1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a female convert, a freed captive and slave-girl who are all under three - whose Kesuvah is two hundred Zuz, and who are subject to Ta'anas Besulim.

2)

(a)Rav Huna permits the conversion of a Nochri Katan 'al Da'as Beis-Din' - if his father is no longer alive and it is his mother who wants him converted.

(b)Rav Huna's Chidush is based on the principle 'Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav' - because, since a Katan does not have Da'as, whatever concerns him is considered 'she'Lo b'Fanav'.

(c)We need Rav Huna to teach us this, in spite of the Mishnah in Eruvin which teaches us the same principle - because of another principle, 'Eved b'Hefkeira Nicha Lei' (an Eved wants to be free to enjoy himself, and this will extend to a grown-up Nochri), in which case, in the case of a grown-up, a forced conversion is considered a Chov (a liability, and not a Zechus).

(d)Rav Huna's Chidush is - that a Nochri Katan is different, because, not having tasted the fruits of 'Hefkerus', it is a Zechus.

(e)There is no proof for Rav Huna from our Mishnah, which considers the conversion of a female convert under three to be a legal conversion - because our Mishnah could be speaking in a case when it is her father who is bringing her for conversion (in which case it is certainly considered a Zechus, because a child generally follows the lead of his father).

3)

(a)Rav Yosef says that a Ger Katan who is converted against his will - can recant when he becomes a Gadol.

(b)In spite of Rav Yosef's ruling, our Mishnah grants a girl who converted under three to a Kesuvah of two hundred Zuz. We are not afraid that she will recant ...

1. ... when she grows-up, and will then go on to spend her Kesubah as a Nochris - because she only receives it after she becomes a Gedolah without having recanted.

2. ... even after she grows-up - because if she does not recant immediately, she cannot do so later.

(c)Rava asks the same Kashya on Rav Yosef from the Mishnah in 'Eilu Na'aros', which grants a convert (as well as a freed captive and a slave-girl) of under three who is later raped, a fine of fifty Shekalim. And we give the same answer as we gave to Abaye.

1. Abaye did not ask from the Mishnah in 'Eilu Na'aros' - because the reason for the fine there is in order that the sinner (the rapist) should not benefit from his sin (in which case, what difference will it make whether she uses the money as a Jewess or as a Nochris.

2. Rava did not ask from our Mishnah - because the reason by Kesubah is in order to make it more difficult for the husband to divorce her. Consequently, as long as she has not recanted, she will receive her Kesubah, irrespective of the fact that she might later do so.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'ha'Gadol she'Ba al ha'Ketanah, v'ha'Katan she'Ba al ha'Gedolah ... Kesubasan Masayim'. When the Tana of our Mishnah says ...

1. ... 'ha'Gadol she'Ba al ha'Ketanah' - he is referring to a Gadol (over nine) who had relations with a girl under three.

2. ... 've'ha'Katan she'Ba al ha'Gedolah' - a boy under nine who had relations with a girl over three.

(b)Rebbi Meir includes a Mukas Etz in this list. According to the Chachamim - a Mukas Etz is entitled to a Kesubah of only one Manah (a hundred Zuz).

(c)The Kesubah of a Gerushah or a Chalutzah min ha'Nisu'in is only a Manah - and so is that of a Besulah min ha'Nisu'in, a woman who entered the Chupah but whose husband died, leaving her with a Chazakah that the marriage was not consummated.

(d)The other ramifications of a woman whose Kesubah is only one Manah are - that the second husband does not have a Ta'anis Besulim.

5)

(a)A female convert, and a freed captive or slave-girl who were all above the age of three, have in common - the fact that their Kesubah is a Manah and that the subsequent husband does not have a Ta'anas Besulim.

6)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, if a Gedolah is intimate with a Katan, she has the Din of a Mukas Etz. The two ramifications of this ruling are - that, according to the Rabanan, her Kesubah will only be a Manah, and that she will be forbidden to a Kohen Gadol.

(b)When Rav Yehudah subsequently told Shmuel what Rav had said - he retorted that a woman cannot become a Mukas Etz through flesh (only through a hard object, such as a stick).

