Explanation: Obviously, due to the husband's love or hatred [for the mother] Hash-m would not uproot her son's rights [of inheritance].

Question: Perhaps "hated" refers to a Rasha, whom Hash-m hates!

Answer: The verse connotes that she is loved or hatred due to her marriage;

If it discussed a Rasha, she is hated even without her marriage!

Question: Why do we need the verse "ha'Ishah vi'Ladeha"? We can exclude both [Shifchah and Nochris] from "Bas Eshes Avicha", for your father cannot be married to them!

Answer: We would have established the verse to discuss the one that is more reasonable [to exclude], and include the other from "Moledes Chutz" - whether they tell your father to [keep or] expel her [mother], just like we include from it Chayavei Kerisos.

Observation: There was no need to show why we need another verse for a Nochris, for the verse does not specify;

The first reason suffices. If there were only one verse, we would establish it to discuss a Shifchah, for she has no lineage.

Question: Now that there is a reason for a Nochris and a reason for a Shifchah, why do we need the verse ha'Ishah vi'Ladeha? We can exclude both from Bas Eshes Avicha, for there is no reason to exclude one more than the other!

Answer: One might have thought that the reason that Mitzvos do not apply to her is preferable, and we would establish the verse to discuss a Nochris;

Even though the reason for a Nochris is preferable, we would not have learned [to exclude her] from a Shifchah, since there is even a weak reason for a Shifchah that does not apply to a Nochris.

Version #1: This is the text of Rashi and most Seforim here.

Version #2: However, in Kidushin (68b) the text of most Seforim and Rashi says "ha'Vlad Mamzer."

Support #1 (Ri): Since we attribute the [lineage of] the child to the Yisraelis, there is more reason to say that he is a Mamzer than if we would attribute him to the Nochri, for Mamzerus does not apply to Nochrim.

Support #2: Above (17a), R. Yochanan said that all of them are Pesulim;

Later, [Rav Yehudah] says "when I said this in front of Shmuel, he said "your son from an Oved Kochavim is not called your son, rather, her son." We are not concerned for his Kidushin, for he is a Nochri, and not a Mamzer.

Implied question: We say in Bechoros (47a) regarding a Leviyah who became pregnant from a Nochri, that her son is exempt from five Sela'im...

Citation (47a): This is not only according to the opinion that we are not Mezahem (sully) the child. Rather, even according to the opinion that we are Mezahem the child, he is a Levi Pasul.

Answer (Ri): The opinion that we are not Mezahem the child is the one who says that he is a Mamzer. We do not ascribe his lineage to the Nochri.

The word "Mezahem" is based on Nochrim, who are Mezuhamim. Rashi did not explain like this.

Implied question: Also "Lo Sechanem" is written there, and we establish it (Avodah Zarah 20a) to apply to all nations of Nochrim!

Answer: Here we establish it to discuss [only] the seven nations because Ki Yasir connotes the seven nations, who veer more;

Had the Torah not written Ki Yasir, we would have established it to discuss all nations of Nochrim according to Rabanan;

According to R. Shimon, who explains [based on] the reasons for Mitzvos, if not for Ki Yasir, we would have expounded the reason for the Mitzvah due to veering, and we would have established it to discuss only the seven nations, who veer more.

Question: Also "Lo Sischaten Bam" is written there, and we establish it only regarding the seven nations, even though veering does not apply, for it discusses after conversion, like we say below (76a)!

Answer: You are forced to say that it cannot apply to all the nations. Since the Torah forbids converts from Amon, Mo'av, Mitzrayim and Edom, we infer that other converts may marry Yisre'elim.

Question: How could Shlomo make a Bris (pact) with Chiram Melech Tzur - "v'Yichresu Bris Shneihem"? It says "Lo Sichros Lahem Bris v'Lo Sechanem"!

This applies to all nations of Nochrim, just like "Lo Sechanem"!

Answer #1: Perhaps the verse forbids only a Bris for the sake of idolatry, like it says in the other verse "Lo Sichros Lahem v'Leiloheihem Bris"!

Answer #2: Perhaps Chiram Melech Tzur was a Ger Toshav.

Answer #3: The verse forbids a Bris only with the seven nations, for it says regarding the Giv'onim "Ulai b'Kirbi Atah Yoshev v'Eich Echros Lecha Bris";

Inference: It is permitted with other seven nations;

Even though "Lo Sechanem" applies to all nations of Nochrim, making a Bris is different, for it is clear from the context that it applies only to the seven nations;

It is like "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah", which applies only to the seven nations they were commanded to destroy - "Shivah Goyim Rabim v'Atzumim v'Chulei... ha'Charem Tacharim";

The verse commands not to make a Bris of Shalom not to strike them, in order to conquer Eretz Yisrael.

Observation: In Kidushin (68b) this Sugya is brought, and we answer differently;

Citation (68b): It says "Ki Sihyenah... v'Yaldu Lo" - whenever we apply Ki Sihyenah (he can have Kidushin with her), we apply v'Yaldu Lo (the children are attributed to him);

Citation (cont.): Whenever we do not apply Ki Sihyenah, we do not apply v'Yaldu Lo.

Also, afterwards it says "if so, why do we need to "ha'Ishah vi'Ladeha"? We establish it for a different Drashah. We do not say that one teaches about a Shifchah and one teaches about a Nochris, and we need both of them.

Explanation (Ri): This is only because perhaps he did not marry Achos Zekukaso. If it was Vadai, he would need to divorce her.

Implied question: If a Yavam was Mekadesh the Yevamah's sister (41a), Rabanan do not obligate even to wait!

Answer: This is because he was Mekadesh first, and did not have Bi'as Isur. The Yevamah's Zikah was already exempted through Kidushin of her sister;

However, here he acquired her through Bi'ah. Only in a case of Safek, we say that if they already married, they need not divorce them, but not in a case of Vadai.

Explanation: Through the Kidushin, it becomes forbidden to have Bi'ah with her;

However, Chayavei Lavin and Aseh are considered Kidushin ha'Mesurim l'Bi'ah.

Question: If so, this is difficult for Abaye, who say that it (Kidushin she'Ein Mesurim l'Bi'ah) is Kidushin! (Why did the Mishnah need to teach a case in which it was once known?)

Answer: "He does not know" connotes both (he initially knew, or he never knew. However, "it is not known" connotes that it was never known.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We question what it says in the Mishnah "if they already married, they need not divorce them."

Question #1: If so, we should have brought the Seifa of the Mishnah of four brothers [which says that if they already married, they must divorce them]!

Question #2: Below (24a), we bring the Seifa of the Mishnah regarding Shila's Beraisa! (I.e. if here it sufficed to cite the Reisha, even though we ask from the Seifa, why did we bring the Seifa below?!)

Explanation #2 (Ri): We question what it says in the Mishnah "one does Chalitzah, and one does Yibum." Regarding four brothers, both do Chalitzah.