1)

(a)According to Rav, someone who betroths a woman on condition that she has no Nedarim, and then, after he marries her Stam, he discovers that she has, nevertheless requires a Get. Shmuel maintains - that she does not.

(b)Abaye contends that Rav's reason is not due to the fact that his marriage to her Stam indicates that he has foregone his original stipulation but because - to avoid the stigma of adultery, we assume that his Bi'ah was performed for the sake of Kidushin.

(c)The difference between the two reasons - is that, according to Abaye's explanation, she will not receive her Kesubah (whereas had the reason been because he forewent his original stipulation, she would have received it).

(d)Shmuel however maintains - that a person is usually intimate having in mind the original Kidushin (and not for the sake of a fresh one).

2)

(a)If a Ketanah whose mother and brothers married her off, failed to make Mi'un, and then after she grew up, she married someone else, according to Rav, she does not require a Get from the second man - because when her first husband was intimate with her after she grew-up (knowing that the Kidushin of a Ketanah is not valid) he had in mind to betroth her afresh.

(b)Shmuel says that she does - because, he maintains, his subsequent Bi'os were based on the first Kidushin, and not performed for the sake of a new Kidushin.

(c)Shmuel concedes - that she is not permitted to live with the second man (as we learned in the Mishnah in Nidah).

(d)He nevertheless requires a Get - because since no fresh Kidushin took place after she grew up, min ha'Torah, the first Kidushin is automatically Batel (and the prohibition of performing Mi'un at that stage is only mid'Rabanan).

3)

(a)Despite the fact that Rav and Shmuel already argue over this point ...

1. ... in the case of a Ketanah, they nevertheless need to repeat the Machlokes here by Tenai - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the case of a Ketanah, where no stipulation was made, that Rav holds that she is Mekudeshes, but that here, where a stipulation was made, Rav will agree with Shmuel, that he is intimate on the understanding that she fulfills it (because he doesn't want to live with a woman who makes Nedarim).

2. ... in the case of Tenai, they nevertheless need to repeat it by a Ketanah - because we would otherwise have thought that Shmuel only said that he is not Bo'el having in mind a new Kidushin in the case of Tenai, because he does not want to live with a woman who makes Nedarim, but that in the case of a Ketanah, he will agree with Rav, and she is Mekudeshes.

(b)From our Mishnah, which states 'Kansah Stam v'Nimtze'u Alehah Nedarim, Tetzei she'Lo bi'Kesubah', we can infer - that she does not need a Kesubah, but that she does need a Get.

(c)Assuming that this (the Seifa of the Mishnah) is a continuation of the Reisha (that Kansah Stam was preceded by Kidshah al Tenai), from which we see that he was intimate with the intention of making a fresh Kidushin (a Kashya on Shmuel who says that he was not).

(d)We reconcile Shmuel's explanation with our Mishnah - by establishing the Seifa as an independent case, which speaks when the Kidushin took place without any stipulation.

4)

(a)Having just concluded that, according to Shmuel, the Seifa of our Mishnah speaks specifically in a case of 'Kidshah Stam v'Kansah Stam', we can ask on the Reisha, which speaks about 'Kidshah al Tenai' and stops there - why the Tana does not rather teach us about 'Kidshah al Tenai v'Kansah Stam', which is a bigger Chidush, and besides, not mentioning Kansah Stam implies that if it would be, she would be Mekudeshes (a Kashya on Shmuel).

(b)We answer - that the Tana in fact, means to say 'Kidshah al Tenai v'Kansah Stam, Einah Mekudeshes'.

(c)We just concluded that, in the Seifa of our Mishnah, according to Shmuel, the woman requires a Get, but does not receive her Kesubah. But surely the reason that the woman does not receive a Kesubah is because the man can say 'I cannot live with a woman who makes Nedarim'! - In that case, by the same token, the Kidushin ought not to be valid either; so why does she require a Get?!

(d)According to Rabah and Rav Chisda, the Get is mid'Rabanan. According to Rava - the Tana is not sure whether a man (who did not stipulate) can take living with a woman who makes Nedarim or not (see also Ran). Consequently, regarding the Kesubah, we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah'; whereas with regard to a Get, we go l'Chumra, and a Get is required.

5)

(a)Rabah contends that Rav and Shmuel argue specifically by two women (when a man betrothed one woman conditionally, and later betrothed and married a second one). There Rav argues with Shmuel, maintaining that his intimacy with the second one is for the sake of Kidushin (because he never indicated that he is particular about Nedarim with regard to her); whereas by one woman - even Rav will agree that the man's mind is on the condition, in which case, she will not require a Get.

