Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan challenge Reish Lakish from what we bring below, that in R. Eliezer's region they used to cut [trees...]?

Answer: He (R. Yochanan) was not so meticulous about Reish Lakish's words, for in any case Megilah was difficult for him, like he himself asked.

Question: We find that they did [like their teachings], and R. Tarfon leaned to say Shema, like Beis Shamai (Berachos 10b), and Hillel brought his Olah to the Azarah [on Yom Tov], and Talmidei Beis Shamai gathered [to stop him - Beitzah 20a]!

Also, a Beraisa (Chulin 44a) says that one who wants to die like Beis Shamai may do so. We establish this to be before the Bas Kol!

Answer: Even without these, it is clear from our Sugya that they did [like their teachings].

Question: Why is the Bas Kol of R. Eliezer (Bava Metzi'a 59b; it said that the Halachah follows him everywhere) different, and we do not follow it? Rather, we always say that he is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai), and the Halachah does not follow him;

Regarding the Bas Kol of Beis Hillel (it said that the Halachah follows them) different, the Halachah follows Beis Hillel!

Answer #1: The Bas Kol of R. Eliezer came out only for his honor. He said 'Shamayim should prove [that the Halachah follows me]", like it says there;

Answer #2: That Bas Kol was against the majority. Rabanan were the majority. Surely the Halachah is not [like that Bas Kol];

We hold like the Bas Kol of Beis Hillel, for they were the majority, just Beis Shamai were sharper.

Question: Perhaps also R. Yehoshua said that we do not heed a Bas Kol only there, like I explained, but in general [we heed it. Why do we say that he holds in general that we do not heed a Bas Kol?]

Answer: Since R. Yehoshua said the words "it (Torah) is not in Shamayim", this shows that he holds that everywhere, we do not heed a Bas Kol.

Question: What did he answer regarding Megilah? In one city they would read for residents on the 14th, and for villages they read early on the day of gathering (the previous Monday or Thursday)!

Answer (R. Chaim): Villagers used to read in their villages. This is clear from the Yerushalmi (Megilah Perek 1, start of Halachah 3);

Therefore, it was like two Batei Dinin in two cities. Lo Sisgodedu does not apply in such a case, even according to Abaye.

Implied question: If so, why do they call it the day of gathering?

Answer: They used to gather in their city and go to the Beis ha'Keneses on Monday and Thursday to read the Torah.

Support: The Yerushalmi says that a city resident cannot be Motzi a walled-city resident, for one who is not obligated in a matter cannot be Motzi others.

Note: The Bach and Maharam change the text from Krach (walled city) to Kefar (village). However, Rashash says that the text in the Yerushalayim is Krach [but we may learn that the same applies to a Ben Kefar from the general rule, that one who is not obligated in a matter cannot be Motzi others].

Since villagers were expert to read, surely they used to read in their city.

Explanation: They intentionally brought themselves to a situation in which they would need [to cut trees to make coals to make a knife], for dearness of the Mitzvah [to toil more in order to fulfill it].

Question: There is, it is [permitted to be stringent] because the onlooker says that he need not move it! (It is not a problem of factions, like we said about not doing work.)

Answer: Even if it fell on his garment, he would not move it. (It was clear that he held that it is forbidden.)

Implied question: In Shabbos (156b), R. Yochanan rules like R. Shimon [who permits] Muktzah Machmas Isur!

Answer #1: Here we discuss a lamp that they lit (before) that Shabbos, like Rashi explained. It is more stringent, for he overtly caused it to be forbidden.

Suggested Answer #2: Here we discuss Muktzeh Machmas Mi'us (it disgusts him).

Rejection #1: Muktzeh Machmas Isur is more stringent according to R. Tam (Shabbos 19b) regarding bundles of coins. (All the more so, R. Yochanan should permit Muktzeh Machmas Mi'us!)

Rejection #2: Regarding Muktzah Machmas Isur, R. Yochanan (Shabbos 45b) says that the Halachah follows R. Shimon regarding a lamp.

Question: Why didn't they refrain due to the Tzarah herself, like we say below in our Sugya?

Answer: The Tzarah herself is less common than Bnei Tzaros, for one woman can give birth to many children.

Observation: According to this text, it is proven from here only according to the opinion that they informed each other.

R. Chananel's text: The text says oppositely. Granted, Beis Hillel did not refrain from Beis Shamai, for what Beis Shamai consider Tamei is Tahor according to Beis Hillel.

Support #1: This text is better, for in every place Beis Shamai are stringent about Tum'ah;

When we list in Eduyos (Perek 5) the leniencies of Beis Shamai and stringencies of Beis Hillel, we list only two matters of Tum'ah and Taharah.

In all other matters of Tum'ah and Taharah, e.g. a spine and skull, and Yehu's rock [through which water entered a Mikveh], Beis Shamai are stringent.

Support #2: According to this text, it is proven that they informed each other [even if Beis Shamai did not do like their teachings].

