1) When they came up to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, Ezra allowed a Kohein, (Ben Barzili), who didn't have his documentation of Yichus to do what he was accustomed to in Bavel (i.e., eating Trumah and Duchening) and we don't say that it will lead him to a full Yichus; since there's a weakening of his Chazaka. [Rashi says: since all other Kohanim eat Kodshim, and not him, since he can only eat Trumah, it reminds us that he doesn't have full Yichus. Tosfos disagrees since we may assume his Yichus now to eat Kodshim when we see him Duchen. Rather, since he had Yichus that he's a Jew, but didn't have documentation to his Kehuna, that weakens any Chazaka he had and they won't assume him to be have full Yichus.] Alternatively, we only allow him to eat rabbinical Trumah and everyone holds that you don't assume Yichus from rabbinical Trumah. They didn’t decree to forbid rabbinical Trumah for the concern that he might end up eating Trumah from the Torah.

2) Anyone who Pasuls others (by constantly demeaning others), are Pasul themselves, and never speaks about anyone else’s praises. He usually tries to Pasul others with the exact same Pasul Yichus as he has. However, this is only to be concerned about his Yichus, but not to announce that he has this P’sul Yichus.

3) A great person doesn’t need to go to be judged by someone less than him.

4) Once someone is appointed as a leader over Jews, he can’t do work before three people (since it’s disgraceful that he doesn’t have whom to do his work for him) unless he’s doing a Mitzvah (like making a Maakah).

5) You can’t use a female’s service, even if she’s just a minor (since you might come to teach her to become used to mingling among men).

6) You can’t send regards to a woman, even through her husband (since it will make her fond of you). [Tosfos says: in Bava Metzia, it says, that you can ask about how a wife is doing from the husband, but you can’t send her regards.]

7) You put someone in excommunication for paining the agent of a Chachum.

8) Anyone who claims to come from the Chashmanayim is really a slave (since they all died up and the slave Hurdus took their place).

9) If a Chachum says something before an incident, he's believed, but not after the incident.

10) R’ Yosef says: if you see a Kohein who’s brazen, you need to worry about his Yichus if a slave got mixed into his lineage. R’ Elazar says not to have such thoughts since Kohanim are that way, as the Pasuk seems to say.

11) Converts are difficult to the Jews like Tzaras. [Rashi explains: since they're not so careful to keep the Mitzvos, and the Jews learn from them. Tosfos brings some who say since we accept Arvos, being cosigners, for them (and we get punished if they sin); but this is not true since we only accepted it for a complete Jew. Alternatively, R’ Elazar the convert says: since they are more careful to keep Mitzvos, and since the Jews are not as careful, so the parallel causes the judgement to be harsher, as the Tzarfas woman told Eliyahu. Alternatively, since the Jews marry into them, which makes the Shechina depart since it only rests on Jews with Yichus.]

12) They were very sparse to teach the students which families have Yichus problems, that they taught it once in the seven-year cycle, and not twice in a seven-year cycle. As we say: if someone says that he’ll be a Nazir if he doesn’t expose the families, he should rather be a Nazir than to expose the families.

13) The same with Darshening the four letter name of Hashem, that you only do it once in the seven-year cycle, and not twice in a seven-year cycle since the Torah says to keep it quiet. Therefore, we don’t Darshen it in public and, although it’s written with a Yud Kay, it’s read Aleph Daled.

14) All lands are ‘a dough’ (I.e., has Yichus problems) in contrast to the people in Eretz Yisrael, and their “a dough” to the people of Bavel. However, R’ DImi from Nahrdah says that this is only R’ Meir’s opinion, but the Chachumim say that all Jews in all lands have a Chazaka of being of Kosher Yichus.

15) If you want to check into a family that has better Yichus, those that keep more quiet in arguments are of better Yichus.

16) If you see two people, or families, who are in a feud; it’s because one of them has something bad in their Yichus and Hashem is preventing one of them to marry into the other.

17) R’ Yossi says that Mamzeirim will become Tahor in the future, and R’ Meir holds they won’t; and the Halacha is like R’ Yossi.

18) R’ Yossi says that a convert is permitted with a Mamzer, and R’ Yehuda forbids.

19) A convert is permitted to marry a Kohein’s daughter, and the Halacha is that he’s permitted with both a Mamzer and a Kohein’s daughter.

20) The Tanna Kama says that converts, freed slaves, Mamzers, Nesins and Safeik Mamzers like a Shtuki (which the mother doesn’t reveal who’s the father) and Asufi (a child left in the street) are all permitted together. R' Eliezer holds that a Safeik Mamzer is not even permitted with another Safeik Mamzer. (However, definite Mamzeirim are permitted with each other. And Kusuim are considered like a Safeik Mamzer.)

