1)

(a)We just learned that, according to Beis Shamai, the child of a Tzaras ha'Bas is Pagum (Pasul li'Kehunah). Their source for this - is a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Pesul Kehunah (e.g. an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol), where the Lav is not applicable to everyone (so how much more a Yevamah l'Shuk, who is).

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel objected to Raban Yochanan ben Nuri's Takanah - on the grounds that, if one were to initiate such a Takanah, forbidding the Tzaros Ervah to perform Yibum (according to Beis Shamai) it would be tantamount to declaring all those Tzaros who performed Yibum until now, Mamzerim.

2)

(a)We try to prove from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's objection - that Beis Shamai practiced what they taught.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes the proof however - by establishing Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's objection, not with regard to the children of the Tzarah, but with regard to the Tzaros who had already married l'Shuk.

(c)The problem of obligating the Tzaros of Beis Hillel to make Chalitzah there and then - was that, by doing so, their husbands would despise them for it ...

(d)... and that would run in contrast to the Pasuk in Mishlei "Derachehah Darchei No'am" (The ways of the Torah are pleasant, and should not have unpleasant repercussions).

3)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon said in a Beraisa that he had a strong desire to marry a Tzaras ha'Bas. This is indeed the opinion of Beis Shamai - but then Rebbi Tarfon was a Talmid of Beis Shamai.

(b)We refute the proof from here that Beis Shamai practiced what they taught - by interpreting 've'Esa'enah' to mean 've'Asi'enah' ('and I will marry her to someone else').

(c)Rebbi Tarfon said that he had a desire to do that, in spite of the fact that (if Beis Shamai did not practice their rulings) everyone (even Beis Shamai) did so anyway - in order to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who tried to institute Chalitzah (as we learned earlier).

4)

(a)Raban Gamliel's daughter was married to Aba his brother. When Aba died, Raban Gamliel performed Yibum with her Tzarah. We cannot bring a proof from here that Beis Shamai practiced what they taught - because Raban Gamliel was a grandson of Hillel (and would hardly have followed the rulings of Beis Shamai) ...

(b)... and the reason that Raban Gamliel performed Yibum with his daughter's Tzarah - is because his daughter was an Aylonis.

(c)But Acheirim in the Seifa says that she was an Aylonis, implying that this is not the opinion of the Tana Kama. Initially, we establish the Machlokes by 'Hikir Bah v'Lo Hikir Bah' - meaning that according to both Tana'im she was actually an Aylonis. Only, according to the Tana Kama, the Kidushin of Aba to Raban Gamliel's daughter was nullified because he did not know that she was an Aylonis (making it a Mekach Ta'us - a false sale); whereas, according to Acheirim, it speaks when he knew that she was an Aylonis, in which case, the Kidushin was not nullified. Nevertheless, her Tzarah was permitted (like the opinion of Rav Asi on 12a.).

(d)We offer two alternative interpretations of the Machlokes. When we say ...

1. ... 'Kanas v'li'b'Sof Giresh Ika Beinayhu', we mean that Acheirim permitted the Tzarah to Raban Gamliel only because she was an Aylonis - the Tana Kama, because at the time that she fell to Yibum, she was no longer a Tzaras ha'Bas.

2. ... 'Yesh Tenai b'Bi'ah Ika Beinayhu', we mean that Acheirim permitted the Tzarah to Raban Gamliel only because she was an Aylonis - the Tana Kama, because the condition that she would have no blemishes or Nedarim was not fulfilled, so the Kidushin was annulled.

(e)Acheirim disagreed with that, because, in his opinion - when a man marries his betrothed and makes Bi'ah, he foregoes all former conditions (unless of course, he specifically renews them), in order not to render his Bi'ah an immoral one.

5)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya cites a Beraisa, which relates how Rebbi Akiva picked an Esrog on the first of Shevat and separated two Ma'asros - Ma'aser Sheni (of the second year) and Ma'aser Ani (of the third).

(b)The significance of the two Ma'asros is - that the former follows the opinion of Beis Hillel (according to whom Rosh ha'Shanah for trees took place only two weeks later, on the fifteenth of Shevat); whereas the latter follows that of Beis Shamai, in whose opinion, the New Year had already passed.

(c)Rav Mesharshaya is trying to prove from here - that Beis Shamai actually practiced what they taught.

