Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they are both punishable, to preclude a Gadol who had relations with a Ketanah.

Question: This is not correct however, based on the Mishnah in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 44b) which the Gemara will cite shortly - which rules that 'If any of the Arayos mentioned in the Torah have relations with a girl of three years and a day they are Chayav Misah on account of her' ...

Question (cont.): Implying that a Gadol who has relations with a Ketanah is Chayav, despite the fact that a Ketanah is not punishable?

Answer: Some commentaries answer that that Mishnah goes like Rebbi Yonasan, who argues with Rebbi Yashiyah, but that is a Dochek.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that they must be subject to the same form of death-penalty ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And that it has nothing to do with whether they are punishable or not. Consequently, even a Gadol who has relations with a Ketanah is Chayav, provided they share the same death-penalty.

Sugya de'Arba Miysos: And the Gemara is speaking with reference to Rebbi Meir, who says in Perek Arba Miysos (Sanhedrin, Daf 66b) in connecton with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah - "Na'arah", 've'Lo Ketanah', whereas the Chachamim hold that "Na'arah" incorporates Ketanah.

Sugya de'Arba Miysos (cont.): Rebbi Ya'akov bar Ada asked Rav what Rebbi Meir will hold in a case where a man has relations with a Ketanah ha'Me'urasah, whether we preclude him completely, or only from Sekilah, but not from Chenek?

Sugya de'Arba Miysos (concl.): And the Gemara comments that presumably, we preclude him completely, because if we were to preclude him only from Sekilah, but declare him Chayav Chenek, we need them both to be equal, i.e. the same death, and if she would be a Gedolah, she would be Chayav Sekilah.

Introduction to Question: According to this explanation, the fact that Rebbi Ya'akov bar Ada asked what the Din will be according to Rebbi Meir with reference specifically to a Ketanah ha'Me'urasah ...

Introduction to Question: Because regarding a Nesu'ah, there is nothing to ask, since he is subject to Chenek, just as she would be if she was a Gedolah, in which case they would both be equal.

Question: But according to Rashi, why does he ask with reference to a Me'urasah more than to a Nesu'ah?

Answer: One can answer however, that since the Torah writes "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem", it is obvious that by a Nesu'ah, he is Patur, and he asks specifically by an Arusah, where one may have thought that he will be Chayav ...

Answer (cont.): To which the Gemara replies that 'they must both be Chayav' - meaning that even by an Arusah too, he will be Patur, seeing as they are not both punishable.

Introduction to Question: There are Amora'im there who learn that, according to Rebbi Meir he is Chayav Chenek from the Pasuk "And the man who lay with her alone shall die" ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And the Gemara asks what Rebbi Meir will then do with the Pasuk "And they shall both die"?

Question: What is the problem, why not establish it by a Nesu'ah?

Answer: The Gemara prefers to find another answer, in order to establish the Mishnah in Yotzei Dofen even according to Rebbi Meir.

Q?estion: In Perek ha'Ba alYevimto (Yevamos, Daf 55b) the Gemara learns that a woman is acquired by her husband via Ha'ara'ah from 'Kichah' 'Kichah' from Arayos,and Ha'arah is the beginning of Bi'ah ...

Q?estion (cont.): Whereas the Gemara here concludes that the conclusion of Bi'ah acquires?

Answer #1: The Rashba explains that we say that Ha'ara'ah acquires when he performed only Ha'ara'aha and then separated,since it is clear that that he did not intend to acquire her with the conclusion of Bi'ah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas our Sugya speaks when he finished the Bi'ah,in which case he did not acquire her with Ha'ara'ah, since he intended to complete the Bi'ah.

Proof: And the Lashon proves this, since it says 'Kol ha'Bo'el', and not 'Kol ha'Ma'areh'.

Answer #2: The Rivam answers that when it says she is acquired with Ha'ara'ah, that is when he specifically stated this that is what he wanted to do, but S'tam, his mind is on the conclusion of Bi'ah.

Answer #3: Whereas according to Rabeinu Tam, now that we have included Ha'ara'ah as being akin to the conclusion of Bi'ah, whenever the Gemara mentions 'Bi'ah', it is referring to Ha'ara'ah ...

Answer #3 (cont.): And what the Gemara is asking here is whether the beginning of Ha'arah acquires or the end - according to the opinion (there) that defines it as 'Hachnasas Atarah', where 'beginning' and 'end' are applicable.

