Question: How do we know this?

Suggestion: The Mishnah teaches that a minor may eat. (If a Chereshes eats, this would be a bigger Chidush, so it should have taught this!)

Rejection: Perhaps all the more so a Chereshes may eat, for she will never be considered an adult [who would be liable for Terumah mid'Oraisa]!

Had it taught that a Chereshes eats, one might have thought that a minor does not eat, since she will come to Nisu'in.

Answer: He derives from that he did not teach Chereshes with a Ketanah.

Implied question: Why don't we decree that a Ketanah may not eat Terumah, lest a Katan feed a Gedolah!

Note: Tosfos (62b DH Samuch) said that Chachamim did not enact [full] Nisu'in for a Katan [close to adulthood], but they enacted Nisu'in so that it is not Bi'as Zenus.

Answer #1: We do not decree due to a short time. Once he matures and has Bi'ah, his Kidushin will be mid'Oraisa. (However, they enacted Nisu'in even for very young girls.)

Answer #2 (Yerushalmi): We do not decree about a Ketanah due to Chen (grace), so everyone will be eager to marry her.

Perhaps this reason does not apply a Chereshes, for her deafness caused [that men are not eager to marry her].

Answer #3 (Rashi in Gitin 55a): We do not decree lest a Katan feed a Gedolah, because a Katan has no Nisu'in, like it says here. This is an uncommon matter.

Rebuttal: It is praiseworthy to marry off one's son shortly before adulthood, like I explained above (62b)!

Implied question: A Ketanah eats only Terumah mid'Rabanan, like it says above (90a). Why didn't Chachamim decree lest she eat Terumah mid'Oraisa?

Answer: This is because she will come to adulthood.

Implied question: We should be concerned lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her!

Answer: Chachamim were not concerned for this.

Explanation: Only regarding Metaltelim, a Mishnah (Gitin 59a) says that a Cheresh gestures and we gesture to him (if he wants to sell them), but not regarding land.

Implied question: How was Rav Malkiyo able to put a lien on his land for the Kesuvah?

Answer (Ri): He was an Apotropos (overseer) for him. Also, Zachin l'Adam she'Lo Befanav (we may do something beneficial for someone in his absence. A Cheresh lacks Da'as, so even in front of him is like in his absence.)

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): This is only when she has no father.

Explanation #2: In Gitin (64b) and Kidushin (43b), regarding "any Ketanah who cannot guard her Get, cannot be divorced", Rashi explained that this is even through her father.

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): R. Yanai derives this here from "v'Nasan b'Yadah" - one who has a Yad (power of acquisition) to divorce herself. This excludes one who has no Yad;

Since she has a father, she has a Yad! Even a Na'arah, both of them she and her father can receive her Get [according to Chachamim], and R. Yehudah says that her father can, but she cannot (Gitin 64b);

Also R. Yishmael, who expounds from "v'Shilchah", connotes that he does not argue with R. Yanai [about the Halachah], only he learns from a different verse.

Explanation: The reason is, when she has a father, he (her husband) sends her and she does not return. Her father guards her from returning.

Rebuttal #2 (R. Tam): The Yerushalmi says that if she went insane, he may not divorce her;

Opinion #1 (in the Yerushalmi): D'Vei R. Yanai say that it is due to Greirah;

Explanation: This means that she is drawn after every man, and they conduct with her like Hefker.

Opinion #2 (Yerushalmi): R. Zeira and R. Mana say that it is because she cannot guard her Get.

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Nechemyah citing R. Yehudah): They argue [with R. Yanai] about three matters:

Citation (cont.): If he transgressed and divorced, if it is due to Greirah, it is permitted [to marry her];

Explanation: Since there is only an Isur mid'Rabanan, lest they conduct with her like Hefker, if he transgressed and divorced her, it is a Get;

Citation (cont.): According to the opinion that it is because she cannot guard her Get, it is forbidden [to marry her].

Explanation: Mid'Oraisa, it is not a Get.

