1) Beis Shammai says: a minor wife can only do Mee'un (refuse her husband) if she was only an Arusah, and not by a Nesuah. Beis Hillel allows by a Nesuah too.

2) R' Yehuda quotes Shmuel: the reason for Beis Shammai is, since there is no condition that retroactively undoes a marriage (if it's not fulfilled) after Nesuin. (Therefore, there's nothing for people to say why the marriage is dissolved.) This is even true if she's brought to Chuppah without relations, since a condition can't uproot a marriage after the Chuppah either. [Tosfos says: we need to say that the text is R' Yehuda quotes Rav, since Rav held this way in Kesuvos, at least according to Ulla. However, Ullah held that Shmuel says that there is a condition that can uproot a Chuppah (even if it can't uproot it after they had relations). However, R' Chaim says that it can be even according to Shmuel, and even according to Abaya who says that a condition can uproot a full Nesuin. After all, though it's possible, it's totally uncommon, so people won't assume that any Nesuin was uprooted through a condition.] This is even if the father's agents handed the girl over to the husband's agents, which makes it a Nesuin. Granted, since it's before Chuppah, an unfulfilled condition can still uproot the marriage, but the rabbis made it as a rule without exceptions that no Nesuah can have Mee'un. However, Beis Hillel held that, since everybody knows that there is no true marriage with a minor (if the father's not involved). [Tosfos says: therefore, even if a condition can't uproot Nesuin, people will assume that she's getting out of the marriage since it wasn't a true marriage to begin with.]

3) Rabbah and R' Yosef say that the reason for Beis Shammai since they hold that someone doesn't make his relations to be promiscuous. [Tosfos says: although Beis Shammai says that, if you sleep with your ex-wife in an inn, you don't need another Get since, even if they had relations, we don't assume they had relations to be a Kiddushin, but he'll have a promiscuous relations; that's because there's a reason to assume that he doesn't want it for Kiddushin. After all, there he shows that he doesn't want to be married to her. However, here, he shows that he wants to be married to the minor since he married her. Even in a case where there's no proof either way, we should assume that people don't want their relations to be promiscuous.] This is even true if she's brought to Chuppah without relations, since he doesn't want his Chuppah to be of a forbidden relations (of promiscuity). This is even if the father's agents handed the girl over to the husband's agents, which makes it a Nesuin, since the rabbis made it as a rule without exception that Mee'un doesn't work by any Nesuah. However, Beis Hillel holds: since he's giving Kiddushin and a Kesuva; it doesn't look like a promiscuous relations.

4) R' Pappa says: the reason for Beis Shammai is because of the produce of her fields, that we're afraid that, if the Nesuah can refuse her husband at any time, the husband will try to just eat from the field as much as he can, and abuse it. [Tosfos: he'll even cut off vines and items from the actual land since he knows that he won't need to pay for it if she refuses him even though he took it unlawfully. However, he doesn't need to worry that he'll invest in the field and lose, since the husband can collect what he put into the field after the Mee'un.] Beis Hillel says the opposite; if her relatives sees that he's ruining the field, they'll advise her to refuse him and all the fields will be taken away from him; so he's afraid to start ruining the fields.

5) Rava says: the reason for Beis Shammai: since it may lead the man to refrain from marrying her since he doesn't prepare the wedding meal for it to be ruined by her just refusing him. However, Beis Hillel held that both would rather marry, and won't refrain from the Safeik that she might refuse since they both want to get a marriage status upon them.

6) Beis Shammai holds that you can't refuse a Yavam, only a husband. Beis Hillel says that she can refuse either one, the husband or the Yavam.

7) R' Oshiya says: a minor waiting for Yibum can only refuse her Yavam for the Maamar that he gave her, or even for the Yibum relations that's done by man, but not for her Yibum connection that was put on her from Heaven.

8) Ullah says: she can even refuse the Yibum connection, since it comes from the original Kiddushin, and the refusal of that original Kiddushin breaks the Zika.

