1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testified that a Chereshes whose father married her off, may later accept her own Get even after she grows-up, and that a Ketanah whose mother and brothers married her to a Kohen - is permitted to eat Terumah ...

(b)... d'Rabanan.

(c)From his switch from a Chereshes to a Ketanah - we infer that a Chereshes who is married to a Kohen is not permitted to eat Terumah.

2)

(a)We ultimately ascribe the prohibition of a Chereshes to eat even Terumah d'Rabanan - to the fear that a Cheresh Kohen might feed his wife who is a Pikachas Terumah - d'Oraisa.

(b)We reject the initial answer, which ascribes it to the fear that a Cheresh might feed his wife who is a Chereshes, Terumah - because, in light of the principle 'Katan Ochel Neveilos Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho', so what if he does?

(c)We initially prefer to ascribe it to a Cheresh feeding his wife who is a Chereshes, rather than to a Pike'ach feeding his wife who is a Chereshes - because it is closer to a Cheresh feeding a Pike'ach (one would not be likely to confuse a Cheresh feeding a Pikachas with a Pike'ach feeding a Chereshes). So we decree a Cheresh feeding a Chereshes because of a Pike'ach feeding a Chereshes, with whom people are likely to confuse a Cheresh feeding a Pikachas.

(d)The Rabanan did not issue a similar decree forbidding a grown-up Kohen to feed his wife who is a Ketanah, Terumah (on account of a Kohen Katan feeding his wife who is a Gedolah) - because, seeing as a Katan cannot marry, there is no reason to issue such a decree.

3)

(a)Chazal ...

1. ... did not institute a Kesubah for a Chereshes - because then, nobody would want to marry her.

2. ... did however, institute it for a Ketanah - because, unlike a Chereshes, she remains a Ketanah for only a limited time, after which she is destined to grow-up.

(b)We infer from the Mishnah in Kesuvos, which teaches that a Mema'enes is not entitled to a Kesubah - that a Ketanah who does not make Mi'un, is.

(c)We learn from a Beraisa that the wife of a Cheresh and a Shoteh are not entitled to a Kesubah. The same Beraisa says that if a Pike'ach writes a Kesubah even to the value of a thousand Zuz, for his wife who is a Chereshes or a Shotah, the Kesubah is valid. We can infer from this that if he did not write one, they would not be entitled to receive a Kesubah, either.

(d)We are not afraid that, if a Pikachas to a Cheresh does not receive a Kesubah, she will refrain from marrying - because of the principle 'Yoser mi'Mah she'ha'Ish Rotzeh Lisa, Ishah Rotzah Linasei' (her eagerness to get married will override all other considerations).

4)

(a)Rav Malkiyo - found a wife for that Cheresh who lived in his vicinity and wrote her a Kesubah to the value of four hundred Zuz out of his own pocket.

(b)Rava explained - that if the Cheresh would have asked for a slave to serve him, would he not have been obligated to help him (seeing as the Mitzvah of Tzedakah entails helping the poor man, as far as one is able, according to his [the poor man's] needs)?! How much more so if he needs a wife (who, as a help-mate, incorporates the dual need of a wife and a servant), thereby killing two birds with one stone!

5)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Shmuel says that one is not Chayav an Asham Taluy for committing adultery with the wife of a Cheresh - because a Cheresh, who does not have Da'as, cannot acquire at all min ha'Torah.

(b)We might have thought - that she is a Safek Eshes Ish.

(c)We try to support Shmuel from a Mishnah in Terumos, which lists all those who are not eligible to separate Terumah. Besides a ' Chashu' (Cheresh, Shoteh v'Katan) - the Terumah of someone who separates Terumah from somebody else's crops (without his permission) and of a Nochri (even with permission) is not valid.

(d)'Chashu' are not eligible to separate Terumah - because they do not have complete Da'as (as we learned in a Mishnah in Terumos).

(e)There is no proof from this Mishnah for Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Shmuel, because Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Elazar - who says that the Terumah of a Cheresh does not go out to Chulin (because it is Safek Terumah).

6)

(a)Even though Shmuel holds like Rebbi Elazar, he exempts someone who commits adultery with the wife of a Cheresh from an Asham Taluy - because he holds that, in order to bring an Asham Taluy, one requires 'Chatichah Achas mi'Shtei Chatichos' (one of two pieces).

(b)We learn 'Chatichah Achas mi'Shtei Chatichos' (with regard to an Asham Taluy) from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos (plural) Hash-m". One example of 'Chatichah Achas mi'Shtei Chatichos' is if a man, thinking that only his wife was in the house, is intimate with her, but later discovers that there was another married woman in the house, and he does not know with which woman he was intimate; another is - if someone eats one of two pieces of what he believes to be Shuman (Kasher fat), but later discovers that one of them was Chelev (non-Kasher fat), and he doesn't know which one he ate.

