1)

(a)Rav Huna (and Rav Gidal) Amar Rav rule like - Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (who in the Beraisa under discussion, declares Chalalim, any children born to a Kohen Gadol from a girl who had been raped or seduced before they were married).

(b)According to the second Lashon, they cite Rav as equating Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov with Rebbi Elazar - who says 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah As'ah Zonah'.

(c)This explanation however, causes a discrepancy between the ruling 'Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov Kav v'Naki' and another ruling issued by Rav Amram - who says 'Ein Halachah k'Rebbi Elazar'.

(d)We do not know how to answer the discrepancy - and the last word in the matter is 'Kashya'.

2)

(a)According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov and the Chachamim argue over whether a child born from a Chayavei Aseh is a Chalal. Rav Ashi is referring to the Aseh of "Ki Im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah".

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov learns from the Pasuk "Almanah, u'Gerushah ... es Eleh Lo Yikach Ki Im Besulah Yikach Ishah. v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o ... ". In his opinion - v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o ... " refers to the entire Pasuk that precedes it (including the Aseh).

(c)The Chachamim counter that the word "Eleh" interrupts in order to confine "v'Lo Yechalel" to Chayavei Lavin (mentioned in the first half of the Pasuk). Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov learns from "Eleh" to preclude the child born from a Nidah from the Din of Chalal.

(d)The problem according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov is - why the Torah places "Eleh" in between the Lavin and the Aseh, and not at the end of the Pasuk?

(e)The problem remains unsolved.

3)

(a)The author of the Beraisa which precludes the child of a Nidah from the Din of Chalal from "Eleh" - is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov.

4)

(a)The Torah writes in Emor "v'la'Achoso ha'Besulah", including an unmarried sister among the seven relatives whom a Kohen is obligated to bury (even though he becomes Tamei Mes in the process). Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah obligate him to render himself Tamei even if she is betrothed - Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon forbid him to do so.

(b)They all hold that a Kohen is forbidden to bury a sister who was raped or seduced.

(c)Rebbi Shimon forbids him to render himself Tamei for a sister who became a Mukas Etz - because, in his opinion, he is not permitted to bury a sister who is not fit to marry a Kohen Gadol (which he learns from the prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a Mukas Etz, seeing as the Torah writes "Besulah" in connection with both cases).

(d)Everyone agrees - that a Kohen is obligated to bury an unmarried sister who is a Bogeres.

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, "v'la'Achoso ha'Besulah" comes to preclude an Anusah and a Mefutah. From "Asher Lo Hayesah l'Ish" - they learn that it is only a sister who lost her Besulim through a man whom a Kohen is forbidden to bury, but not if she lost it through a stick.

(b)And from "ha'Kerovah" they preclude an Arusah. They learn from "Elav" - that he is obligated to bury a Bogeres.

(c)Despite the fact that, according to Rebbi Meir, "Besulah" implies even a partial Besulah (as we learnt earlier), he nevertheless needs a Pasuk to include a Bogeres - because otherwise, he would have learned "Besulah" "Besulah" from the din of rape, that Besulah is confined to a Na'arah (between twelve and twelve and a half).

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon, "v'la'Achoso ha'Besulah" precludes an Anusah, a Mefutah and a Mukas Etz ('Mukas Etz' appears to be a mistake, since it is not the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, as we shall see on the next Amud, nor does Rebbi Shimon learn it from here [see above, answer to 4c.]). They learn from ...

1. ... "Asher Lo Hayesah" - to preclude an Arusah.

2. ... "ha'Kerovah" - to include an Arusah who is divorced.

(b)From "Elav" - they include a Bogeres.

(c)Due to the Pasuk "ha'Kerovah", Rebbi Shimon includes Arusah she'Nisgarshah, despite his opinion that a Kohen may not render himself Tamei for a sister who is not fit to marry a Kohen Gadol. He includes Arusah she'Nisgarshah from "ha'Kerovah" rather than a Mukas Etz - because (unlike a Mukas Etz) no physical change occurred in her.

