Daf 26

1) Four brothers who two of them married two sisters, and those two brothers died; the surviving brothers must do Chalitza, and not Yibum to the two sisters. It's either because each one is forbidden to the brothers by being the sister of a woman who he has a Yibum connection to. Or, if you hold there is no concept of a Yibum connection, it's a decree not to come to a case where one does Yibum to one woman, and the second brother dies before doing Yibum to the second sister, and it comes out that the Mitzvah of Yibum is canceled for the second sister. However, this is if only two brothers remain, but if three brothers remain, he can do Yibum since we're not worried for the death of two of them. [Although, the Rabanan of R' Yehuda don't hold that you need to worry about death (and you don't need to set aside another wife for the Kohein Gadol just in case his first wife might die) for, if you would, then you would need to worry about many deaths (and a second wife wouldn't be good enough); we must say that it's only about a death on one particular day. Since it's uncommon for her to die that day, if you're worried for such uncommon things, there's no end to the worrying. However, here, it's possible that a long time might pass before the second brother will perform Chalitza to the sister, so we're afraid he might die in the meantime. However, we only need to worry for one death, but not two since it's uncommon.]

2) Rav personally held there is no connection between them, and that's why he holds that if a girl fell before someone for Yibum, and she dies, he's permitted to marry her mother. However, he said according to the opinion that they are connected; if three sisters fell to Yibum before two brothers at the same time, they both need to do Chalitza to each of the sisters since they're Pasul Chalitza, so the Chalitza of one brother doesn't remove the connection to the other brother. [Rashi explains a Pasul Chalitza: if it's a Chalitza in a situation that Yibum can't be done. Tosfos disagrees. After all, if the brother marries his ex-wife (who was married to someone else in between), a brother may do Chalitza to the ex-wife and it exempts her sister-wife, and we don't consider it a Pasul Chalitza just because he can't do Yibum to the ex-wife. Also, we say that, according to the one who doesn't hold of the connection, that the Chalitza of one brother to a sister exempts her completely even though we forbid him to do Yibum. Therefore, the Ri explains: a Pasul Chalitza is only when the connection is somewhat removed. Like when two sisters fall to Yibum (according to the opinion that there's a concept of connection), that some of the connection is removed since they're somewhat like a wife's sister. Or the sister of the one you did Chalitza to (according to all) since she looks like the sister of a wife you divorced. Or to a Yevama who got a Get, since it looks like someone who got Chalitza, or a Yevama who got Maamar, since she looks as if she already had Yibum. Also, to a rabbinical Sotah, since she looks like a Torah Sotah who doesn't fall to Yibum at all like an Ervah.] If they fall one after the other, we say that Reuvein does Chalitza for Rochel when she falls to Yibum, Shimon does Chalitza when Leah falls to Yibum, and they both must do Chalitza to Sarah when she falls to Yibum, since it's a Pasul Chalitza since she's the sister of your previous Choilitz.

3) [Rashi says: the only proof that this is only according to the opinion that there is no concept of connection by Yibum since they both need to do Chalitza to the third sister. However, the fact that only Shimon can do Chalitza to the second sister, and not Reuvein is even according to the opinion that there is no connection. As we say later in our Gemara that, even according to that opinion, you can't do a Pasul Chalitza if there is a brother who can do a Kosher Chalitza. However, Tosfos quotes Ri who feels that this Sugya is not the main one (and it's only said in an “even if you want to say” way; even if you want to say that they hold that you can't do a Pasul Chalitza according to this opinion, but not that they held it to be true). As we see the Gemara in the fifth Perek that, if there is no concept of connection, a Pasul Chalitza is completely valid. A proof to that, the Gemara later also implies that, even according to this opinion, even if both brothers can only do a Pasul Chalitza, they both need to do Chalitza to exempt her. If so, Rashi's proof why this is only according to the opinion that there is a connection is completely gone.]

4) Shmuel says that one brother can be Cholitz the third sister. Although we see that Shmuel held that a Chalitza to a sister doesn't exempt her sister-wife (and she'll also need a Chalitza); that's only when there is a Chalitza Kosher to do (either there's a sister-wife, or brother, that can do the Chalitza to be Kosher), but here, there is no one better to do the Chalitza. Alternatively, Shmuel holds that one brother can do Chalitza to all three sisters. Granted that he held that a Pasul Chalitza can't exempt her sister-wife, but it could exempt her completely.

Daf 27

5) That, which Shmuel said that a Chalitza to a sister doesn't exempt her sister-wife, implying that if you do Chalitza to the sister-wife first, it exempts the sister, it's not according to everyone. After all, according to the opinion that there is a connection, then the Chalitza of the sister-wife is a Pasul Chalitza (and shouldn't exempt the sister) since it's a sister-wife of the sister of a woman who your connected to (and is similar to a sister-wife of an Ervah). Even according to the opinion that there is no connection, and to say if you did Chalitza to the first sister, then Chalitza to the second sister would be Pasul; if so, the Chalitza to her sister-wife should also be Pasul since she's the sister-wife of the sister of a woman who you did Chalitza to. Rather, what he means: if you start the Chalitza with the sister's sister wife; then you can do Chalitza to the second sister and it will be Kosher. However, if you start the Chalitza with one of the sisters, then the Chalitza to the second sister or her sister-wife is a Pasul Chalitza and you would always need to do Chalitza to both women. [Tosfos says: since Shmuel really holds of the concept of connection; it can't be that they fell at the same time. After all, then Chalitza to any sister-wife would be Pasul since it's Chalitza to a sister-wife of the sister of a woman who your connected to (and it's similar to a sister-wife of an Ervah) and you'll need to do Chalitza to the sister. Therefore, her sister from the other brother would also be Pasul since she's the sister of someone who he did Chalitza to. However, Tosfos says this to be pushed since the Sugya implies that the case is that they fell together. So, Ri says: even if they fell at the same time, but since you started the Chalitza with the sister's sister-wife, so the main connection fell off, and there is just a little bit left. Since you only do Chalitza to remove that small amount of connection, we don't consider her sister to be the sister of a woman who you did Chalitza to. Therefore, we consider the Chalitza of the second sister as a Kosher Chalitza. Although we say that, once the sister was once forbidden (when her sister still had a connection), she's always forbidden; but we don't consider it a Pasul Chalitza for being forbidden without having her sister connected at this time just because she was once forbidden. (However, this answer doesn't fit well to the opinion that Shmuel held, if they both are a Pasul Chalitza, you only need Chalitza to one of them.)]

