1)

(a)According to the Chachamim, if a Safek ben Tisha l'Rishon Safek ben Shiv'ah l'Acharon strikes or curses both men one after the other (after being warned each time) or simultaneously, he is Chayav. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with them - in the former case, because it is Hasra'as Safek (and he holds 'Hasra'as Safek, Patur').

(b)According to others, Rebbi Yehudah even exempts him for hitting them simultaneously. Rebbi Chanina learns this by means of 'Berachah' (a refined way of saying 'Klalah') l'Matah from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', "Berachah" l'Matah (in connection with cursing one's parents), and "Berachah" Lema'alah' (concerning the Din of cursing Hash-m) - meaning that we compare cursing one's parents (which the Torah forbids) to cursing Hash-m (which the Torah forbids too). Just as in the latter case, there is only One Father, so too, in the former case, there must be only one father, and not two.

(c)Despite the fact that the Derashah only pertains to 'Berachah', they apply it to striking one's parents too, by means of a 'Hekesh' ('Haka'ah' to 'Klalah' - seeing as the two are close together, with only one Pasuk dividing them).

2)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the Safek serves in the Mishmaros of both men. We refute the Kashya 'v'Chi me'Achar d'Eino Cholek, Lamah Oleh' - on the grounds that the Kohen wants to serve (irrespective of whether he receives a portion or not), because he wants to perform the Mitzvah.

(b)What we meant to ask was - why the Tana says 'Oleh' (intimating that he is obligated to go up and serve, even though he does not receive a portion) and not 'Alah' (intimating only if he wants to go up).

(c)And we answer - that he is indeed obligated to go and serve when both respective turns arrive.

(d)The reason that Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan gives to explain why he is obligated to go and serve is - that the members of both families can force him to serve, on the grounds of 'Pgam Mishpachah' (not serving in the Beis Hamikdash will create a stigma on both families).

3)

(a)The problem with the ruling in our Mishnah, which permits the Sefek to receive a portion, provided his mother's two husbands belonged to the same Mishmor of Kohanim is - that just as he does not receive a portion if they belonged to two different Mishmaros (seeing as each Mishmor can demand that he brings a proof that he belongs to them), so too, can each Beis-Av push him off in the same way, unless both men belonged to the same Beis-Av.

(b)We solve the problem - by establishing the Mishnah where he belonged, not only to the same Mishmar, but to the same Beis-Av as well.

4)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah declares Hedyotos eligible as Hedyotos - he means that the Dayanim do not need to be members of the Sanhedrin (Gedolah or Ketanah), in which case ...

(b)The definition of 'Dayanim' is - that they had to be at least sufficiently learned to read together with the Yavam "Lo Chafatzti l'Kachtah".

5)

(a)Our Mishnah permits Chalitzah with a Man'al. l'Chatchilah however, a Sandal is required (this will be discussed shortly). The basic difference between a Sandal and a Man'al is - that the former is hard, whereas the latter is soft (refer also to 103a. 4a.)

(b)'b'Anpalya, Chalitzasah Pesulah'. 'Anpalya' is - a cloth shoe (a sock), which is Pasul, because the Torah requires a Na'al, which incorporates footwear that protects the foot of the wearer, which an Anpalya does not.

(c)A Sandal requires a heel - in order to become eligible for Chalitzah.

6)

(a)If part of the Yavam's leg is missing, he might nevertheless be able to perform Chalitzah. To invalidate the Chalitzah - the foot and the leg up to the knee must be missing.

(b)If the Chalitzah is performed either with a shoe that is not his, or with a wooden shoe - it is nevertheless valid.

(c)The third case that is listed together with these two is - Chalitzah that is performed from the left foot.

(d)A shoe is Kasher even though it is ...

1. ... too big - provided the Yavam is able to walk with it.

2. ... too small - provided it covers the majority of his foot.

7)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah (and the Tana Kama of the Beraisa) require three Dayanim for Chalitzah. Rebbi Yehudah requires - five.

(b)The Tana Kama learns three* Dayanim from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "v'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'arah el ha'Zekenim", implying at least two. He learns the third Dayan - from the fact that every Beis-Din must comprise an odd number of Dayanim (to enable them to rely on a majority vote in case there is a difference of opinion). Consequently, whenever the Torah indicates an even number of Dayanim, we add one ('Ein Beis Din Shakul, Mosifin Aleihen Od Echad').

(c)Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates five Dayanim from the very same word - from the extra 'Yud', which he Darshens "Ziknei" (two), "Zekenim" (two more) 'v'Ein Beis Din Shakul, Mosifin Aleihen Od Echad'.

8)

(a)According to the Tana Kama in the Beraisa, the extra 'Yud' in "ha'Zekeinim" comes to include - Hedyotos (as we learned in our Mishnah).

(b)From the word "l'Einei ha'Zekenim" - Rebbi Yehudah precludes Dayanim who are blind.

(c)Tani Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Kulach Yafah Ra'ayasi u'Mum Ein Bach" - that anyone with a blemish is not eligible to sit on the Sanhedrin.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah now extrapolates from the previous Derashah that Hedyotos must be Kasher - because if they were not, we would not need a Pasuk to preclude blind Dayanim from Chalitzah, seeing as a blind person cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin anyway.