Citation (cont.): The other differences are when she has a father, and if she is sometimes crazy, and sometimes sane;

According to the opinion that it is due to Greirah, [in both these cases] it is forbidden, for her father cannot guard her from Hefker. Similarly, at times when she is crazy, she is not careful to avoid being Hefker.

However, according to the opinion that it is because she cannot guard her Get, when she has a father, he can guard her Get. Similarly, at times when she is sane, she can guard her Get.

Implied question: The Yerushalmi could have said that they argue about one who can guard her Get, but cannot guard herself!

According to the opinion that it is due to Greirah, it is forbidden, like it says here. According to the opinion that it is because she cannot guard her Get, she can guard her Get!

Answer: The Yerushalmi preferred to say a difference even when she cannot guard her Get, and not herself.

Implied question: Here (in the Bavli) it connotes that no one argues (i.e. all are concerned) lest they conduct with her like Hefker, and R. Yanai expounds that she cannot guard her Get from "v'Nasan b'Yadah";

In the Yerushalmi, R. Yonason says that it is due to Greirah, and he argues with the reason that she cannot guard her Get!

Answer: This is not so difficult. There are Sugyos and teachings [in the Yerushalmi] opposite to the Bavli.

Alternate explanation: Some say that "Greirah" in the Yerushalmi means that he sends her and she returns, and "one who can guard her Get" means that she has a Yad to guard her Get.

This is like the argument of Amora'im here.

Consequence: The one who learns from "v'Shilchah", even if she has a father, she cannot be divorced, for [the Yerushalmi] says "when she has a father, the one who says that it is due to Greirah, it is forbidden."

Rebuttal #1: However, this Perush seems wrong. If he transgressed and divorced, why is it permitted according to the opinion that it is due to Greirah, since it is mid'Oraisa?

Rebuttal #2: Also, when she is sometimes crazy and sometimes sane, why do we say that according to the opinion that it is due to Greirah, it is forbidden?

Since she received a Get when she was sane, at the time "he sends her, and she does not return"!

Pesak: R. Tam ruled like this in practice. In Kidushin (43b DH v'Chol), Tosfos elaborated more.

Implied question: Here we asked "if she cannot guard her Get and not herself, can a lunatic be divorced mid'Oraisa?" R. Yanai taught...

We could have answered that she has a father!

Answer: This is included in the answer the Gemara gave, that she can guard her Get but not herself.

Question: Here, Abaye himself taught "forever", like R. Yitzchak;

In Gitin (71b) Abaye said that also from our Mishnah, we can derive that R. Shimon ben Gamliel's colleagues argue with him. [Abaye] said [our Mishnah teaches] that if a Pike'ach became deaf, [even] if he can speak through writing, he cannot divorce, for it says "forever";

Rav Papa rejected this. Perhaps "forever" teaches like R. Yitzchak.

Summation of question: Here, Abaye himself says [like Rav Papa's rejection of Abaye there]!

Answer (Ri): "Forever" refers to when he became deaf or insane. There, Abaye derives that [R. Shimon's] colleagues argue with him because "forever" refers to when he became deaf. (Since it refers also to when he became insane, this teaches like R. Yitzchak.)

Rav Papa holds that perhaps "forever" teaches only like R. Yitzchak.

Implied question: He could have learned from Rabanan, who say that a Chereshes can be divorced through a Get!

Answer: He prefers to mention R. Yochanan, for Chachamim brought a proof from his words. Also, every testimony is the Halachah.

Question (Ri): When he said "take this document", we do not learn this from R. Yochanan ben Gudgeda!

Rather, it is logical that had he been Mevatel it, he would have told the witnesses... We learn from [R. Yochanan's] words only that we do not need her Da'as. Still, we can ask that this is obvious! (The Gemara concludes that the only Chidush is Rava's logic. We do not learn this from R. Yochanan ben Gudgeda!)

Answer: The Gemara asks that Rava's teaching is obvious. Why did he need to teach it at all? (Once we know R. Yochanan ben Gudgeda's testimony, obviously we do not need her Da'as!)

It answers that he taught about "take this document."