Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, 'Till now, the Gemara attempted to establish it (the Beraisa) not like Rebbi Eliezer, because he is a Shamuti'.

Explanation #2: According to Rabeinu Tam on the other hand, who has the text 'How does he establish it, like Rebbi Akiva' - we have to say that the Gemara until now attempted to establish it like Rebbi Eliezer ...

Reason: Because the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, who say 'But not for Shifchus after Ishus', hold like him ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): And even Rebbi Shimon holds like that, only he adds 'But not for Shifchus after Shifchus'.

Implied Question: And even though a Katan is not subjecft to punishment ...

Answer: We need the Pasuk to preclude him, because we would otherwise have thought that he must be killed, since the woman is sentenced to death on his account.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that she is 'Zekukah' to him and that his Bi'ah is a Bi'ah in all regards, inasmuch as he acquires her to inherit her and to render himself Tamei for her ...

Source: As the Mishnah states in Nidah (Daf 45a) 'A nine-year old who has relations with his Yevamah acquires her'.

Refutation: That is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and to disquaslify her from the brothers, as we learned in the Mishnah in ha'Ishah Rabah (Yevamos, Daf 96b) 'They made the Bi'ah of a nine-year old like the Ma'amar of a Gadol' ...

Refutation (cont.): But she is not his wife with regard to inheriting her and other matters.

Authentic Explanation: The explanation is therefore that she is fit in other cases - such as where the Yavam is a Gadol

Authentic Explanation (cont.): 'This Katan's Bi'ah is considered a Bi'ah' - inasmuch as that in the event that he has relations with any of the Arayos mentioned in the Torah, they are sentenced to death on account of him (Nidah, 45a).

Authentic Explanation (cont.): 'One might have thought that, since mi'd'Oraysa ... ' - if not for this Pasuk ("Ish") which precludes it, we would have thought that, min ha'Torah she is considered his wife ...

Authentic Explanation (concl.): Therefore it teaches us that he only acquires her mi'de'Rabbanan, as the Gemara says elsewhere (Ibid.) 'They made the Bi'ah of a nine-year old like the Ma'amar of a Gadol' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Ha be'Ha Talya' to mean that they are one and the same, because, since 'Yi'ud requires Da'as', it is obvious that it is confined to a Gadol, sinc a Katan cannot appoint a Shali'ach to betroth?

Explanation #2: But according to ha'Rav Elchanan however, it means that they contradict one another - Since firstly, he says - 'Ein Yi'ud Ela be'Gadol' implies that even without his Da'as, Yi'ud is effective, then he says that 'Yi'ud requires Da'as; otherwise it is not effective?

Question: What is the Chidush? Why is it not obvious that she is betrothed ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that even if he were to say 'Give a Manah to P'loni and my daughter will be betrothed to you', she would be betrothed due to the Din of 'Arvus', as the Gemara said above (on Daf 7a)? How much more so when he says it to his daughter?

Refuted Answer: And if one wants to answer that 'Arvus' is not applicable here, since he did not speak to the Mekadesh ...

Refutation: Would one likewise extrapolate from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that 'she is betrothed with the last P'rutah', that she will be betrothed, even if he says nothing, either to his daughter or to the Mekadesh? ...

Refutation (cont.): We are therefore forced to say that the sale is considered as if the father instructed the daughter to betroth herself with Yi'ud, in which the it is also considered as if he instrunted the Mekadesh.

Answer: In fact it is not considered as if he said it, neither to him nor to her ...

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara is actually bringing a proof that a Ketanah has a Yad to receive her own Kidushin, from the fact that the Torah permits her to conduct her own Yi'ud ...

Reason: Because if her father's consent to perform her own Kidushin would not take effect, the Torah would not allow her to conduct her own Yi'ud.

Question #1: How can she be betrothed when her father tells her to go and betroth herself, bearing in mind that a Katan cannot acquire min ha'Torah? ...

Source: As is implied in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 12a) - that 'A Ketanah does not have a Yad to acquire by herself' ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara says there that even according to Rebbi Yossi, what a Katan finds is not subject to real Gezel, only to Gezel de'Rabbanan?

Question (cont.): It is in order that by Yi'ud, she can acquire with the remaining P'rutah, which merely entails foregoing the Shibud.

Answer: When others are Makneh to her, she can acquire mi'd'Oraysa ...

Source: As is implied at the end of 'Hiskabel' (Gitin, Daf 65a), where the Gemara queries Rav Chisda, who says that both cases (of Katan) mentioned there can acquire for themselves but not on behalf of others' ...

Source (cont.): From the Beraisa of 'A man who says to his Jewish servant or maidservant "Take this money and redeem Ma'aser Sheini with it' - And a Jewish maidservant can only be a Ketanah?

Source (concl.): And the Gemara answers 'By a pot without a hole, mi'de'Rabbanan' - from which we that it wanted to prove that the can acquire even on behalf of others min ha'Torah.

Clarification: We cannot establish the case by a security that is taken not simultaneously with the loan, which ne acquires on account of Rebbi Yitzchak ...

Proof: Because then, the Gemara ought to have cited Rebbi Yitzchak here, as it did earlier (on Daf 8b), in connection with 'If he betrothed her with a security, she is Mekudeshes'.

Clarification of Earlier Sugya: Whereas earlier (Ibid.) it does not cite Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, since it speaking even in the case of a security that is taken simultaneously with the loan ...