(b)We refute this contention however - on the basis of the Kashya that we asked on Shmuel from our Mishnah (in 3c.), despite the fact that the Mishnah is speaking about one woman. So we see that not everyone agrees that 'Kidshah al Tenai v'Kansah Stam' by one woman does not require a get.

(c)We therefore amend Rabah's statement to read - that Rav and Shmuel argue in the case of one woman like two women (meaning when he betrothed her on condition and divorced her, then betrothed her again Stam and married her Stam). That is where Rav says that the intimacy is for the sake of Kidushin (because he did not mention the condition the second time, indicating that he is no longer particular [because his fondness for the woman has now taken precedence], so that it resembles the case of two separate women). But by a regular case of 'Kidshah al Tenai v'Kansah Stam', Rav will agree with Shmuel that she is not Mekudeshes.

(d)And the case in our Mishnah from which we asked against Shmuel earlier - is the case over which they argue: 'one woman like two women'.

6)

(a)Abaye asked on Rabah from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where a man betroths a erroneously or with less than a Shaveh Perutah (or where he was a Katan)'. The Tana says that even if the man subsequently sends the woman gifts - she is not Mekudeshes, because he sent the gifts having the first Kidushin in mind (not in order to effect new Kidushin).

(b)The Tana Kama maintains that if they subsequently perform Bi'ah, he acquires her. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yishmael - he does not.

(c)So we see that Tana'im do argue over whether a man is Bo'el for the sake of Kidushin or not - even by one woman. What makes us think 'Kidshah b'Ta'us' refers to when he stipulated that the woman has no Nedarim and then discovers that she has - is the fact that the other possible case of error ('Pachos mi'Shaveh Perutah'), is mentioned specifically in the Beraisa (immediately after 'Kidshah b'Ta'us').

(d)To resolve this Kashya - Rabah explains that the case of 'Pachos mi'Shaveh Perutah' only comes to explain 'Kidshah b'Ta'us' (not to add to it).

7)

(a)Having established that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yishmael argue solely about Kidushin of less that a Shaveh Perutah, the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a person knows that such a Kidushin is ineffective (the Tana Kama [so he is Bo'el for the sake of Kidushin]), or not (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yishmael [so he is Bo'el having the first Kidushin in mind]).

(b)But in the case of 'Kidshah al Tenai v'Kansah Stam' (by one woman) - they will both agree that he insists on the condition being met, and is not Bo'el for the sake of Kidushin (like Rabah).

8)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, if a man stipulates that he is Bo'el a woman on condition that her father agrees, then even if her father does not agree, she is Mekudeshes. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon - if her father does not agree, she is not Mekudeshes.

(b)From here we see that, even though it is Ta'us Ishah Achas, not everyone agrees that he is not Bo'el her for the sake of Kidushin (due to the condition) as Rabah maintains.

(c)Rabah answers however, that they are not arguing over whether the man overlooks the Tenai and is Bo'el for the sake of Kidushin. What they are arguing over is - a case where her father was silent, whether the stipulation calls for the positive agreement of the father (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon), or whether it is sufficient if he does not protest (the Tana Kama).

9)

(a)'A Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av' is - a girl whose father married her off as a Ketanah, and who got divorced whilst she was still a Ketanah.

(b)The Tana of the Beraisa rules that in the event that they subsequently remarry and her husband then dies, she must perform Chalitzah and not Yibum - because on the one hand, her divorce was valid (seeing as her father accepted it on her behalf), but on the other, her second Kidushin was not (since a Ketanah is unable to effect a legal transaction). Consequently, she cannot perform Yibum, and has no option other than Chalitzah.

(c)But that is only if he remarried her when she was still a Ketanah and she was still a Ketanah when her husband died. If he had remarried her after she grew-up, or if she had grown-up by the time her husband died - the Tana Kama would have permitted her to perform Yibum.

10)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer forbids the woman to perform Yibum whether ...

1. ... he remarried her whilst she was still a Ketanah, even if she had grown-up by the time her husband died ...

2. ... or whether he remarried her after she had grown-up ...

(b)... because Chazal issued a decree on account of a Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av.

(c)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rabah - because here again, it seems that there is a Tana who holds that even by one woman, the man is intimate for the sake of Kidushin, despite an existing Ta'us, (presuming that there is no difference between the mistake of a Ketanah and the condition of Nedarim).

(d)Rabah refutes the Kashya - by drawing a distinction between the case of a Ketanah (whose Kidushin a man knows is not valid), and a case where there is an existing condition (where he has the condition in mind during the intimacy).