Question: Based on what I explained above (54a DH she'Chen), that we do not consider the possibility of increasing the Isur Achos Ishto to be a stringency, we can ask that the Isur Achos Ishto can be increased! (His brother can marry more women.)

Answer: Here we learn only that brotherhood applies [also] from the mother regarding Achos Ishto, just like regarding Eshes Ach.

Question: Here we require a verse to forbid after death, and also in Sanhedrin (53, 54a) regarding Eshes Av and a daughter-in-law;

In Kidushin (13b), we ask what is the source to permit an Eshes Ish after her husband dies!

Answer: In all of these (here and in Kidushin), we need a verse lest we learn from Eshes Ish, who is permitted after her husband dies, like we learn there.

Question - Citation (below, 94b): Regarding a mother-in-law after death [of his wife], R. Akiva excludes it from "Yisrefu Oso v'Es'hen" - v'Es Shteihen, i.e. both of them are alive;

Citation (cont.): Granted, the Torah excludes from burning [after the wife died]. It did not exclude from an Isur.

Summation of question: If not for the verse, she would be burned!

Answer: We need a verse for all [of the Arayos] to forbid or permit, lest we learn them from each other.

Implied question: Above (17b), why did we need to learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah of] Achvah (brotherhood) from Bnei Yakov [that Yibum applies only to paternal brothers? Here we learn that a maternal brother is permanently forbidden!]

Answer: [If not for the Gezeirah Shavah], we would have said they must have the same father and mother, because it says "together".

Explanation: Even according to Riva's explanation, that Ariri (barrenness) applies only to those Chayavei Kerisos for which it is written, this is a proper question, like I explained above (2a. Just like we learn all Arayos from Nidah regarding Ha'ara'ah, we can learn from "Nidah" also Ariri, for it says regarding Eshes Achiv "Nidah Hi".)

Question: Now that we learned Ha'ara'ah (that one is liable for it) for Chayavei Lavin, the Torah did not need to teach this regarding Chayavei Kerisos! (We could learn from Chayavei Lavin.)

Answer (R. Moshe Kohen): If not for the verse regarding Chayavei Kerisos, one might have thought that since the Torah revealed regarding Shifchah [Charufah], this implies that Ha'ara'ah [is Mechayev] for Chayavei Kerisos, but Chayavei Lavin require full Bi'ah [to be liable], for we learn from Shifchah Charufah;

However, now that the verse teaches Ha'ara'ah for Chayavei Kerisos, if all Chayavei Lavin required full Bi'ah, the Torah did not need to teach this for Shifchah Charufah!

Explanation: [Since we equate Bi'ah to Ha'ara'ah] it is as if it wrote "Dor Shelishi Ya'areh." This implies that the second generation may not do Ha'ara'ah.

Question: It says in Sanhedrin (84a) that something inferred, we do not learn a Gezeirah Shavah from it!

Answer: Here, Bi'ah comes for a Gezeirah Shavah. It is as if it is written explicitly, and does not come from an inference;

It is unlike the case there, in which we do not learn [a Gezeirah Shavah] Chilul-Chilul from [a Tamei who ate] Terumah, to teach that a Kohen who served while he was an Onen [is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim].

There, the Torah did not [explicitly] write that he is Mechalel Avodah. We infer this.

It says about a Kohen Gadol "u'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yotzei v'Lo Yechalel." This implies that someone [who served b'Aninus] is Mechalel (disqualifies the Avodah).

The text: The text does not say this. It is not in most Seforim, for there is a Lav according to both Rav and Shmuel, like I explained above (49b).

Explanation: She is acquired (Mekudeshes) through Ha'ara'ah.

Question (R. Nisim): In Kidushin (10a), we asked whether the beginning of Bi'ah acquires, or the end of Bi'ah;

Citation (10a) - Question: What difference does it make? This affects a woman who [while having Bi'ah with Ploni l'Shem Kidushin] accepted Kidushin from Almoni [after Ha'ara'ah, but before full Bi'ah].

Rava concludes there that everyone who does Bi'ah has intent for full Bi'ah. He does not acquire through Ha'ara'ah.

Answer #1 (R. Shimshon ha'Zaken): Here we say that he acquires with Ha'ara'ah, i.e. when he did only Ha'ara'ah, separated immediately, and did not finish the Bi'ah;

There, we discuss one who does the entire Bi'ah. He does not acquire through Ha'ara'ah, since he intends for a full Bi'ah.

Support: The words prove like this. It says there "everyone who has Bi'ah, he intends for full Bi'ah." It does not say "everyone who does Ha'ara'ah..."

Answer #2 (Rivam): When he specifies that he wants to acquire through Ha'ara'ah, he acquires through Ha'ara'ah, even if he finished the Bi'ah;

Stam (when he did not specify, we assume that) he intends for full Bi'ah.

Answer #3: R. Tam explained differently there. I explained there. (After the Torah taught that Ha'ara'ah is like full Bi'ah, we ask whether the beginning or end of Ha'ara'ah acquires - Tosfos Yeshanim.)

