1)

(a)The Beraisa validates Mi'un, irrespective of whether the girl declares that she no longer wishes to ...

1. ... live with her husband or that she no longer wishes to ...

2. ... maintain the Kidushin that her mother and brothers initiated on her behalf.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, Mi'un is effective even if she makes her declaration whilst sitting in the carriage on the way to the Chupah - and even if she later makes it to her guests (even though it is neither said in Beis-Din nor do the guests inform the Beis-Din).

(c)He even goes so far as to validate a declaration that she makes to a storekeeper from whom she is collecting an article belonging to her husband - although we might have taken that to be no more than a bee in her bonnet because her husband troubled her to perform that errand.

2)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos in our Mishnah, rules that a Ketanah who is unable to look after her Kidushin does not even require Mi'un - and that is how Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah rules that if a Ketanah marries another man - there is no bigger Mi'un than this.

(c)Regarding the query whether he will rule like that in the event that she only accepts Kidushin from him (without marrying him) - we prove from a Beraisa that he does not differentiate between marriage and Kidushin.

(d)The Bnei Yeshiva asked whether the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah or not. This is followed by three She'eilos: 1. whether, assuming that they do, do they even argue by Nisu'in (or only by Kidushin)? 2. whether the Halachah is like him? 3. if it is, is it like him only in the case of Nisu'in, or even by Kidushin?

(e)We prove that the Rabanan argue with him - from the fact that Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ruled like him.

3)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa that cites an episode that took place with the daughters-in-law of Avdan, who told the two Rabanim (who had come to ascertain whether they still wished to make Mi'un or whether they had retracted from their stated intention of doing so) - that they wished that they (the two Rabanim) were their husbands.

(b)Rebbi rule there - that their statement was in itself, a valid Mi'un.

(c)We refute the proof from there that all of the above types of Mi'un will apply even if the girl had been married to her husband (and not just betrothed) - on the grounds that we do not really know that they were married (perhaps they were only betrothed).

(d)We finally conclude - that even if they were married to their husbands, all the above types of Mi'un are effective.

4)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer compares a Ketanah who was married off by her mother and brothers to a Mefutah (a woman who has been seduced): Her husband may take neither what she finds nor what she produces, nor may he nullify her vows. Neither is she considered married - with regards to his inheriting her and being obligated to bury her in the event of her death.

(b)In fact, it is only with regard to the need to make Mi'un, that he is considered married to her, according to Rebbi Eliezer. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - he is her husband in every regard, except for the fact that she can leave him through Mi'un.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel is impressed with Rebbi Eliezer's opinion. Rebbi too, prefers it to that of Rebbi Yehoshua - because if they are considered married, how can Mi'un be effective?!

(d)There is no problem with the fact that Rebbi Eliezer requires even Mi'un - because one cannot expect a woman who was living with a man (whatever her status), to be able to just walk out without some sort of ceremony.

5)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov in our Mishnah states 'Kol Akavah she'Hi min ha'Ish, k'Ilu Hi Ishto; v'Chol Akavah she'Eino min ha'Ish, Ke'ilu Eino Ishto'. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains this to mean - that if, when she is offered a Shiduch, she declines on the basis of her being already married, then it is called 'Akavah she'Hi min ha'Ish'; whereas if she declines because the prospective Chasan is not a nice guy, then it is called 'Akavah she'Eino min ha'Ish'.

(b)According to Abaye bar Avin, 'Akavah she'Hi min ha'Ish' refers to when her husband gave her a Get, and 'Akavah she'Eino min ha'Ish', to when she performed Mi'un. This distinction manifests itself - with regard to whether he becomes forbidden to marry her relations, whether she becomes forbidden to marry his relations and whether she becomes Pasul li'Kehunah or not.

(c)According to Abaye bar Ravin, this exact distinction appears in the very next Mishnah - because the Tana there is coming to explain the previous Mishnah's statement.

6)

(a)If, after ...

1. ... her first husband divorces his wife who is a Ketanah and takes her back, she performs Mi'un, and someone else marries her and dies or divorces her - he is permitted to take her back.

2. ... she performs Mi'un with him, he takes her back and divorces her, someone else marries her and dies or divorces her - he may not.

(b)The principle that governs this Halachah is - that, as long as she left him the last time through Mi'un, he is permitted to take her back, but if she left him by means of a Get, he is not.

(c)In a case where she performs Mi'un with her first husband, marries again and her second husband divorces her; then she marries again and makes Mi'un with him, and a fourth husband divorces her - the Tana says that those whom she left through a Get, may not take her back, whereas those whom she left through Mi'un, may.

7)

(a)We see from the Reisha of the Mishnah (where, as long the last time the Ketanah leaves her husband, it is through Mi'un, she is permitted to return to him after marrying someone else), that Mi'un negates the Get that preceded it. The Seifa appears to contradict the Reisha however - because there we see that each husband whom she left through a Get, is forbidden to take her back, even though she left the last husband through Mi'un.

