Daf 53

1) If a Yavam has relations with the Yevama, he acquires her. It doesn't make a difference if he was aware of what he was doing, or unaware, or if he was forced to do it. It also doesn't make a difference if he makes a full penetration, or a slight one, or if he had it in a normal manner, or through the annal cavity. These rules applies to make one Chayiv if he had relations with an Ervah, or to make a woman Pasul to a Kohein when having relations with someone who makes her Pasul.

2) When we say that he's an Onness, it doesn't mean [Tosfos: that a non-Jew pushes him on her, and this forces him to have an erection, (but it can't mean that he had relations with a “dead limb,” since it's like those who say it's not considered as having relations. The Ri says that it's even according to those who hold you're Chayiv if you had relations that way with an Ervah, since you don't acquire a Yevama unless the relations can lead to having a child that will be a remembrance to the dead brother.)] After all, there is no Onness by an Ervah, since an erection only forms with the person's intent. [Tosfos says: and thus, you would need to allow yourself to be killed than to allow yourself to be pushed on an Ervah unless you're sure that you won't come to an erection, or that you already have an erection (and thus your whole encounter would be passive). You don't need to give up your life by having relations passively, as we only know that you need to give up your life since Ervah has a Hekish to murder, and we know that you must give up your life before murdering someone from the logic of: who says your blood is redder than his, and that's only by actively murdering someone. However, if you only passively kill somebody (like allowing yourself to be pushed on a child and crushing him) since the logic is the opposite: who says that the other one's blood is redder than yours, and you just allow the death of the one that comes passively. (However, if he did transgress and killed, he's exempt from punishment since he was forced to do so, and it's included in being an Onness.)] Rather, the case is that the brother had an erection for his own wife, and the non-Jew forces him on his Yevama.

Daf 54

3) R' Yehuda says that he doesn't acquire the Yevama if he had relations in his sleep. [Rashi says: because, when he's asleep, he's not of sane mind. Tosfos disagrees. After all, a minor that also does not have complete facility of his mind, yet he would acquire if it wasn't for the Pasuk that excludes him. Rather, it's because he doesn't have any intention to have relations, as we'll say soon.]

4) This is only if he's completely sleeping, but not if he was only drifting off (but didn't get real sleep). I.e., if he's asleep, but not really asleep, awake, but not really awake. You call him, and he answers; but he can't answer with something logical, but if you remind him of the logic, he'll remember it.

5) If somebody fell off the roof and fell on someone, he must pay four types of damages, but is exempt to pay for embarrassment since he didn't intend to damage. If he fell off the roof and fell on her Yevama and had relations, he doesn't acquire her since he didn't intend to have relations.

6) If he plans to rub against a wall, but instead rubbed against his Yevama and had relations, he doesn't acquire her. However, if he plan to rub himself against an animal, but instead rubbed against his Yevama and had relations, he acquires her since he intended to have some relations.

7) You're only Chayiv for an aunt that's your father's paternal brother's wife, but not his maternal brother's wife. However, you're Chayiv for your sister, your father or mother's sister, your wife's sister, and your brother's wife whether they're paternal or maternal siblings.

8) If you married a woman, heard that she died, and then you marry her maternal sister. Then you heard she died, and you married her paternal sister (who is not related to the first wife) and then you heard that she died etc.; then they all showed up alive, he's permitted to his first wife, third wife and fifth wife, but not his second, fourth and sixth wife [Tosfos: and we don't enact to forbid the permitted wives since you might come to permit the forbidden wives.] If he dies, the brother can do Chalitza with any of his permitted wives and exempt any of the sister-wives [Tosfos: and we don't say that it's better to do Chalitza to all of them since he might accidentally do Chalitza to one of the forbidden wives who his brother wasn't technically married to.]

