1)

(a)Rav Yehudah explains that when the Mishnah asks 'Keitzad?' with the explanation of Get Achar Ma'amar - it is referring (not to 'Get Achar Get ... ' of the Reisha, which the Tana takes for granted, but which is explained in the Beraisa, but) to the Din of a Yavam and Yevamah (as Rashi explains in the Mishnah).

2)

(a)Rav Huna says that the Mitzvah of Yibum comprises Ma'amar and Yibum. There is no proof for this from our Mishnah, which says 'Asah Ma'amar u'Ba'al, Harei Zu k'Mitzvasah' - since our Mishnah could well mean that also this is according to the Halachah.

(b)We might otherwise have thought that Ma'amar and then Bi'ah would not be acceptable - because of Rabah, who said above that, when a Yavam makes Ma'amar with his Yevamah, the Zikah of Yabmin leaves her, and that of Erusin or Nisu'in replaces it. Consequently, we may have thought that the subsequent Yibum is no longer a Mitzvah.

(c)We emend the continuation of Rav Huna's statement 'v'Im Ba'al v'Asah Ma'amar, Kanah' - to read 've'Im Ba'al b'Lo Ma'amar, Kanah'.

(d)When we ask 've'ha'Tanya, Lokin!?' - we mean to ask that seeing as 'Lokin' (referring to the previous case [of 'v'Im Ba'al b'Lo Ma'amar']) implies that Ma'amar is a Chiyuv d'Oraisa (as that is the normal connotation of 'Lokin'), how can Rav Huna then say 'Kanah'?

3)

(a)We answer the previous Kashya by establishing 'Lokin' to mean Makas Mardus - which the Rabanan instituted because Bi'ah without Kidushin is considered 'Kalus Rosh' (frivolous).

(b)Rav would give Makas Mardus for three breaches of moral conduct connected with Kidushin: for betrothing with Bi'ah - for betrothing in the public domain and for betrothing directly, without a Shiduch.

(c)He would also give Makas Mardus for someone who negated a Get that he had sent his wife through a Shali'ach, or who secretly informed two witnesses that the Get he was giving his wife was not valid because he had been forced to write it - because in both cases, his wife, not knowing that the Get had been nullified, would use what she believed to be a Kasher Get to remarry (when in fact, she was still married to her first husband) See also Tosfos DH 'de'Masar'.

4)

(a)He also instituted Makas Mardus for someone who treated a Shali'ach Beis Din (sent by Beis Din to invite him to a Din Torah) with contempt, or who retained a Shamta d'Rabanan (a form of Niduy) - meaning that he was not concerned about the Shamta placed on him by the Beis Din, without bothering to go to Beis Din within thirty days and ask them to pardon him and rescind it.

(b)Finally, he gave Malkus to someone who slept over in the house of his father-in-law to be. Rav Sheshes gave Malkus to someone who merely passed in front of the house - because in that case, there were rumors that he was having an affair with his future mother-in-law.

(c)According to one version of the Neherda'i, Rav only administered Makas Mardus to someone who betrothed a woman with Bi'ah and without a Shiduch. Others quote them as saying - that Rav only administered Makas Mardus to someone who betrothed a woman without a Shiduch (even with Kidushei Kesef or Shtar) ...

(d)... because it is considered Pritzus' (immodest).

5)

(a)Ma'amar, says the Beraisa, can be performed with money or with a Shtar. One performs it with ...

1. ... money - either with money itself (at least a Perutah) or with something that has the value of a Perutah.

2. ... a Shtar - by writing on paper or on clay (even though it is worth less than a Perutah) 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li ... ' (like one writes on a Shtar Kidushin).

(b)Kidushei Ma'amar cannot possibly be effective min ha'Torah - because 'Ein Kidushin Tofsin b'Eshes Achiv who is among the Chayavei Kares').

(c)According to Abaye, the Tana is referring to the Yevamah's Shtar Kesuvah, in which the Yavam writes 'Ana Ploni bar Ploni Kabeilis Alai la'Zun ul'Farnesah Kara'uy' (that he undertakes to sustain the Yevamah).

(d)Although initially, the Kesubah comes out of the deceased brother's estate, Chazal obligated the Yavam to provide the money, should his brother not have left sufficient funds - to prevent him from finding it too easy to divorce her later.

6)

(a)A Get which contains a phrase restraining his wife from marrying anybody else - is invalid.

(b)Abaye asked Rabah what the status of the Get will be if a Yavam hands the Yevamah a Get containing this clause. The reason for saying that it is ...

1. ... Pasul too is - because whatever the Rabanan instituted, they generally gave the same Din as the equivalent case of d'Oraisa.

2. ... Kasher - because otherwise, the Yavam might think that the Get that one gives to a Yevamah is always invalid (and then go on to perform Yibum after having given his Yevamah a Get).

(c)Rabah replied - that the Get is Kasher.

7)

(a)Rabah bar Chanan asked why this Get is better than a blank piece of paper which the Yavam gives the Yevamah, and which is Pasul. To which Rabah replied - that, unlike the former Get, which is actually effective to disqualify a Kohen's wife from living with him should he hand it to her, the latter is not effective at all.

(b)We learn this latter ruling from the Pasuk in Emor "v'Ishah Gerushah me'Ishah Lo Yikachu" - which implies that there is such a thing as a woman who is divorced from her husband, even though she is not permitted to the world at large.

(c)The Chachamim refer to such a Get as - 'Rei'ach ha'Get'.

