Implied question: Why didn't the Mishnah say ha'Besulah, like it taught "ha'Ishah Niknis", "ha'Yevamah Niknis" (Kidushin 2a)?

Answer: There, it refers to the verse "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" - the woman written in the verse. The same applies to ha'Yevamah. Here, it does not refer to a verse.

Implied question: Why did the Mishnah (Kidushin 14b, say Eved Ivri, and) not ha'Eved Ivri? There, it refers to a verse, "Ki Sikneh Eved Ivri"!

Answer: If so, it should teach ha'Eved ha'Ivri, for it is not a compound noun. The Gemara does not normally speak this way.

Exception: Regarding Ish and Ishah, it is normal [for the Mishnah] to teach them with a Hei, even if they do not refer to a verse, e.g. "ha'Ishah she'Halchah" (Yevamos 114b) and "ha'Ishah she'Nis'armelah" (below 15b) and "ha'Ish Madir Es Beno b'Nazir" (Nazir 28b).

Implied question: Why didn't the Tana teach "Nos'in Es ha'Besulah", like a Mishnah taught "ha'Ish Mekadesh"?

Answer #1: This way is shorter.

Answer #2: Had it taught so, one might have thought that [one may marry a woman] even b'Al Korchah (against her will).

Support: We answer like this in Kidushin (2b) to the question "let it teach ha'Ish Koneh!"

Answer #3: There ("ha'Ish Mekadesh") refers to a verse, "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah."

Explanation: We do not marry on Wednesday night, like it says in Nidah (65b), that there are quarrels about every Kesuvah (there is a delay until they can agree about it);

Note: Our Gemara says so in Shabbos 130, but not in Nidah. Rather, it says that they are meticulous about the wording until they sign it (according to the Bach's text). Mesores ha'Shas says that "there are quarrels" is a second reason why there are delays. I find it difficult to say that Tosfos cited one Gemara, but not did not say which delay it discusses, and mentioned one delay, but not did not cite which Gemara discusses it.

All the more so, if the Nisu'in would be [scheduled for] Wednesday night, there is concern lest he be occupied with the Nisu'in and Kesuvah and not have Bi'ah [that night]!

Question: Granted, [this applies to] a Kohen's wife, or [a girl Mekudeshes] before three years old. [If he finds that she had Bi'ah], it is a single Safek [that she is forbidden to him, so he must divorce her], like we say below (9a);

However, for other women there is a Sefek-Sefeka (two doubts, so he may keep her). Why should she be married on Wednesday?

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Chachamim did not distinguish their enactment. Due to a Kohen's wife and [a girl Mekudeshes] before three, they enacted that all women marry on Wednesday.

Answer #2 (Rashi): Amidst [his claim in Beis Din], it will become clarified, and witnesses will testify that she was Mezanah b'Mezid (so she is Vadai forbidden).

Objection - Citation (9b - Abaye): Also our Mishnah teaches that one who says "I found Pesach Pas'uach (the opening was open, i.e. I did not feel any Besulim)" is believed to forbid her to himself;

Suggestion: It teaches "a Besulah is married on Wednesday." Isn't the case that he claims Pesach Pas'uach?

According to Rashi, what is the proof? Even though he is not believed [to forbid her to himself,] he should go promptly to Beis Din, for through this, word will get out, and witnesses will come and the matter will become clarified!

Answer #1: Abaye does not bring a proof for R. Elazar [that he is believed to forbid her to himself]. Rather, he proves that [a man] is expert and recognizes if the Pesach was Pas'uach;

If a man were not expert, word would not get out, and the matter would not become clarified, for people would say that he erred, and thinks that he found Pesach Pas'uach, but it was not so. They would not be concerned for his words.

Answer #2: Also according to Rashi, they would not have enacted to marry on Wednesday for the lest it become clarified through witnesses;

However, since we find a Kohen's wife and a girl Mekudeshes before three, in which case he is believed to forbid her to himself, they enacted that she is married on Wednesday...

Also for other women they enacted [Wednesday], for through this word gets out and the matter will become clarified through witnesses.

