Implied Question: Nor can one answer that here it is La'av Davka - meaning 'Not only this, but even that!' ...

Answer: Because one can say that by two sections, but not by two words.

Clarification: And the reason that it does not establish him on the Reisha is - and it speaks where he recognizes her ...

Reason: ... because from where would he know that? Perhaps the Mishnah is speaking whether he recognizes her or not, and it even involves an Isur ...

Reason (cont.): ... in which case we would not know the Din of Rav Yosef.

Implied Question: Even though the Mishnah says 'ha'Ish Mekadesh - Lechatchilah

Answer: ... it only says that in order to teach us the Din of Kidushin.

Question: Perhaps it mentions 'Na'arah' on account of the inherent Chidush, and Kol she'Kein Ketanah?

Answer #1: The Gemara extrapolates from the fact that it says 'ke'she'Hi Na'arah', and not just 'ha'Ish Mekadesh es Bito Na'arah', which would imply specifically a Na'arah, but not a Ketanah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it extrapolates from the fact that it does not simply say 'ha'Ish Mekadesh es Bito' ...

Proof: ... like it says in Kesuvos (Daf 46b) 'ha'Av Zakai be'Bito be'Kidushehah', without adding Na'arah, like it does here ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... implying that here, where it adds 'Na'arah', it means Davka a Na'arah and not a Ketanah.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara just said that it does not involve an Isur, since 'It is better to live two together ... ' ...

Answer: ... that refers exclusively to a Gedolah who performs the Kidushin herself ...

Reason: ... because, since she agrees, we do not need to worry that she will retract, unlike a Ketanah whose father betroths her, and there is reason to suspect that, had she been a Gedolah, she would not have agreed.

Implied Question: Nowadays, when it is customary to marry off our daughters even when they are Ketanos ...

Answer: ... that is because every day the Galus situation worsens, and if today a person has the means to give his daughter a dowry, who knows whether tomorrow he will be able to, with the result that his daughter will remain a permanent Agunah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that "ve'Shilchah" occurs twice in the Parshah.

Question: We need one "ve'Shilchah" to Darshen that a Ketanah and a Shotah cannot be divorced? ...

Question (cont.): ... since "ve'Shilchah" implies that if one sends her away, she does not come back, to preclude a woman who does.

Explanation #2: And the second "ve'Shilchah incorporates two D'rashos - since it could have written "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" and stopped there ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and since it adds "ve'Shilach", it must come for a D'rashah; and from the 'Hey' of "ve'Shilchah" we learn a second D'rashah

Explanation #3: However Rabeinu Chananel explains that we learn everything from the second 've'Shilchah". We Darshen from "Shilach", since it could have said "ve'Nasan be'Yadah", and also from the 'Vav' of "ve'Shilchah" and from the 'Hey' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): And we need the other "ve'Shilchah" to teach us the D'rashah of 'Meshalchah ve'Einah Chozeres'.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And these are the words of Rabeinu Chananel, quoting the Beraisa: ' "Shilach", this teaches us that he can appoint a Shali'ach - This refers to the second "ve'Shilchah mi'Beiso", since it could have written "ve'Nasan be'Yadah". So why did it add "Shilach?

Explanation #3 (concl.): ... to teach us that he can appoint a Shali'ach; It adds a 'Hey' when it writes "Shilchah", to teach us that she too, can appoint a Shali'ach; And then it adds a 'Vav' to teach us that the Shali'ach can appoint a Shali'ach'.

Clarification: According to how one assesses the owner to be generous or miserly.

Clarification (cont.): There are three measurements regarding the amount of T'rumah that one gives ...

Reason: Because no explicit Shi'ur is given other than "the first of your corn", implying a minimal amount.

Beinonis: The Yerushalmi (in T'rumos 4:3), citing Rebbi Levi, explains 'The middle Shi'ur is a fiftieth' - and it learns it from T'rumas Meches (the T'rumah of the tax), where the Torah writes (in Bamidbar, 31) "And from the B'nei Yisrael you shall take one fraction (Echad Achuz) from fifty" - whatever you sieze (Ocheiz) should be one in fifty'.

Beinonis (cont.): So just as we find the T'rumas Meches was one fiftieth, so too does someone who gives T'rumah (to a Kohen) give a fiftieth - and this is the middle Shi'ur.

Ayin Ra'ah: 'The miserly Shi'ur is one sixtieth' - which it learns from the Pasuk in Yechezkel (45) "A sixth of an Eifah of a Chomer of wheat and a sixth of an Eifah of a Chomer of barley" ...

Ayin Ra'ah (cont.): A Chomer is thirty Sa'ah, and an Eifah is three Sa'ah; a sixth of an Eifah equals half a Sa'ah, and, if one separates a sixth of an Eifah from a Chomer, it turns out to be a sixtieth - the Shi'ur of a miser.

Ayin Tovah: 'And the generous Shi'ur is a fortieth" - which it learns from the same Pasuk - "A sixth of an Eifah", and it writes in the same Pasuk "and their sixth" (ve'Shishisam), with reference to the Chomer of wheat and the Chomer of barley, meaning a sixth of each one - which amounts to one Sa'ah for the two Chomrim ...

Ayin Tovah (cont.): ... and if one gives a sixth of an Eifah, written in this Pasuk on "ve'Shishisam" - it turns out to be one fortieth, one and a half Sa'ah per sixty Sa'in - which is the total of a Chomer of wheat and a Chomer of barley.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Picheis' to mean that he separated one forti'eth, and 'Picheis' refers to the owner.