8)

(a)The basis of Rami bar Chama's distinction between a Get that a man writes with the intention of giving to his wife after they are married, whether he writes it after he is already betrothed, in which case - the Get is valid (because he could give it to her there and then); or before the betrothal, which is Pasul, since at that moment, it has no validity.

(b)We query this from the Din of a Get Yashan - where Chazal invalidated a Get which a husband wrote for his wife, but which he did give her before being secluded with her in the same room.

(c)The Get is nevertheless valid in the former case - because even a Get Yashan is only forbidden (to divorce with) l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved, it is Kasher.

(d)Rami bar Chama now asks whether a Get that a Yavam writes to give his Yevamah after they are married will also be valid, seeing as he is bound to her (in a similar way to a betrothed woman) - because, since he did not make Ma'amar, it is not comparable to a regular betrothal.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku' (the acronym of 'Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos v'Ibayos'), meaning that, when Mashi'ach arrives, Eliyahu ha'Navi will answer all Kashyos and She'eilos.

9)

(a)Rav Chananya asks whether a Get that a Yavam gives his Yevamah to remove the Zikah but not the Ma'amar that he made, or vice-versa, is valid or not. It ought ...

1. ... not to be valid - because maybe Ma'amar is an extension of the Zikah (and becomes part of it), in which case, giving a Get for one but not the other would be like giving a Get to half a woman, which is not valid.

2. ... be valid however - if the Zikah and the Ma'amar are considered two separate entities.

(b)If the Get is valid - then, if one writes it to remove the Zikah, the Yevamah will be forbidden to all the Yevamin, because of the principle 'Keivan she'Banah ... '; whereas if one writes it to remove the Ma'amar, she will be forbidden to the brother who gave it alone, but permitted to the other Yevamin (as we will explain immediately).

(c)Rava says that a Get that the Yavam gives to remove his Ma'amar permits the Tzarah to the Yavam, but not the Ba'alas Ma'amar herself - who remains forbidden, in case they confuse it with a Yavam who gives a Get to remove the Zikah or to remove the Zikah and the Ma'amar. Rav Chananel does not resolve the She'eilah from Rava - because what Rava took for granted, he was uncertain.

(d)The outcome of this She'eilah too is - 'Teiku'.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah says 'Chalatz v'Asah Ma'amar, Ein Achar Chalitzah Klum'. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes this like Rebbi Akiva. The Rabanan hold 'Yesh Ma'amar Achar Chalitzah.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is whether the Kidushin of Chayavei Lavin takes effect (the Rabanan) or not (Rebbi Akiva).

(c)Rebbi Akiva, in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon Asher Shalchah ... " - that if the Yavam gives a Get to his Yevamah, she becomes forbidden to him forever.

(d)In spite of the fact that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva (as we just established), the Mishnah rules 'Nasan Get v'Asah Ma'amar, Tzerichah Get v'Chalitzah' - because the previous is only mide'Rabanan, and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

11)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi agrees with the Chachamim, who hold 'Yesh Achar Chalitzah Klum' - though he restricts this to when he betroths her as a wife, but should he betroth her with Ma'amar (as a Yevamah), the Kidushin is completely ineffective (because there is no Zikah left for Ma'amar to remove).

(b)The Chachamim themselves, maintain - that either way, she requires a Get.

12)

(a)Rav Yosef explains Rebbi by comparing it to someone was digging in ground that he thought was his, but which really belonged to his neighbor who was a Ger, and the neighbor died - in which case, despite the fact that digging is a Kinyan (Chazakah), the ground that he was digging does not belong to him, because at the time of digging, he did not intend to acquire it.

(b)Likewise, says Rav Yosef, if the Yavam wants to acquire his Chalutzah through Ma'amar, which is not eligible, he will not acquire her either. Abaye refutes this Mashal however -on the grounds that, unlike the digger in the Mashal, who did not intend to acquire the land, the Yavam did intend to acquire the Chalutzah.

(c)Abaye therefore illustrates Rebbi's case - with a man who thought he was digging in one Ger's field, and he later discovered that it belonged to another Ger, where he definitely acquires the field.

13)

(a)Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim in a case where the Yavam said after the Chalitzah 'Hiskadshi Li b'Ma'amar Yabmin'. The reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi, who says that she is not Mekudeshes is - because, in his opinion, Ma'amar is an extension of the Zikah. Consequently, where the Zikah has already been removed by means of Chalitzah, there is nothing for the Ma'amar to become attached to. Consequently, she does not require a Get.

2. ... the Chachamim, who say that she is - maintain that Ma'amar is a separate entity. Consequently, it is effective even after Chalitzah.

(b)According to Rava, even Rebbi would agree in this case that she is Mekudeshes. He establishes the Machlokes in a case where the Yavam said 'Hiskadshi Li b'Zikas Yabmin', and the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Yesh Zikah' or 'Ein Zikah'. The reasoning of ...

1. ... Rebbi - is based on the fact that he holds 'Yesh Zikah'. Consequently, Ma'amar using this Lashon, is only applicable before Chalitzah, whilst the Zikah still remains. whereas once the Zikah has been removed, it is meaningless. Whereas ...

2. ... the Chachamim hold - 'Ein Zikah'. Consequently, the Lashon 'Hiskadshi Li b'Zikas Yabmin' is only arbitrary after the Chalitzah, just like it is before it, and there is no reason for the Ma'amar not to take effect.