According to this, Abaye brought a proper proof from our Mishnah that for a Kohen's wife and a girl Mekudeshes before three, he is believed to forbidden her to himself.

Question: Here it connotes that due to concern for Zenus, they enacted that she is married on Wednesday;

In Gitin (17a), there is an opinion that they enacted to write the date in Gitin due to Peros (to clarify when the husband ceases to receive the yield of her property)...

However, the reason was not lest one cover up for his niece (e.g. if his wife was Mezanah, and he pitied her, if he gave her a Get without a date, Beis Din would be unsure if the Get preceded the Zenus, and they could not execute her), for Zenus is not common!

Answer #1: There, it says that Zenus that leads to execution is not common, i.e. with witnesses and warning.

Answer #2: Here, lest she be married to him his entire life b'Isur, they were concerned for Zenus, even though it is not common.

Explanation: He does not ask why she is married on Wednesday, for if so, he did not answer this at all!

Rather, he asks "why did they say...", i.e. what difference does it make that they enacted that she is married on Wednesday?

He answers that this affects food and Terumah.

Rav Yosef was astounded - Master of Avraham (an expression of astonishment), the Mishnah explicitly gives the consequence, that if he had Ta'anas Besulim...

Why did [Shmuel] abandon the explicit consequence, and adopt a different consequence?!

The text: The text does not say "Rav Yosef [said in the name of...]", for Rav Yosef himself said "rather, if it was said..."

Explanation: This is said calmly. He comes to ask only why she cannot marry on Sunday.

Implied question #1: Why didn't he answer that she is married on Wednesday in order that the Bi'ah will be on Yom Chamishi (Wednesday night), the day on which fish were blessed, like we say below (5a)?

Question #2: Why do we need [to say below] the reason Shakdu (Chachamim pondered what is good for Bnos Yisrael, and enacted that Besulos be married on Wednesday, so the Chasan will toil three days for the nuptial feast)? The reason of Berachah suffices!

Answer (Ri): The reason of Berachah is merely good counsel. One is not called a transgressor [if he does not follow it]. However, one is called a transgressor for [not fulfilling] Shakdu.

Support: Below, we say "this is due to Berachah, but we are not concerned lest he calm down [after not finding Besulim]!"

Question: What difference does it make [what is the reason]?

Answer: Rather, surely due to Berachah one is not called a transgressor. (Zera Yitzchak - if one were called a transgressor for either, we would not ask why the Beraisa mentioned one of them. Since we asked, we must say that one is not called a transgressor due to Berachah.)

Implied question: Why can't he claim "just the contrary, her Mazal caused this"?

Answer #1: Since she is not commanded about Pru u'Rvu, she would not be punished [through delay of Nisu'in, which hinders procreation], like it says in Yevamos (64b).

Answer #2: The woman is [like] her husband's field, but he is not [like] her field.

Question (Ri): It says in Yevamos (41b) "if one stood in judgment (his Yevamah demanded Chalitzah or Yibum) and fled, she is fed from the Yavam's property;

The Yerushalmi explains that [this is if] he fled, and the same applies if he fell sick. Here we say that if he fell sick, he does not feed her!

Answer #1 (Ri): There it discusses when he fell sick or fled after standing in judgment. He was already obligated to feed her. Here we discuss when he fell sick before the set time [for the Nisu'in] came.

Answer #2 (Rashi in Yevamos): [She is fed from the Yavam's property] only if he fled, but not if he fell sick.

Objection: The Yerushalmi connotes unlike this.

Suggestion: Also, Rashi is difficult due to Version #2, in which we asked about one who fell sick. Why don't we learn from there (a Yavam? He is exempt if he fell sick!)

Rejection: An Arusah is tied [to the Arus] more than a Yevamah is [to the Yavam], like it says in Yevamos in several places. (Therefore, even though a Yavam is exempt, perhaps an Arus is liable.)

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This is Rav Achai Gaon, who authored the She'altos. He was after all the Amora'im, therefore the Gemara always uses a different expression, Parich Rav Achai or Pashit Rav Achai (as opposed to Eisivei, Maskif, Amar...)

