Question: If so, what does the Gemara mean when it says 'A Ketanah can only make Ma'amar with the consent of her father, and a Na'arah with the consent of both her father and herself ...

Question (cont.): ... because according to Rebbi, one needs neither her own consent nor that of her father?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that one must first inform either her or her father, following which he may go on to betroth her against her will.

Clarification: Why draw a distinction between Ma'amar and Gerushin? If it is because Ma'amar can be performed against her will, so can Gerushin?

Explanation #1: This is Rashi's text - What it means is it is considered a P'rat; whereas if he were to say 'Shevu'ah Lo L'cha ve'Lo L'cha', it would be a K'lal, and he would be Chayav only one Korban ...

Explanation #1: Because the 'Vav' adds to the first statement.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, reverses the text - because, the opposite is true - when one says 've'Lo l'cha ve'Lo l'cha' it implies that he is swearing to each one individually. But when he says 'Lo'l'cha Lo l'cha' he is only Chayav one.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that, even Resh Lakish does not compare 'Havayah' to 'Yetzi'ah' ...

Source: ... seeing as a Ketanah can be divorced by herself according to the Rabbanan, as long as she has the intelligence to look after her Get, even though she cannot become betrothed by herself ...

Answer: Nevertheless, we must compare them as much as we can based on the Lashon "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah", in which case we connot differentiate between Kidushin and Gerushin by a Na'arah

Reason: ... Since the reason that we differentiate between them by a Ketanah is because she does not have a Yad to receive her Kidushin, whereas to receive her Get she does, seeing as she is married.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that there was not enough time in between to forget ... such as where he was taking fish out of the sea and the pan was already on the fire to place them into it with oil in order to fry them.

Explanation #2: According to the Rach however, they are two places which are close to one another ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara therefore means is that a person does not lie under such circumstances, because, since the other location is so close, he thinks that if he lies, somebody will come and contradict him; so he will not lie.

Clarification: It seems that by a Na'arah too, there is a Chidush according to Resh Lakish i to Rebbi Yehudah, and according to Rebbi Yochanan in the Rabbanan.

Implied Question: And the reason that it mentions 'Ketanah' is ...

Answer: Because by a Na'arah one cannot say "Tzerichah Miy'un', seeing as there is no Miy'un by a Na'arah ...

Sourer: ... as the Gemara says in Nidah (Daf 52a) 'Until when can a girl perform Miy'un? Until she grows two pubic hairs.'

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the one who learns that Ula is arguing with Shmuel, does not learn what Rav Nachman explains 've'Hu she'Shidchu' on Shmuel ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But he learns Shmuel's statement without 'Shidchu', which explains why he argues with them ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): 'Others say that, according to Ula, she does even require Miy'un' - Rashi explains that it speaks even by 'Shidchu'.

Reason: What pushes Rashi to learn like that is because if it was speaking without 'Shidchu', what is the difference between the two opinions?

Question: It is not logical however, to say that there should be such a vast difference between the Gemara earlier and the Gemara here ...

Question #1: ... seeing as earlier the Gemara asked 'Even by Shidchu?' , implying that it is obvious that 'Shidchu' requires Miy'un, whilst here according to the second opinion, the Gemara says that she does not?

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that Ula is speaking specifically by 'Lo Shidchu' ...

Implied Question: ... and the difference between the two opinions is ...

Answer: ... that, according to the first Lashon he argues with Rav and Shmu'el ...

Support: ... as Rashi explains - 'that the one who learns the Machlokes of Ula is on Rav and Shmuel' ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas according to the second Lashon - they all agree that he does not argue with Rav and Shmu'el ...

Answer (concl.): ... since one of them says one thing, and the other, another, and they do not argue.

Clarification: This is a Tiyuvta on Ula, who says that she does not even require Miy'un.

Question: Why is there no problem according to Shmu'el, seeing as he maintains that she requires a Get together with Miy'un, whereas here the Tana says 'Or she performed Miy'un', implying that she does not require a Get?

Answer: There is no problem according to Shmu'el, since one can explain that earlier it speaks where there was a Shiduch, whereas here it speaks where there was not, which explains why only Miy'un is required ...

Answer (cont.): But according to Ula there is a problem - inasmuch as, if there was a Shiduch, then according to the Ri, she requires both a Get and Miy'un, whereas according to Rashi, she does not even require Miy'un ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas if it speaks where there was no Shiduch, then she does not even require Miy'un, according to both opinions.