Clarification (Part 1): Throughout Shas, the Gemara takes for granted that in the case of a woman, one is Chayav for two Mishkavos, since the Torah writes "Mishk'vei Ishah".

Clarification (Part 2): What Rav Papa means to say is that if needs to draw a distinction between a woman and an animal, then it ought to be the other way round.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Abaye requires both 'Takalah' and 'Kalon'. He does not concur with Rav Sheishes, who sentences to death an animal that is raped by a Nochri (even though there is no Kalon).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, he does concur with Rav Sheishes, only, he holds, since the Kalon of raping is so great, there is Kalon by a Nochri, and he does not learn from trees.

Question #1: Rashi's explanation however, is Dachuk, since the Gemara implies that Abaye is coming to reconcile the oopinion of Rav Sheishes, who sentences to death even though there is no Kalon by a Nochri.

Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, how can Rav Sheishes learn from the fact that trees require burning due to Takalah alone, that a Nochri who raped an animal is Chayav too?

It is obvious that one can refute this proof from 'Someone who bows down to an animal' (where there is Takalah but no Kalon), who is Patur, since the Torah takes pity on animals - as the Gemara concludes. By the same token, one cannot learn 'Revi'ah' from 'Trees' either (for the very same reason)?

Explanation #3: What Rav Sheishes therefore learns from 'Trees' is that just as by 'Trees' the Pasuk compares the Din of a Nochri to that of a Yisrael, despite the fact that by a Yisrael there is Takalah and Kalon, whereas by a Nochri, there is only Takalah, so too, by 'Revi'ah', the Nochri ought to be Chayav, even though there is only Takalah - like a Yisrael, by whom there is Takalah and Kalon.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara then asks that, if that is so, then a Nochri who bows down to his animal ought to render it Chayav, on account of Takalah?

Clarification (Part 2): To which the Gemara replies that if something is not forbidden by a Yisrael, then it is not forbidden by a Nochri either, especially since our Sugya only forbid an animal that has been raped by a Nochri, in order to compare it to the equivalent case of a Yisrael.

Clarification (Part 3): The Gemara then asks that the animal of a Yisrael himself ought to be forbidden, like one that has been raped by him? And since an animal that has been worshipped by a Yisrael is forbidden because of Takalah and Kalon, that of a Nochri ought to be forbidden, even though there is only Takalah.

Clarification (Part 4): And the Gemara answers 'that one cannot learn 'Ne'evzad of a Yisrael from 'Nirva' of a Yisrael, because by 'Nirva' there is a lot of Kalon, whereas by 'Ne'evad' of a Yisrael there is Takalah but not a lot of Kalon.

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the case where her father received Kidushin on her behalf.

Question #1: We already know that (her Bi'ah is a considered Bi'ah) from the Seifa which states 'Ba alehah Echad mi'Kol Arayos ... ', from which we extrapolate 'even an animal' (how much more so will she subject to Eishes Ish [Tosfos Ha'Rosh]).

Question #2: Furthermore, in the first Perek of Kidushin, the Gemara tries to learn from 'Miskadeshes be'Bi'ah (in the Beraisa) that Bi'ah makes Erusin and not Nisu'in, since the Tana says later 'Niseis'. (According to Rashi) what is the proof; Perhaps 'Niseis' refers to Kidushei Kesef, just like 've'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish' does?

Explanation #2: All the cases refer to Kidushei Bi'ah of the Reisha, which in turn, needs to be mentioned because of 'Ba Alehah Yavam, Kan'ah - so that one should not say that he only acquires the Yevamah mi'de'Rabbanan, like the case of a ben-Tesha in the Seifa, who does not acquire the Yevamah min ha'Torah, only like Ma'amar (mi'de'Rabbanan), as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Ishah Rabah'.

Question (Part 1): Later in Perek Ben Sorer u'Moreh, the Gemara extrapolates that we follow the majority (even) in matters that concern the death-sentence, from 've'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish', even though she might be an Aylonis, whom he did not betroth under such circumstances ('Ada'ta de'Hachi Lo Kadish')?

Question (Part 2): But even if he did ('Ada'ta de'Hachi Kadish'), the Gemara could have asked why one is Chayav in the case of Yavam, seeing as an Aylonis is not subject to Yibum?

Observation: The Gemara did not ask from Yavam directly, seeing as it could easily have answered that the Yavam did not perform Yibum on the understanding that she was an Aylonis?

Answer: The Gemara needed to say 'Ada'ta de'Hachi Lo Kadish' because it asked the same Kashya from the Seifa 'Ba Alehah Echad mi'Kol Arayos'.

Observation: When the Gemara answers there that 'Chayavin Alehah' refers to Korban (and not to Misah), it did not think about the Seifa at that point.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Ben Sorer u'Moreh then queries the previous answer (that 'Chayavin Alehah' refers to Korban) and concludes that the Beraisa is speaking where the first husband accepted the Kidushin even if she is an Aylonis.

Clarification (Part 2): Nevertheless, 'Chayavin' in the case of Eishes Ish means 'Chayavin be'Korban' as we explained.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, it speaks where (not the first man, but) the Yavam accepted the Kidushin (meaning that if she turns out to be an Aylonis, he will betroth her from scratch).

Explanation #3: The Riva explains that the Tana mentions 've'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish', which it learns on account of the Seifa, which includes all Arayos, which in turn, it learns in order to add 'Afilu Beheimah'. From the Seifa alone we would not have known this, since we would have thought that the Bi'ah of a Bi'ah is not considered a Bi'ah.

Proof: Like we see regarding a ben-Tish'ah, in connection with whom the Tana writes that in the event that he has relations with one of the Arayos ... 'Mumsin al'Yado', yet the Tana mentions Beheimah independently.

Observation: According to the Riva, it is clear as to why the Tana does not insert 'u'Poseles es ha'Beheimsah ve'Niskeles al-Yadah' by Ketanah (like it did in the Reisha).

Clarification: But if she is under three, she dos not eat Terumah ...

Implied Question: Even though neither the concern of Ula (that she might give her siblings a cup containing Terumah) nor that he may cancel the Kidushin due to Mum (Simpon) that he discovers, ought to apply, seeing as she is married.

Answer #1: Nevertheless, since she is too small to make Bi'ah, she returns to her father's house, without her husband having examined her (in which case both concerns are in fact, applicable).

Answer #2: Moreover, since 'Niseis' refers to 'Miskadeshes be'Bi'ah' (as the Gemara in the first Perek of Kidushin explains), seeing as the Kidushin via Bi'ah of a girl under three is invalid, her Nisu'in is not valid either.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if he is a Kohen and he performs Bi'ah with her in order to betroth her, he is not permitted to feed her.

Question: The reason for this ruling has nothing to do with the Bi'ah, but rather because a Katan is not subject to Kidushin.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that 've'Eino Ma'achil' refers to a Yavam (of nine years), who does not feed his Yevamah, even though she is Zekukah to him (and does not require Kidushin).

Clarification (Part 1): With 'Higdil' alone, a Get will not suffice, since the Rabbanan rendered the Bi'ah of a nine-year old like Ma'amar, in which case she will require a Get for the Ma'amar and Chalitzah for the Zikah. Only when

Clarification (Part 2): Only when he grows up he should perform Bi'ah and then give her a Get (as the Gemara explains in Perek Yotzei Dofen).