Implied question: Also all the other matters are written in the Parshah, like we expound "once he took her, she is like his wife in every way"!

Answer: Since Bi'as Shogeg does not acquire elsewhere, it is reasonable that the Torah included it only matters explicit in the Parshah, e.g. --

To inherit his brother's property, like it says "Al Shem Achiv" - for inheritance;

To exempt his brother's wife from Yibum, for it says "Lo l'Ishah", and not to his brother for a wife. Zikah of his brother was uprooted.

To exempt her Tzarah, for it says "Beis Achiv" - he builds one house, and not two houses.

These matters are to establish him in place of the husband.

Distinction: However, she does not eat Terumah through an inferior Bi'ah, and he does not inherit her or become Tamei for her, and does not annul her vows, for these are to make him stronger than her husband [if she fell from Eirusin];

However, if she fell from Nisu'in, he merits all of these, for this is only to establish him to be in place of the husband. We learn from these that are written.

Explanation: They argue only about Bi'as Shogeg and similar cases [that he did not intend for the Mitzvah]. Ha'ara'ah, which acquires also elsewhere, and it is Bi'ah in every respect, they do not argue about.

Implied question: Wasn't their argument fixed on our Mishnah of "full Bi'ah and Ha'ara'ah are the same" because they argue about this?!

Answer (Ri): No. It is because it concludes "he acquired", which refers also to Bi'as Shogeg.

The Yerushalmi's opinion: There is an argument about this in the Yerushalmi. Some say that they argue about Ha'ara'ah.

Explanation: She eats through Bi'ah. Likewise, we could have said [that they agree about] inheritance, becoming Tamei for her and annulling her vows.

Implied question: Why does it mention only Terumah?

Answer: Terumah is a Chidush, and all the more so for the other matters, for sometimes she is his wife in every way, but she may not eat Terumah, like it says in Kesuvos (48b);

Regarding a man who gave his daughter (Arusah) to her husband's Sheluchim, it says "she is given over [for Nisu'in] for everything, except for Terumah. (See well Tosfos Sotah 24b DH veha'Amar.)

Question #1: Why does she eat? We should be concerned for Simpon (lest she has a blemish that invalidates Kidushin due to Mekach Ta'os), for he did not check her, for he did not do Nisu'in before he became a Cheresh!

If so (she has a blemish), she is not Zekukah to him!

Question #2: Also below, we say that we decree Nisu'in of a Cheresh due to Kidushin. It should suffice [to forbid her to eat] due to [concern for] Simpon!

Question #3: According to R. Noson, why does she eat?

Answer (Ri): We are concerned for Simpon only when it can become revealed that there is a Simpon, and it will be Kidushei Ta'os;

However, here that he became deaf, we are not concerned lest he become cured and find a Simpon.

Implied question: If Bi'ah makes [only] Eirusin [but not Nisu'in, the husband does not feed through it]!

Answer (Ri): It means "every Bi'ah through which the husband feeds through Chupah afterwards..."

Explanation: It says "he disqualified her" due to the other cases. A Mamzeres or Nesinah is already Pesulah [even before Bi'as Isur]!

Suggestion: Perhaps it says "Paslah" due to the others, but not due to Eshes Ish!

Answer: The primary Chidush of Ones and Ratzon is only regarding an Eshes Ish;

Regarding other Arayos, there is no greater Chidush of Ones than Ratzon regarding those [who become] forbidden to Kehunah.

Alternate text: Some texts say "Just the contrary. We learn Yevamah from Arayos!"

Explanation: With difficulty, we can explain that even though Yevamah is learned from Chayavei Lavin, and not from Arayos, it is considered as if we learn it from Arayos, for from Arayos and Shifchah Charufah we learn Chayavei Lavin.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a Gerushah or Chalitzah to a Kohen Hedyot;

However, we do not need to teach for Ha'ara'ah, since we include this above from Kichah-Kichah from Arayos.

Objection (Ri): If it was taught due to Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah, also for Lo k'Darkah we do not need this, for we can learn also Kichah-Kichah from Arayos, in which it says Mishkevei Ishah!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rather, it refers to other Chayavei Lavin not of Kehunah. Regarding them, it does not say Kichah;

We know about them Lo k'Darkah only from a Gezeirah Shavah Bi'ah-Bi'ah from Yevamah, just like above we learn Yevamah from them regarding Ha'ara'ah.

Explanation: We expound from "Hi".

Question: We expound this in Kesuvos (51b) for another Drashah, for when the beginning b'Ones and the end was b'Ratzon, which is permitted!

Answer (Ri): There, it is an Asmachta. Based on reasoning, she is permitted, for it is considered Ones, even though the end was b'Ratzon, for the Yetzer Ra was put on her.

Support: Also what we say below (100b) "which is this? It is one whose Kidushin was a mistake", is an Asmachta.

Explanation #1: Rashi preferred his second explanation, that this applies to both a Bas Kohen and a Bas Yisrael. R. Meir disqualifies even a Bas Kohen, and R. Elazar and R. Shimon are Machshir even a Bas Yisrael.

Implied question: Why does it say "if they were widowed or divorced from Eirusin, they are Kesheros"? Kashrus of a Bas Yisrael applies only to marrying a Kohen, for she may not eat Terumah. If she was divorced, she may not even marry a Kohen!

Answer: We say that if she was divorced, i.e. a Bas Kohen, she is Kesherah to Terumah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara says that Kidushei Reshus do not feed, i.e. a Yisrael who was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael.

Question #1 (Ri): What is the Kal va'Chomer? There is no side of Kehunah in it. How could such Kidushin permit eating Terumah?!

Question #2 (R. Moshe Kohen): How may a Bas Yisrael eat Terumah when the time comes? Regarding Pesulos (women forbidden to their husbands), it does not apply to say "they eat from him (he must feed them), and they eat Terumah", like it says below;

Citation (85a): She must be divorced. Is she entitled to food?!

Explanation #2: We discuss a Bas Kohen, like Rashi's first explanation. The text in the Gemara says "even Kidushei Reshus [disqualifies. All the more so Kidushei Isur disqualifies!] This is R. Chananel's text.

Regarding a Petzu'a Daka, the text says that he was Mekadesh a Bas Kohen. This is also [the text of] R. Chananel, unlike the text in Seforim that he was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael.

Rashi explained like he did based on his text, but the text in R. Chananel's Sefer is like I said.