1)

(a)When Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua arrived in Shechintziv, the people asked them whether Kesheiros are forbidden to marry Pesulim. Rav Papa brought a proof from the Mishnah in Asarah Yuchsin - where the Tana lists ten categories of Yuchsin who returned to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel.

(b)Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim are permitted to marry each other. In the list 'Leviyim, Yisraelim, Chalalim, Gerim and Charurim (Meshuchrarim)' - the Tana omitted Kohanim - because a Kohen is not permitted to marry a Chalalah, a Giyores or a Meshuchreres.

2)

(a)'Geiri, Charuri, Mamzeiri, Nesini, Shesuki and Asufi are permitted to marry each other'. Rav Papa tries to resolve the She'eilah from here - by virtue of the fact that the Tana omitted 'Kohanos and Chalalim from the list (implying that a Kohenes is forbidden to marry a Chalal).

(b)In fact, there is no proof from there - because the Tana only mentions those cases that are permitted to each other, but not to those where the concession works only one way.

(c)Rav Idi bar Avin finally quoted Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - who specifically said 'Lo Huzharu Kesheros l'Hinasei li'Pesulim'.

3)

(a)The Bnei Biri asked Rav Sheshes whether a woman who is a Sheniyah to her husband but not to the Yavam receives a Kesubah from her Yavam. The reason that ...

1. ... she should not - is because initially, her Kesubah comes out of her deceased husband's estate.

2. ... she should - is because, in the event that he leaves no property, then the Yavam is obligated to pay her Kesubah.

(b)Rav Sheshes replied - with a Beraisa, which specifically rules that 'v'Im Hayesah Sheniyah l'Ba'al, Afilu mi'Yavam Ein Lah'.

(c)This wording is inadequate - inasmuch as it presumes that some women do receive their Kesubah from the Yavam, without actually saying so.

(d)So we emend it by adding ''v'I Les Lah me'Rishon, Tiknu Lah mi'Sheni' before 'v'Im Hayesah ... '.

4)

(a)An Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol is eligible to receive a Kesubah.

(b)Rebbi Elazar nevertheless asked Rebbi Yochanan whether she is entitled to Mezonos, because he maintained that, even though Mezonos is a Tenai Kesubah, she may not be entitled to it - because whereas the Kesubah is part of the process that results in her leaving the marriage (which is what we want to encourage in this case), Mezonos is not; if anything, it will serve as an incentive to remain married to the Kohen Gadol.

(c)Rebbi Elazar was referring to a case - where her husband traveled overseas, and she subsequently borrowed money from an acquaintance in order to sustain herself.

(d)We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's reply in the negative with the Beraisa, which states that she does receive it - by establishing the Beraisa after the Kohen Gadol died, where the fear that she might remain in the marriage does not apply.

5)

(a)In the second Lashon - Rebbi Yochanan replied - that she does receive her Kesubah.

(b)We object to his answer however - on the grounds that, if that is so, how will we succeed in encouraging her to leave the marriage?!

(c)The Beraisa which says that she does receive Mezonos - speaks where the Kohen Gadol died, as we explained earlier.

(d)An Almanah remains entitled to claim Mezonos - throughout the period of her widowhood (like a regular Almanah).

6)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa states that an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah va'Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot are entitled to a Kesubah and to Peiros, Mezonos and Bela'os - and that their children are Chalalim.

(b)A regular Gerushah and Almanah - are not entitled to claim the Peiros that her husband ate whilst they were married (only the Peiros that remain intact).

(c)Nevertheless, the Almanah and the Gerushah va'Chalutzah under discussion are - because their husbands had no right to eat the Peiros in the first place.

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar explains that an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah va'Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot are entitled to a Kesubah together with the Tena'ei Kesubah (except for Mezonos), even though Sheniyos are not - because wherever either he or she becomes Pasul, Chazal did not need to punish her, seeing as when he becomes Pasul, that will be the cause of constant squabbling (resulting in turn, in a divorce), and when she becomes Pasul, she will not want to remain in the marriage anyway (because her descendants will be permanently Pasul).

(b)If 'she becomes Pasul' means that she becomes a Chalalah through the marriage; When he says that 'he becomes Pasul', he means - that the Kohen (or a Kohen Gadol) is Pasul from performing the Avodah as long as he is married to a wife who is a Gerushah or a Chalutzah (or an Almanah).