Daf 55

9) You acquire a Yevama, or acquire a wife through Kiddushin, with the slightest penetration. [Tosfos says: although the Gemara's conclusion in Kiddushin is that the man acquires her at the end of the relations, since that's what part of the relations he wants to acquire her with; R' Shimon the elder answers: that's only if he finished the relations, we say he wants only to acquire through the end of it. However, if he only penetrated her slightly and separated himself, he acquires with the slight penetration. This is implied by “all who have relations intend to acquire at the end” and not “all who make a slight penetration.” The Rivam answers: we only say he acquires at the end if he did it without any explicit condition, but he can acquire it at the beginning if he explicitly said he'll acquire at the slightest penetration.]

10) That, which we need the words “Shichvas Zera” (semen) by a married woman to teach us that he's Chayiv with the slightest penetration if we already know it by all Ervahs that are Chayiv Kareis; to teach us that he's exempt without an erection. However, according to the opinion who says he's Chayiv without an erection, we must say to exclude having relations with a dead lady, since we consider her no longer married. [Tosfos says: therefore, the Gemara in Bava Basra that says a husband doesn't inherit what comes to her posthumously. After all, he's no longer married to her.]

11) That, which we need the words “Shichvas Zera” (semen) by a Sota; to exclude if his organ just touches his (and didn't even penetrate with the top of his organ). According to the opinion that he's Chayiv when they just touch, we must say to exclude when he warns her not to have contact with her with other parts of the body [Tosfos: i.e., that he didn't suspect her to have true relations, just to have contact with other limbs.] Even though it's not considered any type of relations, I might still think it might create a Sotah since it depends on what the husband cares about, so we're taught otherwise.

12) Shmuel says: when we say a slight penetration acquires, it refers to the initial touching of the two Ervahs. Rabbah b. b. Chana quotes R' Yochanan: when the Pasuk says that you need a complete penetration for relations with a married slave (or half slave); that means when the top of his Ervah completely penetrates. However, R' Dimi quotes R' Yochanan that, when the whole top of his Ervah penetrates, it's only considered a slight penetration. [Tosfos says: according to him, it's excluded from the Pasuk of Shichvas Zera of having relations with a married slave, since it can't impregnate her.] We must say that R' Dimi argues with Rabbah b. b. Chana. However, perhaps he doesn't argue with Shmuel and they hold that from the touching of the Ervahs until the whole top of his Ervah penetrates are considered as a slight penetration. However, R' Shmuel b. Ada quotes R' Yochanan that it's only considered a slight penetration that's considered as a relations is when the whole top of his Ervah penetrates, but just touching their Ervahs is not considered to be a relations.

Daf 56

13) If the Yavam has relations with her unwittingly without intent to acquire her; the first version is: Rav says that he acquires her in all aspects, even if she was only his brother's Arusah. Shmuel says this is only true if she was a Nesuah, but for an Arusah, he only acquires in the aspects that are written [Tosfos: explicitly] in the Parsha of Yibum, like to inherit his brother and to exempt her from Yibum (if he dies and he has children, she may now marry out; or, through this Yibum, her sister-wife may now marry out). However, this does not allow her to eat Trumah [Tosfos: through this inferior type of relations, so it doesn't acquire for things that are not explicit written in the Parsha, but what we extrapolate from the rule that she becomes his wife. The same applies that he doesn't inherit her if she dies, he can't become Tamai to her, and he can't annul her vows. It only lists Trumah as a Chiddush since we find that a woman can be a wife in every aspect except for eating Trumah, like if the father's agents hand her over to the husband's agents to bring her to him.

However, this is only by an inferior relations like without intent, but if he did Yibum through a slight penetration, it's considered a complete Yibum and she's acquired in all aspects. However, the Yerushalmi has an argument if the same argument between Rava and Shmuel applies by this slight penetration or not.]

14) A second version: they both agree that you don't allow her to eat Trumah if she was an Arusah, but they argue if she was a Nesuah; Rav says she may eat, and Shmuel says that she can't eat. However, we leave Shmuel's opinion difficult since there is a Braisa that says that a deaf-mute can make a Yibum that she may eat Trumah although he can't have intent to acquire her. [Tosfos says: the reason we don't need to worry about her having a blemish, which would render the marriage a mistake, and is one of the reasons why an Arusa can't eat Trumah until Nesuin where she can be inspected; and a deaf-mute is not of sound mind yet to inspect her; still, here, we'll permit it since we're not expecting him to become better to find the blemish in order to reveal that there is a mistaken marriage here.]

