Suggestion: We ask that obviously, he acquired through Bi'ah alone.

Rejection: If so, the Gemara did not answer the question at all!

Explanation: Rather, the Gemara asks that obviously, a Ma'amar after Bi'ah does not detract. If Bi'ah alone acquires, it is no worse due to the Ma'amar afterwards!

It answers that if he had Bi'ah without a Ma'amar, he acquired her;

One might have thought that he acquires only if he did like the Mitzvah, i.e. he was Mekadesh and afterwards did Bi'ah.

Implied question: This should be clear from the Mishnah (Kidushin 2a) "a Yevamah is acquired through Bi'ah"!

Answer: Perhaps that is mid'Oraisa (but mid'Rabanan, one acquires only after a Ma'amar).

Implied question: We can learn from our Mishnah (50b) "when Bi'ah is at the beginning, nothing takes effect after it"!

Answer: Perhaps also that is because mid'Oraisa it acquires (Chachamim did not enact anything after it, even though mid'Rabanan it does not acquire - Rashash. R. Akiva Eiger understood Tosfos to answer that the Mishnah teaches the Torah law, but he refuted this from the rest of the Mishnah.)

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks "a Beraisa says that he is lashed!" It knew that this is mid'Rabanan, but it thought that he is lashed mid'Rabanan because Chachamim consider it as if he had Bi'ah with Eshes Ach not b'Mekom Mitzvah.

If so, [this shows that] mid'Rabanan he does not acquire her without a Ma'amar.

It answers that he is lashed mid'Rabanan for mere lewdness, like Rav taught.

Implied question: It seems that Rav holds (Gitin 33b) that if he was Mevatel [a Get not in front of the Shali'ach or his wife], it is not Batel, like R. Gamliel, regarding Rav Yosef's words "let us see..." (If so, his wife really is divorced, and no ruin will result!)

Answer: In any case, Rav says here that he is lashed, for he slanders the Get.

Explanation: Even if he was Mevatel any Moda'ah (claim that he was coerced, and did not willingly divorce her), Rav lashes him, for he slanders the Get;

Some people hear the Moda'ah, but did not hear the Bitul of the Moda'ah.

The text: This is Rashi's text.

Alternate text: In some Seforim it says "one who pains a Shali'ach of Rabanan." This is the text in all Seforim in Kidushin 12b;

However, also there Rashi explained that "Shali'ach of Rabanan" is a Shali'ach of Beis Din.

Assertion: It seems that one should be lashed for any Shali'ach of Rabanan, even if he is not a Shali'ach of Beis Din, like we find in Kidushin 70a;

Rav Yehudah excommunicated a man who pained Rav Yehudah's Shali'ach.

Implied question: Niduy is more stringent than lashes. This is clear from Pesachim 52a!

Answer: Perhaps he was more stringent for him because he disgraced Rav Yehudah himself.

Explanation (R. Tam): Even with a Yevamah, who requires Bi'ah, it is lewd to make the initial Kinyan through Bi'ah.

Our custom is: We rely on Neharde'ai, who say that Rav lashes only for one who is Mekadesh through Bi'ah. For mid'Rabanan laws, we follow the lenient opinion.

Explanation (R. Tam): This is like R. Elazar [who holds that Edei Mesirah Karsei, i.e. the witnesses who see a document given empower it];

According to R. Meir, who holds that Edei Chasimah Karsei (the witnesses who sign a document empower it), this would not help, for it can be forged. (If words were erased from earthenware, it would not be evident. It is not proven that the witnesses signed on what we see written now.)

R. Meir requires Edei Chasimah also on a Shtar Kidushin. This is clear from Kidushin 48a. I explained in Kidushin 9a.

Explanation: She is not Mekudeshes due to [Kidushei] Kesef; she is Mekudeshes [only] due to the document.

Question: Regarding "my field is sold to you" (Kidushin 26a), in which the seller gives the document, why does it say that the paper is not Shavah Perutah?

This is no bigger Chidush. It is no different if the paper is Shavah Perutah or if it is not!

Answer: Since the verse says "Acharei Titi Es Sefer ha'Miknah" (after I gave the sale document), one might have thought that it must be Shavah Perutah. (Titi is from the root Nesinah, which normally connotes a Perutah.)

