Question: A Ma'amar (Kidushin mid'Rabanan that a Yavam gives to his Yevamah before doing Yibum) removes a girl from her father's jurisdiction, yet a Na'arah can receive it herself!

(Beraisa #1 (the text should say 'Tanya', not 'Tnan')): If a minor fell to Yibum from Kidushin, a Ma'amar requires her father's consent;

If she is a Na'arah, it requires her consent or her father's.

Answer (#1): Rather, Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina taught that R. Yochanan explains Chachamim as follows. A girl becomes Mekudeshes only willingly, therefore only the father can receive Kidushin;

She can be divorced against her will, therefore even she can receive the Get.

Question: A Ma'amar requires consent, yet she can receive it herself!

Answer (#1): Beraisa #1 is like Rebbi, who holds that a Ma'amar works against her will.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If a Yavam gave a Ma'amar to a Yevamah against her will, he acquired her;

Chachamim say, he did not acquire her.

Rebbi learns from Yibum. Just like Yibum acquires her against her will, also Ma'amar;

Chachamim learn from Kidushin. Just like Kidushin requires her consent, also Ma'amar.

Rebbi prefers to learn matters of a Yevamah from matters of a Yevamah;

Chachamim prefer to learn from Kidushin (because Ma'amar makes Kidushin).

Support (for R. Yochanan - Seifa of Beraisa #1): (One needs consent of a Na'arah or her father to give a Ma'amar.) This is not true about Kidushin.

Suggestion: The Mishnah refutes Reish Lakish!

Rejection: Perhaps Beraisa #1 is like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that two people never have jurisdiction over one person.

Question: If so, why does it say 'this is not true about Kidushin'? It should say, 'this is not true about divorce' (this is a bigger Chidush)!

Answer: Even though that is a bigger Chidush, since the Beraisa discusses Ma'amar, it mentions Kidushin, which is similar to Ma'amar.

Question: According to Rebbi Yehudah, why is Ma'amar different than Kidushin?

Answer: It is different because she is already partially acquired to the Yavam.

Answer #2 (Rashi - to Question (a); Tosfos Ri ha'Zaken - to Question (c)): A Na'arah can receive a Ma'amar herself, because she is already partially acquired to the Yavam.

(Mishnah): A father can himself be Mekadesh his Na'arah to a man, or he can do so through a Shali'ach.

Question (against Reish Lakish): The father can do this, but she or her Shali'ach cannot!

Answer: The Mishnah is like Rebbi Yehudah.

Question (Seifa of our Mishnah, 46a): If a man told a woman 'be Mekudeshes to me with this date, be Mekudeshes to me with this date... (she is Mekudeshes only if one of them is worth a Perutah).

Question: Each time, he says 'be Mekudeshes.' (If he did not, all the dates would join to a Perutah.) Like whom is this?

Answer (Rabah): It is like R. Shimon, who says that 'Shevu'ah, I do not owe to you, and not to you and not to you' is considered like one oath, unless he said 'Shevu'ah' to each person. (Presumably, the same Tana taught both Stam Mishnayos.)

Suggestion: The Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah. He holds like R. Shimon regarding Peratim (joining multiple oaths or acts of Kidushin to be like one).

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Meir): The rule is, if one swore a false Klal (encompassing) oath, he is liable only for one oath. If he swore a false Prat (detailed) oath, he is liable for each detail. (In Shevu'os, we define what is Klal and what is Prat.)

Rebbi Yehudah says, if he swore 'Shevu'ah, I do not owe you, not you, not you' - he is liable for each one;

R. Eliezer says, if he said 'I do not owe you, not you, not you, Shevu'ah', he is liable for each one;

R. Shimon says, he is liable for only one oath, unless he said 'Shevu'ah' to each person.

Answer: The Mishnah is R. Shimon. He holds like Rebbi Yehudah regarding whether a Na'arah can Mekadesh herself (to a man).

R. Asi (to R. Zeira): What happened in the Beis Medrash?

R. Zeira: Also I was absent. R. Avin said that everyone agreed with R. Yochanan. Reish Lakish was screaming 'the Torah equates divorce to Kidushin', but no one heeded him.

R. Asi (to R. Zeira): May we rely on R. Avin?

R. Zeira: Yes, he told me the moment he left the Beis Medrash.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: I did not hear that R. Avin b'Ribi Chiya or R. Avin bar Kahana said this, rather, Stam R. Avin.