15) If a Yisraelis received Kiddushin from a Kohein and he didn't have a chance to bring her to Chuppah before he became a deaf-mute, she may not eat Trumah. If they have a child, she may eat (since, even if the marriage is mistaken, she still has a Kohein child). If the child dies; R' Nosson says that she continues eating, and the Chachumim say that she stops eating. The Gemara concludes that R' Nosson's opinion is difficult. After all, if she's allowed to keep on eating because she already ate, then we should allow a Kohein's wife to eat after his death because she already ate. If it's because we allow a woman to eat when a deaf-mute does Nesuin, and we don't decree to forbid because you might be lenient when he was a deaf-mute even by the Kiddushin (which is only a rabbinical marriage, and she's forbidden to eat Trumah from the Torah.) If so, she should eat before the child's born.

16) A wife of a Yisrael who was raped, although she's permitted to her husband, she's forbidden to ever marry a Kohein.

17) Rabbah says: if a wife of a Kohein was raped, and then her husband had relations with her, he's Chayiv Malkos because of Tumah. There are two versions if he's also Chayiv for a Zonah. Although a forced rape is only forbidden to the Kohein from a Lav that takes the form of an Asei, which has the status of an Asei; at it says “she wasn't forced,” implying, but others, like a Kohein, are forbidden even if she was forced. However, since the Torah forbids her in this case, logic has it that she's now included in the prohibitions of Tumah and Zonah.

18) When a widow marries a Kohein Gadol, or a divorcee marries a regular Kohein; R' Meir says that if they only had Eirusin, she can't eat Trumah. [Tosfos explains: we refer to a daughter of a Kohein who would eat Trumah even if she didn't marry a Kohein. However, you can't say it refers to a daughter of a Yisrael, since she wouldn't be able to eat because she's now married to a Kohein, since the Kohein needs to divorce her. This is not like Rashi who says it's also for a Yisrael's daughter to allow her to eat.] This we learn from a Kal V'chomer. After all, a permissible marriage to a Yisrael makes her not eligible to eat Trumah, of course, this sinful marriage should forbid her to Trumah. [To Rashi: the Kal V'chomer is that since the Yisrael doesn't allow her to eat Trumah, of course marrying sinfully to a Kohein shouldn't allow her to eat Trumah. Tosfos held this to be difficult since the reason the Yisrael doesn't allow her to eat Trumah since he's not a Kohein.] However, R' Elazar and R' Shimon says that she may eat, and Kiddushin from a Yisrael is different since he can't allow anyone to eat Trumah, but this Kohein may allow other people eat (if he marries someone he's allowed to marry).

However, everybody agrees that once they consummated the marriage, she becomes a Chalalah and can't eat Trumah. Also, everybody agrees that if she becomes widowed or divorced from him before Nesuin, that she can resume eating. After all, R' Meir only forbids someone destined to have a relations that will invalidate her from Kehuna from eating Trumah only while she's designated for that relations, and not when she's no longer designated.

Daf 57

19) R' Elazar quotes R' Oshiya that, if she marries a Kohein who has damaged reproducing organs (that Jews are forbidden to marry); if she can eat Trumah is dependent on the above argument between R' Meir, who holds she can't eat, and R' Elazar and R' Shimon, who say she can eat. Although the allowance of the latter are dependent that he can make others eat Trumah, and since this man with damaged organs is forbidden to marry anyone; Abaya says: since he feeds the woman who he was married to before he realized that he had this problem, since relations doesn't make her a Chalalah. (He didn't want to answer that he can feed Trumah to his slaves, since it's not feeding them because of marriage). Rava says that he can feed Trumah to his slaves. (However, he didn't want to answer like Abaya that he can feed the wife he had relations when he wasn't aware of his problem, since she only eats because of the logic “she already ate.”)