21) Shmuel Paskins like the Tanna Kama that he's permitted even with a definite Mamzer. Rav Paskins like R' Eliezer that he's not even permitted with another Safeik Mamzer. [Tosfos says that it seems like the Halacha is like R’ Eliezer since we Paskin like Rav against Shmuel in Issur, and also Rava Paskins that way in Yevamos.]

22) A Shtuki is when the mother doesn’t reveal who’s the father, and an Asufi a child left in the street who we don’t know either parent. From the Torah, both are permitted to regular Jews. After all, a Shtuki, if the father went to the mother to have relations, we can apply the rule “all who separated from their place they have the status of the majority,” and thus, he has the the status of a Kosher. Even if the mother went to the father at his home, which is his established place and we should apply the rule “every Safeik in its established place is like half and half;” it’s a Safeik Mamzer that’s permitted from the Torah to regular Jews. Even by an Asufi, we can assume two scenarios that it was abandoned because it was a Mamzer, I.e., that the mother was an Arusah, or that her husband left town. After all, if she was a Nesuah and the husband is in town, she could always blame the child on her husband. However, to parallel that, we can assume two scenarios that it was abandoned despite it not being a Mamzer, like if she was unmarried or because of the inability to feed the child (like in the days of hunger). Thus, it’s a Safeik Mamzer that’s permitted from the Torah, but the rabbis made a stringency for Yuchsin and forbade him. (However, they didn’t enact to forbid them since they might end up marrying their sister since it’s a very uncommon concern.)

23) [Tosfos says: although we usually don’t assume children of an Arusah is a Mamzer, but here, where it’s abandon, it lends to the idea that it was a Mamzer. This is also the reason why we don’t allow it since, if the husband was across the seas, we don’t permit it like the Yerushalmi says that we usually do, since we can assume that he came back to have relations by flying with the name of Hashem. Alternatively, the Yerushalmi only permits if the woman claims that he came through saying Hashem’s name, and by the abandon child, there’s no woman to testify that it was the case.]

24) If we see that the abandon child was well taken care of, like he had a Mila, or his limbs were straightened out, or if he seems white and very healthy, which is usually a sign that she had relations often during the pregnancy, which we can assume was done by the husband, or it’s rubbed with oil and his eyes have eye medicine, or is adorned by bows, or has an amulet, whether it’s from writing or herbs; they don’t have the status of an Asufi. After all, if it would be a Mamzer, they wouldn’t take care of it, but only throw it away to die.

25) If it was found suspended in a tree where animals can’t reach it, since we see he’s cared for, there’s no concern that he’s a Mamzer unless it’s in the Zavda tree that’s near the city where Sheidim dwell.

26) If it’s found in a pit where they stored date pits for fodder, it’s an Asufi since Sheidim are found there.

27) If it’s found in a floating crib in the running part of the river, it’s not an Asufi, since they wanted it to be discovered by a boat, but not if it was placed in the side which is formed by the melting snow, since boats don’t usually go there.

28) If it’s found in Shul where many people go, it’s not an Asufi, Otherwise, it is an Asufi.

29) If it’s found in the Reshus Harabim, it’s an Asufi, but not on the side of a Reshus Harabim (I.e., the shoulder).

30) As long as the Asufi is in the street, the parents can come and tell us that it has good Yichus, but not after it was brought home since rumors went out about it already, and we don’t quash rumors. The exception is during a famine, since many abandon their children then, they didn’t want to Pasul all of them just because rumors surfaced about them.

31) A midwife is believed which one of the twins came out first to say who the Bechor is. The Tanna Kama says that it’s only if she didn’t leave at all, but she’s believed even if she turned her head. However, R’ Elazar says she’s only believed if we established she didn’t turn her head.

32) The same with three women sleeping in a bed together and a blood stain was discovered under them, we have to say that all three are Tamai. However, if one of them checked themselves imminently after finding the blood, and she’s bleeding, she’s Tamai and the others are Tahor.

33) The midwife is believed which child is a Kohein, which is a Levi which is a Yisrael, Nesin or Mamzer as long as there’s no argument. Some say that you need two people arguing, since we have the rule that we don’t believe any argument to someone’s Yichus if it’s less than two people. Others say: we only apply that rule when the person has a Chazaka for being Kosher, but not by these recently born children that don’t have a Chazaka, so, even one person can argue.

