1)

(a)Rebbi learns from "Be'ulas Ba'al" that only her husband makes her a Be'ulah through a Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah, but not someone else. Rebbi Zeira reconciles this with the Beraisa (which we quoted a little earlier), where Rebbi commutes the sentence of the subsequent nine adulterers to Chenek by confining the Derashah (from "Be'ulas Ba'al"" to Kenas (when she is not an Arusah, but not to their death-penalty, when she is).

(b)From the word Levado" (in the Pasuk in Ki Setzei, "u'Mes ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado" [in connection with the rape of a Na'arah Besulah]) that when it comes to the death penalty, only the first adulterer receives Sekilah, as we just explained.

(c)The Rabanan (who hold that all ten receive Sekilah) explain "Levado" like Rebbi Yonasan in a Beraisa, who learns from there that a man who commits adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah, receives Sekilah even though the girl does not (i.e. if she is a Ketanah).

(d)Rebbi Yoshiyah disputes this. He learns from the Pasuk there (in connection with the same case, but where the woman was a willing partner) "u'Meisu Gam Sh'neihem" that the man is only Chayav if the girl is Chayav too (but not if she is a Ketanah).

2)

(a)We just explained how according to Rebbi, a husband renders a woman a Be'ulah (even though others don't) from "Be'ulas Ba'al". Rebbi Yochanan (who derives Kidushei Bi'ah from there), learns that a husband renders a woman a Be'ulah (even though others don't) from the expression "Be'ulas Ba'al" (when the Torah should otherwise have written "Be'ulas Ish").

3)

(a)One of the ramifications of the She'eilah whether it is the beginning of Bi'ah (i.e. Ha'ara'ah) that acquires the woman or the end is, if, in a case where she accepts Kidushin from another man between the two sets of Kidushin, the second Kidushin is valid or not. The other one is whether a Kohen Gadol is permitted to acquire a wife through Bi'ah or not. Because, by the time he concludes the Bi'ah, she is already a Be'ulah, and, assuming that he did not acquire her at the time of Ha'ara'ah, he will not fulfill his obligation of marrying a Besulah.

(b)Ameimar Amar Rava rules that the Mekadesh has in mind to acquire the woman only at the end of Bi'ah (like the second side of the She'eilah), in which case the answer is that he may not.

(c)We ask whether Bi'ah makes Nisu'in or Erusin. One of the three ramifications of this She'eilah is whether or not, he inherits her. The other two are whether or not, he is obligated to bury her in the event of her death and whether or not he is permitted to annul her vows (Hafaras Nedarim).

4)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa list the rights of a father in his daughter. The three rights that he has over and above those concerning the Kesef, Shtar and Bi'ah of her Kidushin and concerning her Get are that he receives whatever she finds, whatever she produces and that he may annul her Nedarim.

(b)The rights that he does not have, which her husband subsequently does, are that he does not receive the 'fruit' of any property that she inherits from her maternal family.

(c)Abaye attempts to prove from the fact that the Tana mentioned her marriage, after 'Kesef, Shtar and Bi'ah', that Bi'ah makes Kidushin. We refute this however, on the grounds that her marriage refers to the other two cases of Kidushin, which certainly make Erusin and not Nisu'in.

5)

(a)Rava too, tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which states 'Miskadeshes b'Bi'ah, v'Im Ba Alehah Yavam Kan'ah, v'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eshes Ish' about a girl who has turned three.

(b)When the Tana says 'u'Metam'ah Es Bo'alah Letamei Mishkav Tachton k'Elyon' he means that someone who is Bo'El a Nidah is Tamei for seven days, to the point of making any sheets on which he subsequently lies (even if there are ten sheets beneath him) Rishon l'Tum'ah (to make food and drink a Sheni, but not people and vessels), like the sheets that cover a Zav.

(c)A Nidah herself is more stringent in this regard inasmuch as she renders all the sheets underneath her an Av ha'Tum'ah (to render even people and vessels Tamei, too).