6) R' Ashi says: really, if you make Chalitza to the sister-wife, it exempts the sister (even if you hold of the concept of connection). After all, we don't consider the connection strong enough to consider her a sister-wife of an Ervah.

7) The Gemara resolves the question: if two sister-wives fall to Yibum before two brothers, and one brother gives a Maamar to one wife, and the other brother gives a Get to the second wife; you can make the Chalitza to whichever sister you want and exempt the other. We don't say that it's better to do Chalitza to the wife who received the Get since you already started the process of releasing her, and we don't say it's better to do it with the one who received Maamar despite being closer to Yibum. After all, we see that, even according to R' Gamliel who holds that there is no Maamar to a wife if Maamar was given already to a different wife, and a there's no Get to a wife if a Get was given already to a different wife, holds that there is a Get after Maamar (and the one who originally gave the Maamar can't do Yibum anymore), and there's Maamar after Get (and we don't say that the Get already pushed them away from this family). Therefore, we see that the Maamar and Get are equally strong. [Tosfos explains: it's only a proof from R' Gamliel since he holds that a weaker acquisition can't take effect after a stronger acquisition. This is why a second Get can't take effect after the first Get, and the second Maamar can't take effect after the first one. Therefore, if the Get or the Maamar was any less than the other, it wouldn't be able to take effect after the other. However, there is no proof from the Rabanan who say that a Get takes effect after a Get, and a Maamar takes effect after a Maamar, since they hold a weaker acquisition can take effect after the stronger one.]

8) [Tosfos says: granted that, if a brother gives Kiddushin after Chalitza, it takes effect; (we don't say here that a Maamar could take effect after Get for that reason, and not because it's an equal acquisition). After all, that's only by a Kiddushin from the Torah that takes effect after Chalitza, but Kiddushin never takes effect from the Torah on a Yevama before Chalitza. Alternatively, we say that the Mishna there is like R' Akiva who says that Kiddushin doesn't take effect by a Lav, (and the Yevama is always forbidden to the Yavam from a Lav after Chalitza.)]

9) [Tosfos says: this was inquired according to the opinion that there is a concept of Yibum connection, but according to the opinion there is no connection, there was no question that Chalitza of the one who received the Get exempts her sister-wife. Also, the Gemara's conclusion is only according to the version of Shmuel that, if they're equally a Pasul Chalitza, you can do Chalitza to one and exempt the other. However, according to the version that, if you start the Chalitza with one of the sisters, then when you do Chalitza on the other pair, both wives need Chalitza (since they're both Pasul Chalitza); we must also say here that both the one who received the Get and the one who received the Maamar need Chalitza.]

10) Rav held: if two sisters fall before one brother, he makes a Chalitza on the sister, and it exempts her [Tosfos: and it even permits her sister-wife, and we don't say it's a Pasul Chalitza, since he holds that there is no concept of connection.] The same with the second sister, the Chalitza permits her to marry. However, if one of the sisters died, he may do Yibum to the other, and it doesn’t make a difference if she was the one who fell to Yibum first or second. R' Yochanan says: only if the second one dies, since the first one was first permitted, became forbidden in between, and became permitted again. However, if the first one died, the second one remains forbidden since she couldn't have Yibum when her husband dies, she has the status like a brother's wife who had children and is always forbidden.

11) Although we see that Rav also had the concept that, if she can't have Yibum when her husband dies, she remains forbidden forever; that's only if she was forbidden from the Torah, like she was his wife's sister when her husband dies, she remains forbidden after her sister dies. Here, where it's only a connection that's only rabbinically forbidden, she's permitted. [Tosfos quotes R' Chananel: Rav is consistent to his opinion that there is no concept of connection, and she's only forbidden because he might end of canceling the Mitzvah Yevama of her sister, so we shouldn't forbid her forever because of that.]

12) However, our Mishna that says that two sisters who fall to two brothers, they need to do Chalitza to both of them, and we don't say to do the Chalitza to the one who fell second and do Yibim the one who fell first; R' Yochanan holds it not to be the correct text. [Tosfos says: this is only a question to R' Yochanan who holds of the Yibum connection, and that's why he forbids the second one no matter what (and is not worried that he'll cancel the Mitzvah of Yevama to the sister, as we'll say later). However, it's not difficult to Rav, since he holds that there is no concept of connection, and this Mishna holds like the opinion that there is a connection.]

Daf 28

13) You can't say that the reason is that we're afraid that you'll mix it up and do Chalitza to the first one and Yibum to the second one, but if you B'dieved did Chalitza to the second one, you may do Yibum to the first one. After all, we don't need to worry that others will get the wrong idea from you, and will do Chalitza to their first one and Yibum to their second one, since they'll understand that you purposely did Chalitza to the second one first, since only the first one is permitted. The reason we can't say this: since the implication of “you can't do Yibum” is that you can't do it all, even after the second one's Chalitza.

14) You can't establish the case when the sisters fell to them at the exact same time, and the author would be R' Yossi Haglili, who says it's possible to be exact. After all [R' Yochanan holds] that they wouldn't have an unnamed Mishna like R' Yossi Haglili. [Tosfos says: in Eiruvin, I Paskin that we can be exact only if a human orchestrates it to be at the same time, but we can't say that it randomly coincidentally happened at the same time.]

15) We can't say that he was in doubt who fell first since, in that case, why would we say that, if they did Yibum, they need to divorce them? After all, I understand why the first one that had Yibum must divorce since he definitely sinned. However, why did the second one need to divorce? After all, perhaps the one who fell second had Yibum already, and he took the one who fell first. After all, since a sister to a woman who your connected to is only rabbinic, so we shouldn't forbid her because of a Safeik.

15a) If he B'dieved did Yibum to a sister; R' Eliezer says that Beis Shammai holds that he can keep her, and Beis Hillel says he must divorce her. Abbah Shaul says the opposite, that Beis Hillel was leninet. R' Shimon says that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel don't argue and permit him to keep her.

16) If one of the sisters is forbidden to one brother because she's an Ervah, he's permitted to do Yibum to the second sister, but the other brother is forbidden to both. According to R' Yochanan, that which we don't say that the other brother can do Yibum to the Ervah sister after the first brother's Yibum to the other sister; we must say that the case was that the non-Ervah sister fell first. However, if the Ervah sister fell first, the other brother can do Yibum to the Ervah afterwards because she was first permitted, forbidden and then permitted. [Tosfos says: however, it's not a question to Rav, who never holds that there is a connection, since he's always afraid that this brother will come to do Yibum before the other brother does his Yibum.]