Answer #4: Rabeinu Nisim Ga'on (See Hagahos ha'Bach) answers that the case in Yevamos is speaking after the Kidushin, where the Ha'ara'ah renders her married ...

Precedent: Just like Chupah after Kidushin.

Refutation: 'Kichah' 'Kichah' is written in connection with Kidushin, and has no connection with Chupah.

She'eilah: It is questionable as to whether a father can receive a Get on behalf of his small daughter who is married.

Resolution: Tosfos' Rebbe R. Yitzchak maintains that once she is married, her father can no longer receive her Get, even if she is still a Ketanah.

Mishnah, T'rumos: And he proves this from the Yerushalmi in Maseches T'rumos (Perek 8, Halachah 1), which cites the Mishnah there 'If they came and told a woman who was eating T'rumah, that her husband had died or had divorced her, Rebbi Eliezer declares her Chayav to pay the principle plus a fifth, whilst Rebbi Yehoshua rules that she is Patur.

Yerushalmi: The Gemara then asks that although 'Your husband died' is fine, in the case of 'He divorced you', how come that she did not know about it?

Yerushalmi (cont.): The Rabbanan answer according to the Mishnah Rishonah, where an Arusah bas Yisrael may eat T'rumah, and it speaks where her father accepted her Get ...

Yerushalmi (concl.): Whereas Rebbi Elazar establishes it like the Mishnah Achronah (that an Arusah bas Yisrael may not eat T'rumah) , and it speaks where she said to him 'Accept my Get in such and such a place', and where it would normally have taken him ten days to bring it to her, only he found a fast horse and brought it to her in five.

Proof: Now, since the Gemara pushes to establish it like the Mishnah Achronah and where she said 'Accept my Get ... ', rather than where she got married when she was a Ketanah and where her father accepted her Get - it implies that, once she is married, her father can no longer receive her Get, even though she is still a Ketanah.

Clarification: If her father accepted Kidushin on her behalf, Rashi explains.

Question: Why does the Mishnah see fit to add 've'Chayavin alehah Mishum Eishes Ish', seeing as the Seifa states 'Im Ba alehah Echad mi'Kol ha'Arayos she'ba'Torah, Mumsin al-Yadah', which includes 'Eishes Ish? ...

Source: As is evident in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 69a), and even an animal, as is evident in Perek Arba Miysos (Ibid. Daf 55b), in the Sugya of Takalah ve'Kalon'.

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that it refers to 'Im Ba alehah Yavam, Kan'ah', and it teaches us that he acquires her completely, to the extent that one is Chayav on her mi'd'Oraysa ...

Reason: Because we would have otherwise thought that he only acquires her mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Precedent: Like the Gemara says in Yevamos (Daf 68a) 'They made the Bi'ah of a nine-year-old (boy) like the Ma'amar of a Gadol, which we learn later in the Perek (Daf 19a) from "asher Yin'af es Eishes Ish", 'to preclude the wife of a Katan' ...

Reason (cont.): Here too, let us make the Bi'ah of a Ketanah like the Ma'amar of a Gadol; therefore it teaches us that we do not.

Introduction to Refutation: In Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 69a) the Gemara extrapolates from the Mishnah that 'Holchin be'Mamon achar ha'Rov', because if we didn't, why do we not suspect that she is an Aylonis, and that he did not betroth her on that condition.

Refutation: Now, if it refers to 'Im Ba alehah Yavam', it should have said 'On that condition he did not perform Yibum with her? ...

Attempted Answer: And if you will answer that it says 'He did not betoth her on that condition' with reference to the Kidushin of the deceased brother ...

Refutation: Then what difference does it (his intention) make? Even if he did betroth her on that condition, the Gemara could still ask why they are Chayav because of Eishes Ish, seeing as an Aylonis is not subject to Yibum ...

Source: As the Pasuk writes (in Devarim 25) "Asher Teiled" - to preclude an Aylonis'?

Explanation #2: Therefore we must explain hayavin alehah Mishum Eishes Ish refers both to 'Im Ba alehah Yavam' and to a regular Eishes Ish ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Chidush of the former is that from the Seifa 'Im Ba alehah Echad mi'Kol ha'Arayos'we would not have known it, since that refers ecxclusively to Eishes Ish.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Whereas the Gemara there (in ben Sorer u'Moreh) is asking from 'Mechayvin Mishum Eishes Ish'.

