Question #1 (Part 1): From where does R. Yishmael, who learned earlier that an Arusah receives Sereifah, but not a Nesu'ah, learn that an Eishes Ish receives Chenek?

Question #1 (Part 2): He cannot learn it from the same source as Rebbi, since we will then be able to ask that perhaps she ought to receive Sereifah (like the Gemara asked at the foot of the previous Amud)?

Implied Answer: Nor can we extrapolate from the fact that since the Torah sentences a bas Kohen to Sereifah, that an Eishes Ish does not receive Sereifah ...

Refutation: Because it is only an Arusah whom the Torah precludes from Sereifah, but not a Nesu'ah.

Question #2: Consequently, there is also a Kashya, in that, at the end of the Perek, there is an opinion that establishes Rebbi like R. Yishmael.

Answer: It is not logical to be more Machmir by a Nesu'ah bas Yisrael than by an Arusah.

Implied Refutation: Even though the Gemara does ask here 'Maybe she (a Nusu'ah) receives Sereifah?

Answer: The could have given the same answer as we just gave.

Qualification: This answer however, is not acceptable according to those who establish Rebbi like R. Yishmael.

Question: In that case, what purpose does the Gezeirah-Shavah serve, seeing as in any case S'tam Misah is Chenek?

Answer: 'Eishes Ish' is La'av Davka; We could just as well learn it from Rotze'ach, who is killed by the sword.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara not add 'Eishes Ish' as well?

Answer: Because we are referring here to after her father's death.

Clarification: Even R. Yehoshua, who holds in Perek ha'Choletz that it is only the child of Chayvei Misos Beis-Din who is a Mamzer, will concede that Chayvei K'risus are not subject to Kidushin, as we have learn from a Pasuk at the end of Perek ha'Omer

Proof: And in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a the Gemara emphatically states that a person knows that Kidushin is ineffective with one's sister, implying there there is nobody who disagrees with that.

Implied Question: The Gemara implies in many places that the status of Mamzer is interdependent with Tefisas Kidushin ...

Answer: That does not go according to R. Yehoshua

Question (Part 1): From where do we know that R. Akiva compares Chayvei La'avin to Chayvei K'risus across the board?

Question (Part 2): Even though he compares them regarding Mamzerus and Kidushin, maybe regarding Chalitzah and Yibum, the Asei will come and override the Lo'Sa'aseh (which it does not do by Chayvei K'risus)?

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have answered that he holds like the Mishnah at the end of ha'Choletz - that according to R. Akiva, it is only Chayvei La'avin of 'She'er' (i.e. who are blood relatives), who are forbidden to marry into the K'hal of Hash-m, but not other Chayvei La'avin.

Comment #1: We do not need to come on to this Kal-va'Chomer to ask the Kashya, since even without it, the Kashya emerges from the contradiction between the two Pesukim.

Clarification: The principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' is not applicable here (to refute the 'Kal va'Chomer', like we do in the case of 'Achoso' who is the daughter of both his father and his mother, discussed in the first Perek of Makos ...

Reason (Part 1): Because there the Lashon of the Pasuk implies that that she is either the daughter of is father or the daughter of his mother ...

Reason (Part 2): Whereas in our case, where the Torah writes "Eishes Avicha" S'tam and "Ervas Imecha" S'tam, it also incorporates his mother who is also his father's wife, in which case the one incorporates the other (in which case, 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' will not apply).

Comment #2 (Part 3): Moreover, the Torah writes there "Moledes Bayis O Moledes Chutz", which Targum translates as 'who is born to your father from another woman (who is not your mother) or to your mother from another man.

Implied Question: Even though in the second Perek of Yevamos we Darshen that Pasuk to mean 'whether one says to your father "Retain her!" or whether one says to him "Send her away!"

Answer: Nevertheless, the Pasuk does not lose its simple explanation'.