(c)According to others - Rav and Shmuel argue over this point directly.

(d)Rav Oshaya points out that our Mishnah, where the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir regarding a Mukas Etz, but not regarding a Katan who had relations with a Gedolah, appears to substantiate Shmuel's opinion. Rava establishes the Mishnah even like Rav - by amending it to read: 'Gadol ha'Ba al ha'Ketanah v'Lo Klum; d'Pachos mi'Kan, k'Nosen Etzba b'Ayin Dami; v'Katan ha'Ba al ha'Gedolah, As'ah Mukas Etz; u'Mukas Etz Gufah, Plugta d'Rebbi Meir v'Rabanan'.

7)

(a)According to Rami bar Chama, Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan agree that if a man does not know that his wife is a Mukas Etz, she receives nothing - because it is considered a 'Mekach Ta'us' (a false sale).

(b)And they argue specifically when he knows that she is. The basis of their argument is whether she receives the Kesuvah of a Bogeres - (two hundred Zuz) or of a Be'ulah.

(c)

1. Rebbi Meir compares her to a Bogeres (rather than to a Be'ulah) - because, like a Bogeres, she was not touched by a man.

2. The Chachamim, on the other hand, compare her to a Be'ulah (rather than to a Bogeres) - because, like a Be'ulah, something was done to her (unlike a Bogeres, where it was not).

8)

(a)In the Mishnah later in the Perek, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer declare that we believe the woman who says that her Besulim were broken, not through relations with a man - but by a piece of wood.

(b)Rav Nachman proves Rami bar Chama wrong from there - because, if she were to receive nothing (as Rami bar Chama maintains), what would be the difference between her testimony and his?!

(c)Rava therefore establishes the Machlokes in both cases (whether he knew that she was a Mukas Etz or not). According to Rebbi Meir, she always receives two hundred Zuz. According to the Chachamim - she receives a Manah if he knew about her, but nothing, if he did not.

(d)Consequently, the author of the Mishnah later in the Perek (which quotes Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer) - is Rebbi Meir.

9)

(a)We amend the Beraisa (which states that if a man claims that a woman was not a Besulah and there are witnesses that she committed adultery after the betrothal, she is entitled to a Kesuvah of a hundred Zuz) to read - that if there are witnesses that she committed adultery after the betrothal, she is Chayav Sekilah; before the betrothal, she receives a Kesuvah of only a Manah.

(b)The Beraisa cannot be taken literally - because if there are witnesses that she committed adultery after their betrothal, it is obvious that, seeing as she is Chayav Sekilah, she is not entitled to receive a Kesubah at all!

(c)Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Sheshes extrapolates from there - that if a man marries a woman on the understanding that she is a Besulah and she turns out to be a Be'ulah, she receives the Kesubah of a Be'ulah.

10)

(a)Rav Nachman queries that from a Mishnah later, which discusses a man who claims that the woman he just married is not a Besulah. She claims - that she was raped after the betrothal and that ...

(b)... it was his bad Mazal 've'Nistapchah Sadehu'.

(c)He counter-claims that it happened before the betrothal, in which case it is a Mekach Ta'us and she is due to receive nothing.

(d)Rav Chiya bar Avin was surprised at Rav Nachman's Kashya - seeing as Rav Kahana and all the Gedolei ha'Dor heard Rav Sheshes say that 'Mekach Ta'us' means from Two hundred, but that she does receive one hundred and they did not object. Consequently, that is also what the Mishnah means to say.

11)

(a)Rava justifies Rav Nachman's query however on the grounds that - 'Mekach Ta'us' implies that she receives nothing.

(b)He therefore amends the earlier Beraisa - by adding a phrase to the Mishnah. According to the amended wording - it is a Mekach Ta'us when she is found to have had relations with a man prior to their betrothal, but she will receive a hundred Zuz, if she is found to have been a Mukas Etz prior to the betrothal.

(c)Bearing in mind Rava's earlier ruling, where he said that according to the Rabanan, if the man did not know that she was a Mukas Etz, she receives nothing - we are forced to say that he retracted from that opinion.