Explanation: Since the previous Perek taught (95a) that Bi'ah of [Leah's] sister does not forbid her [Leah to her husband], this Perek teaches that if one raped a woman, he may marry her relatives.

Implied question: We could have asked from the Beraisa, which permits!

Answer: He prefers to ask from our Mishnah.

Explanation: Since the Torah [wrote Kichah, and not] an expression of lying, this connotes that we expound through Likuchin (Kidushin), therefore it excludes rape;

However, we cannot err to say that "Ki Yikach Es Achoso" refers to Kidushin. Rather, it is lying. All know that Kidushin does not take effect on one's sister.

Explanation: There is more reason to forbid [in any case of] rape, for he transgressed an Isur, and "u'Mal'ah ha'Aretz Zimah";

Through Nisu'in, he did not transgress an Isur, so we should not forbid her relatives.

Question: Since we derive the Isur of a woman and her daughter from "Ervas Ishah u'Vitah Lo Segaleh", we should say that the verse forbids only when he had Bi'ah with both of them;

However, if [his Arusah] entered Chupah and did not have Bi'ah, he may have Bi'ah with the other!

Answer (Ri): It is logical that since the verse writes "She'er", and She'er comes through Nisu'in [this suffices to forbid the other].

Note: Tosfos connotes that Nisu'in, even without Bi'ah, suffices to forbid, but Kidushin itself does not. So explain Aruch l'Ner (2b DH Bito, b'E"D) and Sha'ar ha'Melech. Keren Orah (here and 3a) says that Tosfos' words are not precise, for surely Kidushin alone forbids. I say that a Mishnah (Kidushin 50b and the Sugya on 51b) and Rava (Nazir 12a) prove so. Above (95a), we said that when a man is Mekadesh a woman she forbids him to her relatives. It did not say that some relatives are forbidden only through Nisu'in. Bas Ishto is one of the Arayos that exempts from Yibum (2a). Granted, if Kidushin forbids her, Bas Arusaso is exactly the same. However, if the Isur is only after Nisu'in, the Gemara should have discussed whether one may do Yibum with Bas Arusaso (or a Tzarah), and if he may/should do Nisu'in with her mother and exempt his Yevamah! The Gemara asked whether Yi'ud makes Nisu'in, or only Eirusin (Kidushin 18b). It listed Nafka Minos, but did not mention the Isur to her mother! If we would replace the words above "Nichnesah l'Chupah" with "Arusah" or "Niskadshah", we could explain Tosfos to mean that the Isur depends on "Nisu'in", i.e. marriage (even Kidushin), and not on Bi'ah. Tosfos above (2b-3a, Sof DH Bito) connotes like this.

Explanation: "Kenaf Aviv" is one who was proper for his father in his lifetime.

Explanation: All of these cases do not teach us anything. They are merely answers for Tzedukim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): These are workers who irrigate fields.

Explanation #2 (Aruch): These are Chachamim who draw water from deep wells, i.e. they understand everything in Chachmah.

Explanation: We are concerned lest they be confused with Yisrael.

Above (22a), we explained.

Question: Why does it say "even"? Just the contrary! Since the first was born in Kedushah, it looks like he is a total brother. He seems more like a Yisrael [than when they were born before conversion]!

Answer: In any case, it seems like they have two [different] mothers, therefore one might have thought that it is permitted more.

Implied question: Why didn't it teach a bigger Chidush, that even if the first was conceived and born not in Kedushah [they are forbidden]?

Answer: Perhaps then it is permitted!