34) We only believe a seller to say whom he sold the object to while the item is in his hand and he has to remember who to give it to or he’ll get the curse of Mi Shepara if he reneges to give it to the one who really bought it. Afterwards, it’s no longer upon him to remember every transaction he ever made, so we don’t believe him any more than any other person at this point. [Rashi explains: it’s only when he received money from both of them, since he already got his money no matter who he sold it to, it’s not upon him to remember to whom he actually sold it to after they left the store. However, if he only received money from one person, so then it’s incumbent on him to remember to whom he sold it to even after they leave, so we’ll always believe him. Tosfos disagrees since the seller shouldn’t be believed more than any single witness. Rather, he’s only believed if it’s in his hands with a Migo he could have kept it claiming he bought it off him. However, if he received money from one, we should so much assume whoever gave the money was the one the seller decided to sell it to that it’s as if he has witnesses that he sold it to him, and a Migo doesn’t help against witnesses. Even if it’s not in the seller’s hand, he’s no worse than any other single witness, and if a single witness supported one person, not only does it absolve that person from swearing, but it also creates a swearing from the Torah upon the other one.]

35) A judge is believed to say that he ruled in favor of one and in detriment to the other as long as they’re still before him, but not if they left. We can’t say that he just should rule a second time on the subject, since it refers to a Shuda Didanai. [Rashi says that the judge assess who would the giver want to gift it to. Tosfos disagrees since, if so, they should just assess it a second time. Rather, the judge gives it to whoever he pleases, and at this time, he can’t reenact who he decided to give it to. This fits well why we require a real expert judge for Shuda, since you need the power of Hefker Beis Din for it to work, so, you need to be an real expert judge for that power.]

36) Three people are believed on a Bechor; a midwife only right by birth, the mother for the first seven days, and the father forever, as the Pasuk says “you shall recognize him;” i.e., for other people.

37) R' Yehuda holds that the father is believed to claim that his child is a Mamzer, or (if he's a Kohein) the child of a divorcee or Chalutza since he's believed to say who is his Bechor. [Tosfos explains: since he's believed to say that a middle child is the Bechor, therefore, creating a status of Mamzeirim on the earlier children. Thus, he's believed to Pasul his children in all cases. Alternatively, the Pasuk “you shall recognize him;” is also going on the “child of the hated,” which we define to mean that his mother’s marriage was hated by Hashem for being sinful. Therefore, he’s believed to say which child is from a sinful marriage and is Pasul.] The Chachumim say that the father’s not believed.

38) Abba Shaul calls an Asufi a Beduki; i.e., that you ask the mother if the father was Kosher, she’s believed even regarding his son (who doesn’t have a Chazaka like she does) and even if most people around would be Pasul. Rava says that the Halacha is like Abba Shaul.

39) Although R’ Yehuda holds that a convert is forbidden with a Mamzer, but a convert Amoni or Moavi is permitted to a Mamzer since they’re not permitted to marry regular Jews.

40) All women who are Pasul to marry into Jews, their relations with a girl Pasuls her to Kehuna. R' Yossi held that a second generation Egyptian and Adomi's relations doesn't Pasul her since their children are not Pasul to the Jewish people. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that even a relations from a Moavi and Amoni doesn't Pasul her since not all of their children are Pasul (since their daughters may marry into the fold).

41) The Tanna Kama says that a convert is permitted to a Mamzer until the tenth generation. Others say: until his ancestry of non-Jews are forgotten.

42) R’ Elazar says that one Kusi can’t marry another Kusi. As he holds that Kusim are true converts, like R’ Yehoshua b. Levi. Also R’ Elazar is also consistent to his opinion in the following regarding Kuti-made Matzos. The Tanna Kama says they’re permitted to eat [Tosfos says: we refer to a case where the dough belongs to a Jew and a Kuti baked it, but regularly, the rabbis forbade eating Kuti bread.] Someone can be Yoitza his obligation with it. [Tosfos says: although we know that Kutim don’t understand the Mitzvah of Lifnei Iver to mean not causing others to sin, and we can't be sure that they made the Matzos L’Shma for us; we refer to a case that we know that the Kuti does not have any other Matzos for himself. Therefore, we know he made these Matzos Kosher for himself.] R’ Elazar says you may not eat them because the Kutim are not experts keeping all the details of Mitzvos. Therefore, since the Kusim aren’t experts in Kiddushin and Gitten, some will be Mamzeirm, and others not, and R’ Elazar held that Safeik Mamzeirim can’t marry each other.

