1)

(a)We query Rav's previous opinion from another Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel, in connection with a Ketanah who grew up without performing Mi'un and who then married somebody else. Rav does not require her to receive a Get from the second 'husband' - Shmuel does.

(b)According to Rav's interpretation of Raban Gamliel (that it is only after she becomes a Gedolah and performs Bi'ah, that the Kidushin of a Ketanah becomes established), this dispute must be speaking in a case when she was intimate with the first husband after she grew-up. The problem with this lies is - how Shmuel can say that the second man requires a Get, in spite of her having been intimate with her first husband after she grew-up?!

(c)To resolve the problem, we explain that, according to Shmuel - when a married couple are intimate, they do so, having in mind the first Kidushin ('Kol ha'Bo'el al-Da'as Kidushin ha'Rishonim Hu Bo'el' [and not to create a new Kidushin]).

2)

(a)According to Rav (in Kesuvos), if a man betroths a woman on condition that she has not made any Nedarim, and after marrying her Stam (without any mention of the previous condition), he discovers that she has, she requires a Get - because when consummating the marriage, a man tends to forgo all previous conditions (in order for his Bi'ah not to be a Bi'as Zenus).

(b)Shmuel holds - that she does not require a Get from him, because he holds 'Kol ha'Bo'el al-Da'as Kidushin ha'Rishonim Hu Bo'el', as we just explained.

(c)Having taught us ...

1. ... here (with regard to 'Mi'un') that the Bi'ah is considered a new Kidushin, Rav found it necessary to repeat it in Nedarim (with regard to 'Tenai') - because, since a condition was made and not met, we would have otherwise thought that Rav will concede to Shmuel there (that the Kidushin will become nullified and no Get will be required).

2. ... there that 'Kol ha'Bo'el ...', Shmuel finds it necessary to repeat it here - because we would otherwise have thought that Shmuel's ruling is confined to the case there, where a condition was made and not met (as we just explained in Rav), but in our case, he will concede to Rav that the Bi'ah creates a new Kidushin.

3)

(a)That Ketanah in Neresh who was betrothed to a man by her mother and brothers, and who had now grown-up, when her husband took her to the Chupah ('ve'Osvei a'Bei Kursaya'), but someone else came and abducted her.

(b)Rav Bruna and Rav Chananel ruled there - that she did not require a Get from the second man.

(c)We initially assumed - that when her husband took her to the Chupah, Bi'ah had not yet taken place, in which case, ruling of Rav Bruna and Rav Chananel (who were disciples of Rav) clashes with their Rebbe, who requires specifically Bi'ah in this regard (and not just Chupah).

(d)Rav Papa reconciles the current ruling with Rav - by informing us that the Minhag in Neresh was to be intimate before the Chupah. Consequently, when her husband took her to the Chupah, he had already performed Bi'ah with her, in which case the ruling of Rav Bruna and Rav Chananel conformed with that of Rav.

(e)Rav Ashi explains their ruling even according to the regular Minhag for Chupah to precede Bi'ah, by ascribing the reason for their ruling - to the fact that the abductor behaved unconventionally. Consequently, measure for measure, they issued him with an unconventional ruling (negating his 'marriage').

4)

(a)According to Rav Ashi's explanation, if the second man betrothed her with money, what Chazal did was to use their power of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' to nullify his Kidushin by declaring the money that he gave her Hefker. Ravina asked Rav Ashi how they could possibly have nullified his Kidushin if he betrothed her with Bi'ah, to which he replied - that they simply declared his Bi'ah an immoral act.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - rules like Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah (who holds 'Melamdin ha'Ketanah la'Ma'ein ... ').

(c)Rebbi Elazar - concurs with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel.

5)

(a)If a man who is married to two Yesomos who are either both Ketanos or both Charashos, dies, the Bi'ah or Chalitzah of one of them exempts the other. If one of them is ...

1. ... a Ketanah and the other, a Chereshes - the Bi'ah of one of them does not exempt the other (the Sugya later will discuss what the Yavam is obligated to do).

2. ... a normal woman, and the other, a Chereshes, or if one of them is a Gedolah and the other, a Ketanah - the Bi'ah of the former exempts the latter, but not vice-versa.