17) The brother who was the relative to the Ervah is permitted with her sister despite having a brother who's forbidden to both sisters, and we're not worried if he does Yibum, his brother might also do Yibum. Also, we allow him to do Yibum with the non-Ervah sister even in a case where there is no brother and we don't say that we should only allow it in a case where one brother purposely does Chalitza, which would serve as a distinction that the only reason the other brother is doing Yibum is since the other one is an Ervah.

18) However, if one of the sisters were only a Lav, or a Shniya, to one of the brothers; both sisters are forbidden to both brothers and we don't say that these prohibitions push off the rabbinical Yibum connection in order to fulfill the Torah obligation of Yibum. This is even true if both brothers had a sister who's prohibited to him in this way, and we don't say to permit since we don't need to decree to forbid anyone from doing Yibum since his brother will also do Yibum without this Heter.

19) However, if one of the sisters is an Ervah to one brother, and the other sister is an Ervah to the other brother; each brother can do Yibum to the sister who's not an Ervah to him. We don't say that, since there's no sister that will purposely get Chalitza, that there is no distinction and we need to worry that people will start doing Yibum to a woman who's sister has a Yibum connection to you.

20) However, R' Shimon holds: if two sisters fall from two brothers to a third brother, neither need Yibum or Chalitza. [Tosfos explains: only if he's the only brother, but if there are two brothers (and we don't need to say they would be both destined to the same brother), they need Chalitza. After all, R' Shimon said before that, if he B'dieved did Yibum to one, he may keep her.] However, if one of them is anyhow an Ervah, you may do Yibum to the second one and you don't need to worry that you'll confuse it with a regular case of two sisters. However, if one of them is a Lav or Shniya, then you need to do Chalitza to both sisters. Even though, from the Torah, you don't need Chalitza to either one, but they decreed that the one with the Lav needs Chalitza so people shouldn't assume the reason he doesn't need to do anything to her is because she has the status like an Ervah. He needs to do Chalitza to the other sister since he made Chalitza to the one with the Lav [Tosfos explains: if you won't need to do Chalitza to this sister, you won't end up doing Chalitza to the sister who's forbidden from a Lav.]

Daf 29

21) Even though we don't make such a decree when one of the sisters is an Ervah and say that the Ervah needs Chalitza [Rashi: or else you'll permit her sister that's not an Ervah to go out without anything. Tosfos says: since they might think that the reason the Ervah didn't need anything since she was the sister of someone with a connection to you, and the other non-Ervah sister has the same qualification.] After all, everyone knows the reason the Ervah goes out free, and won't mistake it. However, not everyone knows R' Shimon's reason to say that sisters with Yibum connections go free, and they might say it has to do with the Lav.

22) If you have three brothers, two are married (Reuvein and Shimon) to two sisters, and one is unmarried. If Reuvein died, and Levi, the unmarried brother, gives Maamar to his wife, and then Shimon dies; Beis Shammai says the Maamar completely acquires her as a wife and Shimon's wife goes free without anything since she's his wife's sister. However, Beis Hillel says it does not completely acquire, so you need a Get and Chalitza to Reuvein's wife, and a Chalitza to Shimon's wife. [Rashi explains Beis Shammai: Maamar only acquires rabbinically, so the sister is exempt when Levi does Yibum. However, Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara in the beginning of the second Perek implies that they hold it completely acquires from the Torah and exempts all Ervahs afterwards from Chalitza.]

23) The Gemara doesn't have a definite conclusion whether Beis Shammai holds that the Maaamar actually acquires the woman completely to the point that, afterwards, she only needs a Get to get out of the marriage, and not Chalitza. Or is it only enough of an acquisition to push aside sister-wives, but she needs also a Chalitza to get out of the marriage. [Tosfos says: even so, if he dies afterwards, and she's an Ervah to a brother, the Maamar exempts her sister-wife from needing Chalitza. Rashi explains that it pushes off a sister who's her potential sister-wife that's falling to Yibum from another brother. However, Tosfos disagrees since the term of a sister-wife refers to someone married to the same husband.]

24) [Rashi says: according to his explanation earlier, you need to say that Maamar pushes off her sister completely from this house, and not that it only allows doing Yibum to the sister with the Maamar and she's not forbidden for being the sister of someone he's connected to, however, that sister can't go out to marry others without Chalitza. After all, the Mishna says that the Maamar allows the sister to marry others because of being his wife's sister. Tosfos explains: however, this doesn't prove that a regular sister-wife is exempt after the Maamar to go out to marry other people since we only allow the sister since she was never allowed to do Yibum since she was the sister of someone who he's connected to, so we can exempt her completely with the combination of the Maamar of her sister. However, this is no proof to two sister-wives who fell from the same brother, that the brother may do Yibum to either one, that the Maamar allows the other to marry without Chalitza.]

25) Beis Shammai only says that Maamar acquires completely if it was given before her sister's connection, i.e., before she also falls to Yibum. However, if she already fell to Yibum, then Maamar won't help to allow Yibum to her. Therefore, Beis Shammai holds that you can only acquire one of the sisters through Yibum B'dieved, but not L'chatchila.

26) Also, only here does Beis Hillel hold that you need to divorce your wife (i.e., the sister you gave Maamar to) and is forbidden to your wife's sister (who fell to Yibum). However, if one has a minor wife (who was married by her mother or brother) who's sister falls before you to Yibum, they don't hold like R' Yehoshua who says that you need to do Chalitza to the Yevama and divorce your wife. Rather, they hold either like R' Gamliel that they have to wait until the wife becomes an adult (and then their marriage will be from the Torah) and the sister may marry someone else. [Tosfos says: even though the minor's Kiddushin is rabbinic like the Maamar; but we're more lenient after they were actually married.] Or, they hold like R' Eliezer who says that we teach the wife to refuse her husband and he does Yibum to her sister. [Tosfos says: we don't say that she looks like his wife's sister since that what she was when she fell to Yibum the same way we say that his daughter's sister-wife is forbidden, even if his daughter refuses his brother afterwards. After all, we only say it for a refusal after the husband's death since it doesn't look like retroactively uprooting the marriage after his death.]

27) Rabbah says that even Beis Shammai who says Maamar acquires, it only acquires like an Arusah. Therefore, he doesn't inherit her, and can't become Tamai to her if she dies [Rashi: if he's a Kohein. Tosfos adds: even a Yisrael during the Regel. Alternatively, according to the opinion that he's obligated to be Tamai to her, here, he doesn't have that obligation.] Also, he can't annul her vows [Rashi explains: since Maamar is only rabbinic even to Beis Shammai. Tosfos disagrees, and it's only because we learn it from Kiddushin. However, Rava in the next Perek considers it as a Safeik Nesuin, so, if she dies, he splits her possessions with her relatives.] We have an unresolved inquiry whether the Maamar changes the dynamics of Yibum that he can't just have Yibum against her will, but needs to be given over to Chuppah (like by a regular Kiddushin), or not. [Tosfos says: since they have relations after the Maamar, you can't ask that it's simple that it should be like regular Kiddushin that needs to be handed over to Chuppah.]

