(Mishnah): If a woman is a Sheniyah to her husband but not to the Yavam, she is forbidden to her husband and permitted to the Yavam;

If she is a Sheniyah to her Yavam but not to her husband, she is forbidden to her Yavam and permitted to her husband;

If she is a Sheniyah to both, she is forbidden to both;

[A Sheniyah] does not receive any of the following - a Kesuvah; Peros (of her property); food; Bala'os (Tosfos - compensation for depreciation of her property; Rashi - remnants of her property);

Her child is Kosher. We force her husband to divorce her.

A widow married to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah married to a regular Kohen, a Mamzeres or Nesinah married to a Yisrael, and a Bas Yisrael married to a Mamzer or Nasin - she has a Kesuvah.

(Gemara): Sheniyos mid'Rabanan - a Sheniyah to her husband and not a Sheniyah to the Yavam, she is forbidden to her husband and permitted to the Yavam;

Question: [If she did Yibum in this case], does she have a Kesuvah from the Yavam [against the property of her first husband]?

Since she is permitted to him, she should have a Kesuvah;

Or, since her Kesuvah is against her first husband (collected from his property), and she was forbidden to him, she has no Kesuvah!

Question: A Sheniyah to her Yavam but not to her husband, she is forbidden to her Yavam and permitted to her husband. Does she have a Kesuvah from the Yavam?

Since she is forbidden to him, she should have no Kesuvah;

Or, since her Kesuvah is against her first husband, and she was permitted to him, she has a Kesuvah!

(Mishnah): She does not have Peros.

(R. Yirmeyah): [Her husband] has against her only eating the Peros [of her property. He is not considered her husband regarding any other obligations. He does not have the obligation that was enacted corresponding to his rights to her Peros, i.e. to redeem her if she is captured.]

Question (R. Yosi Tzaidaniyah, in front of R. Yirmeyah, against R. Yirmeyah): [Her husband] merits her Metzi'ah, her earnings, and annulling her vows.

Question: [Our Mishnah said,] and not Peros. What does this mean?

Answer: She cannot force him to return Peros that he ate. (This is a fine.)

(R. Yosah): Constantly, R. Ilah told me 'teach that he inherits her (a Sheniyah) and [a Kohen] becomes Tamei for her.

Question: Was it taught so?! [No! Rather,] one is Metamei for his Kosher wife, and not for his Pasul wife'

Question (R. Avun, in front of R. Mana): Do slaves of Sheniyos (married to a Kohen) eat Terumah?

Answer (R. Mana): Be quiet, and this is good for you (your question shows that you think that Chachamim fined her. You erred; there is no source for this.) She eats. Do her slaves not eat?!

(Mishnah): A Get coerced through Yisrael is Kosher, and through Nochrim it is Pasul.

(Shmuel): It is Pasul, and it disqualifies to Kehunah.

Shmuel told [his Talmidim] 'announce in cities that it is Pasul, and it disqualifies to Kehunah.'

(Shmuel): We coerce [divorce] only for Pesulim (forbidden marriages).

Shmuel said that we coerce only for cases [of a Torah Isur,] e.g. a widow to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot. (This connotes that the Yerushalmi holds that the Torah forbids a Chalutzah to a Kohen. HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA (Yevamos 5:4) was unsure about this; MAR'EH HA'PANIM there and KORBAN HA'EDAH (Yevamos DH Aval) hold that even the Yerushalmi forbids only mid'Rabanan.)

Question: Our Mishnah teaches Sheniyos (we force him to divorce her)!

Answer: Shmuel did not say ' a widow... a divorcee...' for this (to exclude Sheniyos, rather, to exclude one whose marriage was initially permitted, e.g. she was married 10 years without children).

Question (Mishnah): One who forbade his wife through [affirming her] vow not to benefit from him, up to 30 days he sets up someone to finance her. More than this, he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah.

Answer: We learn [from there] that he must divorce her. Do we learn [from there] that we force him?!

Question: What is the difference between these (Sheniyos not have a Kesuvah) and these (a widow to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee...) have a Kesuvah?

Answer #1: These (the latter) are [forbidden] mid'Oraisa, and Torah laws do not need support, therefore they have a Kesuvah. These (the former) are [forbidden] mid'Rabanan, and mid'Rabanan laws need support, therefore [Chachamim fined them, and] they have no Kesuvah.

Answer #2: These (the latter women), their 'fine' is in themselves (she becomes a Chalalah) and in the child (he is a Chalal or Mamzer, so Chachamim) did not [need to] fine them another matter. These (the former) have no [Torah] 'fine' in themselves or in the child (both are Kosher), so Chachamim fined them another matter, and they have no Kesuvah.

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer: [They argue about] one who remarried his divorcee after she remarried. The one who says that these, since they are mid'Oraisa, therefore they have a Kesuvah - since [Machzir Gerushaso] is mid'Oraisa, therefore she has a Kesuvah;

According to those who say that these, their 'fine' is in themselves and in the child - this (Machzir Gerushaso), since there is no 'fine' in her or in the child, therefore she has no Kesuvah.

Opinion #1 (R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Ze'irah, and R. Heila): [Amora'im] argue about [whether or not a Kohen Gadol married to a widow must provide her] food. R. Yochanan said that she has food;

R. Lazar: [Beis Din] tells him to divorce her, and you say so?!

Opinion #2 (Rabanan of the Yeshivah): They wanted to say that they argue about stipulations of the Kesuvah (that orphaned daughters are fed from the estate). R. Yochanan said that she has Tenai Kesuvah;

R. Lazar: [Beis Din] tells him to divorce her, and you say so?!

All agree that she is not fed. If they fined her heirs, all the more so [they fined] her! (The Kal v'Chomer is according to R. Lazar. This opinion holds that they argue only about Tenai Kesuvah; R. Yochanan agrees about food.)

The one who said (Opinion #1) that they argue about food, but Tenai Kesuvah, no (all agree that she has them).

What is the reason? They fined her. They did not fine her heirs.