9) The reason that a minor whose an Ervah to the Yavam can't refuse her original husband's marriage in order that the Yavam should be able to do Yibum to her sister-wife; since the rabbis decreed it to be forbidden since she looks like the sister-wife of an Ervah when she fell to Yibum. As we see that, if she refuses her husband, she's permitted to his father. However, if he dies and she's a Yevama and she refuses her Yavam, she's forbidden to their father.

10) If she does Mee'un to one brother; Rav says that she's forbidden to the rest of the brothers This is like: if she would receive a Get from one brother, she's forbidden to the rest of them. [Tosfos says: this is even though we permit the wife who refuses with her husband's relatives, and we don't decree to forbid them so not to permit them when she received a Get; however, here we need to forbid her. After all, since she's not their wife, and if we don't forbid them through her refusal, they might think that, just like there's no refusal here since she's not a wife, it's nothing too if she receives a Get.] Shmuel and R' Yochanan held that she's permitted to the other brothers. After all, it's not comparable to Get, since there the brothers do the action to forbid her. However, the refusal is done by the woman, and she's saying that she refuses a specific brother, but she wants the others. R' Assi says that she's permitted with all the brothers, even to the brother she refused. This is not like R' Elazar who holds that there is no Mee'un to a Zika, since R' Assi would forbid it if the refused brother was the only brother. Rather, it's because he holds that there's no Mee'un to a half of Zika.

11) Beis Shammai says that Mee'un only works if done in front of the husband, and Beis Hillel says that it works even if he's not there. However, Beis Shammai admits that, in a case where the husband is acting wrongfully, like when he's consuming her Tzon U'barzel properties, then she can refuse him not in front of him, even if they already had Nesuin. [Tosfos says: the Yerushalmi explains; you can't permit an Ervah (i.e., a married lady to marry someone else) because he's acting wrongfully. Rather, it must mean that Beis Shammai holds that a Mee'un by a Nesuin is B'dieved valid. Tosfos says that it's not difficult to begin with. After all, the minor's Kiddushin is only rabbinical, so the rabbi's have a power to uproot the marriage when they felt it necessary.]

12) Beis Shammai held that you need Mee'un before three expert judges. Beis Hillel allows even if they're laymen. R' Yossi b. Yehuda and R' Elazar b. Shimon allow [Tosfos: B'dieved] with two. [Tosfos says: they would have allowed even before one, but you need two so that you have witnesses to the fact.] R' Nachman says that the Halacha is like that pair of Tannaim.

13) Beis Hillel says that a minor can do Mee'un multiple times to multiple husbands. Beis Shammai forbids since we shouldn't make Jewish girls Hefker having many partners. Rather, according to Shmuel, she does Mee'un once, and then wait until she grows up to see if she still wants her Mee'un. Ulla says she can do Mee'un once, and it's final, and then she waits to remarry when she grows up, or she can marry again with immediate Nesuin to make sure she won't be able to refuse this time (according to Beis Shammai). The terminology of Beis Shammai is difficult to Shmuel's explanation.

14) Mee'un is only necessary if her mother or brother married her off with her consent, but she doesn't need even Mee'un if it was done behind her back.

15) Originally, they wrote in a Get Mee'un that “she doesn't want him, doesn't desire him, and doesn't want to be married to him.” However, since they seen that it was too wordy and people might mistake it with a Get (and an ignorant Sofar might write it into a regular Get). Therefore, you should only write that Ms. Plonis refused Mr. Ploni.

16) Mee'un is: if she says “I can't live with Ploni,” or “I don't want the Kiddushin that my mother, or brother, accepted.” R' Yehuda says further: it's a Mee'un even if she says it while she's sitting in a canopy being carried from her father's house to her husband's house (and we don't say that, if she really means it, she should have gotten down). Also, if she said it before guests (and we don't say that, since they're not Beis Din and the guests won't reveal it to others, it's not a valid Mee'un). It's even if he sent her to the store to pick up an object and she said it to the store owner (and we don't say that it's only before the grocer and she may only be saying it because he's bothering her for making her work, so it's not a valid Mee'un).