20) He didn't want to say that he can feed a daughter of a convert (if he marries her); since R' Oshiya didn't hold it was so simple she's permitted to him, so it's not simple that he can feed her Trumah. [Tosfos: however, the Gemara concludes:] according to R' Yehuda, she's forbidden to him whether he still keeps his Kedusha of a Kohein, since R' Yehuda holds a Kohein is forbidden to a Ger's daughter since she's considered a Chalala, and whether he doesn't have his Kedusha, since he holds a Ger is considered as part of the Kahal, and she's forbidden to all people regular Jews are forbidden to. [Tosfos asks: really, both reasons apply whether he has Kedusha or not. After all, even if he has the Kedusha of a Kohein, she can't marry him since he has damaged organs and is forbidden to the Kahal. Even if he doesn't have any Kedusha, she can't eat Trumah since she has the status of a Chalala. As a Ger's daughter is like a male Chalal's daughter.]

21) However, R' Yossi holds she's permitted to him since he holds a Kohein is permitted to a Ger's daughter, and a Ger is not a Kahal and she can marry somebody with damaged organs.

22) The whole inquiry is according to R' Elazar b. Yaakov who holds that a Ger's daughter is forbidden to a Kohein unless her mother's a Jewess. So, if her mother's a Jewess, does that only add Kashrus to her to marry a Kohein, or does it also add Kedusha to her to forbid her to those who are forbidden to the Kahal. The Gemara brings a Braisa that says that she's permitted to marry him and she can eat Trumah from a Drasha.

23) Rav says that there is Chuppah with people who are Pasul to you, and Shmuel says that there is no Chuppah. [Rashi explains that they argue when having Chuppah without Kiddushin. Tosfos says: this is according to R' Huna who says that Chuppah can make Kiddushin. Therefore, Rav would say that she's Pasul to eat Trumah even according to R' Elazar and R' Shimon since she's so close to having relations. Shmuel holds she's Kosher to eat even according to R' Meir since the Chuppah is nothing since Chuppah only takes effect if it's for a Kosher relations, and not a Pasul relations. (However, he couldn't explain that it's Chuppah after Kiddushin since Shmuel can't hold she may eat even according to R' Meir since she already wasn't allowed to eat by Kiddushin.) However, Tosfos held this to be a pushed explanation since we don't Paskin like R' Huna, and other questions. Rather, it refers to a case where there's Chuppah after Kiddushin, and they argue if such a Chuppah is considered as if they had relations to Pasul her forever.]

24) Shmuel says that Rav agrees to him if the girl is less than three years old that the Chuppah doesn't Pasul her since even relations with Pasul men don't Pasul her.

25) She also needs to be three years and a day to Mekadesh her with relations, and if she's a Yevama, that the Yavam can have relations to do Yibum. Also, for an adulterer to be Chayiv for having relations with a married girl. [Rashi explains: if the adulterer has relations with her. Tosfos says that it's going on the Yibum, that the Yibum to her makes her completely his wife that will bring a Chiyuv to someone else who has relations with her, and we don't say because she's a minor, a Yibum with her will be only considered like a Maamar.] This is also true if she's a Nidah in order to make the one who has relations with her to become Tamai to make what he lies on Tamai like what he carries. Also, she can eat Trumah if she's married to a Kohein. [Tosfos explains: but less than that, we assume that she's not checked out yet for blemishes. Also, at that point, she's sent constantly to her father's house, so there's a problem she might give Trumah to her family to drink.]

