Question (Ri): What was the Makshan's Hava Amina? Did he think that no Tenai helps to be Mevatel any sale or Kinyan?!

Answer: He thought that one must mention the Tenai at the time that the Kinyan or sale finishes.

Question: What is the logic [that it must be possible through a Shali'ach]? We learn from there (Tenai Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven) only what is logical;

We do not learn from there that Tenai helps only for giving land!

Answer: The logic is that since the Ma'aseh is so much b'Yado (under his control) that he can fulfill it through a Shali'ach, it is logical that it is similarly b'Yado to put a Tenai into it;

However, Chalitzah, which is not b'Yado to fulfill it through a Shali'ach, it is not b'Yado to put a Tenai into it;

Even if the Tenai is not fulfilled, the Ma'aseh takes effect.

Explanation: Due to this reasoning, all agree that we require that it is possible to fulfill [the Ma'aseh] through a Shali'ach, like the case of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven;.

However, regarding Tenai Kaful (to stipulate what will be if the Tenai is fulfilled, and if it is not fulfilled), and that the Tenai and Ma'aseh must involve two [different] matters, in Gitin (75a) it connotes that only R. Meir requires these, but Rabanan do not;

Regarding this, it is not so logical to learn from there. Therefore, [Rabanan] argue with [R. Meir].

Observation: Here it connotes that all agree that there is no Tenai in Chalitzah, and similarly in Yevamos (106a).

Question: In Yevamos (53a), Ravina concludes that all agree that there can be a Tenai in Chalitzah!

This is astounding, that Ravina argues with the entire Gemara, in which it is obvious to us that there is no Tenai in Chalitzah!

Answer (R. Tam and R. Yitzchak): Ravina's conclusion there, that all agree that there can be a Tenai in Chalitzah, does not mean that she is not permitted l'Shuk [to marry a stranger] through this Chalitzah [if the Tenai is not fulfilled]. Surely, all agree that she is permitted l'Shuk;

Rather, he teaches that the Tenai helps, and there is still Zikah of Yevamin, regarding that if [the Yavam] said to her "be Mekudeshes to me through Zikas Yevamin", she needs a Get mid'Rabanan;

Since the Chalitzah had a Tenai, it does not totally uproot Zikah.

Proof #1: We must distinguish like this according to Rav Ashi, who says there that all agree that a Pasul Chalitzah does not exempt;

Question: The Mishnah there (50b) explicitly teaches that it exempts! It says "if [a Yavam] gave a Get and [then] did Chalitzah, nothing takes effect after Chalitzah."

Answer: We must say that the Mishnah teaches Heter l'Shuk, and Rav Ashi discusses Zikas Yevamin, like I explained.

Proof #2: If [Ravina and Rav Ashi, who discuss the argument of Rebbi and Rabanan there (52b)] also discuss Heter l'Shuk, why did Rebbi and Rabanan argue about one who did Chalitzah to his Yavam, and then was Mekadesh her l'Shem Yavmus, whether or not she needs a Get?

They should argue about whether or not she is permitted l'Shuk, since also this depends on it (whether or not the Tenai disqualifies the Chalitzah)!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He pardoned to her a loan that she owed to him.

Consequence: According to this, we must distinguish between Kidushin through pardon of a loan, and Kidushin through pleasure of pardon of a loan. The latter makes Kidushin, like we say in Kidushin (6b).

Objection (R. Yitzchak): Perhaps we do not distinguish these!

Explanation #2: Here we can explain that we discuss when he told her "be Mekudeshes to me through money of a loan that you owe to me." Then, surely she is not Mekudeshes.

Explanation: Rav and Shmuel argue only about one who made Nisu'in, but did not have Bi'ah. [R. Elazar] argues with Abaye.

Implied question: Regarding a Ketanah who did not do Mi'un, Shmuel said that she does not need a Get from him!

Answer: There, there is no Bi'as Zenus even if he does not have Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin, for there is Kidushin mid'Rabanan.

Question: Above, Tana'im argue about whether or not he acquired if he had Bi'ah [after Kidushin] with less than Shavah Perutah!

If so, how can R. Elazar say that all agree that he needs a Get? "All agree" connotes that no one argues!

Strengthening of question: The Gemara asked like this above (73b) against Rabah!

Answer: Above, [Abaye] asked because he knew that Rabah said from his own reasoning (that Rav and Shmuel argue about a mistake involving two women, but no one requires a Get for a mistake about one woman), and not from a tradition;

However, here R. Elazar says from tradition that when he had Bi'ah, Shmuel admits. Rav and Shmuel hold like the opinion that [if they had Bi'ah,] they acquired.

Question: According to Rav, we can ask from the opinion that they did not acquire!