17) R' Chanina b. Atignus says: any minor who wouldn't know how to guard Kiddushin that's given to her doesn't need Mee'un. Shmuel Paskins like him.

18) R' Yehuda b. Beseira holds: if she marries someone else, or even if she only accepts Kiddushin from someone else, it's considered as a Mee'un to her first husband. The Rabanan argue. However, the Halacha is like R' Yehuda b. Beseira even if she had Nesuin with her first husband.

19) R' Elazar holds that a minor's actions are inconsequential. Thus, if a Yisrael gives a minor Kohein's daughter Kiddushin, it doesn't Pasul her from eating Trumah. Her husband does not get what she finds, or her salary, and he can't annul her vows. He doesn't inherit her, nor could he become Tamai to her. She is not like his wife in all aspects except that she needs Mee'un so that she doesn't leave without anything. R' Yehoshua says: she's his wife in all aspects except that she could leave through Mee'un. This was a point that was difficult to Rebbi. If she's a wife in all aspects, she should need a Get and it shouldn't be enough to allow her to leave with just Mee'un.

20) R' Elazar b. Yaakov said a vague statement: any prevention that comes from the man, she's his wife, and if it's not from the man, she's not his wife. Shmuel explains: if others are trying to woo her to marry them; if she says no because of her husband, it's not a Mee'un and she's still his wife. However, if she says: because you're not proper people to marry, then it's a Mee'un and she's no longer his wife. [Tosfos says: we can establish the case where someone accepted Kiddushin for her without her consent; if she refuses others' Kiddushin because they're not proper enough, the original Kiddushin is still not consented to and she's not married. However, if she refused the others because she already has a husband, it's considered as a consent to the original Kiddushin. We gain by explaining it this way that it doesn't need to be dependent on the argument between the Chachumim and R' Yehuda b. Beseira if receiving Kiddushin from another can be counted as a Mee'un.] However, Abaya and R' Chanina, the sons of Avin; explains R' Elazar b. Yaakov: if the departing of ways come from the man, by divorcing her with a Get, then she's considered as being his wife and divorced, and she's forbidden to a Kohein, and they're both forbidden to the other's relatives. However, if it comes from her through Mee'un, it's like she was never her husband and she's permitted with a Kohein, and they're permitted with the other's relatives.

21) If the husband gives a Get, remarries her, and she does Mee'un and she marries someone else (and gets divorce or widowed), she may remarry her original husband. However, if she does Mee'un in the first marriage and remarries him, and then gets divorced, if she now marries someone else and gets divorce or widowed), she may not remarry her original husband. As Mee'un after a Get allows her to remarry him, but not a Get after Mee'un. Also, if she does Mee'un to one husband, gets a Get from a second one, has Mee'un with a third one, and gets a Get from a fourth one etc., she's permitted to remarry the ones with Mee'un, and is forbidden to the ones with Get.

22) We need to explain why we say that a Mee'un happening to him can cancel an earlier Get that he gave her, but a second husband's Mee'un doesn't cancel his Get. [Tosfos says: we also need to explain why the first one can't take her back after the second one's Mee'un, although his Kiddushin retroactively doesn't exist.] We must say it's a decree, since she recognizes his signs and hints, he might be secretly telling her to do Mee'un so that he can take her back. (After all, since he ended the marriage, we can assume that she still liked him, so she might agree to it.) However, if she ended the marriage through Mee'un, we're not afraid that he'll be able to appease her to come back, since all that he tries now to appease her, he tried before she ended the marriage and it was to no avail, so, he won't be able to convince her to do Mee'un to the new husband to come back to him.

