(Mishnah): If Reuven divorced his wife due to her ill repute, he may not [ever] remarry her; if it was due to a vow, he may not remarry her;

R. Yehudah says, if many knew about the vow, he may not remarry her. If not many knew about it, he may;

R. Meir says, if the vow required Chakiras Chacham (a Chacham must investigate to find a way to permit it), he may not remarry her. If it did not require Chakiras Chacham (he himself could have annulled it), he may remarry her;

R. Elazar says, we forbade [remarrying in] this [case, i.e. a vow that does not need Chakiras Chacham] only due to this (a vow that needs Chakiras Chacham)!

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, a case occurred in Tzidon in which one told his wife 'Konam (he forbade something to himself) if I will not divorce you', and he divorced her. And Chachamim permitted him to remarry her, for Tikun ha'Olam. (I.e. because he vowed, there was no need to forbid remarrying her due to Tikun ha'Olam.)

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Why did Chachamim say that one who divorced due to ill repute, he may not remarry her?

Answer: If one divorced due to ill repute, and she remarried someone else, and bore children from him, and afterwards it turns out that the ill repute was false, [her first husband] says 'had I known that it is false, [even] had someone offered me 100 Maneh (a fortune) for [me to divorce] my wife, I would not have divorced her!' It turns out that the Get was Batel, and her children are Mamzerim;

Due to [the enactment,] that he knows that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to return to him, he gives her an absolute (unconditional) Get from the beginning.

(Beraisa) Question: Why did Chachamim say that one who divorced due to a vow, he may not remarry her?

Answer: If one divorced due to a vow, and she remarried someone else, and bore a child from him, and afterwards it turns out that the vow was Batel (a Chacham permitted it, her first husband) says 'had I known that the vow is Batel, [even] had someone offered me 100 Maneh for my wife, I would not have divorced her!' It turns out that the Get was Batel, and her child is a Mamzer;

Due to [the enactment,] that he knows that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to return to him, he gives her an absolute (unconditional) Get from the beginning.

(R. Ze'ira): [R. Meir is not concerned for a vow that did not require a Chacham, for] you know that he wanted to divorce her [even without the vow], for the vow did not require Chakiras Chacham! (Had he wanted to stay married, he would have annulled her vow.)

(R. Ze'ira): [R. Yehudah is not concerned for a vow that not many knew about it, for] you know that he wanted to divorce her [even without the vow], for not many knew about it (it was not Al Da'as Rabim; had he wanted to stay married, he would have annulled it. We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

(Mishnah - R. Elazar): We forbade this [a vow that does not need Chakiras Chacham] only due to this (a vow that needs Chakiras Chacham)!

According to letter of the law, even a vow that needs Chakiras Chacham, he returns her, for a Chacham uproots the vow from the beginning (it is as if she never vowed, so the Get was mistaken; she is still married. Chachamim enacted that he may not return her, so he will divorce unconditionally, lest she marry someone else, permit her vow, and transgress Eshes Ish and bear Mamzerim);

Why did they forbid [returning her in the case of] a vow that does not need Chakiras Chacham? (He did not divorce due to it, for he could have annulled it. There is no concern!) It is due to [confusion with] a vow that needs Chakiras Chacham. (If he may remarry her in this case, people will come to remarry even in the former case. Even though this is like a decree due to a decree, Chachamim decreed, due to the stringency of Arayos and Mamzerus.)

Note: I did not see anyone explain like this, but it seems to be a proper Perush without changing the text or introducing concerns not mentioned in our Sugya (lest women wantonly vow, or one does not want the shame of going to Beis Din to permit vows... - PF.)

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one divorced his wife because she is an Ailonis (a female who does not develop like a normal female; she cannot conceive), he may not [ever] remarry her;

Chachamim say, he may remarry her.

R. Yehudah says, if she married someone else and had children, and demands that [her ex-husband] pay her a Kesuvah, he tells her 'your silence is better than your speech!'

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Why did Chachamim say that one who divorced his wife due to Ailonis, he may not remarry her?

Answer: If one divorced his wife due to Ailonis, and she went and remarried someone else, and bore a child from him, and says 'had I known that my wife can bear children, [even] had someone offered me 100 Maneh for my wife, I would not have divorced her!' It turns out that the Get was Batel, and her child is a Mamzer;

Due to [the enactment,] that he knows that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to return to him, he gives her an absolute (unconditional) Get from the beginning.

(R. Ze'ira): You know that he wanted to divorce her [even not due to Ailonis], for many Ailoniyos marry, and because [their husbands] are pleased with them, they keep them!

Question: (R. Yehudah says, if she remarried and had children... 'your silence is better than your speech!', i.e. lest her ex-husband say that his divorce was mistaken.) R. Yehudah says that he may not return her. (Surely he divorced her unconditionally!)

Answer (R. Yochanan): [The text of the Mishnah] should not say R. Yehudah, rather, R. Meir.

Support (Beraisa - in the name of R. Meir): He tells her 'your silence is better than your speech!'

(Mishnah): If one sold himself and his children to Nochrim, we do not redeem him, but we redeem his children after he dies.

If one sold his field to Nochrim, and a Yisrael bought it back from him, the buyer brings [from it] Bikurim (the first Peros to ripen of the seven species. They are given to a Kohen in the Mikdash), for Tikun ha'Olam.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah discusses one who sold himself [to Nochrim] and repeated, but if he sold himself once, we redeem him;

If he sold himself to Ludim (cannibals) even once, we do not redeem him.

A case occurred in which one sold himself to Ludim. The case came in front of R. Avahu, and he said 'what will we do? He did so (sold himself to Ludim) for his sustenance (he could not feed himself. Therefore, we redeem him.)'