Question: It ought to have rather made the reverse Limud (to learn Isha from Sadeh) ...

Reason: Since we only know the Kinyanim of a woman from Sadeh?

Answer #1: Perhaps Rebbi Asi learns Kinyan Kesef by Ishah, not from the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Kichah' 'Kichah', but from "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam" (above, Daf 3b).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is the way of the Gemara to mention the case that is more obvious (i.e. better known) first ...

Proof: As we find in Nedarim (Daf 25b) 'Just as Nidrei Shegagos are permitted, so too, are Shevu'os Shegagos permitted ...

Proof (cont.): Even though we only know Nedarim from Shevuos, by which it is written "ha'Adam 'bi'She'vu'ah", 'to preclude an Oneis'.

Source: This is a Mishnah in Maseches Kinim (Perek 2, Mishnah 5), which states in the Seifa that 'If she brought her Olah and then died, her heirs cannot bring her Chatas'. ...

Reason: Because it is a case of 'A Chatas whose owner died', which is left to die.

Inference: And it implies that specifically her heirs are not permitted to bring her Chatas after her Olah, but that she herself, had she been alive, would have been brought her Chatas and been Patur (from bringing another one).

Question: At the beginning of 'Tamid Nishchat' (Pesachim, Daf 59a) states 'All Chata'os precede the Olos that come together with them, even a Chatas ha'Of before an Olas Beheimah' ...

Question (cont.): That being the case, how can she bring her Olah before her Chatas?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that the Gemara (in Pesachim) is speaking Lechatchilah; that Lechatchilah it is a Mitzvah for the Chatas to precede the Olah, but that if Bedi'eved, one brought the Olah first, one brings the Chatas afterwards ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara there asks 'And how could she bring it? ...

Refutation (cont.): Seeing as the Beraisa based on the Pasuk "ve'Hikriv es asher la'Chatas Rishonah", concludes that 'This is a Binyan Av, that all Chata'os precede the Olos that come together with them?' ...

Refutation (concl.): So we see that even Bedi'eved, it is not brought?

Answer #1: The Gemara there is speaking about a Metzora; and it is specifically by a Metzora that it forbids bringing the Chatas afterwards, even Bedi'eved ...

Reason: Because the Torah (in Vayikra, 14) writes by it 'Havayah' - "Zos Tih'yeh", which implies that it is a crucial condition, as is evident in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 5a) ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But elsewhere we will say that Bedi'eved, one can bring it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, according to the Gemara's upshot, the problem is resolved - since it concludes there (Daf 59b) that 'Bedi'eved (even by a Metzora) it is also Kasher, since the Torah writes "ve'He'elah", implying that he already brought it (i.e. the Olah before the Chatas).

Answer #2 (cont.): And we learn all other cases from it with a Binyan Av, in that now the Torah indicates that by Metzora one brings it (the Chatas) Bedi'ved, the same will apply everywhere else.

Definition: Such as Korbanos, Pidyon ha'Ben, Erchin and Nezikin, the details of which we would not know had the Torah not specifically obligated their payment ...

Refuted Definition (cont.): Whereas a loan, where one borrowed - even with a Sh'tar, is not considered 'written in the Torah' even though the Torah writes "And the man to whom you lent ... (Devarim, 24)" ...

Reason: Since the Torah does not need to specify the amount that one needs to pay, since it is obvious that what he borrowed he must pay.

Question: In Perek Get Pashut (Bava Basra, Daf 176a) Rav Papa himself says that 'One may claim an oral loan from the heirs - in order "not to close the door before borrowers", but not from purchasers; so we see that "Shibuda is not d'Oraysa (See Masores ha'Shas)" '?

Answer: The Rach explains that in our case it is speaking about a Milveh that is writen in the Torah - such as Nezikin, ERchin an Korban, of which the Gemara ruled earlier that 'Shibuda d'Oraysa' ...

Reason: And Ne'ilas Deles is not applicable ...

Reason (cont.): Because regarding the heirs, the Rabbanan gave it a Din of a documented loan, whereas regarding the purchasers they did not ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas there it is speaking about an oral loan, where he lent him money without a Sh'tar, which is not written in the Torah (See Masores ha'Shas)..

Question: The Gemara in Perek Arba Miysos (Sanhedrin, Daf 54a) requires a Pasuk by Eishes Av and other cases of incest to render them forbidden both when the father (etc.) is alive and after his death ...

Question (cont.): And likewise in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 55a) it requires a Pasuk to render forbidden a Yevamah who has children even after her husband's death ...

Question (concl.): And here, it requires a Pasuk to permit a married woman after her husband's death?

Answer: It is precisely because we see how the Torah permits a married woman after her husband's death, as the Gemara Darshens in our Sugya, that we need Pesukim there to forbid Arayos after death

Answer (cont.): In order not to learn from a married woman, whom the Torah permits.

Clarification: The Ri explains that there is the Asei by Eishes Ish of "ve'Davak be'Ishro", 've'Lo be'Eishes Chavero' (Sanhedrin, 58B).

Question: Why do we not learn that Misah permits her with a Kal va'Chomer from Get - If Get, which does not permit her to the Yavam under any circumstances, even if he has no children, permits her to marry others whatever the circumstances ...

Question (cont.): Misah, which permits her to the Yavam if he has no children, ought certainly to permit her to marry others whatever the circumstances?

Question: Perhaps what the Pasuk means is that an Almanah is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol even if he is a Yavam, but for everybody else she is permitted to perfom Yibum ...

Question (cont.): But apart from Yibum, a woman is forbidden to marry after her husband's death.

Answer: In that case, the Pasuk of "Almanah, Gerushash and Chalalah" ought to have been written in the Parshah of Yibum.

Question), : The Gemara later (on Daf 17b) in connection with Sadeh Achuzah, states that Yava is called 'Acher' ...

Question (cont.): When, citing the Pasuk "Im Machar es ha'Sadeh le'Ish Acher", it explains that his brother is included?

Answer: One cannot compare the two cases, because there where the Pasuk is speaking about everybody, Yavam is included in 'Acher'; whereas in our case, where it wants to say that she is permitted to the Yavam exclusively, it means specifically Acher, and not Yavam.