28) They want to bring a proof from the opinion of R' Eliezer who says that a woman that fell to Yibum, even before two brothers, one Yavam may annul her vows. (R' Yehoshua says that only if he fell to one Yavam do we say that he may annul the vow, and R' Akiva says he can't annul it even in that case. R' Yehoshua and R' Akiva argue whether he's connected to her or not.) The only way we can say R' Eliezer allows it by two, even though it's not sure that it will fall to the one who annuls it, is if he made a Maamar, and like Beis Shammai that he acquires her. Therefore, it would seem that they hold that the Maamar makes her into a Nesuah. The Gemara rejects this. He only means that he can annul it in partnership with her father. [Tosfos says: and if her father died, or she left his auspices, the Yavam can't annul her vow.] According to R' Elazar, who says that Beis Shammai only holds that the Maamar only pushes off the sister-wife, but doesn't acquire, he must admit that it also helps to annul vows.

29) Alternatively, we can say that it's implied that he annuls alone since it says it in the singular, and not in the plural. We can say that it refers to a case where Beis Din already assigned him to give her food (since it passed the time that they assigned him to make Yibum). Therefore, he can annul since the woman only vows on condition that her husband agrees to it, (and she views him already as her husband after he's feeding her). [Tosfos says: R' Yehoshua holds that she doesn't consider him as a husband when he has a brother who can make her forbidden to him by giving a Get or having relations with her. R' Akiva holds that she doesn't consider him a husband as long as she wouldn't be Chayiv for being a betrothed young lady. However, Rashi explains R' Akiva that he holds that there is no connection with the Yavam whatsoever.]

Daf 30

30) In a case where there were three brothers, two (Reuvein and Shimon) married sisters (Rochel and Leah), and the third (Levi) married a stranger. If Reuvein died, and Levi does Yibum with Rochel, and then Leah dies, and then Levi dies, Shimon is forbidden with Rochel. Although Leah died before this Yibum, but since he was forbidden to her at the first time she fell to Yibum (when Reuvein died), she's forbidden to him always. [Tosfos says: however, if Leah dies before Reuvein, then Rochel's permitted to Shimon. This is even according to R' Yirmiya who says that this Tanna holds that the original marriage causes people to fall to Yibum (and when Reuvein was married to Rochel, Shimon was married to Leah). After all, we only say that if two women were already sister-wives, if one is an Ervah, we permit her sister-wife as being a sister-wife of an Ervah even if they weren't anymore sister-wives at the husband's death. However, we don't consider a woman married to a brother as if she already fell to the brother to Yibum.]

31) Not only this, but even if there was a 'Heter' created, i.e., that Leah died before Levi did Yibum, Rochel's forbidden to him. This is even true if there's a fourth brother, Yehuda, and Rochel is not released yet from this family, since there was a moment when she was forbidden to Shimon, she's always forbidden to Shimon.

32) In a case where there were three brothers, two (Reuvein and Shimon) married sisters (Rochel and Leah), and the third (Levi) married a stranger. If Reuvein dies, and Levi does Yibum to his wife Rochel, or if Levi dies, and Reuvein does Yibum to his wife (Sarah); when the one who did Yibum also dies, both Rochel and Sarah are exempt from Chalitza from Shimon since they're his wife's sister and her sister-wife. However, if he didn't actually do Yibum, but only gave Maamar, then Sarah needs Chalitza from Shimon, but he can't do Yibum to her.

33) R' Nachman makes the implication that Shimon only can't do Yibum if Maamar was given, but he may do Yibum if nothing happened. (Although she was falling to Yibum to someone that would make her a sister-wife to an Ervah); we must say that there is no Yibum connection to consider her somewhat his wife. R' Ashi holds that there is a connection. The only reason the Mishna says that he did a Maamar, if the Halacha is true even if he didn't make a Maamar, to argue with Beis Shammai who says the Maamar acquires completely, so, according to them, she's a complete sister-wife to an Ervah and is exempt even from Chalitza.

34) If Reuvein divorces Rochel, and then Levi died, and Reuvein does Yibum to Sarah, and then he dies, Shimon may do Yibum to Sarah since she was never Rochel's sister-wife.

35) R' Ashi says this implies that she's only permitted since Rochel was divorced before Levi died, but if she was divorced afterwards, Sarah would be considered her sister-wife through the Yibum connection and forbidden to Shimon. [Tosfos explains: but he allows Reuvein to do Yibum to Sarah when he divorced before Levi's death, and we don't consider Sarah as the sister-wife of his wife's sister (since she's connected to Shimon too who's married to his Ervah); since we don't consider them sister-wives through the connection only if they both fall to Yibum at the same time and both are designated to have Yibum, and not when one of the husbands are still living.] R' Nachman says that it's not exact to say it's only permitted if the divorce happened first, but even if it happened after Levi's death. It only comes to exclude if he does Yibum with Sarah and then divorced Rochel, since he holds like R' Yirmiya that the original marriage gives the status (and she was an Ervahs's sister-wife at the beginning of their marriage). Although Rava says that everyone holds that the status is according to what they were when the husband dies, he must explain this like R' Ashi.

36) [Tosfos explains the reason, according to R' Nachman, that the Mishna framed the case with three brothers, and not with two who married sisters, one divorced a sister, and then married a stranger. (However, it fits well to R' Ashi since we wouldn't know the Halacha of connection in this case.) We can say: it tells us another Chiddush that there is no concept of connection, because if there would, then Sarah would be forbidden to Shimon even when Reuvein divorced Rochel before Levi dies since this Mishna holds the beginning of the marriage that makes the Yibum, and at the beginning of the marriage with Levi, Reuvein was still married to Rochel. However, R' Ashi holds that this wouldn't forbid her since it would take two marriages to forbid her (i.e., to consider her married to Reuvein at the time she's married to Levi).]