Note: Rav Shrirah Gaon and the Ritva (Kidushin 3a) say that the entire discussion at the beginning of Kidushin was from Savora'im (Chachamim after the Amora'im). It became incorporated into the Gemara.

Rejection: Here, Rav Ashi responds to Rav Achai's words!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rather, Rav Achai was an Amora. Every Amora used his idiom [of disagreement], e.g. Megadef Bah R. Avahu (Sanhedrin 3b), Tahi Bah R. Yochanan (Bava Kama 112b), Layit Alah Abaye (Berachos 29a).

Source #1: They had a tradition to pronounce Lo Nis'u.

Source #2: If "Lo Nas'u" applied to the men, it should have said also in the plural "they are fed from their property."

Explanation: This connotes also when they (the women) are delaying.

Implied question: Perhaps it connotes only when they (the women) are delaying, but not when the men are!

Answer: It says "really, they (the men) are delaying. Since the Reisha discussed the women [also the Seifa does]";

[Granted, if Nis'u connotes when either delay, we can say that we taught so for parallel structure. However, if it connotes only when the women are delaying,] we should not teach a mistake in the Seifa for the sake of parallel structure!

Explanation: Ein Get Le'acher Misah. However, if he fell sick it is a Get.

Proof: If even when he fell sick it is not a Get, and the reason here (when he died) that it is not a Get is due to Ones, the Mishnah should have taught when he fell sick, which is a small Ones, and [we would know] all the more so if he died!

We did not yet think that when he died, we can say that he is happy [that the Get take effect], so she will not fall to the Yavam.

Explanation: This is because there is a claim of Ones [to invalidate a Get].

Implied question: We said that [if so], the Mishnah should have taught when he fell sick, and all the more so if he died!

Answer: It taught the case when he died to teach that Ein Get Le'acher Misah. It comes to teach both, Yesh Ones [l'Gitin] and Ein Get Le'acher Misah.

Implied question: Perhaps he comes to teach only that Yesh Ones, but Yesh Get Le'acher Misah!

Answer: If so, it should have taught when he fell sick.

Implied question: Perhaps he comes to teach only that Ein Get Le'acher Misah!

Answer: If so, he should not have taught "this is your Get if I do not come", in which he stipulates, rather, "this is your Get after death."

Explanation: "After death" is the reason for all of them.

Support: This is like "Atem" (you may tithe), but not overseers, a partner [on his partner's portion], sharecroppers, and not anyone who tithes what is not his own (Gitin 52a);

The reason why all of these are invalid is because one cannot tithe what is not his own.

Question: Why do we need that Mishnah [to teach that Ein Get Le'acher Misah]? A [previous] Mishnah (Gitin 13a) explicitly teaches that Ein Get Le'acher Misah!

(Mishnah): If one said 'give this Get to my wife', they may not give it after death.

Reference: We explained this in Gitin (13a DH Lo. The Mishnah on 13a teaches that even though the husband appointed a Shali'ach in his lifetime, he is not considered like the husband after death, as if the husband is still alive. Rather, it is a Get after death. The Mishnah on 72a teaches which expressions are a Get Le'acher Misah.)

Explanation: The Reisha does not teach unlike Raboseinu. We could establish it when no date was written in the document.

Implied question: It says in Gitin (86a) that three Gitin are Pasul, and one of them is when there is no date! (If so, we cannot say that in the Reisha, there is no date.)

Answer #1: We say that if she married [with one of the three Gitin], the child is not a Mamzer. Due to Ein Get Le'acher Misah, it teaches here that his words (i.e. the Get) have no effect, even if she married (the child is a Mamzer).

Answer #2: The case is, he wrote the Shemitah cycle, or the year, or the month;

It says in Gitin (17b) that this is Kosher (it is considered to be a date), but the date does not prove (whether or not the Get takes effect in his lifetime).

Answer #3: The case is, he wrote a postdated Get. (Therefore, it is a Get after death.)

Question: In Gitin (73a), we say "if a lion ate him, we do not have", i.e. we do not have [a reason to say that] it is a Get.

Why isn't it a Get? He does not want [his wife] to fall to the Yavam!

Answer: Regarding an Ones that is not common at all, it does not cross his mind that he should want it to be a Get [in such a case].