(d)We reject his proof however - on the grounds that Rebbi Akiva did not contend with Beis Shamai's opinion at all. He took into account the possibility that Rosh Hashanah takes place on Rosh Chodesh Shevat because he forgot who said what (and therefore contended with the possibility that it was according to Beis Hillel that Rosh Hashanah fell on Rosh Chodesh).

6)

(a)When his daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy on Sukos - Shamai went and broke a hole in the ceiling where she was lying and covered it with Sechach (because he was of the opinion that a boy is Chayav Succah even if he still needs his mother).

(b)There is no proof from here however, that Beis Shamai always practiced what they taught - because people would think that Shamai made the hole in order to increase the air supply, and not for the Mitzvah (in which case, there is no objection to Shamai practicing his own opinion, as it would not lead to Machlokes [which is the reason for the prohibition]).

7)

(a)To connect a Mikvah containing twenty Sa'ah to a complete Mikvah - a hole needs to be 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod', which effectively means that two fingers are able to swivel round in it.

(b)Beis Shamai broke a large hole in Sho'kes Yeihu (a large hollow stone at the foot of a stream of water that flowed down the mountainside, that contained less than forty Sa'ah but adjoined a full-size Mikvah), even though there was already a hole there the size of a Sheforeres ha'Nod.

(c)There is no proof from here either that Beis Shamai always practiced what they taught - because here too, people would say that they enlarged the hole in order to increase the water supply, and not in order to render the Mikvah Kasher.

8)

(a)When Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok brought Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorni olives in a year of drought, he claimed that he did not eat olives - because he saw that they were wet, and he was afraid that they had become Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah via the juice in the barrel.

(b)To put his mind at ease - Rebbi Tzadok instructed his son to tell Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorni that a hole had been drilled in the barrel for the juice to flow out, but that the dregs had stopped it up.

(c)Beis Shamai do not require a hole to be drilled in a barrel which contains olives that have been slightly pressed. Beis Hillel disagree on the grounds that - they consider the juice that seeps from the olives to be a liquid (like the oil that is processed from them, unlike other fruit-juices, which everybody agrees are not considered liquids that are Metamei).

(d)Beis Hillel concedes that the juice is not Machshir, in spite of the fact that it cannot escape from the barrel - if a hole was deliberately drilled in the barrel, indicating that one does not want the juice (and it makes no difference if it was later stopped-up by the dregs [as we just learned]).

9)

(a)Considering that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorni was a disciple of Shamai - we can learn from him that Beis Shamai did indeed practice their opinion.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua was reluctant to issue a ruling concerning Tzaras ha'Bas - because he was afraid to 'place his head between two big mountains, in case it became crushed' (i.e. Beis Shamai might kill him for pronouncing them Pasul).

(b)He did however, give testimonial regarding two families in Yerushalayim - who were the descendants of Tzaros Ervah who had married l'Shuk (like Beis Hillel), and from whom Kohanim Gedolim were later appointed.

(c)We prove from here too that Beis Shamai did indeed practice their opinion - because, if they did not, why would Rebbi Yehoshua have been afraid.

(d)In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua holds 'Ein Mamzer Ela me'Chayavei Misos Beis-Din, and that, since Yevamah la'Shuk is no more than a Chayavei Lavin (and the children will not be Mamzerim anyway, according to Beis Shamai), he was nevertheless afraid to rule like Beis Hillel - because even though the children would not be Mamzerim, they would be Pasul li'Kehunah (from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, as we learned above).

11)

(a)They initially asked Rebbi Yehoshua about Tzaros ha'Bas. He replied about their children - because they actually asked him two She'eilos: 1. What is the Din by the Tzaros? and 2. If he were to rule like Beis Hillel, then how about their children, according to Beis Shamai?

(b)Despite the fact that the Halachah is not like Beis Shamai anyway, they asked him about the Bnei Tzaros according to Beis Shamai, because the answer will reflect on the She'eilah regarding the child of a Machzir Gerushaso (even according to Beis Hillel), which, like the Bnei Tzaros l'Shuk (according to Bei Shamai), is a case of Chayavei Lavin.

(c)The ruling of a child of a Machzir Gerushaso may be different than that of an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol in this regard - because, unlike an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, the Gerushah herself does not become Pasul.

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua - does not issue any ruling concerning the Tzaros Ervah, but as far as the Bnei Tzaros is concerned, he rules that, according to Beis Shamai, they are fit to be Kohanim Gedolim.