Question: in Kidushin (9b) we learn that a woman is acquired (Mekudeshes) through Bi'ah from "u'Ba'alah". Why don't we learn from Kichah-Kichah?

Answer #1: If not for "u'Ba'alah", we would not learn that Bi'ah acquires, since Kichah of Arayos does not discuss a Kinyan at all;

However, that Ha'ara'ah should be considered like a full Bi'ah, we properly learn from there.

Question: We should learn from Kichah of Yevamah, which discusses Kinyan - "v'Lakchah Lo l'Ishah"!

Answer: It is not Mufneh (extra) for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Question: We should learn from Kichah of Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah. That Kichah discusses Kinyan, like it says in Kidushin (78a);

If one was Mekadesh [Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah], he is lashed for "Lo Yikach." We also expound it for a Gezeirah Shavah!

Answer: It does not discuss Kichah [specifically] of Bi'ah. Rather, it refers to Stam Kidushin, like it says there "if he had Bi'ah [with her], he is lashed for "Lo Yechalel." (Above, it said that he is lashed for Kidushin due to "Lo Yikach." If this were only through Bi'ah we should have taught this together with lashes for "Lo Yechalel"!)

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): If not for "u'Ba'alah", we would not learn Kidushei Kesef from Kichah Kichah from Sedei Efron;

Rather, we would establish Kichah of the verse to teach about Kidushei Bi'ah, for it is more reasonable to learn Kichah of a woman from Kichah of a woman;

However, now that it says u'Ba'alah, we are forced to learn Kichah from Sedei Efron for Kidushei Kesef;

Question: Perhaps we need Kichah to teach about Ha'ara'ah!

Answer: If so, the Torah would have omitted u'Ba'alah, and we would learn the entire matter from Arayos!

Implied question: In Bava Basra (114b), it is obvious that a husband does not inherit his wife when he is dead [in order to bequeath to his heirs];

There, we say also that just like a husband does not inherit his wife when he is dead, to bequeath to his heirs, also a son does not inherit his mother when he is dead, to bequeath to his paternal brothers.

Why is it more obvious regarding a husband than regarding a son? (We learned a son from a husband. We did not bring any source for a husband!)

Answer: It is due to the Drashah here. We learn that after death, she is not called his She'er.

Question: In Sanhedrin (66b), we exclude (exempt) one who have Bi'ah with a dead woman from a different verse!

We expound there "u'Mesu Gam Sheneihem" to exclude the episode of Hurdus, which refers to Bi'ah with a dead girl;

It says in Bava Basra (3b), that he submerged a girl from Beis Chashmonai in honey [to preserve her], and he used to have Bi'ah with her to assuage his Yetzer Ra.

Answer (Ri): We need the Drashah of our Sugya according to the one who expounds there "u'Mesu Gam Sheneihem" to teach that both of them must be equal (both are adults, and are Chayav Misah. If not, neither is killed!)

Implied question: It says there "the other opinion holds that Hurdus' act is nothing" (we do not need a Drashah to exempt it. Why should exclude it from Shichvas Zera written regarding Eshes Ish, like our Sugya expounds!)

Answer: We could have said that we exclude it from the verse here. We preferred to establish that Tana, who expounds there that both of them must be equal, even like the opinion that exempts Bi'as Ervah with Ever Mes. (He learns this from Shichvas Zera written regarding Eshes Ish.)

Alternate text: Some texts there say "this excludes Ma'aseh Chidudin." This is the Aruch's text.

Explanation (Rashi, there): This is Derech Evarim (intimacy without Bi'ah).

Objection: In our Sugya, it is clear to Abaye that this is nothing! (No verse is needed to exclude it.)

Answer #1: He holds like the opinion there that Ma'aseh Chidudin is nothing.

Answer #2: Even according to the opinion that excludes it from a verse, we can say that here it is clear to Abaye due to the verse there.

Question: Even if he said to her Stam "do not be secluded", this is Kinuy. What is the difference if he mentioned also Derech Evarim, since he also said "do not be secluded"?

Answer: The Gemara means that he warned her Derech Evarim. He said that he suspects her only of this;

The same applies to Kinuy about Lo k'Darkah.

Assertion: One is liable for a Shifchah Charufah even without ejaculation of semen, just it must be a Bi'ah capable of ejaculation;

This is like regarding Eshes Ish. We do not require ejaculation, even though it says Shichvas Zera;

Regarding Shifchah Charufah, it (Shichvas Zera) excludes only Ha'ara'ah and Lo k'Darkah. It says so in Kerisus (11b).

Assertion: According to the opinion that Ha'ara'ah is entrance of the crown, one cannot become pregnant through Ha'ara'ah, only through Miruk Gid (full entrance of the Ever);

If it were possible to become pregnant [through Ha'ara'ah], we would not establish the verse to exclude Ha'ara'ah, rather, Lo k'Darkah.