23) We have a contradiction: in the first case, we say that it's only if she was widowed or divorced by the second husband, she can't return to her first husband , but if she made a Mee'un to the second husband, she may return to the first one. Yet, the second case teaches us that even if she does Mee'un to the second husband, she can't return to the first husband who divorced her. R' Elazar answers: the one who composed one case didn't compose the other, and they argue. Rava answers: since the second case she received a Get thrice, she looks like an adult, so the second one's Mee'un doesn't cancel the Get. However, before this, the second one's Meeun can cancel a Get. (R' Akiva Eiger says: although the Braisa says that she had it twice, but it's like Rebbi who says that a Chazaka is twice, and Rava says his Halacha according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel who says a Chazaka is thrice.) (According to this, we no longer hold the reason is that the husband may be trying to convince her to do Mee'un to come back to him.)

24) R' Yishmael b. R' Yossi holds that Mee'un of a second husband cancels the Get of the first husband from a Kal V'chomer. After all, it permits a Karies prohibition [Rashi it permits a married woman to marry someone else. Tosfos explains: granted that Mee'un retroactively makes her that she was never a married woman, still we should definitely consider it as if she never got married after the first one's divorce and she doesn't have the prohibition of taking back your wife after she married someone else. The Rivan explains Kareis: they're permitted to the other's relatives. However, Tosfos concludes: this doesn't fit well according to the opinion later that forbids her to his brother.] However, it's forbidden for her to do Mee'un after her husband dies [if she's a Shniya] to allow her sister-wife to have Yibum, but the sister-wife is forbidden and needs Chalitza. [Tosfos explains: however, it's simple that an actual Ervah can't do Mee'un to permit her sister-wife.]

25) We have two versions of what R' Yitzchok b. Ishun said: if the Mee'un of the second one forbids her only to the first husband who divorced him since we need to worry that he'll signal to her, but not to his brother since she doesn't recognize his signals, or do we forbid the brother too since we need to decree to forbid him since we may come to permit her to the husband too.

26) If the husband divorces a wife and takes her back, and he dies: the Tanna Kama says that she's permitted to the Yavam, and R' Eliezer says she's forbidden to the Yavam. However, everyone agrees that, if the father marries her off the first time, and he divorces her, and takes her back like they enacted to marry her as if she's orphaned from her father, even though her father's still living (i.e., since the Torah only allows him to marry her off once). After all, the first Kiddushin is from the Torah, and the second one is only rabbinical (and she's a Torah Ervah to the brother, and it's not a Torah Yibum to allow it). However, if he takes her back when she grows up, or she grew up while she was married to him for the second time (since it makes a Torah marriage), the Tanna Kama allows the Yibum.

27) You can't say the reason for R' Eliezer is that he holds that since she had a moment that she can't have Yibum (after the divorce), she can never have Yibum again. After all, then he wouldn't require Chalitza either. Abaya answers: R' Eliezer had a Safeik if the original Kiddushin causes the Yibum, and thus she can't receive Yibum if she had a moment that she can't have Yibum (after the divorce), or the death causes it and she's fit for Yibum or Chalitza. Rava answers: it's a decree for, perhaps, he will take her back at night and die during the next day. People may not know that she remarried him, and they'll think that a divorced wife can have Yibum. R' Ashi says it's a decree because of the case when the father marries her off the first time, and he divorces her, and takes her back like they enacted to marry her as if she's orphaned from her father, even though her father's still living (i.e., since the Torah only allows him to marry her off once). After all, the first Kiddushin is from the Torah, and the second one is only rabbinical. We have a Braisa like him.

28) R' Nachman says: although R' Eliezer forbids the one who got divorced, but since he only forbade him because of a Gezeira, we don't forbid her sister-wife too. [Rashi explains the Gezeira: if the father marries her off the first time, and he divorces her, and takes her back like they enacted to marry her as if she's orphaned from her father, even though her father's still living. Tosfos asks: this seems to only explain R' Ashi and not Rava. Rather, even Rava only holds it's rabbinically forbidden since people don't know that he took her back the night before, thus, we don't need to be strict but by this woman and not by her sister-wife.]