And even according to the opinion that they acquired, perhaps he does not hold like Rav. He holds that they acquired only if they did Bi'ah, because one does not [want to] have Bi'as Zenus!

Answer: Even the one who says that they did not acquire could hold like Rav when he was Mekadesh with a Tenai, because he pardoned his Tenai, and Kidushei Kesef takes effect;

However, here there cannot be Kidushin through pardon. "He was Mekadesh b'Ta'os" refers to a mistake of less than a Shavah Perutah. Regarding this, we do not say that he had Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin.

With this reasoning, the Gemara explains the need for the argument of Rav and Shmuel in Yevamos (110a).

Question: According to R. Elazar, who says that when he had Bi'ah, Shmuel admits, how did we challenge Shmuel above from our Mishnah [which discusses when he had Bi'ah]?

Answer: We asked because the Mishnah connotes Stam Nisu'in, without Bi'ah.

Question: In Yevamos (2b), the Mishnah says that you cannot find a case in which [the Yavam's] mother-in-law or the mother of his mother-in-law... did Mi'un [because they are adults].

Why is this? We find this when one was Mekadesh with a Tenai, and did not have Bi'ah. Even Rav admits, according to Abaye, that she does not need a Get!

Answer: She does not need even Mi'un. (Therefore, there is no case in which they did Mi'un.)

Question: We find this when one was Mekadesh with a Tenai, and hade Bi'ah, according to Shmuel in the name of R. Yishmael, who said here that she does Mi'un!

Answer #1: According to Shmuel and R. Yishmael, also the Tzarah (co-wife) is permitted even if this one, who is Ervah (to the Yavam, e.g. his mother-in-law) did not do Mi'un when he did not know the mistake. (The Mishnah forbids the Tzarah if the Ervah did not do Mi'un.)

Implied question: Why does it say "she does Mi'un and goes"? (This implies that Mi'un is needed!)

Answer #1: If she found out the mistake, she should do Mi'un. If she did not, and stayed with him, she pardoned the Tenai.

Answer #2: "Mema'enes" is not precise. Even without Mi'un, she is not his wife at all, even if she found out the mistake,

Answer #2 (Rivan, in Yevamos): R. Yishmael discusses Kidushei Ta'os, but he agrees about Kidushei Ketanah, that she may not do Mi'un [after adulthood];

The Mishnah in Yevamos discusses only Kidushei Ketanah.

Question: In Nidah (52a), it explicitly connotes that R. Yishmael discusses also Kidushei Ketanah!

It says that Rav Kahana's colleagues thought to rule like R. Yehudah, who says [that she can do Mi'un] until there is more black [hair] than white, even though she had Bi'ah [after two hairs];

Rav Kahana: (This is wrong!) A case occurred in which R. Yishmael's daughter came to do Mi'un carrying her son on her shoulder;

That day they recalled the words of R. Yishmael, and there was great crying in the Beis Midrash. They said "a matter that that Tzadik said, will his seed stumble in it?!"

Suggestion: They did not mean precisely the same matter that that Tzadik said, rather, something like what that Tzadik said.

Rejection: It concludes there that they voted and resolved that a girl may do Mi'un until she brings two hairs;

"They voted and resolved" does not apply, for R. Yishmael agrees about Kidushei Ketanah, that she cannot do Mi'un!

It was obvious that his daughter could not do Mi'un. Why did they need to vote? Even R. Yehudah, who says "until there is more black", agree that she cannot do Mi'un when her son is on her shoulder!

We say there that R. Yehudah agrees if she had Bi'ah [in adulthood]!

Answer #3: We can say that our Mishnah in Yevamos (2b) is unlike R. Yishmael.

Implied question: It says there (9a) that [the Tana of the Mishnah] does not discuss matters about which there is an argument!

Answer: This refers to the count of 15 women (Arayos. The statement "anyone who could have done Mi'un..." is unlike R. Yishmael.)

Explanation: Shmuel holds like R. Yishmael only regarding Kidushei Ta'os. Therefore, we did not challenge him from the Mishnah in Yevamos, and not from the Stam Mishnah in Nidah, which says "until when may a girl do Mi'un? Until she brings two hairs."

In Bava Basra (156a), Shmuel explicitly holds that we check for Mi'un. (If a girl brought two hairs, she may not do Mi'un.) This teaches unlike R. Yehudah, who says until there is more black.

Citation (Yevamos 100b): We find [that a woman may marry a Kohen in the lifetime of her first husband] through Kidushei Ta'os, like Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, citing R. Yishmael, "she was not grabbed..."

Suggestion: This shows that R. Yishmael discusses only Kidushei Ta'os, since the Gemara abandoned Kidushei Ketanah, which it was discussing there initially, and mentioned Kidushei Ta'os!