37) If there's a question whether the husband made Kiddushin, or divorced, the Ervah (like in the case where he threw the money, or the Get, and we have conflicting testimony if it was closer to him and it didn't take effect, or closer to her and it took effect; the sister-wife needs Chalitza, but can't have Yibum. This is despite, from the Torah, the Safeik of conflicting pairs of witnesses is settled by following the Chazaka, so he should be able to do Yibum by a Safeik Kiddushin, and she could marry a stranger by a Safeik Get, but the rabbis enacted that we should still consider it as a Safeik. [Tosfos says: this is even if the Safeik Get on the Ervah was before the marriage of the other wife. Although she was never a definite sister-wife to the Ervah, but the Chazaka tells us that she wasn't divorced, so she was her sister-wife. Tosfos infers from here: you can have a Chazaka that she's permitted to marry out even when her husband is alive (and she can't marry strangers while she's a married woman). This is not similar to a Safeik on an animal attacked by a wild animal if it was done in a way that will render it a Treifa, that we're stringent. (It's not because the Safeik happened before it was Shechted, when it's anyhow forbidden to eat, so we can't count the fact that it has a Chazaka that it wasn't Treifa to permit eating it.) Rather, since it's very common to be attacked, we're stringent. However, we see that if it was definitely attacked, but we're not sure if it was attacked by an animal that makes it Treif, like a cat, or one that doesn't render it Treif, like a dog, we rely on the Chazaka to permit it.]

Daf 31

38) We see this also in the case of a person who's sometimes normal, and sometimes insane. If he sold a field, and we have conflicting pairs of witnesses if he was in his right mind when he sold it, or not; the witnesses cancel each other and we keep the field in the Chazaka of the seller. [Tosfos points out: this is not similar to the case in Kiddushin and Bava Basra; if someone gave away a field, and we don't know it he was deathly ill at the time (and can renege on his gift) or not (and can't renege); 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, we can't put this person on any Chazaka of his state of mind of the moment since he very easily changes status, so we can't assume from a Chazaka that he was this way earlier.]

39) [Tosfos was in doubt if it's only a conflict between a pair of witnesses, one witness on each position; do we say that we can assume its Chazaka. After all, we don't need to decree to forbid it since you might come to permit it when you have two witnesses on each position since, even in that case, we rely on the Chazaka from the Torah (so it will be a double decree). Or do we say that there is no difference (since it's possible that contradicting pairs of witnesses are forbidden from the Torah).]

40) If a house falls on the brother and the Ervah wife, and we don't know who died first; even though we should assume the sister-wife to have a Chazaka that's she's permitted to marry a stranger [Tosfos: since she only needs the husband to die to allow her to marry a stranger, but she would need the Ervah to die first, and then the husband to die afterwards to forbid her], she still needs Chalitza, and you can't do Yibum.

41) If the husband divorces the Ervah with one of the three Gitten that you shouldn't give L'chatchila, but if it's given, she's B'dieved divorced that, if she remarries, the children are not Mamzeirim; then the sister-wife should get Chalitza and not Yibum. The first of the three Gitten is: if he wrote it in his handwriting [Tosfos: even if a Sofar wrote it, and he just signed it. The reason why they Pasul it L'chatchila since it doesn't have a reliable date. Even according to the opinion who says the reason for a date is to know when to award the fruit of the Nichsei Melug to the wife, we shouldn't allow it of we ignore the date and only give her fruit from the time it's given. After all, we don't want the woman to lose fruit that she's entitled to from the writing. Therefore, they made it Pasul L'chatchila, and even if he divorces her with it, she wasn't entitled to the fruit beforehand with a writing of a Pasul Get.] The second Get: that it has witnesses, but no date. The third: it has a date, but only one witness signed on it. [Tosfos says: there is an argument in Gitten, and one held that it's one witness besides his own signature. The Chiddush of this more than the first case, that we don't say that the extra witness makes it better. The other held that the Sofar wrote it, so his handwriting acts as a signature. We don't need to worry that he might have written it as practice and threw it in the garbage so and it's not a complete proof that he wrote it for this divorce to consider it as a witness since, usually, Sofars are careful not to discard their practice Gets in this manner so people shouldn't end up finding it and using them. However, we don't L'chatchila allow it without having two proper witnesses signing on it.]

42) However, they didn't enact to date a Kiddushin document. Therefore, the above three types of documents that are Pasul by Get is not Pasul by Kiddushin. [Tosfos says: thus, Ri was in doubt whether one can write a Kiddushin document with his handwriting without witnesses signing.]

43) The reason they didn't enact dating the Kiddushin document; according to those who say they enacted it by Gitten to know when the woman receives the fruit of her Nichsei Melug, since the husband doesn't have rights to the fruits after Kiddushin, there's no reason to know when the Kiddushin was given. According to the opinion that he might want to give an undated Get to save his wife, who's his niece, (and committed adultery so to claim that the relations happened after she was divorced); but that's not that applicable by Kiddushin since most people anyhow make Kiddushin with money (and there's no dating by that Kiddushin). (This is not similar to slave documents, where most of the transactions are done through a document, so they enacted dating). [Rashi says that we refer to a sale document of the slave. Tosfos disagrees, since the Gemara could have used as an example selling land or other transactions. Also, we don't find that there's a specific enactment to require dating. Rather, it refers to a document that frees a slave, and we need a date to inform us when he became forbidden to have relations with other slaves, and when he's permitted with regular Jewesses.]

44) Alternatively, the reason why they didn't enact dating by Kiddushin, even though it might prove if she was a married woman when she had the affair; since there is no one who we can give it to for safekeeping to produce the proof. After all, you can't give it to the husband or wife, since they can just erase the document if we want it for proof. You can't give it to the witnesses, since we have the problem that, perhaps, they'll forget the testimony, and they'll say testimony based on what they see in the document, which is invalid since the Torah says that they're believed through their oral testimony, and not from what's written in documents. [Tosfos says: this is only if they testified as if they remembered it themselves, but if they would testify what they saw in the document, it's a valid testimony. After all, it's as if they testified to what they saw witnesses testified in Beis Din, since a signed document is as if Beis Din interrogated the witnesses. R' Tam held that there's no problem testifying through writing only in a case where they don't remember the testimony by themselves, or when they're deaf-mutes who can't speak, where it's impossible to testify themselves. However, if they can testify by themselves, then they can testify with an affidavit. (This is like we say “if the Mincha is able to be mixed with the oil, then the actual mixing doesn't prevent its Kashrus.”) However, Rashi in Chumash explains it that you can't write down your testimony and throw it into Beis Din.]

