Question: Shmuel does not hold that the Kidushin matures with her. How does he explain R. Gamliel?

Above (18a), it connotes that Shmuel holds like R. Gamliel's opinion, for we ask against [Shmuel's] teaching "if Ein Zikah, [he should allow the Mitzvah] to be Batel, for R. Gamliel taught...!

Answer #1: Shmuel must say that (R. Gamliel) discusses when he explicitly specifies that he has Bi'ah for the sake of Kidushin.

Answer #2 (Ri): There, since both his Yevamah and wife are in front of him, Stam he has Bi'ah for the sake of Kidushin to dispel his Yevamah, for he prefers his wife to his Yevamah.

Question: However, we can challenge Shmuel from Rabanan of R. Eliezer! When he remarried her when she is a Ketanah and she grew up with him, presumably he has Bi'ah for the sake of Kidushin.

Suggestion: Perhaps they discuss when he specified that he has Bi'ah for the sake of Kidushin.

Rejection: If so, how did we ask from there in Kesuvos (73b) against Rav?!

Conclusion: You are forced to say that he has Bi'ah Stam. We cannot establish that he specified [that he has Bi'ah for the sake of Kidushin], for this is like remarrying her when she is an adult!

Answer #1 (Ri): Shmuel holds like R. Shimon ben Yehudah, who says in Kesuvos (73b) that if they (men who mistakenly thought that they were Mekadesh, e.g. with less than a Perutah) had Bi'ah, they did not acquire.

Answer #2: [Shmuel holds] like R. Yishmael. Shmuel taught in the name of R. Yishmael (above 100b) "she was not grabbed... (There is a case in which even though she was not forced, she is permitted, i.e. mistaken Kidushin. Even if she has a child, she may do Mi'un and leave her husband.)

Question (Ri): Both of these are needed!

Had we taught only there, that Rav says that she needs a Get, one might have thought that she needs due to Safek. We do not know whether or not he had Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin;

[Here] he teaches that she does not need a Get from the latter, for surely the first had Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin.

Had we taught only here, that Shmuel says that she needs a Get from the latter, one might have thought that this is due to Safek, and mid'Oraisa she needs a Get also from the first, lest he had Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin.

Answer (Ri): The Gemara asks that they already argued about this once. Why did they argue in two places? They could have taught [everything] from one case!

It should teach if one was Mekadesh on condition and did Bi'ah, Rav says that she needs a Get from first, but not from the second, and Shmuel says that she does not need a Get from the first, only from the second!

Alternatively, it could teach the other argument. If a Ketanah [Arusah] matured and married [someone else], Rav says that she does not need a Get from the second, only from the first, and Shmuel says that she needs a Get from the second, but not from the first!

Explanation: This is mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan she needs [a Get from the first].

Explanation: Because one does not [want to] have Bi'as Zenus, we should say that he pardoned his Tenai, and intended that the [initial] Kidushin through money take effect, since he did not mention his Tenai.

Distinction #1: However, here there is no Bi'as Zenus, for there is Kidushin mid'Rabanan.

Distinction #2: Here there is no initial Kidushin [mid'Oraisa], which we could say that it should take effect.

Conclusion: Therefore, one might have thought that [Rav] would agree with Shmuel here.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi changed the text to give the Tzrichusa (reason why both needed to be taught) given in Kesuvos (had we taught only a minor who matured, we would have thought that Rav agrees when there was a Tenai, that he does not pardon the Tenai).

Rebuttal: One should not erase our text here, for according to the opinion (Kesuvos 74a) that if he was Mekadesh her on condition and did Bi'ah, all agree that she needs a Get, even so they argue about a Ketanah who did not do Mi'un, and she matured and married.

Inference: It is more obvious to him that one who is Mekadesh with a Tenai needs a Get than a Ketanah who did not do Mi'un;

The Tzrichusa here is according to him. The Tzrichusa in Kesuvos is according to Abaye (who says there (73a) that Rav's reason is because one does not have Bi'as Zenus. One might have thought that if he stipulated, he was insistent about his Tenai!)