Clarification (cont.): And it speaks even if he does not return the security, but is Mochel the loan even though he still has it ...

Proof: Since the Gemara says 'Someone who betroths with a loan on which there is a security, and not 'with a security'.

Introduction to Question: Since he betroths with the benefit of the foregoing the loan, the Gemara said earlier that she is Mekudeshes even without a security ...

Question: So why do we need to learn from Rebbi Yossi ... ?

Answer: The fact that there is a security makes it worse, beecause we might therefore think that she does not rely on his words, since he does not return it ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, Rebbi Yossi ... teaches us that she is nevertheless Mekudeshes.

Question: How can we learn from Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah from Yi'ud, seeing as by Yi'ud, he returns her the security - which is herself, since her body is the security, whereas in the current case,he does not return the security?

Answer: The Gemara considers it obvious that the basic Yi'ud is not based on the returnof the security, but on the foregoing of the Shi'bud of the loan exclusively.

Clarification: Tosfos initially thinks that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah must hold that 'An Eve Ivri's body is not acquired by his master' ...

Proof: Because if it was, what has it to do with a loan on which there is a security, as there is no loan at all there, and he betroths her by returning her body to herself?

Refutation: One can refute this however, in that he cannot possibly betroth her in that way, because how would she then be Mekudeshes without a Sh'tar Shichrur and without declaring her Hefker?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'From whose words do we learn?' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'But if there was time in the day' - So we see that the Kidushin begins now by deducting the time that he still has on her?

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'According to the Rabbanan' - We learn from the words of the Chachamim, who say even if no time in the day remains - since they hold that the initial money was given so that, should he want to be Meyia'ed, it should take effect retroactively ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Because if it would not begin at that moment, with what will she subsequently become betrothed? ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And on the Gemara's 'But that is obvious!', it answers 'One may have thought that he did not say to the father "me'Achshav" (retroactively)" - We nevertheless learn from there that even where he said, not 'me'Achshav', but You are betrothed to me in thirty days' time, she should still be betrothed to the first one ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): 'Therefore he (this Tana) teaches us' - i.e. we learn the Mashal from the words of the Rabbanan, that if he said 'me'Achshav', yes; if not, then she is not (betrothed to the first one).

Question #1: Throughout Shas the Mashal comes to teach on the current case, as the Gemara says 'To what can it be compared?'?

Question #2: Furthermore, how can we learn from Yi'ud that the woman should be betrothed to the first one, bearing in mind that the Rabbanan are not speaking about where somebody else betroths her during the time that she is sold?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is the Mashal that is coming to teach, to say that, just as there the Gemara concludes that when somebody betroths a woman 'from now and after thirty days', and somebody else then betroths her during the thirty day period, she is betrothed to the first one ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): So too, in the case of Yi'ud, if somebody else were to come and betroth her between the sale and the Yi'ud, she would not be betrothed, since the initial money was given for Kidushin ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara therefore means is 'A Mashal on whom?' - On whom is the Mashal coming to teach? 'If it is on Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, but he said 'If there is time in the day ... ' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): In which case, it is not comparable to the case of 'Someone who says' - seeing as he would then need to give her something at the end? ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'But the Mashal is on the Rabbanan' - The Mashal comes to teach us on the words of the Rabbanan, that if someone comes and betroths her between the sale and the Yi'ud, she will not be betrothed ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara asks 'But this is obvious?' - that, since in the case where 'He said to the woman' that is the Din, the same will apply by Yi'ud according to the Rabbanan? ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it answers 'One might have thought that he did not say "me'Achshav" ' - in which case even according to the Rabbanan, she will be betrothed to the man who was Mekadesh her before the Yi'ud

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because it is not comparable to 'Someone who says to a woman ... ', since there he said to her 'me'Achshav' ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): 'Therefore it teaches us' - that since every sale is with the intention of being Meya'ed, it is as if he specifically said 'me'Achshav'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'We learn from Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah' - Since he did not stipulate 'me'Achshav', even though he would have betrothed her with it (the money) afterwards, nevertheless, if somebody else betrothed her, the Kidushin is valid, so too, in the current case ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'One might have thought that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah rules that she is Mekudeshes to the second man, because he did not stipulate when he gave the money 'on condition that you will be Meyu'edes to me at the end of six years ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But where he said 'Be Mekudeshes to me in thirty days time, even if he did not stipulate 'me'Achshav' the Kidushin takes effect immediately, and she will be betrothed to the first man in thirty days' time, should he so wish ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Therefore it teaches us that the two cases are comparable, because, since the Pasuk links the Yi'ud to the money after the time, when he initially gave the money, it was on the condition that, should he want to be Meya'ed her, he will be able to ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Yet, since he did not say 'me'Achshav' she is betrothed to the second man.

Question: This explanation too, is not correct, since throughout Shas it is the Mashal that comes to teach on the current case.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Yitzchak therefore explains - 'One might have thought that he did not stipulate "after thirty days" ' - and that being the case, his intention is for the Kidushin to take effect immediately ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because the fact that he did not mention 'thirty days' is stronger, since at any given moment he has the right to make Yi'ud, and if somebody else betroths her she is not Mekudeshes ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): 'It therefore comes to teach us' - that since he did specifically state 'me'Achshav', she is Mekudeshes to the second man.

Clarification: There is no Kashya from the Rabbanan on the Rabbanan ...

Reason: Since Yi'ud is not a money issue.