Explanation #1 (Rashi): They are permitted to use a wad, even though other women are forbidden, due to wasting seed.

Objection (R. Tam): One may have Bi'ah with a minor or Ailonis. This is not considered wasting seed, since this is the normal way of Bi'ah.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): They have Bi'ah [with a wad], i.e. they must put a wad after Bi'ah. The Tana teaches a good counsel [to avoid danger].

Defense (of Rashi - Ri): In Nidah (3a) it connotes that the wad is in her womb the entire time, and it is like Bi'ah [in which he spills his seed] on rocks and sticks;

This is unlike Bi'ah with a minor or Ailonis.

Further, even if she would put the wad after Bi'ah, it is [normally] forbidden;

Support: Even though she (a woman) is not commanded Peru u'Rvu, she may not waste seed, like it connotes in Nidah (13a);

A Mishnah teaches that it is praiseworthy for women to check often [for blood]. A man who does so (feels his Ever to check for emissions), his hand should be cut off [for this causes emissions]!

The Gemara explains that women are not Benos Hargashah (sensation does not cause them to emit their seed).

Inference: If they were Benos Hargashah, they would be forbidden [due to wasting seed]!

Rejection (of Support): Perhaps this means that they are not Benos Isur Hargashah (they have no Isur to cause sensation, for they may waste their seed).

Alternate text: The text of Rashi in Kidushin (79a) did not have this, for even without "Bilvad", it connotes that there cannot be more [than six months].

Explanation: We ask according to R. Akiva in our Mishnah, who says that if she became Mekudeshes and was divorced, she receives the fine;

Do we say that since she left her father's Reshus regarding a fine, the fine is hers?

Or, perhaps since regarding other matters, she did not leave her father's Reshus, her father receive the fine.

Distinction: However, according to R. Akiva in the Beraisa, obviously her father receives the fine.

Also according to R. Yosi ha'Glili, who said that there is no fine for her, also he does not ask;

The reason she has no fine is not because she left her father's Reshus. Rather, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that she has no fine;

She does not leave her father's Reshus at all through Eirusin. Her father receives her Kidushin money and earnings, even though she became Mekudeshes;

Implied question: Why did he ask Stam, and not explicitly say that he asks according to R. Akiva?

Answer: It is because the Halachah follows R. Akiva against his colleague.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We learn from Hafaras Nedarim.

Implied question: We hold that we do not learn from Mamon from Isur!

Answer: We do not learn Mamon from Isur to establish her in her father's Reshus, but to remove her from her father's Reshus, we learn from Hafaras Nedarim;

For a small reason, we remove her from her father's Reshus..

Answer #2 (Riva): Since the verse revealed to us that to establish her in her father's Reshus, Isur and Mamon are the same, the same applies to removing her.

Answer #3 (Ri): Nisu'in removes from her father's Reshus, since we expound "Ish Imo v'Aviv Tira'u" - (the Torah specified a man, because) a man has the ability, but a [married] woman cannot (for she must work for her husband, and not for her father).

Rejection: Mid'Oraisa, her earnings do not go to her husband!

Explanation #1: We find that a Bogeres leaves her father's Reshus regarding Mamon.

Objection: Also Nisu'in removes her from her father's Reshus regarding Mamon. Why must we learn from a Bogeres?

Explanation #2: When he had Bi'ah with her and she became a Bogeres, we learn that [the fine] is to her from "v'Nasan l'Avi ha'Na'arah." We expound "to the Na'arah's father, and not to the Bogeres' father."

Question (Ri): What was the question? Did the Gemara not know that a Besulah has great pain through the first Bi'ah?! Many minors get sick from this!

Suggestion: It was obvious to the Gemara that he is exempt for this pain, since she is destined to have this pain from her husband [when she will marry].

Rejection: Several Tana'im in Bava Kama (59a) are not concerned for weakening of vines, i.e. something that will later occur! (If an animal ate immature grapes, some deduct from the payment, due to weakening of the vines that would have occurred had the grapes finished growing, and some do not deduct.)