(b)We learned in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah that the Chalitzah of a Cheresh and of a Chereshes is not valid. Rav Gidal Amar Rav therefore restricts any mention of Chereshes in our Mishnah to Bi'ah (but not to Chalitzah). According to Rabah however - our Mishnah (which permits Chalitzah by a Chereshes) speaks about a woman who was born a Chereshes, whereas the Mishnah in Mitzvas Chalitzah speaks about a woman who only became a Chereshes later.

(c)According to Rabah, the Chalitzah of a Chereshes who was ...

1. ... originally a Pikachas, is invalid - because she cannot read the Parashah.

2. ... born a Chereshes is valid - because in the same way as her husband originally married her with hints (seeing as she can neither speak nor hear), so too, does she leave the Yavamah's jurisdiction with hints.

6)

(a)The Mishnah in Cheresh cites a case of two brothers, one, a Pike'ach who is married to a Pikachas; the other, a Cheresh, who is married to a Chereshes. Should his brother die, and he does not wish to live with his Yevamah ...

1. ... the Pike'ach will have to perform Yibum and then to give her a Get (since he cannot perform Chalitzah).

2. ... the Cheresh has no option but to perform Yibum with her and to retain her (seeing as he can neither perform Chalitzah nor may he divorce her(since he did not marry her [with signs]).

(b)Abaye initially establish the Mishnah - by a woman who was a Chereshes from birth, in which case we see that a Chereshes from birth is not subject tgo Chalitzah (a Kashya on Rabah who says that she is).

(c)We answer - by establishing the Beraisa by a woman who was born a Pikachas and who became a Chereshes only later.

7)

(a)We query Rabah further from a second case in the same Mishnah, where the Tana speaks about two Pikchim who are married to a Chereshes and a Pikachas. Here too, the Pike'ach has no choice should his brother die. If he does not wish to live with his Yevamah, he has to perform Yibum with her and then give her a Get. Should the brother of the Pike'ach who is married to the Chereshes, die, and he wants to perform either Yibum or Chalitzah - he may do so.

(b)We try to prove from the contention, just like the Yavam was a Pike'ach from birth, so too, was the Yevamah (Chereshes) - that even a born Cheresh is forbidden to perform Chalitzah (a Kashya on Rabah).

(c)We refute this proof too - by establishing the Chereshes as one who was previously a Pikachas (despite the fact that the Cheresh is a born Cheresh).

8)

(a)The Tana says there in a case when two brothers (a Pike'ach and a Cheresh) married two sisters (a Pikachas and a Chereshes), that if ...

1. ... the Cheresh married to the Chereshes, dies - his wife goes out because of Achos Ishto.

2. ... the Pike'ach married to the Pikachas, dies - the Cheresh must divorce his wife (because of the Zikah of the Yevamah) and the Yevamah remains forbidden l'Shuk forever (because the Yavam can perform neither Yibum [seeing as the Yevamah is Achos Gerushaso] nor Chalitzah [since he is a Cheresh]).

(b)To answer the same Kashya on Rabah, we cannot establish this Mishnah too in the case of a man who became a Cheresh only after he was born - because then he would not have able to divorce his wife.

(c)We then go on to compare the sisters to the brothers, and the previous case (where the women were not sisters) to this case, to say that all the cases speak when they were born Charashim, leaving us with a Kashya on Rabah. We cannot ask on Rabah directly from the case of when the Pike'ach married to the Pikachas dies, from the fact that the born Cheresh cannot perform Chalitzah - because anyway he would have been forbidden to perform Chalitzah with her, seeing as she had been married to a Pike'ach, and the Sevara 'as she came in so she goes out' would not have applied.

(d)Rabah reacted to this Kashya - with silence.

9)

(a)Despite the fact that a man can divorce his wife even against her will, he cannot divorce a wife who is a Shotah - because, in order to protect her, Chazal decreed that a Shotah cannot be divorced.

(b)This decree does not extend to a wife who became a Chereshes - who is able to look after herself.

10)

(a)Rav Yosef refutes Abaye's previous Kashya, based on the case of the brothers one of whom was a Pike'ach, the other, a Cheresh - because, he says, even though the case of the sisters speaks when they were born Charashos, the case of the Nochri'os may well speak when they only became Charashos afterwards.

(b)He asks on Rabah however, from an earlier section of that Mishnah. The Tana says there that ...

1. ... when two brothers Charashim married two sisters, irrespective of what the women were - they are Patur from Chalitzah and Yibum (because, seeing as their Zikos are equal [because they were both acquired through hints and are divorced through hints], each one is Achos Ishto, and is Patur from Chalitzah and from Yibum).