Question: The Ri was unsure whether the reason they were able to uproot the Kidushin was because everyone who is Mekadesh, is Mekadesh based on Chachamim's intent;

Or perhaps, it is because Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law, for here the Gemara did not mention, the way it mentions everywhere [that it discusses uprooting Kidushin] that everyone who is Mekadesh, is Mekadesh based on Chachamim's intent.

Note: Tosfos (Bava Basra 48b DH Tinach) says that here, since he did improperly, even if he was not Mekadesh based on Chachamim's intent, they uprooted his Kidushin. Our Sugya holds that Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law.

Question: He should ask also about a Ketanah, for the Mishnah says that Chalitzah of one exempts her Tzarah;

Above (104b), a Mishnah teaches that if she did Chalitzah, she does Chalitzah [again] after maturity. If she did not, her Chalitzah is Pasul!

Answer #1 (Rashi): Her Chalitzah after maturity exempts her Tzarah.

Answer #2: We can establish our Mishnah here like R. Yosi, who say that a woman [may do Chalitzah] whether she is an adult or a minor.

Answer #3: According to the Yerushalmi, which has the text above "if she did not do Chalitzah [again after maturity], her Chalitzah is Kosher, this is better. (Zera Yitzchak - seemingly, according to the Yerushalmi, our Mishnah is even like Rabanan (the Stam Tana of the Mishnah 104b). Perhaps Tosfos means that according to the Yerushalmi, R. Yosi permits a Ketanah l'Chatchilah, and our Mishnah is like him.)

Note: The episode with R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi (105b) connotes that also the Bavli holds that R. Yosi permits l'Chatchilah! However, perhaps since Chalitzas Ketanah is Kosher b'Di'eved, if we know that she is at least 12, Rebbi decided that we may rely on the Chazakah that she brought Simanim.

Explanation: "A Pike'ach who married a Chereshes" connotes that at the time of Nisu'in, he was a Pike'ach and she was a Chereshes;

However, the first clause (the previous case in the Mishnah)) of a Cheresh married to a Chereshes, we cannot (i.e. we have no basis to) establish it that she was initially a Chereshes, similar to a Pike'ach married to a Pikachas, for they are not connected to each other.

Implied question: We could have asked stronger! Since he was a Pike'ach, his marriage is mid'Oraisa. (We assume that also she was Pikachas at the time.) Why must he divorce his wife?!!

The Mishnah says that he divorces his wife with a Get. We should say that [he keeps his wife, and] her sister is exempt due to Achos Ishah!

Answer: The Gemara taught a bigger Chidush. Even if she needed a Get, he could not divorce her.

Question: What is the difficulty? R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues with this in Gitin (71a);

He holds that a Pike'ach who later became deaf can write [a Get] and others sign it. We can establish our Mishnah like him!

Answer #1: We do not want to establish our Mishnah like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, since the Reisha, [which says that he can never divorce if] he became deaf or insane, cannot be like him.

Answer #2: Even without this, we could have asked that he need not divorce his wife, like I explained (in the previous Tosfos).

Implied question: Why didn't he answer here that the cases are different, like he answered above regarding a Pike'ach and Chereshes?

Answer: They are two different kinds. However, here both of them are deaf. Within one kind, we cannot say that the cases are different.

Question (Ri): Why didn't Abaye ask from this clause, which is earlier, and a stronger question? He would not have needed [to ask from] all these clauses!

Explanation (Rashi and R. Chananel): They were asking difficulties of each other.

Proof (R. Chananel): It says (Nega'im 4:11) "R. Yehoshua Kihah and was Metaher", i.e. he was very meticulous and ruled that it is Tahor.

Question: How do we know that Rav holds like this? Perhaps really, he is unsure whether a Chereshes is partially acquired, and a Ketanah is Safek acquired, or vice-versa!

Therefore, he said that he enters the Chereshes and divorces her, and the Ketanah waits until she matures. He is stringent due to Safek!

Answer: Rav Chisda knew that one of them is partially acquired, and one is Safek, but he did not know which. (Maharsha - Tosfos means that also, he know that Rav had no Safek about which.)

Now [that he heard Rav's teaching], surely a Chereshes is partially acquired, and a Ketanah is Safek acquired.

Observation: One can derive this also from the Beraisa!

However, before he knew the Beraisa, he derived this from Rav's teaching.