Question: Since she needs a Get, and she has a Kesuvah, like a widow [married] to a Kohen Gadol, like it says below (85a), even though the Torah forbids her, what difference does it make that he does not pay a Kenas? (The Torah said that the fine is "k'Mohar ha'Besulos", i.e. like a Kesuvah!)

She has a Kesuvah. What is the difference whether he pays Kenas or a Kesuvah?

Answer #1 (Ri): It is relevant if she pardoned her Kesuvah.

Answer #2: She does not collect from Idis (high quality land), like the law of Kenas, rather, from Ziburis (low quality land), like the law of a Kesuvah.

Answer #3: The Kesuvah of a Be'ulah is mid'Rabanan. (We expound that mid'Oraisa, if he married and divorced her, he does not pay anything. Tosfos did not answer that Kesuvah even of a Besulah is mid'Rabanan, for R. Tam and the Ri rule that it is mid'Oraisa. The Beraisa connotes that R. Eliezer ben Yakov agrees in the Reisha, and the Halachah always follows him.)

Answer #4: Rav said that he expels her with a Get, i.e. mid'Rabanan he must do so.

Support: The reason the argument of R. Eliezer ben Yakov was taught regarding a woman raped by another man, and not regarding a woman that he himself raped, is because [in the latter case] he agrees that [the child] is not a Chalal.

Rebuttal: We could say that it was taught regarding a woman raped by another man, to teach the extremity of Rabanan's opinion, that the child is Kosher.

Suggestion: Perhaps Rav says that he must expel her with a Get, i.e. according to R. Elazar, who says that if a bachelor had Bi'ah (Zenus) with a single woman, she becomes a Zonah!

Rejection: Rav discusses the Beraisa, and the Beraisa is unlike R. Elazar, for Rabanan say that the child is Kosher.

Question: Since "Lo Yechalel" refers also to a Be'ulah according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, if so, this is not only Chayavei Aseh!

"Lo Yechalel" is a Lav, like it says in Kidushin (78a) that if he had Bi'ah, he is lashed for Lo Yechalel. (Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that he means that there is a Chalal also from an Isur that was written like an Aseh (Be'ulah), because also Lo Yechalel applies to it.)

Implied question: Why don't we establish "Lo Yechalel" to refer to Be'ulah, which is the last one written [before "Lo Yechalel"]?

Answer: It is more reasonable to establish it to refer to Chayavei Lavin.

Explanation (Toras Kohanim): We need this, lest we learn that [from a Nidah, which is Chayavei Kerisos, the child] is a Chalal from a Kal va'Chomer from these [Isurei Kehunah], which are Chayavei Lavin.

Question: How could we learn from a widow [to a Kohen Gadol] and similar cases, in which the woman herself becomes a Chalalah?

Suggestion: Perhaps we would say that also a Nidah becomes a Zonah through the Bi'ah!

Rejection: She does not become a Zonah, because Kidushin Tofsin Bah. (Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that the Hava Amina was according to R. Yehudah, who says that Chalalah is not only from Isurei Kehunah. A Stam Toras Kohanim is like R. Yehudah.)

Question: Why do we need Elav? We should include a Bogeres from "Lo Haysah l'Ish", like we include a Mukas Etz from there!

Answer #1: If not for "Elav", we would have established "Lo Haysah l'Ish" only for a Bogeres, which is more reasonable to include than Mukas Etz, because an action was done to Mukas Etz;

Therefore, we establish "Elav", which is written first, to include a Bogeres, and "Lo Haysah l'Ish", which is written at the end, for Mukas Etz.

Support: The Sugya connotes that Bogeres is better (more reasonable to include) than Mukas Etz, for Tana'im do not argue about Bogeres, like it says "he is Metamei for Bogeres according to everyone."

Answer #2: The connotation of "Besulah" excludes Mukas Etz even according to R. Meir;

Proof: We ask regarding a Bogeres "why do we need the verse?", and we did not ask this regarding Mukas Etz.

Explanation: This is why we establish the first verse to discuss a Bogeres (for Besulah does not connote so much to exclude her).

