Implied question: Why couldn't he say that it is R. Nechunya?

Answer: He would not call them (Chayavei Kerisus) Sheniyos, for he equates them to Chayavei Misos Beis Din.

Implied question: Why couldn't we say that it is R. Akiva? Arayos are Chayavei Misos, and Sheniyos are Chayavei Kerisos and Chayavei Lavin!

Answer #1: He prefers to establish it even like Rabanan, who says that Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Lavin.

Answer #2: (We could have said that it is R. Akiva.) Because the first version said "who is it? It is Shimon ha'Teimani", [for parallel structure] the latter version says "who is it? It is R. Shimon ben Menasiya", who argues with Shimon ha'Teimani (29b).

Alternate text: Some texts do not say "Al ha'Lavan", for we say in Nidah (52a) "it is not literally more. Rather, there are two hairs that lie down, and it looks like there is much black";

"Al ha'Lavan" connotes that there is more black than white.

R. Chananel's opinion: R. Chananel explains "Al ha'Lavan" to mean that near the skin the hairs are black, and the ends are white.

Explanation: Rav Yehudah said this on our Mishnah below (40b), that whenever there is a sale (the father can sell his daughter, i.e. a minor,) there is no fine.

Implied question: R. Yonason and R. Yoshiyah hold like R. Meir in Sanhedrin (66b), according to R. Tam, who says that "only if they (a Na'arah Me'orasah and her Bo'el) are the same" refers to the same Misah. (Rabanan say that one who has Bi'ah with a minor Me'orasah is stoned. R. Meir holds that he is choked. If R. Yoshiyah or R. Yonason held that "Na'arah" includes a minor, they would agree with Chachamim, for if she were liable, also she would be stoned, so she and the Bo'el are the same.)

Note: If so, the Gemara should ask why it doesn't say "this is the opinion of R. Meir, R. Yonason and R. Yoshiyah."

And even according to Rashi, who explains [that he is stoned only if both are] liable to be punished, in any case R. Yoshiyah holds like R. Meir, who does not expound like Rabanan (40b) "here, (Motzi Shem Ra, the verse discusses a full) Na'arah; (wherever Na'arah is spelled deficiently, it includes even a minor), for [R. Yoshiyah] exempts [the Bo'el of] a Ketanah Me'orasah.

Answer: Even so, we do not ask "it should say 'this is the opinion of R. Meir and R. Yoshiyah.'" We asked that it should say "this is the opinion of R. Meir and R. Yehudah" only because R. Yehudah [normally] argues with R. Meir;

He is included with Chachamim who argue with him. Therefore, if he does not argue, it should have taught "this is the opinion of R. Meir and R. Yehudah."

Question: However, why didn't the Gemara say "the Beraisa is R. Yoshiyah. Regarding Mema'enes, he holds like R. Yehudah"?

Implied question: Since it taught that a minor has no Kenas, why did it need to teach also an Ailonis? (Since she is never a Na'arah, obviously she has no Kenas!)

Answer: One might have thought that only a [regular] minor who has Na'arus has no fine [but an Ailonis, who has no Na'arus, has a fine when she is a minor].

Question (Ri): Why didn't he answer that Agav (along with teaching that a minor has no fine), it taught that she may do Mi'un until bringing two hairs!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If she were clever, she would claim that she was raped after Eirusin (so we claim this for her).

Question (Ri): How can we claim this for her due to Safek, to take money [from her husband]? Since she did not claim, the Chazakah of her body was weakened, for Shor Shachut Lefanecha (she has no Besulim, so she cannot claim that she is a Besulah);

However, Chezkas Mamon (of her husband) was not weakened!

Support (for Rashi - Ri): It says below (76b, if a needle was found protruding from the stomach, with blood on it, the animal is Tereifah). If the wound did not form a scab (we do not know whether the needle was there at the time it was sold), the one who wants to take money must bring a proof.

The Gemara explains that even if the butcher did not yet pay, the butcher must bring proof that it became Tereifah in the seller's Reshus [to exempt himself. Likewise, the husband must prove that she was Be'ulah before Eirusin.]

Implied question: A Mishnah below (75a) says that if [a Kalah] had blemishes in her father's house, that the father must bring a proof [that the blemishes came after Kidushin. If not, she has no Kesuvah.] Rav Ashi (76a) explains that in the Reisha (that we cited), she claims that he owes to her father;

In the Seifa, (if she entered the husband's Reshus and Mumim were found, the husband must prove that they came before Kidushin to be exempt from the Kesuvah), she claims that he owes to her.

Suggestion: It seems that this is because [her] Bari (Vadai) claim wins against [his] Shema claim (he does not know when the Mumim came).

Rejection: If so, why do we claim so for her [if she herself is not saying Vadai]?

Answer: Rather, Rashi explained there that in the Reisha, she claims that he owes to her father. Her Chezkas ha'Guf does not help for her father. During Eirusin, the Kesuvah belongs to the father;

In the Seifa (after Nisu'in), she claims "you owe to me." For her, her Chezkas ha'Guf helps.

Support: We must explain like this. If it were due to a Vadai claim, why does it say that [if the blemishes were found while she was] still in her father's house, the father must bring a proof that the blemishes came after Kidushin?

Why must he bring a proof, since he claims Vadai? The Mishnah connotes that in every case he must bring a proof, even when the father says 'I am sure."

Explanation #2 (Ri): Here, they have no Ta'anas Besulim because she has Chezkas Mukas Etz.

Implied question: All girls get banged!

Answer: Other women have Ta'anas Besulim, since they did not say that they are Mukas Etz;

However, these, i.e. a Chereshes and a Shotah, who cannot say (that they are Mukas Etz), are married b'Chezkas (with the assumption that they are) Mukas Etz.

