1)

(a)Abaye queries Rabah's principle ('Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh ... ') from a Beraisa which discusses 'ha'Marbeh b'Ma'asros' when the owner counts four measures, declaring the entire fifth one Ma'aser (instead of only half of it).

(b)He is permitted to eat the remainder of the produce ('Peirosav Mesukanim').

(c)When the Tana says 'u'Ma'asrosav Mekulkalin' he means that the Ma'aser that he separated is a mixture of Ma'aser and Chulin, and will remain forbidden until he rectifies it.

(d)We refute the Kashya from here on Rabah according to whom Ma'aser should not have taken effect at all by pointing out that Ma'aser is different, inasmuch as it is possible to declare half of each kernel Ma'aser. Consequently, when he declared the extra tenth Ma'aser, only half of each kernel actually became Ma'aser.

2)

(a)Rabah says (regarding Ma'aser Beheimah) that if the tenth and the eleventh animals entered the pen simultaneously they are both Ma'aser.

(b)Considering that one cannot declare half an animal Ma'aser Beheimah, Rabah will reconcile this with his own principle by pointing out that Ma'aser Beheimah is different inasmuch as Ma'aser takes effect even if it declared erroneously (as we shall see shortly), in which case, it can also take effect on two animals simultaneously.

(c)The Mishnah in Bechoros rules that if the owner declared the ninth animal to be the tenth, the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth all three are Hekdesh.

(d)One of the animals is Ma'aser, and the other two Shelamim.

(e)Number eleven is brought directly as Shelamim, whereas the other two animals are sent into the field to graze until they become blemished. Then the owner brings a Chulin animal on to which he transfers the Kedushah of the Shelamim (whichever one it is), and eats both animals as if they were Ma'asar Beheimah.

3)

(a)In the previous case, had he declared the eleventh animal to be the tenth after declaring the tenth to be the tenth it would have remained Chulin.

(b)According to Chizkiyah, if someone slaughters his Korban Todah on eighty Chalos (instead of forty), forty of them are Kadosh. According to Rebbi Yochanan none of them are Kadosh.

(c)Bearing in mind that the Kedushah does not take effect on Chalos Todah which were declared Hekdesh erroneously, nor will it take effect on a second set of forty Chalos, the problem that this creates for Rabah is how can he rule against Chizkiyah ...

(d)... who was the Rebbi of Rebbi Yochanan.

4)

(a)We answer this Kashya by referring to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's interpretation of the Machlokes (between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan). According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, if the owner said ...

1. ... 'Yikadshu Arba'im mi'Toch Shemonim' everyone agrees that forty of the eighty loaves are Kadosh (since there is no reason why they should not be).

2. ... 'Lo Yikadshu Arba'im Ela-im-Kein Yikadshu Shemonim' none of them become Kadosh (due to Rabah's principle).

(b)And they argue in a case where he brought eighty loaves without specifying what the extra forty were for.

(c)Chizkiyah holds that forty loaves are Kadosh because he only brought the extra forty in case something happens to the first set.

(d)Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan he meant to bring a big Korban consisting of eighty loaves, in which case none of them are Kadosh, because of Rabah's principle.

5)

(a)Rava established our Mishnah ('ha'Mekadesh Ishah u'Bitah ... ') like Rabah ('Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh ... '). Rava teaches the principle 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin' (that could serve equally well as the source of our Mishnah, since neither of the sisters would be permitted to the Mekadesh [in case she was Achos Ishto).

(b)And he only quoted Rabah's principle as the source, in order to counter Rami bar Chama, who tried to establish the Pasuk "Ishah El Achosah ... " by Bas Achas', to demonstrate that this was not possible.

(c)According to Rava, 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin' Abaye says ' ... Havu Kidushin'.

(d)Rava cites as his source, bar Ahina who learns from "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Ba'alah" that 'Kidushin must be fit to result in Intimacy, otherwise the Kidushin is not valid.

6)

(a)We can infer from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Mekadesh Ishah u'Vitah ... Einan Mekudashos' that had he said that he only betroths one of the two, then the Kidushin would have been valid (a Kashya on Rava who says that Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah Lo Havu Kidushin').

(b)Rava counters by citing the Seifa (the story of the five women ... ), which concludes 'Ein Achyos Mekudashos' implying that the Nochriyos are betrothed.

(c)The Tana cannot be speaking when the Mekadesh said to the five women 'Kulchem' because that would be equivalent to 'K'ni At va'Chomor' ('You and the donkey should acquire), which is not valid.

(d)The case of 'K'ni At va'Chamor' is where someone gives gifts simultaneously both to a child who is born and to one who is still a fetus.