26) R' Sheishes wanted to bring a proof that there's Chuppah for a Pasul from the following Mishna in Sotah; the Sotah, when she drinks, answers Amein that she didn't have relations when she was an Arusah or waiting for Yibum. So, it can't be that they're taken to the Mikdash when they're an Arusah or waiting for Yibum, since they're not eligible then since the Pasuk says “under her husband.” It also can't be that they're taken to drink after Nesuin, since the husband had relations with her after her seclusion, he's not considered to be “clean from sin.” [Tosfos says: it doesn't help to say that he unwittingly had that relations since he wasn't aware of her seclusion at that time; since he is now aware that he sinned, he's not classified as “clean from sin.”] Rather, it means that she secluded (and became Pasul to him) when she was an Arusah and she was brought to Chuppah, and he didn't have relations with her yet after the Chuppah. Although a prerequisite of drinking is that she had relations with her husband first, as the Pasuk says “besides her husband;” we must say that the case is that he had relations with her in his father-in-law's house before Chuppah. Similarly, we would need to say it by a woman who fell to Yibum, that they had relations, and that would be problematic to Rav since he holds that he acquires her completely even with an unintended relations. [Tosfos says: you can't say we refer to a case where she intended to just rub against a wall, or when he fell from the roof; since the Pasuk says “besides her husband who put his laying etc.” implying that he had intent for laying.] We must say that it refers to making a Maamar according to Beis Shammai, according to the side that it causes you to need a Chuppah and you cant do Yibum against her will anymore (so the relations with him won't make her his wife). [Tosfos says: like the first explanation in Rashi, which is the main one.]

27) R' Pappa rejects this proof. Really, there is no Chuppah for Pasul people. The reason for the above Mishna is because he agrees with the following Braisa: you can't warn an Arusah to give her to drink while she's an Arusah, but you can warn an Arusah to give her to drink when she's a Nesuah. [Rashi, in his second explanation, says: this Braisa argues with the rule that you can't give her to drink if the husband had relations with her after her seclusion. Tosfos disagrees since there are many Gemaras that imply that no one disagrees with that rule. Rather, the warning at the time when she's an Arusah helps for when she secludes after she's a Nesuah. However, it's difficult since we can explain the Braisa as we explained the earlier one, that you made a warning after Chuppah before relations, so how can you assume there is anyone who holds that warning helps when she's an Arusa?]

28) R' Nachman b. Yitzchok says: really there is no Chuppah for Pasul people, and the swearing for an Arusah is not that the drinking is because of that seclusion when she was an Arusah, but it's a Gilgul Shvuah. I.e., that once she swearing that she wasn't adulterous while she was a Nesuah, she swears she was never adulterous, even when she was an Arusah.

29) If one Kohein brother gives Maamar, even though there's a second Kohein brother that will Pasul her for Trumah if he has relations with her, (and we should consider her as designated for a Pasul relations); she's permitted to eat Trumah in the meantime even according to R' Meir. After all, R' Meir only says she can't eat Trumah if she's designated to do a relations that will Pasul her from Trumah from the Torah, but not one that would only rabbinically forbid her. However, if he has a Chalal brother, she's forbidden to eat Trumah even according to R' Elazar and R' Shimon since the Chalal can't make others eat Trumah in any situation.

30) If one brother gives her a Get for her Zika; R' Yochanan says that she can eat Trumah since relations with the brothers will only rabbinically forbid her to Trumah. However, Reish Lakish says: she can't eat, since we don't see that a divorcee ever eats Trumah. (Although we refer to one who's a Kohein's daughter and could eat after the divorce, we must say that this is worse since she's a divorcee who's still attached to the brothers).

31) If a Kohein Gadol gives Kiddushin to a minor, and she became a Bogeres before he had a chance to do Nesuin, he can't take her to Nesuin anymore. Although if a regular Kohein gave Kiddushin to a non-virgin and then gets appointed as a Kohein Gadol, that he may do Nesuin to her since the Pasuk says “take a virgin,” that the prohibition is only by the Kiddushin; that's because we can only exclude one case from the prohibition and not two cases. It's better to exclude when he becomes appointed as Kohein Gadol after the Kiddushin since her body didn't change than to exclude a woman that becomes a Bogeres in between that her body changed. [Tosfos is in doubt what's the Halacha in the case where the girl became a non-virgin, or had her hymen broken by wood, after the Kiddushin, if the Kohein Gadol can still have Nesuin. Tosfos would like to prove it from the Gemara in Kiddushin that says that, if the beginning of the relations makes the Kiddushin, a Kohein Gadol can acquire a wife through relations, and only if the end of the relations acquire, then he can't be Mikadesh with relations (since she's not a virgin when the Kiddushin takes effect). Therefore, if the Kiddushin is at the beginning of the relations, it seems that everything is fine and he can do Nesuin even though she's no longer a virgin. However, the Gemara in Kesuvos considers a woman who loses her virginity as having her body changed.]