Answer #1 (Ri): Due to desire of Bi'ah, the pain of [the first] Bi'ah does not come at the time of Bi'ah, only afterwards;

All pain of wounding that one must pay is the pain at the time of the blow. He is exempt for what comes afterwards, for this is only Gerama (causation). Therefore, we asked what pain he pays for.

Answer #2 (Rashba): Surely we cannot discuss pain of [breaking] the Besulim, for you are forced to say that the Tana of our Mishnah is concerned for weakening of vines, since he exempts a Mefateh.

Explanation: Also she has pain of opening the legs, just like one who was raped. Why did we say that one who was forced is unlike one who consented to Bi'ah?

Explanation (my Rebbi, my uncle): We could not have asked against our Mishnah "why is Ones liable [to pay for pain]? She would have had this pain later from her husband!", because even a Be'ulah has this pain;

Even though this man had Bi'ah with her now, later she will have pain again. She did not gain at all [through suffering this pain now].

It seems a little that the Gemara asked against our Mishnah [and not against the Beraisa] "why is Mefateh exempt?"

Implied question: [She consented to Bi'ah, but] she did not say "on condition that you will be exempt"!

Answer: We can say that due to pleasure of Bi'ah, she totally pardoned.

Explanation: Even if he enticed her for the sake of marriage, we ask that she is not his wife, since she does not need a Get.

Explanation: Even though they are equated to Kenas, that teaches that both of them go to the same person;

However, there are cases in which one is exempt from Kenas and liable in Boshes and Pegam.

Question #1 (Ri): What is the case?

If we discuss a minor or Na'arah, how can she refuse? Since her father wants, he can be Mekadesh her to any man he wants, b'Al Korchah (against her will), and similarly to this man!

If she has no father, or she became a Bogeres afterwards, why do we need a verse? We know that she can refuse, lest a sinner profit, like Abaye says below!

Question #2: Similarly, according to Abaye, why do we need a verse for her father (that he can refuse? Surely he can, lest a sinner profit!)

Answer (Ri): Granted, she cannot prevent her father from being Mekadesh her to him. However, her refusal helps to obligate him a fine;

The same applies to her father. (Obviously, he can veto the Kidushin. The verse teaches that his refusal obligates a fine.)

Implied question: The Beraisa here says that a Mefateh pays [only] when he does not marry her!

Answer: We must say that it means when he does not marry her with her consent. (If he does not marry her, or marries her b'Al Korchah, he pays.)

Question: Here we expound from "Im Ma'en Yima'en" - in any case, to teach that she can refuse;

Below (44b) we expound from this verse to include a fine for an orphaned minor!

Answer #1: The Torah should have written either 'Ma'en Ma'en' or 'Yima'en Yima'en.' Why did it write "Ma'en Yima'en"? Therefore, we expound two laws.

Support: We expound similarly in Bava Kama (65a) regarding "Im Himatzei Simatzei" and in Bava Kama (85a) regarding "v'Rapo Yerapei."

Answer #2: We do not expound an extra verse there (44b). If we did, what was the question against R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, who exempts Motzi Shem Ra on an orphan? Mefateh is different, for the verse included [an orphan]!

Rather, the primary Perush is like Rashi explained below. We do not expound an extra verse there;

Rather, it means that we include a fine for an orphan, for we expound that there is a fine when she refuses.

Observation: We could have said that it includes a fine for a Bogeres when she refuses;

Only a Bogeres or orphan, there is a fine for her refusal. However, as long as she did not become a Bogeres, it depends on the father.

Support: Now, the Gemara properly infers there that this Tana holds that there is a fine for an orphan. We do not exclude her because it says "l'Avi ha'Na'arah", even though there is no verse to include an orphan;

We can establish the verse for a Bogeres [to include her].

Question: Since we learn Ones and Mefateh from each other, we should learn also this from each other, like we ask below! Why do we say "what is the source for her father?"