45) This is not a problem by a Get since you can give it to the woman to hold. After all, since it's her defense that she's no longer married, she won't come to erase anything. [Tosfos says: since they enacted a Get to be dated, if she doesn't bring a Get that she was divorced before the time of her affair, we'll keep her on her Chazaka that she's a married lady and execute her. Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara in Gitten says that we're not afraid that she'll cut out the time since we're not concerned that she'll be a trickster. This implies that, if she would cut the date out, she wouldn't be executed, but we're not concerned that she'll end up cutting it out. Rather, she's afraid to alter the document and cut out the date since she's afraid that it would invalidate the Get, but in truth, it won't invalidate and she won't be executed.]

46) If you have three brothers who married all non-relatives. If Reuvein died, and Shimon gives Maamar to his wife, and then he dies, Levi needs to do Chalitza to the wives, but can't be Yibum. After all, the Torah says “if one of them dies,” that Yibum is only if she falls from one brother, but Rochel is falling from two brothers.

47) The Gemara concludes that this prohibition of a Yibum of two brothers is only rabbinic, or else, she wouldn't need Chalitza either. Rather, it's a decree that you might end up doing Yibum to both wives from one brother. We don't say that you can do Yibum to one and do Chalitza to the second (which won't be problematic if you do it to two wives from one brother) since you might end up doing the Chalitza first, and he'll transgress through the Yibum afterwards “once you didn't build (by doing Chalitza) you can't build anymore (by doing Yibum after the Chalitza).”

48) [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in the last Perek of Gitten seems to say that “Yibum of two brothers” is from the Torah; they follow the Mishna at the end of the Perek “Ha'isha Rabbah” that didn't forbid her sister-wife (i.e., Shimon's first wife), and if he held of the above enactment, we need to forbid the sister-wife too. They only decreed to forbid Reuvein's wife (even though Mammar is definitely rabbinic) since we might come to permit a Torah forbidden “Yibum of two brothers,” but they didn't decree on her sister-wife. However, our Sugya argues and says there is no concept of a Torah “Yibum of two brothers.”]

Daf 32

49) If Shimon, after he gave Maamar to Reuvein's wife, gives a Get for the Maamar, but explains that it's not for removing the Yibum connection, and then he dies; Levi may do Yibum to Shimon's original wife, but he can't do Yibum to Reuvein's wife since we decree her to be forbidden since you might permit even a completely divorced wife (i.e., that it was given to remove the Yibum connection). In a second version, we permit Levi to do Yibum on Reuvein's wife since, the whole reason to forbid is because of Shimon's Maamar, and that was removed by the Get.

50) [Tosfos says: even though we say in the fifth Perek that, if you give Maamar to both sister-wives, you need to give both a Get and do Chalitza to one, and we don't say to give a Get for the Maamar and not for the Yibum connection and allow Yibum; since we only allow if the Get was already given. However, we don't allow L'chatchila to give such a Get since he might give a complete Get even for the Yibum connection. However, if he B'dieved gave a Get on the Maamar, we allow it and we don't forbid for, perhaps, he might give one for the Yibum connection, since it's not such a common case.]

51) R' Shimon says (in a case where Shimon gives a Maamar and dies): you may do Yibum to either wife, and give Chalitza to the second one. After all, if Maamar acquires her, then the second wife is exempt through the Yibum of the first one who's her sister-wife. However, if it doesn't acquire her, and she's not the first one's sister-wife, she goes out with the Chalitza.

52) When two brothers marry two sisters, and one brother dies, and then the second one's wife dies; he's forbidden to his brother's wife since he was forbidden at the time of death. If he has relations with his brother's wife before his wife's death; R; Yossi says that he's Chayiv for both the prohibition of his brother's wife and his wife's sister. R' Shimon says that, if the dead brother married first, he's only Chayiv for a brother's wife. If he married first, he's only Chayiv for a wife's sister. After all, he's only Chayiv for the first prohibition, since other prohibitions can't take effect on something that's already prohibited.

53) According to R' Shimon, when the dead brother married first, where she's only a brother's wife, the reason that you can't do Yibum to her since, if the Yibum will permit the prohibition of a brother's wife, the prohibition of a sister's wife will take effect in the void of any prohibitions. Therefore, the prohibition of a brother's wife never falls off. [Tosfos says: even her sister-wife is forbidden since she's a sister-wife of an Ervah' i.e., a brother's wife that didn't become permitted. This is like the sister-wife of an Iylonus who's exempt (to one opinion) for this reason.]

54) The Gemara asks: we see that R' Yossi also holds that one prohibition can't take effect on another prohibition, as we see he says that, if your mother-in-law was married before you married her daughter, she's only prohibited as a married woman and the punishment will be choking. If you married her daughter before she married her present husband, then she's prohibited as a mother-in-law and the punishment will be burning [Tosfos: which would be the punishment even if he's Chayiv for both, since it's the stricter punishment. Even though you might say the reason for R' Yossi by your brother's wife who's your wife's sister since he holds that prohibitions take effect on other prohibitions if it's an Issur Mosef], and we'll say that the prohibition of a brother's wife will take effect on a wife's sister since she also becomes forbidden for that reason to the other brothers; but that won't help us when the dead brother married first for the prohibition of a wife's sister to take effect on a brother's wife. You can't say because, when he marries his wife, this sister becomes forbidden because other sisters become forbidden to him. After all, although R' Yossi holds of Issur Mosef (that she becomes forbidden to more people besides him), he doesn't hold of Issur Kollel (that he becomes forbidden to more people besides her). [Tosfos says: we know that R' Yossi doesn't hold of Issur Kollel since, when he marries his wife, we don't say his married mother-in-law becomes forbidden to him as a mother-in-law just because he becomes forbidden to her other relatives at the same time. (However, according to the version that held that R' Yossi holds of Issur Kollel, the reason the above proof is not compelling since the other relatives don't have the same prohibitions (since they're not forbidden for being a mother-in-law. However, we say in Kreises that, by Issur Mosef, they don't need to be forbidden for the same prohibition.)]

55) Rather, Rava explains R' Yossi: (he really is not Chayiv twice), but we consider it as if he's Chayiv twice in order to bury him among the truly wicked. [Rashi explains: among those who were Chayiv stoning and burning. Tosfos disagrees. It only means that you only bury him next to someone who transgressed two prohibitions like he did. After all, we don't bury a Tzadik next to a Rasha, (or a lesser Rasha next to a bigger Rasha). However, R' Shimon holds that, since we only charge him for one the prohibitions, we don't bury him among the truly wicked (who did two transgressions).]