Explanation #3: R. David answers that 'Chayavin alehah Mishum Eishes Ish' is needed to teach us that 'Mmsin al-Yadah' applies even to an animal that must be killed if it has relations with her ...

Reason: Because we would otherwise have thought that it applies only to Arayos that are like her, but not to animals ...

Reason #3 (cont.): But now that the Tana says in the Reisha 've'Chayavin alehah Nishum Eishes Ish' (See Hagahos ha'Bach), the Seifa 'Mumsin al-Yadah must be coming to teach us a Chidush - namely, even those Arayos that are not like Eishes Ish, such as animals, are put to death (See also Tosfos, Yevamos, 57b & Tosfos, Sanhedrin, Daf 55b).

Question: Why can we not say that Yevamah will prove otherwise - as her Bi'ah feeds her T'rumah, even though Kesef does not - so the same ought to apply to an Arusah?

Answer #1: The current Kal va'Chomer is merely a indication that an Arusah is called 'Kinyan Kaspo' just like a Shifchah, in which case, one cannot ask from a 'Yochi'ach'.

Answer #2: One can also answer that 'Yevamah Tochi'ach' is not an option, since one counter that 'Whereas a Yevamah cannot be acquired with Kesef, a wife can, in which case it follows that she can also eat T'rumah by means of Kesef.

Refuted Question: One cannot learn from this Kal va'Chomer that a woman can be acquired with Kesef and with Sh'tar ...

Refutation: Since one can counter - 'Whereas a Shifchah Cana'anis goes out with Kesef ... ' ...

Precedent: As the Gemara asks above in connection with Amah Ivriyah.

Conclusion: Whereas regarding eating T'rumah, one cannot ask this.

Question: Why do we not apply 'Dayo' to the end of the Kal va'Chomer, and say - From where do you want to learn Kesef? From Bi'ah - let it then be like Bi'ah which only feeds after Chupah?

Precedent: And we make a similar D'rashah in the second Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 25a).

Answer #1: The current Sugya holds like Rebbi Tarfon, who says that we do not apply 'Dayo' there where the Kal va'Chomer will be negated, which is the case here.

Answer #2: Whereas Rabeinu Shimshon from Coucy answers that - we only say 'Dayo' there where the Kal va'Chomer is teaching a new Din, such as the case there, where Keren in the R'shus ha'Rabim pays Chatzi Nezek, and we try to learn Nezek Shaleim vias a Kal va'Chomer from Shein va'Regel ...

Answer #2 (cont.): But here, the Torah rules that Kinyan Kesef eats, and we are only coming to learn from the Kal va'Chomer what Kinyan Kesef means.

Clarification: Ravina is coming to establish the opinion that Bi'ah makes Erusin, and in answer to the Kashya why in one place the Gemar finds it obvious and in the other, it has a Safek? ...

Clarification (cont.): mi'd'Oraysa it is obvious that she eats both by Bi'ah and by Kesef, and when he (Rebbi Yochanan ben Bag Bag) sent him to forbid T'rumah, that was mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Clarification (cont.): And mi'de'Rabbanan Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira learned a Kal va'Chomer - that by Bi'ah it is obvious that she eats, even mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Reason: Since, seeing as a man does not drink the cup before having examined her, the suspicion of defects is not applicable by her ...

Clarification (concl.): And from the Kal va'Chomer he tried to learn that the suspicion does apply by Kesef either, as the Gemara explains.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that by marriage, this is obvious since all agree that we are not concerned about a defect, since 'A man does not drink the cup (of marriage), in which case, he knew about it and accepted it.

Question: How can Rashi explain this by marriage, seeing as Ravina is coming to establish the Beraisa that Bi'ah makes Erusin?

Answer #1: What he means is that just as by marriage it is obvious that she is permitted to eat - since everyone agrees that 'A man does not drink the cup before having examined her' (Kesuvos, Daf 75b) ...

Answer #1 (cont.): So too, is he not intimate with her before having examined her, since 'A man does not make his Be'ilah an immoral act' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Answer #2: Whereas the Ram explains the Gemara to mean that Just as a Shifchah Cana'anis, whose Bi'ah does not feed her T'rumah even min ha'Torah, yet her Kesef feeds her, even mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Answer #2 (cont.): This woman, whose Bi'ah feeds her min ha'Torah, her Kesef ought to feed her even mi'de'Rabbanan - and it speaks about Bi'ah not via Chupah.