43) Rabbah b. Avuah explains why Kusim can’t marry each other: since a Mamzer was mixed among the Kusim, and Rava held that a female slave was mixed among them.

44) [Tosfos: i.e., when a Kohein is marrying a wife], if he’s marrying a Kohen’s daughter he needs to check four generations of mothers (I.e., her mother, her paternal grandmother and the mother of her maternal and paternal grandfather’s mother), plus their mothers, which makes eight women. [Rashi explains: we need to worry that she's a Mamzeres or Nessina. Tosfos disagrees or else the woman would need to check out his Yichus too. Rather, it means to check out for a Chalalah. Although she can't be a Chalalah if one of her maternal ascendants was a Chalalah, because a male Jew is a Mikvah to make her offspring no longer a Chalal; still, once we have to check some of the male ascendants for Chalalim, we check all sides to see if there is any Mamzer or Nissin there.]

45) [Tosfos quotes R’ Tam in Sefer Hayashar: this checking through two witnesses is to allow him, or his son to do the Avodah; but you can give him Trumah with only a single witness, as it says in the second Perek of Kesuvos.]

46) For a Levi’s or Yisrael’s daughter, they add another. R’ Adda b. Ahava explains: another generation, like the mother’s great grandmother, and a Braisa explains that it’s another pair of generations, like the mother’s great great grandmother.

47) The reason you don’t need to check the fathers since, when they fight, they reveal their opponent’s Pasul Yichus, so it would be known. However, when women fight, they just expose if their opponent had an affair, but not Yichus.

48) A Kohein’s daughter doesn’t need to check out her husband since they aren’t commanded not to marry those who are Pasul to male Kohanim.

49) You don’t need to check Yichus from the Mizbeach and above (I.e., if he performs the Avodah) [Tosfos says: and of course if their are documents that actually have witnesses, and of course through eating Trumah and Duchaning (according to those who say that we can infer Yichus from them) since they exclusively apply to Kohanim. However, Avodah can apply to non-Kohanim by Shechita and flaying the skin, and even slaves may do it; but they didn’t L’chatchila allow it but only to those who have Yichus.]

50) We don’t need to check Yichus from the Duchun, or the great Sanhedrin, and above since they only came from people with Yichus.

51) You need to check by monetary judges since they can be Mamzeirim, but not if he judged in Yerushalayim, since they only allow those who have Yichus.

52) You don’t need to check from someone who was a Tzadaka administrator and above since they have the power to take collateral on Tzedaka even on Erev Shabbos; so people will reveal if they have any Yichus problem.

53) Every leader position that you appoint must be from those who are “in the midst of the Jews;” I.e., but not converts; but if his mother was a natural Jewess, but his father was a convert, he’s considered “in the midst of the Jews.”

54) R’ Yossi says that those who sign documents in the old Archei (I.e., a city next to Tzipori, his city) may be assumed to have Yichus to be appointed a judge since they didn’t allow to sign but those who have Yichus to judge.

55) All those who go out in the army of Dovid can be assumed as having Yichus, since they only allowed those with Yichus to fight so that their merit, and the merit of their fathers, should protect them.

56) This is only according to R' Meir, but the Rabanan say that you don't have to check any Yichus unless there's some claim that there's a problem.

57) If a Chalal marries a regular Jewess, the Tanna Kama says the child is still a Chalal, but a regular Yisrael who marries a Chalalah, the child is Kosher. R’ Dustai says that either child is Kosher as long as both parents aren’t Chalalim.

58) A Chalalah is born from Chalalim, or if she had relations with someone who’s Pasuls for Kehuna.

59) A Kohein Gadol that had relations with a widow of three husbands only get one Malkos, and we don’t say that he gets Malkos for every time she became a widow. However, he gets Malkos thrice for having relations with three separate widows, or if he had relations with the same widow thrice, as long as he had a separate warning for each relations. This is like a Nazir who gets Malkos every time he’s warned not to drink wine, but he drinks.

60) An Issur doesn’t take effect on a previous Issur unless it adds on Issur to other items. Therefore, if a Kohein Gadol had relations wit a woman who was first a widow, and then became divorced, and then became a Chalalah, and then became a Zonah, he gets Malkos for all of them. After all, originally, when she was a widow, she was only forbidden to a Kohein Gadol. Then, when she became a divorcee, she also became forbidden to all Kohanim. When she became a Chalalah, she also became forbidden to eat Trumah, and when she became a Zonah it’s considered as added on since there’s a type of Zonah who’s forbidden to a Yisrael, like an unfaithful wife. However, if it’s the opposite; that a Zonah became a Chalala who became a divorcee who became a widow, there’s only one Malkos since there’s no addition to the added Issur.