9)

(a)The Tana Kama learns from "l'Einei", Rava's Din - that, when the woman spits, the spittle must be visible to the eyes of the Dayanim.

(b)We conclude that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this Derashah, and he derives Hedyotos from the Pasuk "l'Hakim l'Achiv Shem b'Yisrael". The Tana Kama learns from "b'Yisrael" like Tani Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who rules - that Chalitzah requires a Beis-Din of Yisrael (whose father and mother are both Yisraelim [to preclude a Ger]).

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah precludes a Beis Din of Gerim from "mi'Yisrael" (in the Pasuk "v'Lo Yimacheh Shemo mi'Yisrael"). The Tana Kama learns from there the Halachah that Rebbi Yehudah taught quoting Rebbi Tarfon - who was sitting on a Beis-Din of Chalitzah, and, when the Yevamah came to perform Chalitzah, he told everyone to announce (after the Chalitzah) "Chalutz ha'Na'al"!

(b)Rebbi Yehudah himself learns the obligation to announce 'Chalutz ha'Na'al' from "v'Nikra Sh'mo b'Yisrael". This creates the problem - that if we Darshen the word "v'Nikra" here, then in the Pasuk "v'Kar'u Lo Ziknei Iro v'Dibru Elav", we will have to Darshen "v'Kar'u" (two) and "v'Dibru"(two), in which case, Rebbi Yehudah ought to require nine Dayanim, and the Chachamim, seven (rather than the five and three that we learned earlier)!

(c)In fact, we learn from ...

1. ... "v'Kar'u Lo" - that the Dayanim themselves are obligated to recite to the Yavam the Pasuk ("Kachah Ye'aseh la'Ish ... "), and not their Shaliach ("v'Kar'u", 'v'Lo Shelucham').

2. ... "v'Dibru Elav" - that if the Dayanim see that an old Yavam intends to perform Yibum with a young Yevamah or vice-versa, they advise him rather to perform Chalitzah, so as not to bring strife into his house by entering into an inappropriate marriage.

(d)Rav Nachman initially ruled 'Chalitzah bi'Sheloshah' - because it is the opinion of our Mishnah, which is a Stam Mishnah.

11)

(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over whether Mi'un requires a Beis-Din of experts or not. They both agree however - that three Dayanim are required.

(b)Rav Nachman rules (with regard to Mi'un) 'Halachah k'Oso ha'Zug' (Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon), who rule - that Mi'un requires only two judges (in spite of the Stam Mishnah which requires three for both Mi'un and Chalitzah.

(c)We try to reconcile this ruling with his previous one, where he ruled that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim on the basis of a Stam Mishnah - by differentiating between the former ruling, which is based on three Stam Mishnahs and the latter one, where there are only two.

(d)When the Mishnah in the second Perek ruled 'Mi'anah O she'Chaltzah b'Fanav Yisa'enah, Mipnei she'Hu Beis Din' - it means that the Dayan who sits on the Beis-Din of Chalitzah is subsequently permitted to marry her, because his ruling is not an independent one, but is issued in his capacity of a member of Beis-Din.

(e)Rava quotes this Mishnah as a second Stam Mishnah that Mi'un requires three judges.

12)

(a)We reject Rav Nachman's contention (that three Stam Mishnah's are better than two) - on the grounds that if we rule like a Stam Mishnah, then it makes no difference how many S'tams there are, and one is as good as three.

(b)Rav Nachman finally justifies his ruling (that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim and not five [not because it is a Stam Mishnah, but] - because Rebbi included a Stam Mishnah that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim in the place of a Machlokes (meaning, that after citing a dispute between Rebbi Yosi, who requires three Dayanim for Semichah and Eglah Arufah and Rebbi Yehudah, who requires five, he concludes 'ha'Chalitzah v'ha'Mi'un bi'Sheloshah', and there Rebbi Yehudah does not argue, a clear indication that he retracted from his previous opinion, that Chalitzah requires five).

(c)Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua nevertheless require five Dayanim for Chalitzah - for the sake of publicity (either to let everyone know that she is a Chalutzah, so that Kohanim will refrain from marrying her, or to let people know that she is now available for marriage).

(d)This ruling was widely accepted - because we find a number of Amora'im doing likewise.

(e)The bundle of canes to which they referred - was for the Dayanim to sit on during the Chalitzah ceremony.

13)

(a)Rava learns from the word "ha'Sha'arah" (in the Pasuk "v'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'arah el ha'Zekenim") - that one needs to fix a specific location for Chalitzah.

(b)Rav Shmuel ben Yehudah declined to sit on a Beis-Din for Chalitzah - because he and his father were Gerim, and we learned above that Chalitzah requires Dayanim whose father and mother were born Yisraelim.

(c)Rav Yehudah was impressed with Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's integrity. The initial version of his (Rav Yehudah's) statement, in which he said that he would even extract money by his testimony is incorrect - inasmuch as the extraction of money requires two witnesses, and not just one.

(d)What he really meant to say was - that he would invalidate a document (not to claim from it without an oath, should Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah testify that the debtor had already paid (see Tosfos DH 'Mar'ana).