(c)If she is a Sheniyah, on the other hand, they penalize her - because otherwise there is no incentive for her to leave the marriage.

8)

(a)According to Rebbi, the difference between an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah va'Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot on the one hand, and Sheniyos on the other is - that whereas the former constitute an Isur d'Oraisa, which does not require reinforcement, the latter constitutes an Isur d'Rabanan, which does.

(b)The Beraisa adds a second explanation 'Zeh, Hu Margilah, v'Zu, Hi Margilaso'. Some explain that the author of this statement is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - who is merely coming to teach us the reasoning as to why they did not penalize her in the Reisha is because they assume him to have been the one to convince her to marry him, and not vice-versa; whereas in a case of Sheniyos, they take for granted that she was the one to convince him (seeing as she had nothing to lose).

(c)According to others, it is Rebbi who added the statement to his original explanation - because his original reason (that Divrei Torah do not require reinforcement) will not explain why a Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot (which is only mid'Rabanan) receives a Kesubah. So he added the reason of 'Zeh Hu Margilah ... ', to incorporate a Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot together with the Pesulim d'Oraisa, since, either way, she would not be the one to talk him into marrying her, since she will become a Chalalah (albeit mid'Rabanan).

9)

(a)Rav Chisda suggests that the difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar will be a case of a Mamzeres u'Nesinah l'Yisrael - because on the one hand, it is d'Oraisa, and does not therefore require reinforcing, whilst on the other, she would have been the one to do the convincing, since marrying him would not cause her to become any more Pasul than she was already.

(b)Neither does the fact that her children will be Mamzerim bother her on account of Rebbi Tarfon, in Kidushin, who explains - that it is possible to remove the Pesul of Mamzerus from a family, by the son marrying a Shifchah, and then setting her children free.

(c)We conclude however, that this difference would not work out according to Rebbi Eliezer there, who disagrees with Rebbi Tarfon - and says that a son who is born to a Mamzer and a Shifchah is both an Eved and a Mamzer.

10)

(a)Rav Yosef therefore suggests that the difference between them is a Machzir Gerushaso mi'she'Niseis - who is forbidden min ha'Torah (Rebbi), yet she is the one who is most likely to try and talk him into marrying her (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar).

(b)We reject this suggestion too however, due to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva - who holds 'Yesh Mamzer mei'Chayavei Lavin' ...

(c)... in which case, she will not try and convince him to marry her, because her children will be Mamzerim.

11)

(a)So Rav Papa suggests that the difference between them is Be'ulah l'Kohen Gadol, who is forbidden min ha'Torah, yet she is the one who is most likely to try and talk him into marrying her - seeing as this is only an Isur Aseh, in which case, neither will she become a Zonah, nor will her children be Chalalim.

(b)We reject Rav Papa's suggestion on the basis of the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov - who says that the children of Chayavei Aseh are Chalalim.

(c)Rav Ashi then suggests that Machzir Safek Sotaso (which is forbidden min ha'Torah, yet she will be the one to talk her husband into taking her back), is the bone of contention between Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. But this too, we reject, on the basis of Rebbi Masya ben Charash - who says that even if a man is taking his wife, who is a Safek Sotah, to drink the water of a Sotah, and he has relations with her, she becomes a Zonah, in which case she would prefer to drink the water first.

12)

(a)Mar bar Rav Ashi finally concludes that their bone of contention is Sotah Vaday - who is Asur to her husband min ha'Torah (because of "v'Hi Lo Nispasah"), but who will be the one to talk her husband into living together, since she is a Zonah anyway, and has nothing to lose.

(b)Even though, according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar, she too, is among the Chayavei Lavin (from the Pasuk "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah") - we have already learned in 'ha'Choletz that even Rebbi Akiva agrees that the child of a Sotah is not a Mamzer.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah equates a bas Yisrael who is betrothed to a Kohen, one who is pregnant from her deceased husband who was a Kohen, and a Shomeres Yavam to a Kohen - inasmuch as they are all three forbidden to eat Terumah.

(b)The problem with the Mishnah which says that, in the event that the above three are Leviyim, the same will apply to a bas Yisrael eating Ma'aser, is - that a Zar (a non-Levi in this case) is permitted to eat Ma'aser anyway, seeing as Ma'aser is not called Kodesh (and will not therefore be included in the prohibition of "Kol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh")!

(c)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel answers by establishing the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Meir - who forbids Ma'aser to be eaten by Zarim.