61) R' Shimon holds that, if someone eats Neveila on Yom Kippur, he's exempt from Kareis since prohibitions can't take effect on an item if there's already a prohibition on it. The Chachumim say that the stringent Yom Kippur with Karies can take effect on a lesser Issur of a regular Lav of Neveila. However, if a Kohein Gadol has relations with his widow sister, we don’t say that the lenient Lav of a widow takes effect on the stringent Kareis of a sister, and we don’t say Issur Kehuna can take effect since their special since the Torah gives many extra prohibitions to a Kohein.

62) Therefore, in that relations, she doesn’t become a Chalalah, but only a Zonah, since a Chalala is only from an Issur Kehuna, and no Issur Kehuna took effect on her. Therefore, a Kohein who had relations with his sister first makes her a Zonah, and with a second relations, makes her a Chalalah.

63) A Kohein Gadol is Chayiv for relations with a widow for the Lav of “don’t take” and the Lav of “don’t make a Chalal.” If he does a complete relations (that can impregnate), he’s also Chayiv for “don’t make your offspring Chalalim.”

64) A Chalutza is only forbidden to a Kohein rabbinically.

65) Abaya held that you’re Chayiv for the Lav of “don’t take” when he gave Kiddushin and the Lav of “don’t make a Chalal” when he has relations. Rava says: you’re not Chayiv both until relations. After all, the reason you can’t take her is so not to make a Chalal.

66) Rava admits that he’s Chayiv for the Lav of “don’t make a Chalal” even when Kiddushin wasn’t given. Abaya admits that you’re not Chayiv for returning your divorced wife (when she married someone else in between) unless they had relations since the Pasuk says “to take to be a wife.” Also they both agree that you’re not Chayiv by your divorced wife with relations without Kiddushin since the Pasuk says that you retake her.

67) R' Yehuda holds a Kohein is forbidden to a Ger's daughter since she's considered a Chalala. As a Ger's daughter is like a male Chalal's daughter. As we learn it from a Tzad Hashava between a Chalal and Mitzri that is not part of the regular Kahal, so too by a Ger. You can’t say that a Ger is different since his relations doesn’t Pasul a woman from Kehuna, but R’ Yehuda holds he does since it’s learned out of the same Tzad Hashava. However, R' Yossi holds she's permitted to him since he holds a Kohein is permitted to a Ger's daughter [Tosfos says that you can’t make that Tzad Hashava since Mitzri is not similar to a Challal since he’s forbidden to a Kahal. Also, we can’t compare an Issur to a prohibition to enter the Kahal.]

68) R’ Yehuda holds that you need the main part of her lineage (I.e., the father) from the Jews. R' Elazar b. Yaakov, who holds that a Ger's daughter is forbidden to a Kohein unless her mother's a Jewess, holds he needs some of his lineage from Jews. R’ Yossi just needs her to be born to people who are currently Jews. R' Shimon, who holds that a Kohein may marry a girl that converted when she was less than three years old, holds that her hymen needs to be made while she’s a Jewess.

69) Rabbah b. b. Chana held that the Halacha is like R’ Yossi, but after the Beis Hamikdash’s destruction, they were stringent like R' Elazar b. Yaakov who holds that a Ger's daughter is forbidden to a Kohein unless her mother's a Jewess. R’ Nachman Paskins that L’chatchila you need one parent to be naturally Jewish, but B’dieved, if they married, she’s permitted even if she was born Jewish.

70) The Chachumim say that a father’s not believed to claim that his child is a Mamzer, and even his mother who would know that fact better, even by a fetus who doesn’t even have a Chazaka of being Kosher.

71) R' Yehuda holds that the father is believed to claim that his child is a Mamzer, just like he's believed to say who is his Bechor. The Chachumim say that he's only believed to say who is his Bechor. The practical difference that the Torah believes him to say who’s the Bechor, (since he should be believed anyhow since he has a Migo that he can give him double his share now as a gift), for the property that may come afterwards. Even according to R’ Meir who says you can acquire something that doesn’t exist yet (so he can gift over even what he haven’t acquired yet), since he can’t gift over when property falls to him while he’s a Gosses (I.e., close to death). After all, since he can’t make acquisitions at that point, he can’t make acquisitions now to take place at that point. [Tosfos says: you don’t need it for the properties that fall to his estate after his death since the Bechor doesn’t get double for those that are only coming to the father after the time of his death, but only what he actually owned. We only refer to a Gosses who can’t talk and never regained the ability before he died. However, if he can talk, he can make acquisitions.]