Question: What difference does it make?

Answer: We must know this to ask a contradiction (if elsewhere R. Avin ruled like Reish Lakish).

Question (Rava): Can a Na'arah make a Shali'ach to receive her Get?

Is she like the hand of her father, or as his yard?

If she is like his hand, she can make a Shali'ach, just like he can;

If she is like his yard, she is not divorced until she receives the Get.

Question: Rava knew this!

(Rava): If a man put a Get in the hand of his wife's slave, she is divorced only if the slave is asleep and she is guarding him.

Question: Why isn't she divorced if the slave is awake?

Answer: The slave is like a yard that is not under her watch.

(Summation of question 2): If she is like the yard of her father, even when the Get reaches her, it should not work, for she is not under her father's watch!

Answer: Really, Rava knew that she is like her father's hand. He asked whether she is as strong as her father's hand to make a Shali'ach.

Answer (Rav Nachman): She cannot make a Shali'ach.

Question (Mishnah): If a minor said 'receive my Get for me', she is not divorced until it reaches her hand.

Inference: If a Na'arah said this, she would be divorced when the Shali'ach gets it!

Answer: The case is, she has no father (therefore, she can make a Shali'ach).

Question (Reisha) If her father told a Shali'ach to receive her Get, the husband cannot retract the Get once the Shali'ach takes it.

This shows that the Mishnah discusses a girl with a father!

Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows. If a minor said 'receive my Get for me', it does not take effect until it reaches her hand;

If a Na'arah said this, she is divorced when the Shali'ach gets it.

This is when she has no father. If she has a father, and he told a Shali'ach to receive her Get, the husband cannot retract the Get once the Shali'ach takes it.

(Shmuel): If a minor accepted Kidushin without her father's knowledge, she needs (before marrying someone else) a Get and Mi'un (a declaration that she does not desire her husband, to retroactively nullify a marriage mid'Rabanan).

Question (Karna): This is illogical!

If she needs a Get (i.e. she is Mekudeshes mid'Oraisa), there is no need for Mi'un!

If she needs Mi'un (she is not Mekudeshes), there is no need for a Get!

They sent these opinions to Rav, but switched the names (lest Rav defend Shmuel due to his love for him). Rav ruled like Shmuel (truly) said, and was shocked that (based on what he was told) Shmuel disagreed.

Question: What is Shmuel's reason?

Answer (Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika): She needs a Get, lest her father consented to the Kidushin. She needs Mi'un, lest her father did not consent to the Kidushin;

If people do not realize this, they will think that she was Mekudeshes, and if Levi (who was Mekadesh her) is Mekadesh her sister, nothing happens. We require Mi'un, so that people will see that something is amiss, and will ask Chachamim.

(Rav Nachman): Shmuel's law applies only when there were Shiduchin (Levi had already told her father that he wants to be Mekadesh her).

Version #1 (Ula): Even Mi'un is not needed.

Question: Does Ula say so even when there were Shiduchin?!

Answer: No. Ula did not comment on what Rav Nachman said.

Version #2 (Ula): If a minor became Mekudeshes without her father's knowledge, even Mi'un is not required. (Rashi - in Version #2, Ula discusses with or without Shiduchin. Tosfos - in Version #2, Ula discusses only without Shiduchin. He does not disagree with Shmuel, who discusses only with Shiduchin.) (end of Version #2)

Question (Rav Kahana - Mishnah): (Reuven died without children. One of his wives (Chanah) was Ervah (a close relative forbidden) to his brother Shimon. If before Reuven died,) Chanah died, did Mi'un, was divorced, or was found to be an Ailonis (a girl who will not develop like a normal female), Shimon may do Yibum with a different widow.

Question: In the case that Chanah did Mi'un, who was Mekadesh her to Reuven?

Suggestion: If her father did, Mi'un would not suffice. She would need a Get!

Answer: Rather, she was Mekadesh herself to Reuven, and the Mishnah obligates Mi'un!

Answer (Rav Kahana): The case is, she was like an orphan in her father's lifetime. (Previously, she was divorced or widowed from Nisu'in, after which she never returns to her father's jurisdiction. Therefore, when her father was Mekadesh her to Reuven, Mi'un suffices.)