Support: In most Seforim, the text in the Beraisa above says only "a Chereshes, Shotah and Ailonis have a fine." In most Seforim, it does not say "and they have Ta'anas Besulim." are Mukas Etz), are married with the assumption that they are Mukas Etz.

According to the Ri, it is a proper question. Since we say that they have a fine, this shows that we do not consider them to be b'Chezkas Mukas Etz.

However, according to Rashi, what was the question? Also here, we consider them to be b'Chezkas Besulos, for we say that they were raped after Eirusin!

Question (against Explanation #2 - Rashba): Why don't we answer that this that was taught "they have no Ta'anas Besulim" is R. Meir, who says above (13a) that a Mukas Etz, whether or not he knew, her Kesuvah is 200...

Note: This question is according to our text, which says 'they have no Ta'anas Besulim.'

And this that was taught "they have Ta'anas Besulim" is Rabanan, who say that her Kesuvah is 100?

Suggestion: It is because the Beraisa taught a Chereshes [together with, and presumably] similar to an Ailonis (who has no Kesuvah).

Rejection: You are forced to say that an Ailonis does not totally lose her Kesuvah.

Proof: Rav Sheshes, who answers "this is like R. Gamliel, and this is like R. Yehoshua", holds above (11b) that if he entered her [into his house for Nisu'in] b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be Be'ulah, her Kesuvah is 100.

Note: One opinion in Shulchan Aruch (EH 44:4) holds that if the Miskadeshes was found to be an Ailonis, it is not a Mekach Ta'us. However, below (72b DH Al) Tosfos holds that Ailonis is worse than other Mumim. Even if he found out only after Nisu'in, she does not need a Get. He also says that a Safek Ailonis gets no Kesuvah. Perhaps here there is a reason why here is different. E.g. if he was Mekadesh her when she was older; since he did not see normal female development, and did not investigate, he cannot claim Mekach Ta'os (Pischei Teshuvah 44:6, citing Noda bi'Yehudah 2 EH 78). Alternatively, he already married a known Ailonis (PF). However, Tosfos connotes that in every case she has a Kesuvah. This requires investigation.

Alternate text: This is Rashi's text. R. Chananel's text says oppositely, like was written in Seforim, "if he claims Pesach Pas'uach, indeed (he has Ta'anas Besulim. Regarding Ta'anas Damim, he has no Ta'anas Besulim.)

Above (9a), I explained.

Question: According to R. Chananel, who explains that a Mukas Etz has no blood, but her opening is closed, there was no need to give the difficult answer "this is like R. Gamliel, and this is like R. Yehoshua"; (Maharsha - the question is according to the Ri's Perush, that the Beraisos argue about Mukas Etz. Maharam Shif - it is only Ketzas (a little) difficult, for we could say that R. Chananel holds like Rashi, unlike the Ri. The question is against R. Chananel, for he says that a Mukas Etz has a closed Pesach. Rashi could say that she has Pesach Pas'uach and no blood.)

We could have answered "this is when he claims Pesach Pas'uach, and this is when he claims Ta'anas Damim!" why not Lefi Rashi?

Answer: Perhaps he does not hold that there is a Chazakah that one does not toil to make a [nuptial] feast and ruin it [make a false Ta'anas Besulim]. He is not believed to make her lose her Kesuvah through Ta'anas Pesach Pas'uach.

Implied question: It says "if he claims Pesach Pas'uach, indeed...", which connotes that he is believed!

Answer: Perhaps he is believed to forbid her to him (if there is a single Safek, e.g. he is a Kohen, or he was Mekadesh her before she was three years old).

However, the Beraisa above connotes that they have Ta'anas Besulim regarding the Kesuvah, similar to Kenas.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Their mothers] rule about them that they are [Mukos Etz, who are like] Be'ulos. If she [the girl] did not tell [the Chasan], she tricked him.

Question: We are holding like R. Meir, and R. Meir holds (above, 13a) that a Mukas Etz receives 200, whether or not he knew!

Explanation #2 (Ri): All [other] girls see and tell their mothers. They know that they are Mukos Etz, for their mothers tell them;

Therefore, when [the Chasan] says [to her father] "I did not find Besulim in your daughter", and she says "I am a Besulah", we should not attribute to Mukas Etz;, for if she were, she would have said "I am Mukas Etz";

When she does not say "I am Mukas Etz", there is Ta'anas Besulim.

However, a blind girl, we attribute that she is Mukas Etz even though she did not say, for she does not know;

This is because since she does not see, and does not show to her mother, and her mother does not tell her.

Explanation #1: Obviously, she does not receive a fine, for she is a Be'ulah.

Suggested Explanation #2: Since there is a Chiyuv Skilah for one who has Bi'ah with her, obviously she does not receive a fine, for Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei.

Rejection: Our Mishnah teaches one who has Bi'ah with his daughter, and also above a Beraisa taught Arayos (of Chayav Misah).

Implied question: Mid'Oraisa, a Shevuyah does not have Chezkas Be'ulah, like we say everywhere that [Chachamim] we are lenient about a Shevuyah! (If so, she should receive a fine.)

Answer: In any case, she does not receive a fine. For a decree, lest she marry a Kohen, they made her like a Be'ulah in every way.

Explanation: It mentioned an Aravi because they are steeped in lewdness, like it says in Kidushin (49b) that 10 measures of lewdness descended to the world, and Aravim received nine of them.

Explanation: We are thinking that [the Reisha teaches that] one who redeems a captive may marry her without testimony.

Explanation: We ask this according to R. Yochanan, and similarly all the questions below;

However, according to Rabah, who says that R. Yehudah's reason is lest a sinner profit, this is not difficult at all.