(d)If she is under three the Bo'El will be Tamei for only one day, like someone who touches a Nidah.

6)

(a)If the girl who is over three marries a Kohen, she is permitted to eat Terumah, and if one of the Arayos has relations with her, he is Chayav even though she is not. We refute Rava's proof from the fact that this Tana too, after mentioning Bi'ah, adds 've'Im Nises l'Kohen ... ' (implying that Bi'ah makes Erusin) by explaining it to mean that if the aforementioned Nisu'in (through Bi'ah) was to a Kohen, she may eat Terumah.

7)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Emor ...

1. ... "Kinyan Kaspo Hu Yochal Bo" that whoever belongs to the Kohen, such as his Eved Kena'ani, may eat Terumah.

2. ... "Kol Tahor b'Veischa Yochal Oso" that his wife may eat Terumah too.

8)

(a)ben Bag-Bag sent to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira querying what he had heard in his name that an Arusah bas Yisrael to a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah.

(b)The latter replied that he was surprised to hear that he (ben Bag-Bag did not agree with this, seeing as we could learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Shifchah Kena'anis, who cannot eat Terumah through Bi'ah, yet she can eat it through Kesef, in which case an Arusah bas Yisrael, who can eat Terumah through Bi'ah, should certainly be able to eat it through Kesef.

(c)Bi'ah with a Shifchah Kena'anis does not feed her Terumah, because neither does it make her 'Kinyan Kaspo', nor is Kidushin applicable with a Shifchah Kena'anis.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira ascribes the prohibition of an Arusah to eat Terumah as a Takanas Chachamim (in case she hands a cup of Terumah-wine to her siblings, who are forbidden to drink it).

9)

(a)With regard to the above 'Kal va'Chomer', the Tana cannot be speaking ...

1. ... when both the Bi'ah and the Kesef were followed by Chupah because then Kesef would feed her Terumah, too.

2. ... (according to our initial understanding) when the Bi'ah was followed by Chupah but the Kesef was not because then how could we learn that Kesef (on its own) should acquire, from the fact that Bi'ah acquires together with Chupah.

(b)So we attempt to establish the Beraisa when both are speaking when there was no Chupah, proving that Bi'ah makes Chupah (otherwise why would it be more obvious that Bi'ah acquires than Kesef.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes the proof by establishing the Beraisa when the Bi'ah was followed by Chupah, but the Kesef was not. He dispenses with the problem that we just had with this by entering that very point into the 'Kal va'Chomer' and saying that if a Shifchah Kena'anis, who cannot eat Terumah through Bi'ah (even in conjunction with Chupah), yet she can eat it through Kesef alone, then an Arusah bas Yisrael, who can eat Terumah through Bi'ah in conjunction with Chupah, should certainly be able to eat it through Kesef alone.

(d)ben Bag-Bag counters Rebbi Yehudah's 'Kal va'Chomer', by making a clear distinction between the Kinyan Kesef of an Arusah which is still lacking Chupah, and that of a Shifchah Kena'anis, which is complete. It is therefore logical to say that even if a Shifchah can eat Terumah, an Arusah cannot.

10)

(a)According to Ravina, ben Bag-Bag concedes that min ha'Torah, an Arusah bas Yisrael is permitted to eat Terumah, and the message that he sent to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira was that he was surprised that he did not forbid it because of 'Simpon' (perhaps he will find some blemish on her which will render the Kidushin invalid, nullifying her right to eat Terumah retroactively).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira replied that, if we did not worry about Simpon regarding a Shifchah whom Kinyan Kesef permits to eat Terumah (even though Bi'ah does not), then we should certainly not worry about Simpon with regard to an Arusah bas Yisrael, whom even a Kinyan Kesef feeds Terumah too!

(c)ben Bag-Bag argues with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira however inasmuch as, in his opinion, the entire concept of Simpon does not apply to Avadim (in which case there is no room for a 'Kal va'Chomer'), as we shall now see.