(Mishnah): If she is a Bas Yisrael, she is disqualified from Kehunah ...

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The Chidush is that a Bas Levi is disqualified from Ma'aser.

Question: Forbidden Bi'ah does not disqualify a Bas Levi from Ma'aser!

(Beraisa): If a Bas Levi was taken captive or had Bi'as Zenus, she receives Ma'aser and may eat it.

Answer (Rav Sheshes): This is a fine.

(Mishnah): A Bas Kohen is disqualified from Terumah ...

She is disqualified even from Terumah mid'Rabanan.

(Mishnah): The heirs of either man do not inherit her Kesuvah ...

Question: The Mishnah already said that she has no Kesuvah!

Answer (Rav Papa): Here it refers to Kesuvas Bnin Dichrim (that her sons should receive her dowry).

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that we fine only her, since she sinned, but not her children. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If either man dies, his brothers do Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

The first man's brothers do Chalitzah mid'Oraisa; mid'Rabanan, they may not do Yibum. The second man's brothers do Chalitzah mid'Rabanan; they do not do Yibum mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. (I.e. mid'Rabanan she is forbidden to the brothers.)

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): She receives her Kesuvah from the first husband ...

(Rav Huna): The latter Tana'im in the Mishnah agree to the laws of the earlier Tana'im, but the earlier Tana'im argue with the laws of the latter Tana'im:

R. Shimon admits to R. Eliezer's law. R. Shimon does not fine her regarding Bi'ah, the primary Isur (she may do Yibum). All the more so, he does not fine her regarding Metzi'os and earnings, which are monetary!

R. Eliezer argues with R. Shimon's law. R. Eliezer does not fine her regarding Metzi'os and earnings, which are monetary, but he fines Bi'ah, which is an Isur.

Both of them admit to R. Yosi's law. They do not fine her regarding Metzi'os and earnings, which apply when she is with her husband. All the more so they do not fine her regarding Kesuvah, which she receives when she leaves.

R. Yosi argues with their laws. He does not fine Kesuvah, which she receives when she leaves, but he fines Metzi'os and earnings, which apply when she is with him (and all the more so Yibum, which is Isur).

(R. Yochanan): The earlier Tana'im agree to the laws of the latter Tana'im, but the latter Tana'im argue with laws of the earlier Tana'im.

R. Yosi admits to R. Eliezer's law. The Kesuvah is given from him to her, and R. Yosi does not fine this. All the more so he does not fine her Metzi'os and earnings, which go from her to him!

R. Eliezer argues with R. Yosi's law. Metzi'os and earnings, which go from her to him, he fines, but not the Kesuvah, which is from him to her.

Both of them agree to R. Shimon. Kesuvah, Metzi'os and earnings, which apply during his lifetime, they do not fine, and all the more so Yibum, which is after his death!

R. Shimon argues with them. Yibum, which is after his death, he does not fine, but he fines Metzi'os and earnings and Kesuvah, which apply during his lifetime.

(Mishnah): If she remarried without permission (but rather, according to two witnesses) ...

(Rav Huna citing Rav): This is the Halachah.

Objection (Rav Nachman): Why do you speak deceptively (as if all agree to this)?! If you hold like R. Shimon, say that the Halachah follows R. Shimon!

Suggestion: He did not say so, for this would connote that the Halachah follows R. Shimon also in the Reisha (when married according to one witness, Yibum or Chalitzah by brothers of the first husband exempts the Tzarah).

Rejection: He should have said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon's second law!

This is left difficult.

Question (Rav Sheshes): Rav must have been dozing when he said this! 'This is the Halachah' implies that others argue (and forbid her to the first husband). What did she do wrong (that she should be fined)?!

Strengthening of Question (Rav Sheshes): A Beraisa proves that Chachamim agree with R. Shimon!

(Beraisa #1): All Arayos (who married) do not require a Get, except for an Eshes Ish was married according to Beis Din (i.e. based on one witness).

Inference: If she married according to two witnesses, no Get is needed.

Answer #1: The Beraisa is like R. Shimon.

Rejection: R. Shimon does not require a Get when she married according to Beis Din!

(Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon): Beis Din considers (one who remarried b'Isur due to) their ruling like a man and a (married) woman who had Bi'ah with intent (i.e. Mezid. She is forbidden to her husband);

If she remarried based on witnesses (and her husband returned), this is like a man and a (married) woman who had Bi'ah without intent (b'Shogeg. She is permitted to her husband.)