29) If there are two brothers who married two minor sisters, if one of the husbands dies, his wife goes out without Chalitza since she's his brother's wife's sister. The same is true if one of the sisters was an adult and the other is a minor, if the minor's husband died, the minor goes out without Chalitza for that reason.

30) However, if the adult sister's husband dies; R' Eliezer says that we teach the minor wife to do Mee'un so her husband can do Yibum to her sister. Although, regularly, we say that you should avoid making Mee'un, but for the Mitzvah of Yibum you may. [Tosfos bring R' Chananel who quotes the Gaon that "avoiding Mee'un" means that you shouldn't marry off a minor since it may lead to Mee'un, and you should only do it if you're worried that people will abuse her otherwise (without a husband looking out for her). However, Tosfos concludes: this can't be the explanation in our Gemara since she was already married.]

31) R' Gamliel says: if she doesn't do Mee'un (and you don't teach her to do Mee'un), she needs to wait until she grows up, and then the other leaves because she's his wife's sister. Rav says: it's only after the husband has relations to her after she grows up to make a Torah Kiddushin, but before that, the Yevama is not permitted. [Tosfos says: even so, but rabbinically she's completely married and can't do Mee'un after she gets her two pubic hairs.]

32) Rav is consistent to his opinion that, after the husband has relations with his wife that was a minor after she became an adult; if a second person gives her Kiddushin, she doesn't need to receive a Get from the second person. (However, Shmuel holds that she needs a Get from the second person, since the relations were only done based on the first Kiddushin. [Tosfos says: therefore, Shmuel will explain R' Gamliel that it only works if the husband explicitly says that his relations will be a Kiddushin.])

33) They are consistent to their views regarding giving Kiddushin with a condition and then have Nesuin. Rav says that she needs a Get, even if the condition wasn't fulfilled, since he forgives the condition by Nesuin. [Rashi explains: he has his first relations as an unconditional Kiddushin. Tosfos says: he agrees that the original money Kiddushin should take effect unconditionally. This is because he doesn't want his relations to be promiscuous.] However, Shmuel holds that he doesn't need a Get since he only had relations on the original conditional Kiddushin.

34) Although we see that Rav's students didn't need a Get from the second person who gave her Kiddushin while she was sitting in the canopy (assumably that it's before Nesuin and relations, like the usual case); R' Pappa Banrash answers: it refers to a case where she's sitting there after Nesuin. R' Ashi answers: even if it's before Nesuin, but since this second person is doing something wrong by trying to steal someone's wife, so we do a wrong thing to him and the Rabanan uproot his Kiddushin. Even if he made the Kiddushin by relations, the rabbis made it into a promiscuous relations. [Tosfos quotes Ri: he has a Safeik if the reason it's uprooted is because "all who is Mekadesh does it on the acceptance of the rabbis." Or, do we say, since the Gemara doesn't bring that saying here, it doesn't have to do with it, but the rabbis have the power to uproot something from the Torah.]

35) R' Yehoshua says (when the adult sister's husband dies): the minor wife sister needs to do Mee'un, and the adult sister needs Chalitza. However, the Halacha is like R' Eliezer.

36) A judge needs to ask his Rebbi if he was ruling correctly if he's in his city if he's trying to compare the case to another case. After all, a judge needs to view himself as if a sword hangs between his thighs, and Gehenim is open below him.

37) If someone is married to two orphaned minors and dies, his brother's relations or Chalitza to one of them exempts the other one. [Rashi says: even though we say that, if you do Chalitza to a minor, you need to redo the Chalitza when she grows up; we must say that the Chalitza was done here when she grew up. Alternatively, Tosfos answers: like the Yerushalmi that says that, if she never received Chalitza when she grew up, we can rely on the Chalitza done when she was a minor.] The same applies by two deaf-mute wives, that the relations of one exempts the second. However, she can't have Chalitza, since she can't read, and that prevents the Chalitza from taking effect. (Although reading usually doesn't prevent the Chalitza, but we say that it's worse when it's impossible to do {like we say that you don't need to mix the oil into the Mincha, but it needs to have not too much flour that you can still mix it in.}) Even if she was always a deaf-mute and the Kiddushin must have been made by signaling to her, which is only a rabbinical Kiddushin, we still say that she can't have Chalitza.