56) There are three similar arguments between R' Chiya and Bar Kapara where someone did two transgressions. They argue by a non-Kohein who did the Avodah on Shabbos, a blemished Kohein doing the Avodah while he's Tamai [Tosfos: but it can't be framed as a non-Kohein, since he's not commanded not to do Avodah in Tumah], and a non-Kohein who ate a bird Chatos that Melika was done to. R' Chiya says that he's Chayiv for two transgressions in each of these cases, and Bar Kapara says that he's Chayiv one.

Daf 33

57) All these cases have a way to establish the case that the prohibitions came one after the other except for the non-Kohein eating Melika. [Tosfos says: although you're not Chayiv for a non-Kohein eating the Chatos until after the blood sprinkling, when Kohanim may eat it, and you're Chayiv for Neveila as soon as Melika was performed; since there's a prohibition of Meila on it until the sprinkling, the Lav of Neveila can't take effect on it until the Meila falls off. (This is even true to Bar Kapara who says that, from the time it's fit to sprinkle the blood (i.e., after Melika) there's no more Meila; that only means that there is no regular Chiyuvim for Meila, but it's still forbidden to partake pleasure from it.) Alternatively, this is according to R' Shimon in Makos who says that a non-Kohein has a prohibition to eat it right away from the Melika.] Therefore, we need to say that, in all these cases, both prohibitions take effect at the same time. Therefore, in the case of a non-Kohein doing the Avodah on Shabbos, we find a case where both prohibitions come at the same time, when this boy gets two pubic hairs on Shabbos, so the prohibitions for him to do Avodah and to do Melacha on Shabbos comes together when he gets the hairs. The same could apply to explain the case of a blemished Kohein doing Avodah, they come at the same time when this boy gets his pubic hairs during that day. Alternatively, we find a case that they come at the same time, when his finger gets cut off with a Tamai knife (so he becomes Tamai and blemished at the same moment). [Tosfos explains: we must say that the finger was already cut until it's hanging on with the thinnest connection, that it falls off as soon as it has the slightest contact with the knife.]

58) Therefore, according to the Gemara's conclusion, R' Chiya and Bar Kapara argue when the two prohibitions come at the same time and according to R' Shimon's opinion that prohibitions don't fall on something that already has a prohibition. [Tosfos qualifies the argument: we refer to a case where the Torah gives a Heter for one of the prohibitions. Like the Torah allows Avodah on Shabbos, so Bar Kapara says that no one is obligated for it, and R' Chiya says that it was only permitted to Kohanim, and not to non-Kohanim. Bar Kapara holds that the Torah allows Avodah in Tumah by communal Korbanos, and R' Chiya says that they only allowed it to unblemished Kohanim. Bar Kapara holds that the Torah allows one to eat Melika by Korbanos, and R' Chiya holds that they only permit it to Kohanim.] The Gemara concludes that Bar Kapara is disproved from a Braisa that says the argument between R' Yossi and R' Shimon by the non-Kohein doing Melacha on Shabbos, and a blemished Kohein doing the Avodah in Tumah, but leaves out the case of a non-Kohein eating Melika. It must have left it out for R' Shimon, since R' Yossi will hold it's definitely Chayiv two when the two prohibitions comes together, since he holds that you're Chayiv twice if they come one after the other with an Isuur Kollel). Therefore, we must say they only argue when the prohibitions come one after another, but not when they come at the same time.

59) We need to find a Melacha on Shabbos by an Avodah that a non-Kohein can't do for them to argue if you're Chayiv one or two. After all, it can't be Shechita, since it's permitted by a non-Kohein. It can't be catching and sprinkling the blood, since they're not Melachos. You can't say that it's burning the limbs, since R' Yossi personally holds that there is no Chatos, and it's only a regular Lav. [Tosfos says: even though there is no Chatos for eating Neveila, and we said earlier that R' Yossi would be Chayiv twice; we must say that he would hold that a more lenient prohibition takes effect on a more stringent prohibition if it's an Issur Mosef, and not by an Issur Kollel. We can't say that he did the Avodah of kindling of the stubble under the bonfire (which is also only a Lav, since it's not the finishing of the whole set of Avodas) since the prohibition of Shabbos is more lenient since it's superseded by the Avodah.] R' Acha b. Yaakov says that we refer to the bull of the Kohein Gadol on Yom Kippur according to the opinion that only the Kohein Gadol can Shecht it. (According to this, all other Kohanim are included in this, since they're outsiders regarding this Avodah.) R' Ashi answers: we're not referring to whether he's Chayiv Chatos or Lavim, rather, he holds that this person is transgressing more transgressions, and he should be buried among the truly wicked.

60) We have a Mishna: if two people marry two women, and they were switched, they're both Chayiv for relations with a married woman. If they're brothers, they're both also Chayiv for being their brother's wife. If they're sisters, then they're also Chayiv for being their wife's sister. If they're presently Niddos, they're Chayiv for Niddos. Thus, they would be Chayiv all together sixteen Chatos, (four for each person).

Daf 34

61) We must say this Tanna holds that a prohibition falls on another prohibition by an Issur Kollel (since we say that a wife's sister takes effect on a brother's wife since it also forbids other sisters) and Issur Mosef (since Niddah takes effect on the other prohibition since she's also forbidden to her husband) and Issur at the same time (that she becomes a brother's wife and a married woman at the ame time). We need to say that it's authored by R' Meir. As the Tanna Kama says that there is one eating that can obligate one to bring four Chatos and one Asham at a time, as a Tamai person eats Cheilev of Nosar (that's Kodshim) on Yom Kippur. R' Meir adds that he's also Chayiv for carrying out on Shabbos if it was Shabbos and he carries it out as he swallows it. [Tosfos says: the Gemara in Kreises wants to say that this is a proof that there is no prohibition to carry on Yom Kippur, and that's why he needs to establish this prohibition when it falls out on Shabbos. However, the Gemara rejects it saying that it's also applicable on Yom Kippur, but R' Meir wants to add the most Chatos, so he would be Chayiv two for carrying if it's also Shabbos. The reason it's considered as he's Chayiv for carrying through the swallowing (and it's not like doing an unrelated Melacha while he ate it); since the swallowing makes the placing down (which is the finishing point of the Melacha). Even though it doesn't come to total rest until it's in your stomach, but we consider the time it goes down the throat as the point it lands like we consider as placing down ink by writing on a paper (even when you're still walking, since it's its permanent resting place).