A Get is not required in either case.

Beraisa #1 must be Chachamim!

Answer #2: Really, Chachamim argue with R. Shimon. Beraisa #1 is R. Shimon. We must explain Beraisa #2 differently:

Explanation #1 (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Beis Din made their ruling like a man who had Bi'ah with a (single) woman with intent (for Kidushin). She needs a Get (to marry someone else);

If she remarried (b'Isur) based on witnesses, this is like a man who had Bi'ah with a (single) woman without intent (for Kidushin). She does not need a Get.

Explanation #2 (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa discusses only when she is forbidden to her husband, like we explained above (h:1,2). It does not discuss the need for a Get:

Beis Din made their ruling like a man and a (married) woman who were Mezid. She is forbidden to her husband;

If she married based on witnesses, this is like a man and a (married) woman who were Shogeg. She is permitted to her husband.

Explanation #3 (Ravina): The Beraisa teaches only about when a Korban is required:

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Beis Din made (people who transgressed through) their ruling like a man and a (married) woman who had Bi'ah b'Mezid; they do not bring a Korban;

A woman who remarried (b'Isur) based on witnesses is like a man and a (married) woman who had Bi'ah b'Shogeg; they bring a Korban.

Answer #3: Really, Beraisa #1 is Chachamim, but it must be understood differently:

(Beraisa): Arayos do not require a Get, except for a married woman who remarried based on (two witnesses or) a ruling of Beis Din.

Question (Ula, against Rav Sheishes above (2:e): We do fine even when she is blameless!

(Mishnah): Any of the following invalidates a Get:

It was dated counting from the (start of) the reign of Rome, Persia, Greece, or the building or destruction of the Mikdash;

It was written in the east (of the city), but it says that it was written in the west, or vice-versa;

If a woman remarried based on such a Get, she may not remain married to either husband, and all the fines (of our Mishnah 87b) apply.

(Summation of question): She is fined even when she is blameless!

Answer: She is to blame. She should have read the Get [in front of a Chacham, who would have told her that it is Pasul]!

Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi - Mishnah): If Leah did Yibum and then her Tzarah Sarah married (a stranger), and then we learned that Leah is an Ailonis (so Sarah was forbidden to marry), Sarah must leave her husband (or Yavam, if she later did Yibum), and all the fines apply.

Sarah is fined even though she is blameless!

Rejection: No, she is to blame. She should have waited (to see if Leah is an Ailonis).

Question (Abaye - Mishnah): If Leah was Ervah to the Yavam and her Tzarah Sarah married (a stranger), and then we learned that Leah is an Ailonis (so Sarah was forbidden to marry), she must leave her husband (or Yavam), and all the fines apply.

She is fined even though she is blameless!

Rejection: No, she is to blame. She should have waited!

Question (Rava - Mishnah): A scribe wrote a Get for a man, and a receipt (for payment of the Kesuvah) for his wife. By mistake, he gave to her the Get and gave to him the receipt. Each gave the document he or she received to the other. The mistake was realized only after she remarried (she has the receipt and her husband has the Get). She may not remain married to either husband, and all the fines apply.

She is fined even though she is blameless!

Answer: No, she is to blame. She should have read the Get!

(Rav Ashi - Mishnah): If any of the following was changed on a Get, it is invalid: his or her name, or the name of his or her city;

If a woman remarried based on such a Get, she may not remain married to either husband, and all the fines apply.

She is fined even though she is blameless!

Rejection: No, she is to blame. She should have read the Get!

Question (Ravina - Mishnah): If he gave her a Get Kare'ach (a special type of tied Get which Chachamim enacted, but it lacks the required number of witnesses) ... she may not remain married to either husband ...

She is fined even though she is blameless!

Rejection: No, she is to blame. She should have read the Get!

Rav Papa was about to permit a woman to return to her husband, because she was blameless.

Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): All these Mishnayos show that we fine her anyway!

Answer (Rav Papa): We answered that in all of them, she was to blame!

Objection (Rav Huna): Will we rely on these answers?!

Rav Papa refrained. (He did not permit her.)

(Rav Ashi): (If a woman remarried according to Beis Din,) we are not concerned for rumors (that her husband is still alive).

Question: What sort of rumors does he discuss?

It cannot be rumors that began after Nisu'in, for he already taught this!

(Rav Ashi): We are not concerned for rumors that started after marriage.