38) If he marries a minor and a deaf-mute, the relations of one doesn't exempt the other. R' Ada b. Ahava explains: this is only if the husband is a normal man, and it will be a Safeik which one he would want more, as the deaf-mute is an adult and he can have relations with her, but the minor will eventually grow up to be normal. However, if the husband is also a deaf-mute, then we say that he definitely wants the deaf-mute better since he can have relations with her and she's his own type. However, R' Nachman says that a deaf-mute doing Yibum to the deaf-mute wife doesn't exempt the minor.

39) Rav says that he needs to have relations with the deaf-mute and divorce her and then give Chalitza to the minor when she grows up. (However, he can't do Chalitza to the minor first since it would forbid him to have Yibum with the deaf-mute.)

40) [Rashi explains: it's known that one of the two (i.e., deaf-mute and minor) is partially acquired, and the other is a question whether it's completely acquired, or completely not acquired. After all, if they both are partially acquired, then the relations of one would exempt the other. It can't be that they both are a Safeik, since, we wouldn't say later that, if he had relations with both, they're both Pasul. After all, the first one would be either a Kosher Yibum, or not originally married to the brother.] R' Chisda says: we can deduce from Rav's statement that the deaf-mute partially acquires and the minor is a Safeik, and that's why you need to give a Get to the deaf-mute [Tosfos explains: you can't say that Rav was in doubt which one was partially acquired and which one was a Safeik, and he's just being strict, since R' Chisda knew that Rav didn't have a Safeik.] After all, if the deaf-mute is a Safeik, he should be able to keep her no matter which side of the Safeik is true. As, if she was a complete wife, her Yibum would exempt the minor no matter what, and if she's completely not his wife, then it's as if he married a stranger that was never married to his brother. [Tosfos says: however, we can't permit him to the minor (if he B'dieved had relations with her first and then had relations with the deaf-mute) with that same logic. There, we need to decree her to be forbidden since we might allow her even if she had the relations after the deaf-mute.]

41) You can't do Yibum first to the minor since you either acquire her by Yibum, or she's a stranger never married to your brother; since you would have no way to exempt the deaf-mute (since she can't have Chalitza).

42) This also seems true from a Braisa of two brothers who married two sisters, one's a deaf-mute and one's a minor; and the husband of the minor died. We say that the husband of the deaf-mute must divorce his wife, and make Chalitza to the minor. If the husband of the deaf-mute dies, the husband of the minor needs to divorce his wife, and the deaf-mute is stuck without any Heter (since she can't have Chalitza). However, if he does B'dieved have relations with her, he needs to divorce her, and then she's permitted to marry others. [Tosfos says: and we don't decree to forbid because we might come to permit this by the case where the minor's husband dies and the deaf-mute's husband has relations with her with a Get, and she realy needs a Chalitza with the Get. (This would be similar to the decree to forbid the minor (that fell to Yibum with a deaf-mute) if the Yavam has relations with her first because we might permit her when he has relations with her after the deaf-mute.) The reason they weren't strict here: since the deaf-mute has no Heter with Chalitza, we don't want her to be forbidden forever.]

43) Therefore, if we say that a minor acquires partially and the deaf-mute is a Safeik, then, maybe she was completely acquired, and then her Yibum (after relations with the minor) would be Pasul and she wouldn't be able to leave with a Get, and still need Chalitza. (However, now that the minor is the Safeik and the deaf-mute is a partial acquisition, then it fits in well how he can just divorce her. After all, if the minor is not acquired at all, it's a Kosher Yibum. If the minor is acquired, then the deaf-mute is exempt from Yibum since she's his wife's sister).