32) A Kohein Gadol is forbidden with a widow, whether she was widowed when she was an Arusah or a Nesuah, since we compare it to a divorcee (and we don't learn it from Tamar who was only called a widow from Nesuin).

33) R' Meir says that a Kohein Gadol is forbidden with a Bogeres since her hymen diminishes. However, she's permitted if she had relations anally. R' Elazar and R' Shimon say the opposite, he's permitted with a Bogeres, but he's forbidden if she had relations anally.

34) Therefore, that which we find that there must be a Kohein Gadol who raped a woman and still be permitted to take her for a wife (which, according to an opinion, a prerequisite to paying the fine) [Tosfos: it seems here that she's forbidden to a woman who he made into a non-virgin], we need to say that he had relations anally according to R' Meir. [Tosfos says: from here it seems that someone is obligated to pay the fine for rape for anal relations. This is not like how Rashi explains in Sanhedrin that he only pays the fine when he penetrates completely since he's not obligated until he breaks the hymen. Thus, Riva and R' Tam say that you pay a fine by raping anally, or even regularly with a slight penetration. However, we can say that a slight penetration is not obligated in a fine since we don't have a Drasha by this fine that it has a status of a true relations. Although there's an opinion that even when the whole top of his male organ penetrates her, it's still considered a slight penetration, and that will destroy the hymen, the reason why she's still considered a virgin when he would get to the point that he would be obligated, at the end of the full penetration; since we consider it as one action of relations, so we consider it as having relations with a virgin.]

35) Rav says: according to R' Elazar's opinion that an anal relations makes her into a non-virgin [Tosfos: but Rav personally disagrees and holds like R' Meir]; it's difficult why do you need a Pasuk to forbid a non-virgin to a Kohein Gadol? After all, R' Elazar holds that any unmarried women that had relations have the status of a Zonah, and is even forbidden to a Kohein Hedyot. He answers: we refer to a case she was married as a minor through his mother or brother, and she refuses her husband. Since she was married with the rabbis' consent, she's not a Zonah, but she's not a virgin.

36) However, if a girl had relations with an animal, despite that such relations has a punishment of the death penalty, it doesn't render her a non-virgin, but she's no worse than one whose hymen was destroyed by a piece of wood, and is permitted to a Kohein Gadol according to the opinion later who allows him to a girl whose hymen was destroyed by a piece of wood. This is learned from the fact that the Torah forbade using the wage of a Zonah (and the sale of a dog) to be used in the Mikdash, implying that the wage to have relations with a dog is permitted (since it's not considered to be relations).

37) If a woman was struck by wood from behind (in a way it would break the hymen if it was in front) or had anal relations with an animal; she's permitted to a Kohein Gadol according to everybody. After all, if not, you won't find anyone who is permitted, since she does that action when she wipes herself on a rock in a bathroom.

38) If a Kohein Gadol rapes or seduces a girl, he can't marry her, and if he did, he's married. Rav says: however, he needs to divorce her right away. The only reason we say that, if he marries her, he's married, that he shouldn't need to pay the fine for seducing. [Tosfos says: even though he needs to pay her the same two hundred Zuz for her Kesuva; the practical difference is if she forgives her Kesuvah. Alternatively, he doesn't need to pay from his highest quality fields like by the fine, but from his lowest quality fields like by a Kesuvah. Alternatively, the payment of a Kesuvah of a non-virgin is rabbinic. Alternatively, that it's only a rabbinic obligation to divorce her. Therefore, that's why they only argue later whether a Kohien Gadol's child with another person's seduced girl is a Chalal, because everyone holds that his own seduced girl is not a Chalal. However, it's not really a proof, since they might argue with either type, and they only said someone else's seduced girl to show how extreme the Chachumim are to permit even in this case.]

