1)

(a)Our Mishnah, which equates the Din of a ben Esrim who did not yet bring signs of Gadlus with that of a ben Tesha, speaks when the ben Esrim does not have any signs of Serisus either; whereas the Beraisa, which states that a ben Esrim needs only to prove that he has reached the age of twenty, and he has the Din of a Saris (who is a Gadol) - speaks when he does.

(b)Rava proves this from the last two words of the statement in the Beraisa - 've'Hu ha'Saris'.

(c)A person who has neither the signs of a Gadol nor those of a Saris remains a Katan - until he passes half a life-span (i.e. the age of thirty-five).

(d)Rava advised someone who had reached the age of twenty and had not brought the signs of Gadlus - to strengthen himself (by eating well), if he was weak, and to weaken himself (by eating sparsely) if he was strong (because sometimes, weakness or strength tend to delay the appearance of the signs of Gadlus).

2)

(a)'Nos'in al ha'Anusah - means that one is permitted to marry the close relative (the daughter, sister or mother) of a woman that one raped.

(b)One is however - Chayav for raping one's wife sister, daughter or mother.

(c)The Tana Kama permits a person to marry a woman who was raped by his father or by his son - Rebbi Yehudah forbids the former.

(d)These three Halachos, besides applying to a woman who was raped - also apply to one who was seduced).

3)

(a)We reconcile our Mishnah (which permits a man to marry the relatives of a woman whom he raped) with the Beraisa, which forbids a man to marry the relatives of the woman whom he is purported to have raped - by establishing our Mishnah mid'Oraisa, and the Beraisa mid'Rabanan.

(b)When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Nos'in' (l'Chatchilah) - he speaks after the death of the Anusah or the Mefutah (where there is nothing to decree, because the suspicion that he may rape or seduce her after marrying her relative [the reason for the decree] no longer applies).

(c)From the fact that, by all the blood-relatives listed in Kedoshim, the Torah uses a Lashon of 'Shechivah', whereas by those relationships that result through marriage, it uses a Lashon of 'Kichah', the Tana of the Beraisa extrapolates - that, in the latter case, the relatives only become forbidden through marriage (which 'Kichah' implies), but not through rape or seduction.

(d)Rav Papa asked Abaye from 'Achoso', where the Torah uses the Lashon of 'Kichah'. Abaye replied - that wherever the Torah writes a Lashon of 'Shechivah', it obviously does not require marriage to forbid the relatives. But where it uses a Lashon of 'Kichah', then it does, provided it is appropriate; where it is not (such as by Achoso since Kidushin does not take effect by her), then it clearly refers to 'Shechivah' (despite the fact that it uses a Lashon of 'Kichah').

4)

(a)Rava learns 'Nos'in al ha'Anusah' from a contradiction between two Pesukim. He infers from the Pasuk "Ervas bas Bincha O bas Bitcha Lo Segaleh" - 'Ha, bas Bnah Didah u'bas Bitah Didah, Gali', which clashes with the other Pasuk "Ervas Ishah u'Vitah Lo Segaleh, es bas Bnah v'es bas Bitah Lo Sikach".

(b)He reconciles the two Pesukim - by establishing the former Pasuk by rape or seduction, and the latter by marriage.

(c)He knows that the reverse is not the case (that rape or seduction forbids the relatives, but marriage does not) - because the Torah uses the Lashon 'She'er' (a term that pertains to a relative through marriage, but not by rape) in connection with one's father's sister (one of the cases of blood-relations). See also Maharsha.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv, v'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv" that Anusas Aviv is forbidden (rather than a case of marriage, as we shall see shortly) - because he learns it from the principle of Semuchin, from the fact that the previous Pasuk speaks about rape.

(b)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's source - on the grounds that the phrase "Lo Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv" interrupts between the two phrases, in which case, they maintain, it is not really Semuchin at all.

(c)They therefore Darshen the Pasuk like Rav Anan Amar Shmuel, who interprets "v'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv" - with reference to the Shomeres Yavam of his father, in that "Kenaf Aviv" means 'Kenaf ha'Ra'uy l'Aviv'.

(d)We need a Pasuk for that, despite the fact that she is anyway Dodaso (his uncle's wife) - to make him to transgress two Lavin.

6)

(a)We suggest that he might even transgress a third Lav - that of Yevamah l'Shuk.

(b)We reject this suggestion however - by establishing our Pasuk after his father's death, in which case, he will transgress only two Lavin.

7)

(a)Chazal now present a series of riddles - to demonstrate to the Minim that the Torah contains all forms of Chochmah (see Tosfos DH 'Ach' and Hagahos Maharshal).

(b)The first riddle is 'He is my paternal father as well as my mother's husband' - which is the case of a woman speaking to her paternal brother, who has married her mother, whom her father had raped but not married.

(c)Rami bar Chama states that this does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah - who forbids a man to marry the woman his father raped.

8)

(a)The statement ...

1. ... 'He is my brother and my son. I am the sister of the child whom I carry on my shoulders' - pertains to a Nochri who had relations with his daughter, who bore him a son (to whom she now passes this comment).

2. ... 'Good morning to you my son, I am your sister's daughter' - pertains to a Nochri who had relations with his daughter's daughter, who bore him a son (to whom she is talking).

3. ... 'The child I am carrying on my shoulders is my son and I am his brother's daughter' - to the case of a Nochri who had relations with his son's daughter, who bore him a son (to whom she now passes this comment).

(b)This riddle was posed to the workers who watered the fields (see also Tosfos DH 'de'Dalu').

(c)The first of these cases pertain to a Yisrael - because it is possible to establish it b'Heter, the others to a Nochri - which can only occur b'Isur (which we therefore prefer to avoid establishing by a Yisrael).