Answer: For this matter, we do not learn them from each other, for a Mefateh can refuse [to marry her], but Ones cannot;

Likewise, [regarding Ones] her father cannot refuse. Abaye says like this below.

Rava holds that it is unreasonable to say so, since there is a Kal va'Chomer.

Question: Regarding Ones, why must it write [a Drashah to teach] that she [can refuse]? Abaye should learn from reasoning, lest a sinner profit, and Rava should learn from a Kal va'Chomer!

Answer #1: "Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" is not extra. It is needed to teach about Chayavei Aseh and Drashos above (Maharam).

Answer #2: Abaye and Rava answered like they did only after the Torah explicitly revealed [that she can refuse].

Observation: Even if he enticed her for the sake of marriage, he can divorce her.

Implied question: Mid'Oraisa, a Besulah has a Kesuvah! (How can we say that it is only mid'Rabanan?)

Answer: [He marries her after the Bi'ah, and then] she is Be'ulah.

Question: The Beraisa teaches uniformly that in every case, she has no Kesuvah, even if he had Bi'ah with her Lo k'Darkah;

She is a full Besulah, and mid'Oraisa she has a Kesuvah, for if another man would have Bi'ah with her, she has a fine! (This shows that she is still a Besulah.)

The reason [she has a Kesuvah] is not lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her! (Tosfos did not answer this. Tosfos ha'Rosh says that all agree mid'Oraisa, that "Kesef Yishkol k'Mohar ha'Besulos" teaches that her fine is in place of her Kesuvah. They argue only about whether or not Rabanan enacted a Kesuvah for her.)

Question (Ri): Since the reason is not so it will not be light in his eyes to divorce her, why did Rabanan enact that [when a man dies,] the widow receives a Kesuvah? They should have enacted only for a divorcee!

Answer (Ri): Since they needed to enact for a divorcee, lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her, they enacted also for a widow, for Chen (to encourage marriage);

However, l'Chatchilah they would not have enacted [just] for Chen.

Question (Rashba): A Beraisa in Bava Kama (89a) says "and similarly, if she wounded her husband, she did not lose her Kesuvah";

Citation (cont.) Question: Why is this? She should sell her Kesuvah for Tovas Hana'ah (the buyer pays in order to receive it if and when she will be widowed or divorced), and she will pay to him (her husband) for the wound!

Citation (cont.) Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Meir, who says that one may not keep his wife even for a moment without a Kesuvah.

Summation of question: Since the reason is lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her, she should sell her Kesuvah on condition that (the buyer receives it) only if she is widowed, but if he divorces her, she gets it! There, Chen does not apply!

Note: It seems that the Rashba explains "Chen" like Rashi (below, 84a), to encourage women to marry. The Ri answers according to this. However, see the note after the Ri's answer at the end of this Tosfos.

Answer (Ri): Since for other women Chen applies, even though it does not apply to this woman, Rabanan did not distinguish, and one may not keep her without a [full] Kesuvah according to R. Meir.

Question: Why was it taught here that the money of the fine is in place of her Kesuvah?

It should rather teach that if he died, she has no claim against him, for Rabanan enacted that a widow [receives a Kesuvah] only due to a divorcee, and here there is no reason to enact for a divorcee, for he cannot divorce her [b'Al Korchah]!

Answer (Ri): Also here, since Chen applies to her, like for other widows, we should not distinguish her from other widows;

Note: It seems that the Ri explains "Chen" like Tosfos' first Perush (below, 84a), so men will want to marry women after they are widowed or divorced. Perhaps above, the Ri answered the Rashba according to the Rashba's opinion. Alternatively, the Ri agrees. Women will be more eager to marry if they see that every widow gets a Kesuvah. The following line is better understood according to this. If women realize that she received a fine in place of a Kesuvah, Chen is fulfilled.

Therefore, we need the reason that the money of the fine is in place of her Kesuvah, and Chachamim were not concerned that she has no Kesuvah.