(b)According to Shmuel, this is a Machlokes Tana'im. Rava reconciles the Seifa with the Reisha - in that the Reisha it is the Mi'un of the same husband that negates the Get that preceded it, whereas in the Seifa, it is the Mi'un of the second husband that does not negate the Get of the previous one.

(c)This is because in the Seifa - Chazal were afraid that she will perform Mi'un with the second husband, after receiving signals from her first husband (which she recognizes from their married days) that he is remorseful for having divorced her.

(d)They were not afraid that the same would happen in the Reisha - because we see, from the fact that after having taking her back following the first divorce, she still left him with Mi'un, that he was unable to talk her into remaining, in which case, he is unlikely to try an repeat the performance once she has remarries.

8)

(a)We infer from the Reisha itself which, speaking about a girl who made Mi'un, remarried and whose husband then divorced her, concludes 'Niseis l'Acher v'Nis'armelah O Nisgarshah, Asurah Lachzor Lo' - that had she left the second marriage through Mi'un, she would have been permitted to return to her first husband ...

(b)... negating what we just said - that she is forbidden to return to him, because we are afraid that he will try to lure her away from her second husband.

(c)Rebbi Elazar reiterates Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's previous answer ('Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu Lo Shanah Zu'). To reconcile the two rulings, Ula establishes the Seifa - when she separated from three husbands via Gitin, and the reason that she is forbidden to return to all of them is because having divorced three times, she gives the impression of being a Gedolah (otherwise, a later Mi'un would always negate the Get, as we explained).

9)

(a)To explain the Pasuk in Eichah "Meimeinu b'Kesef Shasinu ... " - Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cites the incident when, due to the Romans' decree not to study Torah, they were sometimes forced to pay huge sums of money to obtain important Torah information. They once paid a Shaliach four hundred Zuz in order to pass on a She'eilah to Rebbi Akiva in prison and to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah in Netzivin.

(b)According to Rav, Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah both ruled - that, when there are two husbands, the girl is forbidden to return to the husband who gave her a Get, even after leaving her second husband through Mi'un.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi commented on Rav's testimony - that if Mi'un permits an Isur Kares (i.e. a married woman), then it should certainly permit an Isur Lav (taking back one's Gerushah [supporting Ravas earlier ruling).

(d)The Tana'im who are now involved in the Machlokes Tana'im of which Rebbi Elazar just spoke - are Rav (who is considered a Tana) and Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, the She'eilah that they asked Rebbi Akiva in prison and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah in Netzivin concerned the case of someone whose paternal brother married his mother's brother's ex-wife. Chazal declared a mother's brother's wife a Sheniyah - because of her similarity to one's father's brother's ex-wife, for whom one is Chayav Kares.

(b)The She'eilah that they now asked Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah was - whether Mi'un would help to remove her marriage to the Yavam's mother's brother.

(c)They thought that Chazal may have permitted it - in order permit his brother to perform the Mitzvah of Yibum with her.

(d)They nevertheless ruled - that it is forbidden.

11)

(a)We learned earlier that Rav forbids a girl who made Mi'un with her second husband to return to a previous husband from whom she was divorced. Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi'an quoted in his name - that this prohibition does not extend to his brother.

(b)The reason for this is - because seeing as even the initial prohibition is only an Isur d'Rabanan, to prohibit marrying his brother would be a 'Gezeirah l'Gezeirah'.

(c)This is not obvious, despite the fact that the Sevara that she recognizes his signs and might be lured back to him, does not apply to his brother - because we might have decreed his brother on account of him.

(d)In the second Lashon - Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi'an quotes Rav as saying that he does indeed decree her husband's brother on account of her husband.

12)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, someone who divorces his wife and takes her back, is permitted to the Yavam when her husband dies. We might otherwise have thought - that it is the first marriage that creates the tie with the Yavam (Nisu'in ha'Rishonim Mapilim'), and that consequently, when her husband divorced her, she became forbidden to him.

(b)Rebbi Elazar - forbids her to the Yavam (though not for the reason that we just cited. His reason will be explained later).

(c)Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim - apply the same Machlokes with regard to a girl whose mother and brothers married her off and whose husband divorced her, took her back and died.

13)

(a)The Chachamim concede to Rebbi Elazar, that in the case of a girl who is like a 'Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av', she is forbidden to the Yavam. The case is - when her father married her off, and her husband then divorced her whilst she was still a Ketanah and took her back.

(b)The Rabanan concede that she is forbidden - because although her Get is valid by Torah law, her second Kidushin (performed without her father whilst she was still a Ketanah) is not, in which case, min ha'Torah, she remains a Gerushah.