(c)Rebbi Elazar says that someone who eats the Chelev of a K'vi - is Chayav an Asham Taluy (even though it comprises only one piece).

(d)When we say that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Elazar - that is only as far as a Cheresh being Safek Koneh is concerned, but not regarding an Asham Taluy.

7)

(a)In the second Lashon - Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Shmuel says that someone who commits adultery with the wife of a Cheresh is Chayav an Asham Taluy (like Rebbi Elazar).

8)

(a)Rav Ashi suggests that Rebbi Elazar (who says that one is Chayav an Asham Taluy for committing adultery with the wife of a Cheresh) may hold that the mind of a Cheresh is not one hundred percent functional like that of a Pike'ach, and ...

1. ... the Safek (for which one brings an Asham Taluy) will then be - whether his non-functional mind has a certain degree of lucidity or not; whereas ...

2. ... the other possible way of explaining Rebbi Elazar is - that generally, his mind is not lucid at all; he does however, have moments of normality (during which time his Kinyan would be valid).

(b)The difference between the two reasons is - that, according to the first reason, a born Cheresh will be able to give a Get (because of the Sevara 'just as he married using hints, so too, will he be able to divorce using of hints'); whereas according to the second reason, he will not (in case at the time when he married, his mind was lucid, but at the time when he gave the Get, it was not).

(c)The outcome of Rav Ashi's She'eilah is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos v'Ibayos').

9)

(a)Rebbi Elazar maintains that min ha'Torah, a Shotah can be divorced - since she is no different than a Pikachas who can be divorced against her will (without her Da'as [as we have already explained]).

(b)Our Mishnah says that she cannot be divorced - mid'Rabanan, to avoid people from abusing her.

(c)This ruling refers to a Shotah - who is incapable of protecting either herself or her Get.

10)

(a)We query Rebbi Elazar from a Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk in ki-Setzei "v'Nasan b'Yadah v'Shilchah mi'Beiso". Tana d'Bei ...

1. ... Rebbi Yanai learns from "v'Nasan b'Yadah" - that one may not divorce a Shotah who cannot even look after her Get.

2. ... Rebbi Yishmael learns from the words "v'Shilchah mi'Beiso" - that one may not divorce a Shotah who returns even after she has been sent away.

(b)Consequently, when Rebbi Yitzchak says that min ha'Torah, a Shotah can be divorced - he is referring to a Shotah who is at least able to look after her Get (who is synonymous with one who will not return once she is sent away) even though she is unable to look after herself.

(c)The Din of a Shoteh is different than that of a Shotah - in that, even if he has limited Da'as, he cannot divorce min ha'Torah.

(d)Rav Ashi proves this distinction from our Mishnah, which says, with regard to a Chereshes, 'Nishtatis, Lo Yotzi' (mid'Rabanan) - but with regard to a Cheresh, 'Lo Yotzi Olamis' (mi'd'Oraisa).

11)

(a)We are in a quandary regarding Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's Safek in our Mishnah (as to the difference between a man and a woman who became a Cheresh and a Chereshes, respectively). He possibly maintains that a Pike'ach who became a Cheresh can obviously not divorce, and he fails to understand why a Chereshes should be different. Alternatively - it is obvious to him that a Pikachas who became a Chereshes can be divorced, and he cannot understand why a Cheresh should be different.

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the wording of the Chachamim's response 'Eino Domeh ha'Ish ha'Megaresh la'Ishah ha'Misgareshes ... ' - implying that it is the fact that a Chereshes can be divorced that is obvious to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, and they are responding why a Cheresh should be different.

(c)We counter that proof however, from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's own response to them 'Af Zu Kayotzei Bah' - which implies that it is the Cheresh that is obvious to him.

(d)We therefore conclude that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked them to account for their opinion. He maintains - that just like a man who became a Cheresh cannot divorce, so can a woman who became a Chereshes not be divorced either, and he asks the Chachamim to explain why, if a Chereshes can be divorced, why can a Cheresh not divorce? And that is precisely what they answered him.

12)

(a)Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda, who stressed the fact that we do not need the woman's Da'as at all for divorce - that even if one were to give one's wife a Get, telling her that it was really a Shtar Chov (a bill of debt), she would also be divorced.

(b)The witnesses would know that the Get was authentic - because he would have had to tell them what it really was before handing it to her.

(c)Rava needs to tell us this - because otherwise, we would have thought that, in spite of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda, the Get would be invalid, because by telling his wife that it is a Shtar Chov, he is negating the Get.

(d)We know that he did not intend to negate the Get - because, if he did, he would have told the witnesses so. The reason that he told his wife that it was a Shtar Chov was because he was embarrassed to tell her the truth.