2. ... when two brothers Charashim married two Nochri'os, irrespective of what the women were - they perform Yibum, and should they not wish to live with them, they may divorce them.

(c)In the case of the sisters, the Tana rules in the reverse case (if the sisters were both Charashos and the men were any combination of Pike'ach and Cheresh) - that each one is Achos Ishto, and is Patur from Chalitzah and from Yibum.

(d)Rav Yosef finally refutes Rabah's distinction between a born Cheresh and one who became a Cheresh (seeing as they are not permitted to perform Chalitzah) from there. Rav Yosef knows that the Tana is speaking about men and women who were born Charashim - because otherwise, in the case of the Nochri'os, how would the Charashim be permitted to divorce their wives.

11)

(a)Rav Nachman found Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Chana his son-in-law 'ka'Makvu Akvasa', which means either gathering Talmidim - or 'asking Kashyos' in the public-square of Pumbedisa.

(b)They established our Mishnah, which rules that the Bi'ah of a Ketanah and a Chereshes do not exempt each other, where their deceased husband was a Pike'ach. The Tana's Sevara is - that we do not know which wife the deceased husband preferred (on principle): the Ketanah, because she is destined to become a Gedolah, or the Chereshes, because she is a Gedolah and ready for Bi'ah (to have children).

(c)If he was a Cheresh however, he would certainly prefer the Chereshes, because she is one of a kind with him, in which case, her Bi'ah would exempt that of the Ketanah.

12)

(a)Rav Nachman disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Chana his son-in-law. In his opinion, our Tana (who rules that the Bi'ah of a Ketanah and a Chereshes do not exempt each other) even speaks when their deceased husband was a Cheresh.

(b)We ask what they would then have to do. They cannot both perform Chalitzah - because, as we have seen throughout the Sugya, a Cheresh and a Chereshes cannot perform Chalitzah.

(c)Neither can the Cheresh perform Bi'ah with the Chereshes and Chalitzah with the Ketanah when she grows-up - because, seeing as the Bi'ah with the Chereshes is not completely Koneh (as we shall soon see), part of the Zikah still remains, and, when he later performs Chalitzah with the Tzarah, the Chereshes becomes forbidden because of 'Keivan she'Lo Banah ... '.

(d)Rav Chisda Amar Rav therefore rules that he should - perform Yibum with the Chereshes and give her a Get, and perform Chalitzah with the Ketanah when she grows-up.

13)

(a)Rav Chisda extrapolates from Rav's ruling that, in his opinion, the Kinyan on a Chereshes is a partial one, whereas the Kinyan on a Ketanah is a Safek; either he acquires her completely or not at all. He cannot possibly hold ...

1. ... that both are a partial Kinyan - because then, the Bi'ah of one would exempt the other; and the Tana says that it does not.

2. ... that both are a Safek - because then, if the Yavam made Bi'ah first with one of them and then with the other, he ought to be able to remain with the first one (because mi'Mah Nafshach: if one acquires them, then she is his Yevamah, and if not, his wife); whereas the Seifa of the Mishnah says that the Bi'ah of the second one renders the first one Pasul.

3. ... the other way round (that the Kinyan on a Chereshes is a Safek, whether he acquires her completely or not at all; whereas the Kinyan on a Ketanah is a partial one) - because if that were so, why would the Yavam be obligated to divorce the Chereshes? If his brother acquired her, then she is his Yevamah (whom he acquired first), and if he did not acquire her, then she is not a Tzarah of the Chereshes but a stranger, in which case, there is no reason why he should not marry her.

(b)Despite the fact that the Ketanah is a Safek, he is not able to perform Yibum with her immediately (if she is a Yevamah, he acquires her now, and if she is not, he will acquire her when she grows-up) - because then, what will happen to the Chereshes, with whom he will be able to perform neither Yibum nor Chalitzah.

(c)The Tana of our Mishnah rules that if he performed Bi'ah, first with the Ketanah, then with the Chereshes, he invalidates the Ketanah. He really should be permitted to retain her (because, seeing as he made Yibum with her first, she is either his Yevamah, [in which case his Yibum acquired her], or a stranger [in which case she is now his wife]). Chazal however - issued a decree forbidding it, in case he performs Yibum with the Chereshes first.