(d)

1. ... 'I lodge a complaint about my (maternal) brother who is both my father and my husband, as well as the son of both my husband and the husband of my mother. And I am his wife's daughter, who refuses to give a piece of bread to the orphaned children of his daughter - is said by a woman who was born from a Nochri who had relations with his mother. Then both he and his father had relations with her, and after she bore children to the latter, he died (and it is about her father that she is speaking).

2. ... 'You and I are brother and sister; your father and I are brother and sister, and your mother and I are sisters - is being said by a woman, whose father had relations with his mother from whom she and a sister were born. Then he had relations with her sister, from whom the son to whom she is talking was born.

(e)This last case is possible even if all those involved are Yisraelim - where Shimon married one of Reuven (his brother)'s daughters, and Levi (a third brother)'s son married the other sister. It is Shimon's son who says to Levi's grandson 'You and I are the sons of two sisters; your father and I are the sons of two brothers, and your mother and I are the children of two brothers.Note, that to understand the following Sugya, one should bear in mind that as far as the father is concerned, it is his status at the time of the baby's conception that will determine the baby's status, whereas with the mother, the criterion is what she is at the time that the baby is actually born.

9)

(a)The sons of a Nochris who converted together with her, perform neither Yibum nor Chalitzah with each other's wives - because they need to be paternal brothers in order to perform Yibum, and a Nochri does not have Yichus (in this regard) ...

(b)... as we learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "v'Zarmas Susim Zarmasam" (declaring their Zera to be like that of horses).

(c)In the event that ...

1. ... one of them was conceived before the conversion but born after it, and the other one was both born and conceived after it - the Halachah will resemble that in the previous case, as is the case there where ...

2. ... a Shifchah together with her sons converted in the same circumstances.

10)

(a)Rav Acha bar Yakov permitted the sons of Yudan, a Shifchah Meshuchreres, to marry each other's wives. When Rava informed him that Rav Sheshes forbade it - he retorted 'Rav Sheshes forbids it and I permit it'!

(b)Both Rav Sheshes and Rav Acha bar Yakov agree that paternal (but not maternal) brothers are permitted (as we explained in our Mishnah). In the first Lashon, they also agree that maternal brothers are forbidden - because one might otherwise become confused with a Yisrael, and permit it there too.

(c)Chazal decreed by maternal brothers, because we know for sure who their mother is - but not by paternal ones, whose fathers are doubtful.

11)

(a)In fact, their Machlokes in the first Lashon is - by full brothers. Rav Sheshes stresses the fact that they are after all, maternal brothers, and the decree applies; whereas Rav Acha bar Yakov maintains that since they have the same father, that is what will stick in people's minds, in which case it is unnecessary to issue a decree.

(b)In the second Lashon, Rav Acha bar Yakov is even more lenient. There - he permits even maternal brothers to marry each other's wives.

(c)His reason is based on the principle - 'Ger she'Nisgayer ka'Katan she'Nolad Dami', no strings attached.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah 'ha'Giyores she'Nisgayru Banehah Imah, Lo Choltzin v'Lo Meyabmin' seems to pose a Kashya on the second Lashon of Rav Acha bar Yakov - inasmuch as we assume ' Lo Choltzin v'Lo Meyabmin' to mean that they are forbidden (since they are maternal brothers) because of Eishes Ach (mid'Rabanan).

(b)This Kashya is strengthened by the word 'Afilu' ('Afilu Horaso shel Rishon she'Lo bi'Kedushah ... v'ha'Sheni Horaso v'Leidaso bi'Kedushah') - meaning that, even though the conception of the first one was she'Lo bi'Kedushah and that of the second one, bi'Kedushah, (giving the appearance of being two separate mothers), it is nevertheless forbidden.

(c)According to Rav Acha bar Yakov, who permits them in all cases (and who interprets 'Lo Choltzin v'Lo Meyabmin' to mean that Yibum and Chalitzah are not necessary), 'Afilu' implies - that although they were both born bi'Kedushah (and we might confuse them with Jewish maternal brothers), they are nevertheless permitted without Yibum or Chalitzah - see Rashash.

(d)In the second Lashon, we try to prove Rav Acha bar Yakov's second Lashon from 'Afilu', which implies that even though they were both born bi'Kedushah, they are permitted (without Yibum ... ). We refute the proof however - in that 'Afilu' implies that, even though one of them was conceived she'Lo bi'Kedushah, and the other one, bi'Kedushah, they are nevertheless forbidden (like we learned at first in the first Lashon).

13)

(a)We query Rav Acha bar Yakov once more from the Beraisa which forbids two twin brother converts to perform either Chalitzah or Yibum with each other's wives. The Tana speaks specifically about twins - because they are definitely paternal brothers.

(b)They are not Chayav because of Eishes Ach (even if they are maternal brothers too) - because of the principle 'Ger she'Nisgayer, k'Katan she'Nolad Dami'.

(c)If they were ...

1. ... born (but not conceived) after their parents' conversion - then they would be Chayav because of Eishes Ach (but would nevertheless remain Patur from Yibum and Chalitzah, because we go after the mother and not after the father, as we explained above).

2. ... both conceived and born after the conversion - they would be considered paternal brothers, and would be Chayav Yibum.

(d)We refute the inference from the Reisha of the Beraisa 'Ein Chayavin Mishum Eishes Ach', Chiyuva Leika, Ha Isura Ika' (a Kashya on Rav Acha) - by pointing out that the Tana writes 'Ein Chayavin ... ' there (and not 'Mutarin') only because it needs to write 'Aval Chayavin ... ' in the Seifa.