1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that Beis Shamai actually practiced their opinion, with regard to Tzaras Ervah) concurs with Shmuel. Resh Lakish (in whose opinion they did not) - concurs with Rav.

(b)If this Machlokes occurred before the Bas Kol was heard, the reason of Resh Lakish and Rav will be - because Beis Hillel was in the majority.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel, who say that they did - maintain that although Beis Hillel were in the majority, we only follow the majority when the disputants are equal, but not here, where Beis Shamai were sharper than Beis Hillel.

(d)If, on the other hand, it occurred after the Bas Kol, we can better understand Resh Lakish and Rav. Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel's on the other hand (that Beis Shamai practiced their opinion, in spite of the Bas Kol) - base their ruling on the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that we do not follow a Bas Kol, because the Torah is no longer in heaven.

2)

(a)Rava rejects Abaye's contention that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no problem of "Lo Sisgodedu", because this is a case of two Batei Dinim in two towns - because how will we then explain Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, who were like two Batei Din in one town, in spite of which each of them followed his own opinion?!

(b)Rava therefore resolves the problem - by confining Lo Sisgodedu to one Beis-Din in one town, but two Batei-Dinim in one town are not subject to Lo Sisgodedu.

(c)In Rebbi Eliezer's town they would cut wood to produce charcoal to make a knife for performing the Bris Milah on Shabbos - because Rebbi Eliezer holds that preparations for a Mitzvah ' override Shabbos like the Mitzvah itself.

(d)In Rebbi Akiva's town this was not done, because Rebbi Akiva holds that any Melachah that can be performed before Shabbos does not override Shabbos. In spite of the fact that Rebbi Akiva lived in a different town than Rebbi Eliezer (or was at least on a different Beis-Din), and we just established that Lo Sisgodedu does not apply to two Batei Din in one town, and certainly not in two towns - we nevertheless query Rebbi Akiva from the Klal of Lo Sisgodedu, because we might have thought that, due to the Chumra of Shabbos, we would not even permit two groups in Hilchos Shabbos in two towns or in two Batei-Din in one town (see Ritva).

3)

(a)When Rebbi Avahu was in Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's territory, he moved a lamp that had burned that Shabbos, after it went out, because he sided with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who held like Rebbi Shimon, who does not generally hold of Muktzah. The reason that he did not move it in Rebbi Yochanan territory was - in deference to Rebbi Yochanan.

(b)Nor was he worried that his Shamash might not realize the difference, and move a lamp in Rebbi Yochanan's territory - because he explained the issue to him.

(c)We learn from a Beraisa that neither did Beis Shamai refrain from marrying Beis Hillel's daughters, nor vice-versa. Even assuming that Beis Shamai practiced their opinion, there was no problem with ...

1. ... Beis Shamai marrying Beis Hillel's daughters - because a Yevamah l'Shuk without Chalitzah is only a Chayavei Lavin, on whom Kidushin takes effect (b'Di'eved).

2. ... Beis Hillel marrying the daughters of Beis Shamai, considering the possibility of marrying a Mamzeres (according to the Sugya's conclusion) - because Beis Shamai would inform Beis Hillel if there was any problem, in which case they would refrain from marrying the woman concerned.

(d)Beis Shamai's daughters would be Mamzeros according to Beis Hillel - because they performed Yibum with Tzaros Ervah, who are Chayavei Kerisus according to Beis Hillel.

4)

(a)We refute the suggestion that Beis Hillel hold 'Ein Mamzer me'Chayavei Kerisus', on the basis of Rebbi Elazar - who states that even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over Tzaros, they agree that it is only the child of an Isur Ervah who is Chayav Kares who is a Mamzer.

5)

(a)We prove that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel must have informed each other, from the Seifa of the Mishnah, where they did not refrain from lending one another their household vessels. This proof is only valid from the case of Beis Hillel borrowing Beis Shamai's vessels, and not vice-versa - because regarding Tum'ah, it is Beis Hillel who are stricter than Beis Shamai. Consequently, Beis Shamai's vessels were Tamei according to Beis Hillel, whereas Beis Hillel's, were Tahor according to Beis Shamai.

(b)The proof that they informed each other is a better one from the case of borrowing each other's vessels, than the one from Tzaras Ervah - because in the latter case they would have known even without being told, since, due the fact that a Tzaras Ervah has a Kol, everyone would have known about it anyway.

