Explanation: An ignorant scribe will write a Get like this.

Inference: This shows that it is a total mistake, what is written in directions for a Get Mi'un "I do not desire him." Rather, we write it like it says here.

Implied question: Above, a Beraisa says "she made Nisu'in"!

Answer: The same applies if she became Mekudeshes. [The Tana] was not concerned to be meticulous, for he does not know a difference between Kidushin and Nisu'in.

Explanation: He rules like him totally, both regarding Kidushin and Nisu'in;

Inference: Rabanan argue with him even regarding Nisu'in.

Explanation: This includes a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen. She may not eat Terumah. A Bas Kohen to a Yisrael may eat. R. Yehoshua holds oppositely.

Explanation: This is Mi'un.

Question: If so, we can settle the question above, whether the Halachah follows R. Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding Nisu'in!

Here it connotes that when she does not want to marry because they are not proper for her, this is Mi'un, and all the more so if she married him!

The Mishnah of R. Eliezer ben Yakov is small but clean (the Halachah always follows him)!

Answer: Here, he does not discuss Mi'un. Rather, he discusses a Ketanah who was married without her consent;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that if she said [that she does not want to marry others] because they are not proper for her, this [shows that the marriage was] without her consent;

If she said "due to my husband Ploni", this [shows that the marriage] was with her consent, and she needs Mi'un.

According to this, this is not related to the above [question].

Implied question: We could have asked from the Seifa itself!

Why do we say that anyone she left through a Get, she is forbidden [to return to him]? Why don't we say that her Mi'un uproots the latter's Kidushin?

She should be like one who was Mezanah after she was divorced. She may return to him, like the Mishnah in Sotah (18b) says!

Answer: He preferred to ask from the Reisha against the Seifa.

Implied question: Why didn't he say that even if there is no Get, he may not remarry her, lest he go and entice her [to leave her new husband]?

Answer: Since there is no concern for anything, we do not decree. (I.e. we decree only when mid'Rabanan he is Machazir Gerushaso - Maharshal, Maharam, and so says Tosfos ha'Rosh.)

Explanation: Rava concludes like this (that R. Elazar said that different Tana'im taught the clauses, and Ula resolved them).

Question: When we asked the question above, Rav Yehudah answered [that different Tana'im taught the clauses]!

Answer: Rava knew that this was the question (really, the contradiction was that sometimes one's Mi'un is Mevatel another's Get, and sometimes it is not), and it was said in the name of R. Elazar [and not in the name of Rav Yehudah].

Support: We find like this in Shabbos (44a). Rav Huna said that a bed designated for coins...

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenged this... Rather, the following was taught. Rav Yehudah said...

He did not say so in the name of Rav Huna, for he knew the truth, that really, Rav Yehudah taught it.

Question: According to R. Elazar, why do we need to teach that she did Mi'un to another and was divorced twice?

Answer: This teaches that even though she was divorced twice, we are not concerned that she looks like an adult.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [You permitted] the Isur Kares of Eshes Ish. Mi'un uproots the Kidushin.

Question (Rivan): The Isur of Eshes Ish is unlike Machazir Gerushaso!

Mi'un uproots the Kidushin. She says "I do not want the Kidushin that my mother and brother were Mekadesh me." A Get does not uproot!

Answer: This is not difficult. For this reason, that Mi'un uproots the Isur Eshes Ish, she was like a Zonah with him (the latter husband), and she may return to him (her first husband, even though it is) after he divorced her, like the Mishnah in Sotah (18b) says!

Explanation #2 (Rivan): [You permitted] an Isur Kares. [Through Mi'un,] she is permitted to his relatives, and he is permitted to her relatives, even for one whom she left through a Get, i.e. Eshes Achiv and Achos Ishto.

Rebuttal: If so, this is difficult for the opinion below that just like she is forbidden to him, she is forbidden to his brother. This shows that we did not permit Kares!

Explanation: Only here we ask regarding an Isur Sheniyah mid'Rabanan;

However, regarding an Isur Ervah mid'Oraisa, the Mishnah (2b) says that anyone who could have done Mi'un, but did not, her Tzarah does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.