44) [Tosfos explains: we consider this as a Yibum Pasul, although usually the reason why a Yibum after Get doesn't acquire because of a decree that you might allow it even after Chalitza, and you can't do Chalitza to a deaf-mute; we must say the problem here is if we allow the Yibum deaf-mute after the relations with her minor sister, we'll come to permit Yibum to an adult after he already married her sister.]

45) If someone marries two minors, or two deaf-mutes, and a brother does Yibum to one, and then he, or another brother, has relations with the second one, we don't say that the second relations ruins the original Yibum. However, if one wife was a minor, and the other was a deaf-mute, then, no matter which one had Yibum, relations with the second one ruins the Yibum with the first one.

46) If he was married to a normal woman and a deaf-mute, and died; if Yibum was done to the normal woman, relations afterwards with the deaf-mute doesn't ruin the Yibum, but if Yibum was done with the deaf-mute, relations with the normal wife will ruin the Yibum.

47) If he married an adult and a minor and dies, if Yibum was done to the adult woman, relations afterwards with the minor doesn't ruin the Yibum, but if Yibum was done with the minor, relations with the adult wife will ruin the Yibum. R' Eliezer says that we should teach the minor to do Mee'un and permit Yibum with the adult wife. The Halacha is like R' Eliezer in this case too.

48) If a minor Yavam had relations with a minor Yevama, they can grow up together in this marriage. The same applies with an adult Yevama. This is not like R' Meir who says that there is a prohibition for a minor to do Yibum since we need to worry about the minority of cases where he might turn out to be a Saris. Therefore, we must forbid the adult Yevama to live with him. (However, we don't mind if the minor Yevama lives with the minor Yavam since they're not punishable for their acts and Beis Din is not obligated to separate them from prohibitions.)

49) Although the minor Yavam can't sire children in order to upkeep the name of the dead, there's a Drasha to include him in Yibum. [Tosfos says: this is not comparable to a natural Saris (i.e., that wasn't caused by a human), according to the opinion that he can't do Yibum although he can be healed and have children, since that therapy is not sure to come as much as we're sure that the boy will grow up into a man.]

50) If the Yevama claims within thirty days of living together that the Yavam never had relations with her, we force him to give her Chalitza. The reason we don't force him to do Yibum [Tosfos: like the original Mishna that we force Yibum] because we refer to a case where she's holding onto a Get from him.

51) However, if it's after thirty days, we can only ask of him to do Chalitza [Tosfos says: but you can't force him to do Chalitza with the rationale that it's nothing off his back; because since it may be embarrassing to him to be spat on in Beis Din.] After all, after thirty days, we assume that they definitely had relations. This is even according to R' Yossi who says that you can only claim that your wife was missing her virginity only right away after seclusion, and he can't claim later that they only had relations after a while, and that's why he didn't claim it right away, since we assume that he had relations right away. [Tosfos has two sides whether this is only true if we know that they secluded, but otherwise he can claim that he didn't seclude up to now, or do we assume they secluded right away unless we know for sure that they didn't seclude together until now.] (R' Meir says that he can claim this up to thirty days.) After all, we only assume by the one who he married, since they're exceedingly friendly, that they had relations right away, but not by your brother's wife, since he's embarrassed of her.

52) If they both admit that they didn't have relations yet, we force him to do Chalitza.

53) If he says that he had relations, and she denies it, even if he reverses himself and says that he didn't have relations, she needs a Get and Chalitza. (Although we already said that we refer to a case where she received a Get (and that's why we don't force him to do Yibum); R' Ami answers: she needs Chalitza besides the Get that she received. [Tosfos: and we can't allow her to remarry without the proof of producing a Get.] R' Ashi answers: earlier, she received a get for her Zika (Yibum connection) and now she needs another Get for his claim that he had relations and made Yibum.

54) If she claims that she had relations and Yibum, and he denies it; she can go out with just a Get. However, this is all regarding her, but for her sister-wife, she's permitted. After all, just because we say that we force Chalitza [Rashi: before thirty days] and we ask him to perform Chalitza [Rashi: after thirty days]; is it a reason to forbid the sister-wife?