72) If someone gave permission to his agent to receive Kiddushin for his daughter, or a woman sent an agent to accept Kiddushin for herself, and then they accepted Kiddushin themselves; if the agents reception of Kiddushin was before theirs, the agents Kiddushin is binding. If their Kiddushin came first, theirs are binding. If we don’t know who accepted the Kiddushin first, then it’s a Safeik and she needs a Get from both men. Alternatively, one gives a Get and the other takes her as a wife.

73) On the day of the end of the six months between Naaros and Bagros; if the father accepts Kiddushin for her on the way, and the daughter accepted Kiddushin in the city; and then she is inspected and found to already have the Simanim of Bagrus; but it’s not known whether she had them by the time of the Kiddushin; Rav says since she is a Bogeres before us, we should assume that she was a Bogeres even from the time of Kiddushin, and her Kiddushin is binding. Shmuel holds that you need to worry about both Kiddushins. [Tosfos says: this is only when both of them accepted Kiddushin, but if only the father accepted Kiddushin, we need not to worry about it since you can put her on her Chazaka of being unmarried. However, when they both accepted Kiddushin and she’s married no matter what, so we can’t leave her on a Chazaka, that’s when Shmuel argues.]

74) It’s not similar to a case of a MIkva that was measured and found to be less than forty Saah, that all the Taharos that was done on it (i.e., that you relied on the Teveila), is Tamai, (and R’ Shimon holds that it’s Safeik Tamai). After all, despite having a Chazaka of containing forty Saah, it’s missing at this time, so we should keep all the utensils on the Chazaka of being Tamai since it has two things going against it (that it’s missing now plus the Chazaka of Tumah). However, the Bogeres only has one factor, that she’s now a Bogeres, but without a Chazaka, since her status was destined to be changed today.

75) The same is true when someone separates Trumah and Maasar from a barrel of wine that was previously inspected that it didn’t turn into vinegar, and some time after the separation, it was inspected again and found to be vinegar, as the Rabanan who argue with R’ Shimon holds that Trumah and Maasar wasn’t separated since it has two factors against it, that it’s vinegar before us, plus the produce had a Chazaka of being Tevel.

76) Whether we follow the status of the Bogeres because that’s what she is now is also not similar to the case when someone gave away a field, and we don't know if he was deathly ill at the time (and can renege on his gift) or not (and can't renege); R’ Yaakov says that you can’t remove it from the giver without a proof that he was healthy (and we don’t say it depends on his status now, and he needs a proof even if he’s healthy now). R’ Nosson says it depends on his status now. If he's deathly ill now, we assume that he was also that way when he gave the gift, and its upon the receiver to prove that he was healthy then. If he's now healthy, we assume that was his status at the gift, and it's upon the giver to prove otherwise. After all, Rav can hold like R’ Yaakov; since he only holds that you can’t take the money from who has a Chazaka over it, but here by a Bogeres, we can’t say that we should keep her on her Chazaka of being a Naarah [Rashi: since it’s destined to change today. Tosfos: since most of the time, the Simanim come in the morning.] Also, Shmuel can hold like R’ Nosson; that when the man is now healthy, we shouldn’t assume that he was originally different since normally, people aren’t deathly ill, but here there’s no Chazaka on her body either way since it’s destined to change today.

77) We have two Braisos, one like Rav, and the other like Shmuel. The Gemara rejects this and says both Braisos may agree to Shmuel, and the one that says we assume she was a Bogeres was when she claimed to know that she had those Simanim at the time of the Kiddushin, and Rav and Shmuel argue when no one knows.

78) However, the Halacha is like Rav.

79) If someone and his wife left across the seas; when he returns with his wife and children, he doesn’t need to prove the Yichus of his wife, since they already inspected her before they left, and he doesn’t need to prove the Yichus of the children since we can assume that it’s her children since they’re attached to her. However, if his wife died before they left, he needs to bring a proof about the children’s Yichus, but not about his wife [Rashi: since she was already inspected before they left. Tosfos disagrees since it’s too simple. Rather, if he brings a proof that these children is from his wife, we can assume that they’re from this same wife who we inspected, and we don’t need to worry that, perhaps, they’re from a different wife he married there.] If he left unmarried and came back with a wife and kids, he needs to prove the Yichus of his wife, but not the children who are attached to her. However, if he comes back only with children, he needs to prove the Yichus of his wife and to prove that these children are from her.

