesses. Since he did not tell them, it is still valid;

He deceived his wife to spare himself shame.