55) [Rashi says: when she claimed to have had relations and she doesn't need Chalitza; that's only after thirty days, but within thirty days, she needs Chalitza also. Tosfos asks on what he explained that we allow her sister-wife within thirty days: why should she be more permitted within thirty days than the Yevama? After all, she doesn't know if the Yevama had Yibum more than the Yevama herself. Therefore, Tosfos explains: we don't permit the sister-wife untill after thirty days. When we say that, just because we force Chalitza (and it doesn't mean within thirty days); it means when he originally says "I had relations" and then reversed his statement that he really didn't have relations. However, if they both agree from the beginning that they didn't have relations, we can't permit the sister-wife since the Yevama herself only needs Chalitza and not a Get. Alternatively, even when they both admit that they didn't have relations after thirty days, she needs a Get with her Chalitza, so we can permit her sister-wife. Alternatively, even within thirty days, when he makes Chalitza, he needs to give a Get. Thus, we can permit the sister-wife. Therefore, we should conclude that the Halacha should be: that we should have a Safeik, and be stringent. So, if he is forced to do Chalitza within thirty days, she should be given a Get too, but we should forbid the sister-wife from getting remarried within thirty days.]

56) If the wife vows not to have pleasure from her brother-in-law while her husband was still alive, we force him to do Chalitza. However, if her intent was to make sure that he'll never do Yibum, or she vowed it after her husband's death; we only ask him to please do Chalitza. [Tosfos explains: since we consider her at fault for making the vow. We can't blame him that he didn't annul the vow since he can't annul it until after Yibum. Even if he could, this Tanna held that we still place the blame on the wife for vowing, and not the husband for making the vow stand.]

57) Originally we said that the following women that get divorced receive their Kesuva, but afterwards, they suspected them that they only caused the Get to marry someone else, so we don't believe them to get divorce. Therefore, if a Kohein's wife says that she was defiled, she would need to prove it, or else she's not believed. Also, if she says that the heavens separate us [Rashi: he doesn't fulfil his obligation of having relations with her. Tosfos says that the Gemara in Nedarim explains it that he can't shoot his semen like an arrow (but dribbles).] The Beis Din should ask of him [Rashi says: that the husband should treat her nicely and have relations with her. Tosfos quotes R' Tam: we should pray and ask Hashem to give them children. R' Chanael explains, and so it is explained in the Yerushalmi, that he should make a party for her to appease her.] Also, if she says that "she's taken from the Jews" (i.e., relations is painful to her, and, thus, she vowed not having relations from everyone); the husband should annul the part that's applicable to him and have relations with her, and if they ever divorce, she's forbidden to have relations from anyone else, since that part of the vow is still intact.

58) If the husband dies; Rav says the Yavam is not like the husband regarding vowing from having relations from all Jews [Rashi: she didn't vow it on condition to forbid herself on the Yavam], as it didn't dawn on her that her husband may die. [Rashi explains: she only has in mind those people who are permitted to her if her husband divorces her.] Shmuel says that the Yavam is like the husband (and she has him in mind when she made the vow). We have a proof like Rav that she doesn't expect her husband to die. As we said: if the wife vows not to have pleasure from her brother-in-law while her husband was still alive, we force him to do Chalitza; and we don't say that she vowed to prevent the Yibum. [Tosfos disagrees with this explanation. After all, it's simple that she's forbidden to all Jews, and the Yavam is included. Also, why do we say that he's like the husband, since it should have rather said that he's like all other people. Also, why does the Gemara concludes that Rav says to force the Chalitza, if, according to Rashi, he's permitted to do Yibum. Rather, the question do we assume that she made the vow to forbid herself on the Yavam like she's trying to forbid herself on her husband, and we would only ask her to do Chalitza, or do we say that she didn't have in mind to forbid her Yavam, so we can force him to do Chalitza.]