Question: in Gitin (26b), we say that it is not a Get, lest people say that she was divorced before her son [was conceived]!

Answer #1 (Rashi): We say that it is a Get only b'Di'eved, if she was already divorced with it.

Objection: There we say "it is not a Get." This connotes that it is not a Get at all!

Answer (R. Tam): Here, he wrote the date after the Nisu'in, i.e. the day he gave it. It is not even a Get Yashan, for he was not secluded with her after the date written.

It says "this is a Get", i.e. one may divorce with it l'Chatchilah;

In Gitin (26b), he wrote the date before the Nisu'in. It is worse than a Get Yashan.

In a Get Yashan, there was merely seclusion [after the date. Perhaps there was no Bi'ah.] Therefore, if she was divorced with it, she may marry l'Chatchilah;

There (in Gitin), he had Nisu'in with her, and Vadai there was Bi'ah. It is not a Get at all.

Explanation: Even if the date is written after Nisu'in, since he could not divorce her when he appointed the Shali'ach [it is not a Get].

Assertion (Ri): This is only according to the opinion that a person cannot be Makneh (transfer ownership of) Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (something not yet in the world);

According to the opinion that one can be Makneh [Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam], it is a Get, since it is b'Yado (he is able) to divorce her.

Support: This is like freedom. If one bought a slave on condition to free him, and wrote "when I buy you, you are acquired to yourself from now", it helps [according to this opinion], like it says below (93b) and in Kidushin (63a).

A Get Shichrur and Get Ishah are the same in every way, of we learn [a Get Shichrur] from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Lah-Lah" from a [Get] Ishah.

Suggestion: He asks about one who divorced with this Get after he did full Yibum, whether or not it is a Get.

Rejection #1: Surely it does not permit her l'Shuk! At the time he wrote it, it was not b'Yado to divorce her and permit her l'Shuk through this Get!

Rejection #2: The Gemara says "or, since he did not give a Ma'amar, he cannot";

If without a Ma'amar it does not help, also with a Ma'amar it does not help to divorce after Yibum, for Ma'amar is only mid'Rabanan!

Explanation #1 (Ri): He asks whether or not it disqualifies to Kehunah, i.e. whether or not it is considered Rei'ach (a whiff of) ha'Get, which disqualifies to Kehunah.

Explanation #2 (Rivam): The question was if he wrote [the Get] before the Ma'amar, than gave a Ma'amar, and divorced with the Get. Does it uproot the Ma'amar?

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he wrote a Get for his Ma'amar, but not for his Zikah, she is forbidden to him and permitted to his brothers. He removed the Ma'amar that he gave, and the Zikah remains like initially.

Explanation #2 (Ri): According to the version that Rava said that even she is permitted, if so also here she is permitted to him;

According to the version that she is forbidden, for she is confused with one who received a [regular] Get, also here she is forbidden even to his brothers, for Ba'alas ha'Get is forbidden to all the brothers;

Rava permits her Tzarah when he gave a Get for his Ma'amar, because they come from two houses (fall from different brothers). Even if he gave a Get also for his Zikah, the Tzarah would be permitted.

Explanation #1 (Ri): According to Rav Yosef, we discuss one who said to her "be Mekudeshes to me" Stam. "L'Shem (for the sake of) Yavmus" is when he revealed that he is Mekadesh her like the law of Yevamim;

If he explicitly said to her "Ma'amar Yevamim", Abaye would not ask "these are different!", for Abaye says below that when he said "b'Ma'amar Yevamim", he does not acquire according to Rebbi!

Rather, he said Stam ["be Mekudeshes to me"].

Explanation #2: Alternatively, he said to her "be Mekudeshes to me l'Shem Yavmus." This does not connote like the law of Ma'amar Yevamim;

Ma'amar Yevamim connotes like the law of Ma'amar, and not the law of Kidushin.

L'Shem Yavmus does not connote like the law of Yavmus [rather, Kidushin. He said Yavmus because] he thinks that she is still his Yevamah.

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that Ein Zikah, that refers to Achos Zekukaso and similar matters;

However, obviously the expression "Zikah" helps, for she is his Zekukah and is in front of him [to do Chalitzah or Yibum]!