80) We only say that being attached to the wife is a proof if he claims to only be married to one wife, but if he says that he’s married to two wives, we must worry that these children may be the second wife’s children, so you need to prove their Yichus. Reish Lakish says that being attached to her works for Trumah, and not Yichus. R' Yochanan says that it applies to Yichus too, since he holds that you can stone and lash someone based on a Chazaka. Like we lash someone who has relations with his wife who is Muchzek to their neighbors that she’s a Niddah. He also holds that a girl and boy that grow up in one house, they have a Chazaka of being siblings, and you execute them if they have relations. [Tosfos says: although in Kesuvos, Rebbi held: a father is believed to say that this child is his son and he's a Kohein regarding Trumah since he has the ability to feed it to him, but he's not believed regarding Yichus, and here we say that he’s only believed if they’re attached to his wife; we must say that Rebbi is a Tanna and can argue with the Mishna in Kiddushin. R' Tam answers: Rebbi holds like R' Yehuda who says that you can't bring someone to be assumed to be totally a Kohein from the fact he eats Trumah. However, our Mishna holds that we do assume him to totally be a Kohein, therefore, you can’t rely on his words unless they’re attached to them. When Reish Lakish says that it applies to Trumah, he means Trumah and all other aspects like Yichus. When he says "but not Yichus," it means that we don't punish him based on the Chazaka (if he marries a relative) since he holds that you don't stone for a Chazaka, and that’s what he argues with R' Yochanan.]

81) However, with a Chezkas Tumah, it’s the opposite; Reish Lakish holds that you burn Taharos over it, and R’ Yochanan says you only suspend eating it from a Safeik, but you can’t burn it. As we say; a toddler that’s found next to a dough, [Rashi: so we know that he definitely touched it] and we know that most toddlers poke around [Rashi: in dung heaps, where there are dead rodents, and they would be Tamai if they did. Tosfos disagrees with the explanation, because if we say the child definitely touched the dough, why just say that he’s next to the dough and not touching the dough. Also, the Tosefta says why we assume that the child is Tamai since Niddos hug and kiss him. Rather, R’ Tam explains: the child is definitely Tamai because of the Niddos. Now, if the child’s next to a dough with a piece of dough in his hand; most children will grab a piece by themselves, but a minority wouldn’t, and only has a handful of dough because a Tahor adult came by and gave it to him.] R’ Meir says that the dough is Tahor since he takes the minority into account, and we combine it to the Chazaka that it’s Tahor, and it’s like a fifty/fifty case against the majority, which is Tahor in a Reshus Harabim. However, the Rabanan say it’s a Chazaka against a majority, and the majority wins, so it’s Tamai. Reish Lakish says: therefore, you burn it, and R’ Yochanan says that it’s Tolin, not eaten or burned. We only burn in a case of when a dead creature touched it, and most of the creatures in the house are Sheratzim, and only a minority are frogs.

82) [Tosfos says: it’s only in this case where it’s a weak type of majority, and that’s why R’ Meir holds that it’s completely Tahor, and the Rabanan (according to R’ Yochanan) it’s a Safeik. However, by a strong type of majority like we have in Yevamos; a woman whose husband and sister-wife went overseas, and someone came and said that her husband died, where most women get impregnated and give birth, so we should rely on the majority of cases that she could marry out; R' Meir who is concerned for the minority of cases holds we combine it to the Chazaka that she’s permitted to the Yavam and can't remarry or have Yibum until she finds out if her sister-wife is pregnant or not, and the Rabanan allow her to remarry since we completely rely on the majority of cases.]

83) Although the toddler doesn't have intelligence to ask it if it got Tamai (which is a condition to say Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid is Tamai), however, R’ Yochanan held that the rabbis made a strictness to make it as if he had intelligence to ask.

84) Also, in a case where you have a dough and Tamai liquid in a house, and you came back to find that a chicken pecked in a dough, you need to worry that the chicken first drank from the liquid and, when he then pecked the dough, it made the dough Tamai from the liquid, since the rabbis made a strictness to make it as if he had intelligence to ask.

85) This is only if the liquid is clear, or even if it’s red, but it’s not murky that you can see a child’s face through it, since you need to worry that the liquid is on it, but you can’t see it. However, if it’s a strong red, then it’s Tahor since, if there’s liquid on the dough, you’ll be able to tell.

86) A man shouldn’t seclude with two women since women are frivolous, but a woman can seclude with one man. R’ Shimon permits [Tosfos: even withe one man and two women. Everyone agrees that] with his wife, he can seclude with all of them since the wife will protect him from sinning.