Support: This is why we expound first "Asher Lo Haysah l'Ish", even though it is written at the end, because the connotation of "Besulah" should have excluded Mukas Etz;

Therefore, we needed to explain that we include her from "Asher Lo Haysah l'Ish."

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): "From there" means from Kohen Gadol, and unlike Rashi explained.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): It refers to Besulah [written regarding] Ones u'Mefateh (rape and enticement).

Support (for R. Tam - Ri): The entire Sugya does not discuss Ones u'Mefateh. [According to Rashi] it should not have said "from there", rather, explicitly "from Ones u'Mefateh";

Rather, "from there" means from Kohen Gadol, like R. Tam explained, for we were discussing it.

Explanation: Because R. Shimon learns from there (Kohen Gadol), one might have thought to learn from there, like he says "one who is proper for a Kohen Gadol, he is Metamei for her..."

This is not a mere Siman (rather, this is the source of the law), for below we ask "R. Shimon requires one who is proper for a Kohen Gadol!..."

Suggestion: Perhaps we ask because the general rule he gave is wrong.

Rejection: If so, the Gemara did not answer this at all! (It brought a Drashah to include a divorcee from Eirusin. Still, the rule is not true!)

Conclusion: Rather, surely he asked that he should learn from a Kohen Gadol, and R. Shimon learns a Mukas Etz from there, like the Beraisa says explicitly "one who is proper for a Kohen Gadol..."

The Torah excluded Mukas Etz [regarding a Kohen Gadol] from "bi'Vsulehah" - all her Besulim must be intact, and we learn from there. Had the Torah not done so...

We would have expounded here "one whose Havayah (loss of virginity) was through a man", to exclude a Mukas Etz, and we would learn there from here.

Question: Above, we asked why we need a verse to include a Bogeres, for R. Meir holds that "Besulah" connotes even one with some Besulim;

Inference: If he held that "Besulah" connotes a full Besulah, this would not have been difficult at all;

Now, we ask oppositely! (Because R. Shimon holds that "Besulah" connotes a full Besulah, he should not need a verse to include a Bogeres!)

Answer (Ri): We ask that R. Shimon said that "Besulah" connotes a full Besulah, therefore he is Machshir a Bogeres for a Kohen Gadol;

If so, why does he need "Elav" to include a Bogeres? He should learn "Besulah-Besulah" from there!

We answer that he learns [there that "Besulah" connotes a full Besulah] from here!

Question: After we include a Bogeres [here, for Ones u'Mefateh], why do we need the "Yud" in bi'Vsulehah above, to be Machshir a Bogeres [for a Kohen Gadol]? We should learn from here!

Answer (Ri): The Yud was needed, for there is no other way to add the prefix Beis to "Besulah", to expound that all of the Besulim are intact, to exclude Lo k'Darkah and Mukas Etz, like I explained above. (Grammatically, one cannot say that he will take a woman "bi'Vsulah".)

Implied question: There was no need to make this inference, that young girls, even if they had Bi'ah, we keep! (It suffices to ask a contradiction regarding adults.)

Answer: He wanted to ask from both of them. Kol Ishah Yoda'as connotes that if they did not have Bi'ah, we keep them, and young girls, even if they had Bi'ah, we keep;

The other verse discusses young girls who did not have Bi'ah. This connotes that if they had Bi'ah, or adults even if they did not have Bi'ah, we kill them!

Explanation: "Yoda'as Ish" means that she is proper to have Bi'ah (above three years old).

Implied question: Why does it say "Ishah", which connotes specifically an adult?

Answer: This is to make a contradiction in verses, and amidst this we establish the verses to discuss [killing] those proper to have Bi'ah;

Had the Torah not written "Ishah", rather, Stam 'v'Chol Yoda'as Ish', one might have thought that the verse discusses also young girls;

Regarding young girls, we kill those who had Bi'ah, and keep those who did not, but regarding adults, we kill even those who did not have Bi'ah.

Explanation: Hidrokan (a sickness in which the stomach swells) comes through Aveirah, like it says in Shabbos (33a).

Hidrokan is not turning green, like it says in Berachos (62b).

[Rav Nachman's teaching is brought here, after Rav Huna's teaching, because] in Hidrokan the face greens a little, like it says here "whosever face turned green..."