Explanation #2: Others explain the opposite, that he separated a sixtieth and it refers to the T'rumah.

Introduction to Question: Either way, it implies that if the Shali'ach took T'rumah, his T'rumah is valid even if the owner came and said to him that that was not what he intended.

Question: How does this differ from the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 22a) - 'If someone asks his Shali'ach to go and take T'rumah and he did, and the owner then tells him 'to go to the better ones' - 'If there are better ones, his T'rumah is T'rumah; if not, them it is not ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara establishes the case where the owner appointed him a Shali'ach, yet his T'rumah is not valid, since he did not explicitly inform him that he wants to give the better ones?

Answer: The reason there is because it is not common to choose the best quality to give as T'rumah, only the medium quality ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, there are many people who give T'rumah generously, in which case he can say 'That is how I assessed you' (Kesuvos, 100a), and according to that assessment, your opinion is Bateil to mine.

Implied Question: But the Gemara could not have said 'because it can be performed against her will - as it did earlier ...

Answer: ... because it could have countered 'Kidushin will prove otherwise' ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas earlier it only cited it in connection with Kidushin.

Clarification: We could however, learn Kidushin from T'rumah and Gerushin (See Poras Yosef) - because, if one asks 'Whereas Gerushin can be performed against her will?' we can counter - 'T'rumah will prove otherwise; Whereas T'rumah can be performed with Machshavah? - Gerushin will prove otherwise'.

Implied Question: The Gemara could not however, have declined to learn from the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" ...

Answer: ... since it is needed for other D'rashos (See above 5a).

Question: Why does the Gemara not learn that Sh'lichus is effective by Kodshim from the Shechitah of Aharon's bull, since the Pasuk needs to write that it must be performed by the owner, as the Torah writes "And he shall Shecht the bull of his Chatas? ...

Question (cont.): Implying that by other Kodshim, one does not require the owner (See Menachos 19b)?

Answer: The inference from Aharonm's bull applies specifically to Chata'os, like Aharon's bull ...

Reason: ... and the reason for this is because by Chatas the Torah writes (in Vayikra, 4) "Oso", from which we learn (later on Daf 50a) 'even against his will'.

Reason (cont.): Consequently, seeing as if it would be in front of us we could bring it even against his will, it follows that he can appoint a Shali'ach ...

Reason (concl.): ... whereas other Korbanos which one cannot bring against the owner's will (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), we would not know that one can appoint a Shali'ach, if not for the D'rashah of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah.

Source (T'rumah): T'rumah: because the Torah writes in Bamidbar (18) "ve'Nechshav lachem T'rumaschem" (Beitzah, 13b).

Source (Kodshim): ... and Kodshim: Because the Pasuk writes in Divrei ha'Yamim (2, 29) "Kol N'div Leiv Olos" (Shevu'os 26b).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - to be forbidden to Zarim ...

Reason: Because he holds that 'A Nochri does not have a Kinyan in Eretz in Eretz Yisrael to remove the Chiyuv Ma'asros' ...

Reason (cont.): ... and that 'The Miru'ach (flattening of the pile) of a Nochri does not exempt from T'rumah'.

Source: And in Menachos (Daf 67a) he learns the reason from "Degancha" "Degancha" (twice), to preclude the Digun of a Nochri ...

Source (cont.): ... and a double Miy'ut only comes to include - that if 'Medama'as' (a mixture of T'rumah and Chulin) that falls into Chulin, it forbids it, and someone who eats it be'Shogeg is Chayav to pay a fifth.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Whereas Rebbi Shimon exempts it, because he holds that the MIru'ach of a Nochri does not render it Chayav T'rumah

Source: ... and he learns it from "D'gancha", 'but not the Digun (Miru'ach) of a Nochri' ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): ... and according to him, there is no double Miy'ut, since he needs both words'. Up to here is the Lashon of Rashi.

Question: This implies that they argue over whether a Nochri has a Kinyan ... ', whereas in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 47a) Amora'im argue over the same thing

Question (cont.): ... and it is not logical to say that Tana'im argue over the same issue as Amora'im?

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that the Tana Kama holds that, even if he has a Kinyan, his produce can well be Chayav T'rumah, there where it grew a third whilst owned by a Yisrael ...

Implied Question: ... and as for the Miru'ach of a Nochri that exempts ...

Answer: ... one can answer that it speaks where a Yisrael performed the Miru'ach ...

Implied Question: ... and as far as "Zar'acha" (Devarim, 14), 'and not the seeds of the purchaser' is concerned ...

Answer: ... one can answer that it speaks where he purchased it before the Miru'ach, and a Yisrael subsequently performed it, whereas the P'tur of a purchaser is confined to after the Miru'ach (Rabeinu Tam [See Tosfos Bava Metzi'a, Daf 88a DH 'Tevu'ah']).

Question: In that case, what is the reason of Rebbi Shimon, who rules that he is Patur under similar circumstances?

Answer: The reason is as the Gemara says in Zevachim, (Daf 45a), where, quoting Rebbi Shimon, it says that 'The Kodshim of Nochrim are not subject to Me'ilah, since we learn it "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah'.

Answer (cont.): ... and by Terumah it says (in Vayikra, 22) "B'nei Yisrael", 'and not Nochrim' ...

Answer (concl.): So we see that he specifically precludes it from a Pasuk.