Explanation: The Mishnah teaches a law, and then a law that did not need to be taught [for it follows from the first law].

The Tana was not concerned to teach differently, since R. Yehudah argues with it and distinguishes between one after the other and at once.

Alternate text: R. Chananel's text says "if he wounded or cursed both of them, whether one after the other or both at once, he is liable.

Question: Reish Lakish taught in Zevachim (78a) "if Pigul, Nosar and Tamei were blended together, one who eats them is exempt. It is impossible that one of them will not exceed the other, and be Mevatel it."

The Gemara infers that Hasra'as Safek (uncertain warning) is not Hasra'ah. (If not, he should be liable for the one that is the majority!)

Why is this different than hitting both of them together? (In both cases, he Vadai transgresses, just we do not know which!)

Answer: These are different. Here, he knows clearly that he transgresses the Lav and Chiyuv Misah for wounding his father;

There, he does not know which was the majority over the other, whether he transgressed Pigul or Nosar. This is not the place to elaborate.

Question: What is the source that he must go up against his will? Perhaps the Mishnah teaches that he goes up against the will of the Kohanim of the Mishmar!

Question: Why don't we ask that this is obvious, that he receives one portion?

Answer: Perhaps because it was taught above (99b), it was taught also here [for parallel structure].

Distinction: However, they need not be expert about other matters. If they did not do well, they can ask experts;

However, regarding reading, if they do not know to be Makri (read the verses for the Yavam and Yevamah to repeat), they will not be able to ask experts if they were Makri properly.

Explanation: Here regarding Chalitzah, it is fine that Beis Din cannot have an even number, so we add another judge, for there are several arguments in the Mishnah. (An even number of judges might disagree, and there will be no majority.)

Question: However, regarding Semichas Par (Helam Davar), we require three [also for this reason]. This is difficult! (What could they disagree about?)

Answer #1: Also there, there is an argument about whether or not we require Semichah with all one's strength (Chagigah 16b. Aruch l'Ner asks that he did not find anyone who disagrees about this.)

Answer #2: Everywhere that we require [judges] proper for Beis Din, Beis Din cannot have an even number.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "V'Nigshah Yevimto Elav l'Einei ha'Zekenim" refers to these above.

Objection (Ri): In Sanhedrin (3b), we learn that we require three expert judges from the three times it says ha'Elohim. We do not say that the last ha'Elohim refers to the ones mentioned above!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Ha'Zekenim of l'Einei needed to be written. Had it said "v'Nigshah Yevimto l'Eineihem", one might have thought that [also the Yavam must see it, and] if the Yavam is blind, he cannot do Chalitzah. Therefore, it wrote l'Einei ha'Zekenim;

However, Chalitzah of a blind person is Kosher.

Question: Why don't we say that "Zekenim" connotes old common people, like it says in Sotah (44a)?

Strengthening of question: In Sanhedrin (14a), if not for "v'Shoftecha", one might have thought that "Zekenecha" is even old common people, regarding Eglah Arufah!

Answer: Here is different, for it says "ha'Sha'arah", which connotes Sanhedrin.

Implied question: Why can't we learn from "v'Hisyatzvu Sham Imach" - similar to you (Moshe, who had no blemish)?

Answer: We learn from there only regarding a Pesul of lineage, for there, there is no Avodah, that there would be a reason to disqualify Ba'alei Mumim.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (36b) and Nidah (49b), it says that one (Mishnah) includes a convert, and one includes a Mamzer (they may judge only monetary cases), regarding the Mishnah "not everyone is Kosher to judge capital cases";

We should say that [one] comes to include Ba'alei Mumim!

Answer: It discusses Pesulim of lineage, like the Seifa says "only Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim who may marry into Kehunah are Kesherim."

Explanation: We expound "b'Yisrael", which is written next to v'Nikra Shmo;

Only v'Nikra Shmo would not connote that all must answer. It connotes only the judges, but not all standing there.

Question (Ri): Here we expound two occurrences of "b'Yisrael", each opinion like he holds;

In Kidushin (14a), we expound "once he [let her] remove his shoe, she is permitted to all of Yisrael"!

Answer (Ri): There, we expound the adjacency of "b'Yisrael" to "Beis Chalutz ha'Na'al";

It could have written 'uv'Yisrael Yikre'u Shmo Beis Chalutz ha'Na'al', if it came only for the Drashah here;

Since it wrote Yisrael next to Chalutz ha'Na'al, we expound also that once he [let her] remove his shoe, she is permitted to all of Yisrael.

Question: Why do we learn in Kidushin (41a) from verses that one's Shali'ach is like himself?

Just the contrary! We should learn from here that one's Shali'ach is not like himself!

Answer: There are several verses ha'Ba'im k'Echad (all teach the same thing, that one's Shali'ach is not like himself, so we do not learn from them);

Also regarding Eglah Arufah, we expound "v'Yatz'u" (the Sanhedrin go out), and not their Sheluchim;

In Menachos (93b), we expound "v'Samach Yado", and not his Shali'ach;

In Nedarim (72b), we exclude a Shali'ach from Hafaras Nedarim according to R. Yoshiyah.

Question: Why do we need verses in Kidushin [to teach that one's Shali'ach is like himself]? We should learn from these verses. Since we need to teach [that one's Shali'ach is not like himself], this implies that normally, that one's Shali'ach is like himself!

Answer (R. Elchanan): If not for the verses there, we would have explained these verses for other laws.

Implied question: We should rule like him because the Halachah follows the Rabim against an individual!

Answer: We do not, because the individual's reason is better.

Question: What was the question? Due to this (we rule like the Stam Mishnah regarding Chalitzah), must we rule like all Stam Mishnayos?

Answer: Chalitzah and Mi'un resemble each other. She leaves through her action, and also they were taught together.

Pesak: R. Tam ruled that one who is blind in one of his eyes is Kosher [be a judge] for Chalitzah, since we do not exclude from "l'Einei";

One eye suffices to see the spit from the Yevamah's mouth.

Question: According to R. Tam, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah here was Rav Yehudah Hindavah, about whom we say in Kidushin (22b) that he was a convert without heirs. He and his father converted;

Why did he bring the Beraisa that disqualifies a convert for Chalitzah? He is disqualified also for monetary cases, since his mother was not from Yisrael!

Answer #1: We need the Beraisa to disqualify him even for Chalitzah of converts.

Answer #2: He was Kosher to judge monetary cases without coercion;

"Simah" and matters of authority, like it says "Sum Tasim Alecha Melech", apply only to coercion.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Kesuvos 85a): He would not tear the document, but he would not collect due to it.

Objection: If so, it should have said so explicitly (we do not collect with it), like it says in Kesuvos 36b, regarding [the Kesuvah of] one who is divorced due to ill repute!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam, and R. Chananel in Shevuos 42a): The bearer of the document cannot collect without an oath based on his (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's) words, even if he was related to the borrower or lender;

If he was not related, any man [who testified that it was paid] would obligate an oath, like the Mishnah (Kesuvos 87a) says, that if one witness testified that it was paid, she collects only through an oath.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (85a), Rav Papa testified that a document was paid. Rava asked if there was another witness who could testify with him. (Maharshal - it seems that Rav Papa's testimony would not help at all by itself.)

Answer: We must say that Rav Papa was related to the one claiming or the defendant. (Aruch l'Ner asks that if so, even if there was another witness, since one of the witnesses (Rav Papa) was a relative, the entire testimony is Batel! He answers that Tosfos holds that this does not apply to oaths, unlike the Rif. According to R. Tam, I do not understand why Rava said "Bahadei Mar (with you)", which connotes that their testimonies would join. - PF.)