6)

(a)We quoted Rebbi Elazar, who says that even though Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over Tzaras Ervah, they agree that 'Ein Mamzer Ela mi'Mi she'Isur Ervah v'Anush Kares'. He cannot be referring to ...

1. ... Beis Shamai, who concedes to Beis Hillel (according to our initial contention) - because it is obvious that Beis Shamai will not consider the child of a Tzaras Ervah l'Shuk without Chalitzah a Mamzer, since he is only the product of a Chayavei Lavin.

2. ... Beis Hillel, who concedes to Beis Shamai - because a Tzaras Ervah with whom the Yavam performed Yibum is a Chiyuv Kares, so why should the child not be a Mamzer.

(b)We conclude that he is referring to Beis Shamai, who concedes to Beis Hillel that the child of a Tzaras Ervah l'Shuk without Chalitzah is not a Mamzer - to preclude from Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the child of a Chayavei Lavin is a Mamzer.

7)

(a)The Beraisa cites various Machlokos of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai that concern the current issue under discussion: Tzaros, Achyos, Get Yashan, Safek Eishes Ish, ha'Megaresh es Ishto v'Lanah Imo b'Pundeki. The case of ...

1. ... Safek Eishes Ish (according to Rashi's first explanation) is - that of Mi'un (because should she make Mi'un, she will uproot the Kidushin retroactively, so her marriage is always a Safek): Beis Shamai maintain that only an Arusah can make Mi'un, whereas Beis Hillel maintain that a Nesu'ah can, too (see 107a. where they also argue over a number of other issues regarding Mi'un).

2. ... ha'Megaresh es Ishto v'Lanah Imo b'Pundeki - is when a man, after divorcing his wife, is seen by witnesses entering a guest-house with her to stay overnight.

(b)Beis Shamai maintain that she does not require a second Get, because the witnesses who saw them going in together, are not considered witnesses that there was a Bi'ah; whereas according to Beis Hillel, they are, in which case we assume that he has betrothed her, because a person does not perform Bi'ah immorally, if it can be done legally.

8)

(a)The final case concerns the amount that is required for Kidushin. The minimum amount according to ...

1. ... Beis Shamai - is one (silver) Dinar (the equivalent of 192 [copper] Perutos) either in money or to the value thereof.

2. ... Beis Hillel - is one Perutah.

(b)The Beraisa learns from the fact that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel would marry women from each other's camp, in spite of the Machlokes by Tzaros - that love and friendship existed between the two camps.

(c)This conforms with the Pasuk in Zecharyah - "ha'Emes v'ha'Shalom Ahavu".

9)

(a)Rebbi Shimon says 'Nimne'u min ha'Vaday v'Lo Nimne'u min ha'Safek'. We initially interpret 'Safek' to mean Safek Isur, and it refers to the case of 'Megaresh v'Lanah Imo b'Pundeki'.

(b)We prove from the fact that they refrained from cases of Vaday according to Rebbi Shimon, that they must have practiced their respective opinions. The problem with the fact that Beis Shamai refrained from the Vaday of Beis Hillel is - that Yevamah l'Shuk is only a Chiyuv Lav, and the children of Chayavei Lavin are not Mamzerim!

(c)We resolve the problem by citing Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who established a Beraisa elsewhere by the Tzarah herself (rather than her children), who had married l'Shuk without performing Chalitzah.

10)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Shimon's statement 'Nimne'u min ha'Vaday v'Lo Nimne'u min ha'Safek' is - that Safek Isur is forbidden no less than Vaday; so what grounds are there to differentiate between them?

(b)We emend it - to read ' ... v'Lo Nimne'u min ha'Stam', meaning that they did not refrain Stam from marrying each other because they knew that the other side would inform them unasked) if there was a problem.

(c)And the Beraisa is coming to teach us - that love and friendship existed between the two camps.

(d)The Tana did indeed already teach us that in the Reisha - and he is now coming to inform us that the author of the entire Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon.

11)

(a)The problem Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri had with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is - that a situation where a baby born to Beis Shamai's is a Mamzer according to Beis Hillel, and one that is born to Beis Hillel is Pagum, according to Beis Shamai, is untenable.

(b)'Pagum' means - that the child is a Chalal and Pasul from Kehunah.

(c)To get round the problem, he intended to institute a Takanah - whereby all Tzaros Ervah would perform Chalitzah before marrying somebody else.

(d)He did not do so however - because, for some reason or other, it did not work out, and the matter was dropped.