Rejection: R. Yishmael discusses also Kidushei Ketanah, like is proven in Nidah (52a)!

Rather, since that Sugya discusses Shmuel's teaching there, about 10 Kohanim, and one of them separated [and fathered a son], and Shmuel holds like R. Yishmael only regarding Kidushei Ta'os, like I explained, therefore it mentioned Kidushei Ta'os.

Question: According to R. Elazar, who said above that all agree that she needs a Get, even in a case of Kidushei Ta'os, [Shmuel] does not hold like R. Yishmael;

If so, we can challenge Shmuel from the Stam Mishnah there, for he cannot establish it to discuss Kidushei Ketanah, and not Kidushei Ta'os, according to R. Elazar!

Above, we struggled to establish our Stam Mishnah like him.

Answer: With difficulty, we can say that he establishes it when he explicitly specified that he has Bi'ah not l'Shem Kidushin.

Suggestion: It depends on the words [with which he stipulated]. He was Mekadesh Al Menas that she has no Mumim, and she had blemishes!

Rejection: If so, when he went to the doctor, and [the doctor] cured him, why do we say below that she is Mekudeshes?!

Explanation: Rather, it depends on Hakpadah (what one is adamant about). Even now, after she is cured, she is despised in his eyes when he remembers that she had Mumim.

Distinction: However, there is no Hakpadah about vows, since they are uprooted retroactively.

Inference: If a Chacham did not uproot them [retroactively], rather, [they are permitted] from now and onwards, also [here] there is Hakpadah due to [liability for] punishment from the time of the vow until it was permitted.

Limitation: This is only if she went to the Chacham and he permitted it before her husband found out. After he found out, Heter does not help;

Source: Our Mishnah says "if she was found to have vows, she is not Mekudeshes." It does not distinguish between vows that can be permitted, and those that cannot.

Explanation: This is because he is Mekadesh her on this condition, that if he will not want to be Mevatel the Kidushin due to the vows, the Kidushin will be valid;

When he knew before they were permitted, immediately he wants the Kidushin to be Batel, lest there will be no Heter for them.

However, when they were permitted before he knew, he did not want [the Kidushin] to be Batel due to the vows, for now there is no Hakpadah.

Explanation (Ri): The one who explains in Gitin (46a) that the reason [Ploni cannot remarry one whom he divorced due to ill repute] is due to ruin (perhaps after she remarries, Ploni will find that the ill repute was false, and say that his Get was mistaken), does not hold that this is Mevatel the Get, and her children [from her new husband] are Mamzerim;

This is because he did not make a Tenai in the Get, since he did not stipulate and [according to R. Meir, even if he stipulated, but he] did not make a Tenai Kaful.

Proof #1: Surely there is not a Tenai. If he made a [proper] Tenai, what is the reason for the opinion that is not concerned for ruin?

Proof #2: If he made a Tenai, how does it help that Chachamim said that he may not remarry her? This is not Mevatel the Tenai!

Conclusion: Rather, surely there he did not make a full Tenai. Rather, he said to her 'I expel you due to ill repute', like we say there. There is merely [concern for] La'az (scandalous talk, that the Get was Batel and her children are Mamzerim).

Consequence: We do not need Rashi's reason, that since [this opinion] said that he cannot remarry her, we are not concerned for ruin; since he was not concerned to check, he divorces her in any case. (Rashi holds that if he could remarry her, there would be real concern for Mamzerus.)

Rather, since there is no concern for Mamzerus, also for La'az there is no concern.

Surely, if he could remarry her, it would be proper for us to be concerned lest he denounce [the Get, i.e. say that it was Batel] in order to remarry her, even if she already married;

He thinks that she may return to him, for she was Shogeg (she thought that it is a valid Get).

However, now that he cannot remarry her, why would he denounce [the Get]?

Suggestion: Since he said that he expels her due to ill repute', he was Megelah Daito (revealed his intent) that he does not want it to be a Get if [really] there is no ill repute!

This is like one who sold, and [in the end] he did not need the money (below, 97a), and the one who sold [his property] with intent to move to Eretz Yisrael [and in the end, he did not move]. Giluy Da'as suffices [to make the sale contingent on his intent]!

Rejection: You are forced to say that here we require a Tenai, since we answer there "this is like R. Meir, who requires a Tenai Kaful. The case is, he did not double the Tenai."

Question: What is the relevance of Tenai Kaful, if Giluy Da'as suffices?

Answer: Rather, surely we require a Tenai.

According to R. Meir, who requires a Tenai Kaful, there is not even La'az, since he did not stipulate and double [the Tenai].