(Mishnah - R. Yosi): Her Kesuvah is against (collected from) her first husband's property;

R. Elazar says, the first husband receives her Metzi'os and earnings, and may annul her vows;

R. Shimon says, if the first husband dies and his brother did Yibum or Chalitzah, he exempted the Tzarah. If she has a child from the first husband, he is not a Mamzer;

If she remarried without [special] permission of Beis Din (she had two witnesses), she may return to [her first husband].

If she was married through permission of Beis Din, she must leave (both husbands) and she is exempt from a Korban. If she was married without permission of Beis Din, she must leave and bring a Korban;

Great is the power of Beis Din. It exempts her from a Korban.

If Beis Din instructed her to remarry, and she was Mekalkel (married someone forbidden to her), she must bring a Korban. She was authorized only to remarry (b'Heter).

(Gemara) Question: What does R. Yosi say about the other fines?

Answer: We learn from [Mishnah 6, below, in which Ploni heard that his wife died, he married her sister, and later his wife returned]. R. Yosi says, anyone who forbids others, forbids to himself. Anyone who does not forbid others, does not forbid to himself. (If his wife's sister was married, and she married Ploni because she heard that also her husband died, Ploni forbids her to her husband. Only then, Ploni forbids also his own wife to himself);

And R. Ba bar Hamnuna and R. Ze'ira said, this refers to the beginning of the Perek (one who remarried based on one witness, and her husband returned).

Inference: R. Yosi does not argue about all the other fines (i.e. that she becomes forbidden to her husband).

Note: How does this prove that he agrees about all the other fines? R. Yosi mentioned only the Kesuvah. Perhaps the Havah Amina was that he argues about all the fines, and we show that this is not so, but there is no proof that he agrees to all of them. Below, we say that he agrees to R. Shimon, that we do not fine regarding Yibum (PF).

Question: What does R. Lazar hold about the Kesuvah?

Answer: Matters that came through Isur (Metzi'os and earnings that came to her while staying with her first husband b'Isur, R. Eliezer) says that he acquires them. The Kesuvah, which came to him through Heter (i.e. the dowry that she brought into the marriage - RASHBA 87b), all the more so [he keeps it]!

Note: RASHBA infers that we discuss the dowry, for it says that the Kesuvah fell to him. It is difficult to say that we discuss Ikar Kesuvah (100 or 200), even if we delete 'to him' or change it to 'to her.' Did the Kesuvah come to her through Heter? She obligated the divorce through a forbidden marriage due to negligence! And why do we ignore a Kal v'Chomer to exempt him? We fine her, so she will check well that he truly died before she remarries (above, 53b). If she will lose her Kesuvah, this is added incentive to check well! Therefore, we explain like RASHBA. However, we must change the text below to say that R. Lazar does not admit to R. Yosi. And if so, R. Yosi must admit to R. Lazar, for below it says that R. Shimon does not admit to them.

Presumably, R. Lazar does not admit to R. Yosi (who says that she gets back her dowry), but R. Yosi admits to R. Lazar. (R. Yosi does not fine her to lose her dowry when she leaves him, but even he should fine her to lose her Metzi'os and earnings if she remains with him b'Isur! - PF)

R. Yosi and R. Lazar admit to R. Shimon. (Regarding Metzi'os and earnings, we consider as if they are married, even when she remains with him b'Isur. All the more so regarding Yibum, which is after his death, we consider as if they were married!) R. Shimon does not admit to R. Yosi and R. Lazar. (For Yibum, after his death, it is as if they were married, but for Metzi'os and earnings, when she remains with him b'Isur, we do not treat them as if they are married. - PF)

Inference: R. Shimon holds that Bi'ah Pesulah (Yibum was forbidden) exempts [her Tzarah. OHR SOMAYACH, Kuntres Zikah 28 - this is only here, for mid'Oraisa it is a proper Bi'ah; only mid'Rabanan it is not. R. Shimon holds that Bi'ah Pesulah mid'Oraisa, e.g. after a Get (which the Yerushalmi holds is mid'Oraisa) does not exempt (above, 5:1).

Question: Is it not reasonable [that the text of our Mishnah should be opposite]? If she remarried through permission [of Beis Din], she should be permitted [to return to her first husband, for great is the power of Beis Din, like we say about Korban. If she remarried] without permission, she should be forbidden [to return]!

Answer (R. Yochanan): [Our Mishnah is like] R. Shimon, who holds that Beis Din made [one who transgressed through] their Hora'ah like a man and [another's] wife b'Mezid. If she remarried without permission, it is like a man and [another's] wife b'Shogeg.

(R. Yochanan): [The text of our Mishnah] should not say 'she is exempt [from a Korban]', rather, 'she is liable.' (Since all see that her husband is alive, it is as if there was no Hora'ah.)

Question (R. Chagai, to R. Yosi): Even if it is as if there was a Hora'ah, if they ruled that one may have Bi'ah with an Eshes Ish, this totally uproots [the Aveirah. Such a Hora'ah is invalid!]

Answer: (They never intended to permit her if her husband will return.) It is as if they ruled that she is permitted for five years, and afterwards forbidden. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Note: Our text is difficult. We enacted to prevent Igun. Why should we make her wait five years? Also, people who hear this are prone to infer that if a man did not return in five years, this shows that he died. This can lead to disaster! Also, since after five years she is permitted forever, once the Heter takes effect, they totally permitted the Aveirah!

Question: [Her exemption] should be [even if] she was Mekalkel (married someone forbidden to her, for she relied on their Hora'ah)!

Answer: Her Kilkul is like eating Chelev or blood, when [Beis Din] ruled that one may eat Chelev, and he ate blood. (He did not rely on Beis Din. Also here, she did not rely on Beis Din!)