7)

(a)Since the Mekadesh did not say to the women 'Kulchem' he must have said 'Achas Mikem'

(b)This supports for Rava because the Mishnah concludes 'Ein Achyos Mekudashos', a proof that 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin'.

(c)Abaye adds to the Seifa 've'Im Amar 'ha'Re'uyah l'Bi'ah Tiskadesh Li ... ', which explains why neither sister is betrothed, even though he was Mekadesh only one of them.

(d)And Rava explains 'Ishah u'Bitah O Ishah va'Achosah k'Achas' in the Reisha to mean 'Achas me'Ishah u'Bitah, Achas me'Ishah va'Achosah'.

8)

(a)Rava establishes the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer' 'ha'Mekadesh Es Bito Stam, Ein ha'Bogros bi'Chelal' implying that the Ketanos are all included (even though it cannot lead to Intimacy) by confining the case to one Bogeres and one Ketanah ...

(b)... and the reason that the Tana writes 'Bogros' and Ketanos' is because he is referring to fathers and daughters in general.

(c)The problem with this explanation is that the Mishnah is not teaching us anything new.

(d)We initially answer that the Tana is speaking when the Bogeres appointed her father a Shali'ach, and that the Chidush is that a man gives precedence to his daughter who is a Ketanah, because of the financial gains involved. We conclude however, that, even assuming that the Bogeres grants her father permission to keep the Kidushin money for himself a father would naturally tend to fulfill the Mitzvah of marrying of his small daughter, before performing a favor on behalf of an older one.

9)

(a)We now query Rava from the Mishnah in the third Perek, which discusses a man who has a number of daughters from two wives, and who declares that he betrothed his big daughter. Rebbi Meir rules there 'big daughter' might refer to any one of his daughters except for his very youngest (seeing as each one is older than those who are younger than her).

(b)Rava reconciles his opinion (regarding 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah') with Rebbi Meir by establishing the Mishnah when at the time of the Kidushin, the father had specified which daughter he meant (in which case it was a case of 'Kidushin ha'Mesurin l'Bi'ah'), only he later forgot which one he had specified.

(c)He proves his explanation from the Lashon 've'Eini Yode'a ... ', which, unlike 've'Eino Yadu'a, implies that he knew before but has currently forgotten.

(d)Rebbi Meir's Chidush is to preclude Rebbi Yosi, in whose opinion we take for granted that he meant his oldest daughter, because a person tends to be specific, in order to avoid the sort of doubts that Rebbi Meir has to contend with.

10)

(a)We now query Rava from the Mishnah in Yevamos which discusses the case of 'Mi she'Kidesh Achas mi'Shtei Achyos v'Eini Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh' where the Tana rules 'Nosen Get la'Zeh v'Get la'Zeh'.

(b)We have the same problem with Rava from this Mishnah, we give the same answer ('ke'she'Hukru ... ') and we even bring the same proof (from the Lashon 've'Eini Yode'a'). The Tana's Chidush however, lies in the Seifa, where he rules that if the Mekadesh dies leaving ...

1. ... one brother that brother must perform Chalitzah with each sister.

2. ... two brothers then one of them performs Chalitzah with one of the sisters, after which the second one may perform Yibum with the other sister.

(c)The Seifa comes to teach us that the second brother may perform Yibum only after the first one has performed Chalitzah (to remove the Isur of Achos Zekukaso regarding his brother), and not vice-versa.

(d)Even if they both perform Yibum however they are not obligated to divorce their wives (since, due to the fact that each brother married one of the sisters, the Isur of Achos Yevimto no longer exists, and neither of them is subject to any Isur).

11)

(a)In the same Mishnah in Yevamos, where the Tana discusses 'Shenayim she'Kidshu Shtei Achayos, Zeh Eino Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh, v'Zeh Eino Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh', he concludes 'Zeh Nosen Shnei Gitin, v'Zeh Nosen Shnei Gitin'.

(b)The Tana rules in the Seifa that if both men die, assuming that ...

1. ... each man has one brother Zeh Choletz li'Sheteihen, v'Zeh Choletz li'Sheteihen'.

2. ... one of them had one brother, and the other one, two the first brother performs Chalitzah with both women, whereas one of the other pair performs Chalitzah, whilst the other one may perform Yibum.

(c)According to Rava, the Tana is coming to teach us in the Seifa that even after the first Yavam has performed Chalitzah, the second brother is permitted to perform Yibum, only after his brother has performed Chalitzah, because otherwise, he may transgress the Isur of Yevamah l'Shuk (whereas in the Reisha, the Tana was concerned with the Isur of Achos Zekukaso).