62) So, we see an Issur Mosef (the prohibition of Kodshim takes effect on the Cheilev since it forbids it also in pleasure. Also, the Nosar takes effect on it since it now makes it forbidden to be placed on the Mizbeach.) There's an Issur Kollel (since Tumah forbids other pieces, it forbids the Cheilev too. Also, since Yom Kippur forbids eating regular food, it forbids for Kodshim too.) There's an Issur at the same time. [Rashi explains since the Issur of eating on Yom Kippur and carrying on Shabbos comes at the same time, i.e., at the beginning of the day. Tosfos disagrees since there is no prohibition to eat on Shabbos, so you can't say that there are two prohibitions to eat this food that is happening simultaneously. Rather, since we already said that there's a prohibition to carry on Yom Kippur, so the prohibitions to carry on Yom Kippur and to carry on Shabbos come at the same time.]

63) We must say that this Mishna holds like R' Eliezer who says one is Chayiv Chatos even if he was trying to do a Mitzvah, but he would be exempt according to R' Yehoshua since he was trying to do the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim. [Tosfos explains: according to R' Meir, you're only exempt if you have a child that you need to circumcise on Shabbos, and another one on Sunday, and you mistakenly circumcised the one for Sunday on Shabbos. However, it's not if he mixed up the Shabbos one with the Friday one, and circumcised the Shabbos one on Friday, and the Friday one on Shabbos. After all, coming into Shabbos, he didn't have a child that needs circumcising that supersedes Shabbos. Although, in the case of the mixed up wives, the Ervah was never given to have relations with, but it's not dependent if the Issur that's supersedes, but only if you still have a Mitzvah to do, which you have with your wife.] Alternatively, R' Yehoshua only exempts when he has limited time to do that Mitzvah. Although he holds that if one ate Trumah, and then he's found to be a Ben Grusha or Chalutza, he's exempt to pay the principle and fifth, (and R' Eliezer holds he's Chayiv) is no proof. After all, we can explain the scenario too where there was a rush to fulfill the Mitzvah, like when it's Chametz Trumah on Erev Pesach. [Tosfos says: alternatively, since eating Trumah is called an Avodah, and R' Yehoshua holds that all Avodos that a Kohein does and is then found to be a Ben Grusha or Chalutza, the Avodah is valid. As the Pasuk says “Hashem will bless 'Cheilo' (lit. his multitudes), and He accepts the work of their hands.” He Darshens, even the Chalalim's work is accepted. So, it's not connected to the exemption of making a mistake by a Mitzvah.]

64) We can say that our Mishna is also like R' Shimon, and it refers to when all the prohibitions come together at once. [Tosfos says: this could fit like R' Yehoshua, since R' Shimon holds that he's only exempt when he ends up doing a Mitzvah, which he doesn't do in this case.] As, in a case, where the agent of both brothers give the Kiddushin simultaneously to the agent of both sisters, so, all the prohibitions through marriage come at the same time. However, in the case of Niddos, they flowed blood from right before the brothers turned thirteen and before the girls turned twelve, into their birthdays [Tosfos: or, that they saw blood earlier, but they never Toiveled. Rashi explains: therefore, when they turn an adult, this Issur starts with all the other Issurim. Tosfos disagrees. After all, how can the Niddos start together with the Issur through the marriage, since men can't marry before they are thirteen years old, and the marriages must have happened after they became Niddos. Rather, it seems the correct text is: it flowed from before three years old until after three years. It also means that their father received Kiddushin for them before that time. Therefore, when they turn three and have the ability to have relations, all the Issurim are in place. It must refer that they didn't Toivel until they're twelve when they had these relations, and all their Issurim happened the same time they became an adult.]

65) If a minor is seduced to have relations with a stranger, we consider it to be an Onness, and she's not forbidden to her husband.

66) R' Eliezer says: all twenty-four months, when a child is nursing, the husband who has relations must release his semen outside his wife to make sure she's not impregnated, since it will make her wean her child, which might lead to his death. The Chachumim forbid since it's like an action of Er and Onnan, as the action of Er and Onnan was anal relations. [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in Nedarim says that one can have anal relations; it only means when he didn't release seed. Alternatively, it's only forbidden if he does it constantly to destroy his seed, but he's permitted if he does it once in a while because he has a craving for it.]

67) R' Yehuda says that a woman doesn't become Tamai through her first relations since it can't impregnate her, but the Chachumim say she's Tamai.

68) Regarding the wives that were switched; you need to separate them from their husbands for three months to see if they were impregnated with that relations to make sure you know who the father is. However, if they're minors who can't become pregnant, they don't need to wait.

69) Shmuel held: if a minor refuses her husband, she doesn't need to wait three months to remarry. However, if she received a Get, she needs to wait, although she can't get impregnated, since you might come to allow an adult without waiting too. Some say that she needs to wait if she had relations out of wedlock. (Although we allow minor wives that were switched and they didn't decree to forbid them so you won't allow it by the adults; since mixing up wives are not common, they didn't decree it in that case.) A minor convert or freed slave doesn't need to wait. [Tosfos says: since even adult converts don't need to wait because of themselves, since they intend to convert, they guard themselves, and they only need to wait so that you don't allow it by Jewish adults too (who had relations); they didn't enact it by minors because of the adults. Therefore, we must say that Shmuel holds like R' Yehuda (as we'll say). We must say that the text isn't that it includes converts and freed slaves “above three years old,” since he must only forbid adults.]

70) Other say that Shmuel says that minors don't need to wait if they had out of wedlock relations, since such relations are uncommon by minors. He also held (in this version) like R' Yossi that even adult converts and freed slaves don't need to wait three months (and R' Yehuda held they must). [Although we have a Braisa in the next Perek that a couple coming to convert need to wait three months; that must be like R' Yehuda. Alternatively, even according to R' Yossi, if we know that they had relations. Alternatively, since it's always from her husband, she doesn't guard herself, and she might not make the distinction that she needs to know if the child was conceived while their Jewish or not.]

71) The reason for R' Yossi; since the convert knows she's converting, she guards herself. The same with a slave, she hears from her master that she'll be freed. Even if she's freed from an accident of knocking out her tooth, that she doesn't have advance warning, as R' Yossi also holds that a raped victim and a seduced girl doesn't need to wait since all who had out of wedlock relations stir that area afterwards to make sure they won't become impregnated. [Rashi says: even a slave leaving with a knocked out tooth would stir the area, since it's easy to do and she doesn't want to become pregnant. However, Tosfos says that such a slave needs to wait since she doesn't know she'll go free to guard herself, she won't take such precautions.] R' Yehuda holds that a raped victim and a seduced girl need to wait since we're afraid she might not stir that area afterwards well enough.

72) The women who got mixed up, even if they're married to Yisraelim, they're forbidden now on to Kohanim. If they're Kohanim's daughters, they're forbidden to eat Trumah if they eventually go back to their father's house (after they're widowed or divorced without children).