(d)He declines to learn both of them from "ha'Kerovah" - because "ha'Kerovah" is in the singular and therefore includes only one case, and not two.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yosi does not agree with Rebbi Shimon with regard to prohibiting a Kohen from becoming Tamei for a sister who is a Mukas Etz. In this particular point, he agrees with Rebbi Meir, who obligates him from "Asher Lo Hayesah l'Ish". Indeed he has already used this Pasuk to preclude an Arusah - but that he learns from "Asher Lo Hayesah", whilst he includes a Mukas Etz from "l'Ish" (as we explained above).

(b)Rebbi Shimon holds that - since we require a Pasuk to include a Bogeres, we can infer that otherwise "Besulah" would imply a complete Besulah. And it is from here that he learns it.

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon, in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk in Matos "v'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim Asher Lo Yad'u Mishkav Zachar, Hachayu Lachem", that a Kohen is permitted to marry a Giyores who converted before she turned three - seeing as Pinchas (who had already been declared a Kohen) was with them.

(b)The Rabanan (who disagree with Rebbi Shimon) explain - that the Pasuk is not talking about marrying the girls, but taking them as slaves.

(c)"Kol Ishah Yoda'as Ish l'Mishkav Zachar Harogu" implies that any woman who did not have relations with a man was permitted - implying that any small child was permitted, whether she had had relations or not; whereas "v'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim Asher Lo Yad'u Mishkav Zachar, Hachayu Lachem" - implies that the same clause applied to the small girls, too.

(d)Rav Huna reconciles the two Pesukim according to Rebbi Shimon - by explaining 'who had relations with a man' to mean who was fit to have relations. Consequently, the first half of the Pasuk forbids all women (because they were fit to have relations), and the second half, permits all small girls of under three (because they were not).

9)

(a)According to Rav Chana bar Bizna, to discover which 'women' were fit to make Bi'ah and which were not (i.e. which ones had reached the age of three and which ones were under three) - they passed them in front of the Tzitz; all those whose faces turned green, were fit to have Bi'ah ... .

(b)Rav Nachman says that when a person's face turns green, it is a sign that he has committed adultery.

10)

(a)They discovered four hundred young girls from Yavesh Gil'ad who had not had relations with a man (to give as wives to the men of Binyamin). According to Rav Kahana, they ascertained this by seating them on a barrel of wine; those whose breath did not smell of wine were still virgins.

(b)They not pass them in front of the Tzitz (like they did with the women of Midyan) - because the Torah (in connection with the Tzitz) writes "l'Ratzon" (indicating that the Tzitz is meant to show goodwill, and not to determine death).

(c)They nevertheless did so by the women of Midyan - because the Torah writes "l'Ratzon Lahem" (for Yisrael, but not for the daughters of Midyan).

11)

(a)When Rebbi Yakov bar Idi quoted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi that 'Halachah k'Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai', Rebbi Zeira asked him - whether he heard it from him directly or whether he only inferred it from another ruling that he issued.

(b)The indirect source to which Rebbi Zeira was referring - was the episode when, after rumors began circulating about a certain town in Eretz Yisrael, they discovered a Kohen who had married a girl who had converted under the age of three, and Rebbi permitted him to retain her (after sending Rebbi Rumnus to examine her).

(c)Rebbi Zeira would then have refuted Rebbi Yakov bar Idi's proof from there - because they were already married, and we just learned above that Rav and Rebbi Yochanan permit a Kohen Gadol to retain a Bogeres and a Mukas Etz to whom he is already married, even though he is not permitted to marry her l'Chatchilah.

(d)We refute Rebbi Zeira's refutation however - because our case is not comparable to that of a Bogeres or a Mukas Etz; because whereas there, she is going to become a Bogeres or a Mukas Etz anyway, once she lives with the Kohen Gadol (which is why Rav and Rebbi Yochanan permitted him to retain her, as we explained there), that is not the case by a Kohen who marries a Giyores, who is not going to become a Zonah one she marries him (in which case, there is no basis to be lenient).

12)

(a)According to Rav Safra - Rebbi Yakov bar Idi extrapolated the above ruling from the incident with Rebbi, and not directly.

(b)His conclusion - was exactly the same as that of the first version.

13)

(a)A certain Kohen - married a Giyores who had converted before she turned three, causing Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak to query him.

(b)Citing Rebbi Yakov bar Idi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he reply - that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.

(c)Rav Nachman responded - by ordering him to divorce her, otherwise he would 'extract Rebbi Yakov bar Idi from his ear' (meaning that he would place him in Cherem).