Suggestion: Beis Shamai did not refrain from [borrowing Kelim from Beis Hillel] because Beis Shamai did not do like their teachings. They did like Beis Hillel in every way, even to be lenient, like it is clear from below.

Support: The reason they did not do like their teachings is due to factions. Regarding Tum'ah and Taharah, Beis Shamai are stringent. They should have refrained from doing Taharos relying on Kelim of Beis Hillel, for there is no problem of factions;

One who sees [that they do not borrow] thinks that they do not need the others' Kelim!

This is like we say about the rock of Beis Yehu. One who sees [them widen the opening] says that [they did so because] they needed more water.

Conclusion: Rather, surely you must say that they informed each other, even according to the opinion that they did not do like their teachings.

Implied question: We say that granted, Beis Hillel did not refrain from [borrowing Kelim from] Beis Shamai because Tum'os of Beis Shamai are Tahor according to Beis Hillel. In two matters, Beis Shamai are lenient!

Answer #1: Those two matters are not common [so they were not concerned for them].

Answer #2: We said "granted" due to the opinion that they did not do like their teachings. (I.e. we want to prove that this opinion must agree that they informed each other. Granted, we cannot prove this from Beis Hillel's reliance on Beis Shamai. However, we can prove this from Beis Shamai's reliance on Beis Hillel!)

Question: Why don't we consider that it comes to teach unlike R. Akiva?

Suggestion: If this R. Elazar were an Amora, this would be fine. It was obvious to him that the Halachah does not follow R. Akiva.

Rejection: However, it is R. Elazar ben Shamu'a, who was a Tana. This is clear from Kidushin 75b.

Answer: One might have thought that no Tana holds that there is a Mamzer from a Yevamah l'Shuk, rather, only from Chayavei Lavin of She'er (relatives);

Citation (Below 49a - Mishnah): What is a Mamzer? It is [a child born from] any She'er Basar forbidden with a Lav.

Implied question (Mishnah - 92a): If Leah's husband and son went overseas, and they told her that her husband died and afterwards her son died, and she married, and later they told her that her husband died after her son [so she was Zakuk l'Yibum], she leaves [her new husband] and the child [from him] is a Mamzer.

Inference: A Mamzer results from a Yevamah l'Shuk!

Answer: We are thinking that this is a mere fine [mid'Rabanan].

Question: A Beraisa in the Gemara says "this is the opinion of R. Akiva, who says that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Lavin"!

Answer: [The Makshan who asked "this is obvious"] never heard that Beraisa.

Alternate explanation (Rashi): This is a Shechiv Mera who wrote a Get to his wife. Even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not [explicitly] argue about it there, they argue about one who divorced his wife and lodged with her overnight in an inn.

Rejection: Here we explicitly list [Safek Eshes Ish, and also] one who divorced his wife and lodged with her in an inn!

Question: According to the opinion (Gitin 79b) that if he divorced her with a Get Yashan, she may marry l'Chatchilah, why should they have refrained?

The Gemara connotes that they did not refrain because they did not do like their teachings, or because they informed each other, and separated [from such cases].

Question: Perhaps they refrained due to Mema'enes, and Shavah Kesef and Kesef!

If Leah accepted a Perutah from David for Kidushin, and later accepted a Dinar from Moshe, [Beis Shamai hold that] she is Mekudeshes to Moshe, and her children from David are Mamzerim!

Answer (Ri): This Beraisa was taught primarily regarding Tzaros. (This is why it is taught regarding our Mishnah.)

It connotes that they refrained only due to Tzaros.

Explanation: This does not refer to the answer (they refrained from marrying the Tzarah herself);

Rather, after finishing the [answer to] the question (if Beis Shamai did not follow their own teachings, why did they refrain?), we explain the Beraisa. (R. Shimon said that they refrained from Vadai, but not from Safek.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even though Bnei Chayavei Lavin are Kosher to Kahal (to marry Yisraelim), they are Chalalim regarding Kehunah. We learn this from a Kal va'Chomer from a widow [to a Kohen Gadol] below;

He argues with R. Yehoshua, and does not challenge [the Kal va'Chomer] "you cannot learn from a widow, for she herself is profaned."

Explanation #2: He challenges it. Even so, the child is Pagum (tainted), since regarding Machazir Gerushaso we need "she is To'evah", but her children are not To'evah (Kidushin 77a);

Question: Why do we need the verse? We could not have learned from the Kal va'Chomer, due to the challenge that she herself is profaned!

Answer: Rather, it comes to distinguish that in a similar case, i.e. Yevamah l'Shuk, the children are To'evah.

Question: In Nidah (70a), R. Yehoshua concludes that the child of Machazir Gerushaso is Kosher, for "she is To'evah, but her children are not To'evah." Why do we need the verse?

Suggestion: It comes to teach that children of a Yevamah l'Shuk are different.

Rejection: Below, R. Yehoshua says "I testify that the children of Tzaros are Kosher to Kehunah, due to the challenge that she herself is profaned!