87) In a time of mourning, like when a child dies, Abba Shaul allows for one man to go bury it with two women since the mourning will prevent them from sinning. The Tanna Kama still forbids since, despite the mourning, the Yetzer Hara might get the best of them.

88) This is only by decent people, but by people with loose morals, they can’t seclude even with ten women. However, that which we need two Talmidei Chachumim to accompany a Sotah and her husband to the Mikdash to drink, not that you need scholars to prevent seclusion, but that could have been accomplished by regular decent people. Rather, you need Talmidei Chachumim to warn the husband that he can’t have relations with his wife until she drinks from the “bitter waters.”

89) We give Malkos for seclusion for a single lady, but we don't forbid her because of seclusion [Rashi says: a married lady on her husband. Tosfos disagrees, or else the subject of the first part of the statement is not the same as the last part of the statement. Rather, it's even for a single woman, if she secluded with a man, she's not forbidden to be a Zonah when she claims that she didn’t have relations, but if she admitted that she had relations, but she claims the man was Kosher, we don’t believe her since we give an extra stringency for Yischus.]

90) We don’t give lashes to a married lady so that not to cause rumors on the validity of her children. It won’t help to announce that there’s no truth to the rumors, since people will hear that she was lashed, but wouldn’t hear the announcement.

91) We give Malkos because we heard bad things about someone’s wrongdoings.

92) We’re not concerned with seclusion when a woman’s husband is in town [Rashi: we don’t give them Malkos. Tosfos infers that he holds it to be still forbidden. However, in our Gemara it seems that it’s totally permitted, as long as the man isn’t overly friendly with the wife.]

93) There’s no problem with seclusion when there’s an opening that opens to the street.

94) Some say that it’s forbidden when you have a gathering and the women are in the inner chamber and the men are in the outer chamber since one man might sneak into the inner chamber, and since the men don’t walk there, it would be a seclusion. Some say the opposite: it’s forbidden when the men are inside and the women are outside, since men need to walk through the women, it would be a problem of seclusion. Therefore, we should be stringent in all cases unless you place items between them that will make noise if someone sneaks through it.

95) If someone does something that he thought was forbidden to do, but it came out that it wasn’t; he still needs a atonement for his intent to sin.

96) R’ Assi holds like the opinion that one can seclude with his sister and live permanently with his mother. Shmuel holds like the opinion that one can’t seclude with any relative or an animal. [Tosfos says: that, which we see that many Amorayim were careful not to seclude with an animal, it’s only a stringency since we Paskin Jews are not suspected to transgress homosexuality or bestiality.]

97) Someone can seclude with people who naturally hate each other, like two sister-in-laws that one may fall to Yibum to the other’s husband, two sister-wives, a woman and her mother-in-law, or her stepdaughter. As there’s a safeguard, that, if one would sin, the other won’t cover up for her.

98) You can also seclude with a woman and child that’s old enough to know what relations is, but not old enough to have a desire for it.

99) Someone can lay naked with his young children in a bed, until his children become older, and then they could only lay clothed.

100) R’ Assi says: young ones are defined when they’re physically able to have relations which is; a son until he's nine and a daughter until she's three. Others say that it's permitted until the son is thirteen and a day and the daughter until she's twelve and a day, (and only if they start growing pubic hairs.)

101) R’ Chisda says: it’s when she’s embarrassed to stand before her father naked.

102) It’s forbidden to marry off a minor daughter, but you should wait until she grows up and could say who she wants to marry.

103) You can’t use a female’s service, even if she’s just a minor, but you may do so if you intend for heaven (that you don’t intend for being around females, but just to show her mother how people enjoy her daughter that it will make her proud. [Tosfos: we rely on this to use the service of girls these days.]

104) A single man shouldn’t teach kids since he’ll be involved with the mothers who bring them, nor a woman should teach them since she’ll be involved with the fathers who bring them.

105) R’ Elazar was stringent that even a married man can’t teach them if his wife is not living with him at this time.

106) R’ Yehuda says that two single men can’t sleep in the same bed, and they shouldn’t be shepherds [Tosfos explains: since they have more desire than other people.] However, the Rabanan permit since Jews are not suspected to transgress homosexuality or bestiality.

107) Anyone who deals professionally with women shouldn’t seclude with them [Rashi: even with many women. Tosfos says that it’s forbidden to everyone like we said earlier when the women are inside and men on the outside. Rather, even with your wife there.]

108) You can’t appoint a king or Kohein Gadol from gold smelters, or one who combs clothes, those who clean the mill, peddlers, weavers, barbers, blood letters, bathhouse warmers, and tanners. Not because they’re Pasul for the job, but because they had a degrading job.