39) R' Ashi says this is difficult, since Rav himself (and R' Yochanan) say that a Kohein Gadol should not marry a Bogeres and one whose hymen was destroyed by a piece of wood, but if he did, he can remain married since they would eventually become this way after the marriage (even if they weren't that way before the marriage).

40) If a Kohein Gadol marries a girl that his friend raped or seduced; R' Elazar b. Yaakov says that he's a Chalal. It can't be because he holds like R' Elazar that any girl that had a non-marital relations has the status of a Zonah, since Rav Paskins that the Halacha is not like R' Elazar, and yet he Paskins that the Halacha is like R' Elazar b. Yaakov. Rather, he holds that there is a Chalal by an Issur Asei, since there's a Hekish between it and the Lav of “don't make your children Chalal.” [Tosfos asks an unresolved question: if R' Elazar b. Yaakov held that the Pasuk of “don't make your children Chalal” is applicable by a non-virgin to a Kohein Gadol, he should get Malkos for it, like the Gemara says at the end of Kiddushin, and it wouldn't be just an Issur Asei.] The Rabanan say that he's not a Chalal, since there's a break between them with the word 'Elah,' you can't make a Hekish. R' Elazar b. Yaakov holds that Elah just tells us that a daughter of a Nidda is not a Chalal. However, this is difficult since, why write it at the end of the Pasuk if it's not coming to break the Hekish?

41) Everybody holds that a Kohein can't become Tamai to his dead sister that was raped or seduced, but he may become Tamai to her if she's a Bogeres. If she was damaged by a piece of wood; R' Meir and R' Yehuda and R' Yossi permit, and R' Shimon forbids. If she just received Kiddushin; R' Meir and R' Yehuda permit, and R' Yossi and R' Shimon forbid. However, they permit if she was divorced before she died.

42) R' Shimon holds that a Kohein may marry a girl that converted when she was less than three years old, but we don't Paskin like him.

43) R' Shimon also holds that a non-Jew's grave doesn't make other items Tamai, and the Rabanan say that it does. Raveina says that R' Shimon only says that it doesn’t make Tamai by being in the same tent, but it does make Tamai when you touch or carry the corpse. [Tosfos says: the Halacha is not like R' Shimon since R' Shimon b. Gamliel argues with him in a Mishna in Ohalos, and the rule is that the Halacha is like R' Shimon b. Gamliel when mentioned in a Mishna.]

44) [Tosfos asks: why, in Bava Basra, did R' Banah need to mark off the graves of Adom and Avraham since, according to R' Shimon, their graves don't make anything Tamai. Even the Rabanan don't argue but for non-Jewish graves after the giving of the Torah, as the Gemara says in Nazir. After all, it has a Drasha that graves before Matan Torah are Tamai if touched, implying, but not for being in the same tent.]

45) If a Kohein gives Kiddushin to a widow, and he was then appointed to be the Kohein Gadol, he may complete the Nesuin. However, if his brother dies and his wife fell to him for Yibum, and then was appointed Kohein Gadol, he can't take her even if he made Maamar beforehand.

46) If a Kohein Gadol's brother dies and his wife falls to Yibum, he needs to do Chalitza to her and not Yibum. This is not only when she had Nesuin and is, therefore, a widow (Lav) and a non-virgin (an Asei); and the Asei of Yibum does not supersede a Lav and Asei; but it's even when he died before Nesuin. We don't say that the Asei of Yibum supersedes the Lav of being a widow, since we decree to forbid the first relations that fulfills the Mitzvah because he might have a second relations when there's no Mitzvah. [Tosfos says: this also teaches us that the Kohein Gadol may do Chalitza and we don't say that it's a disgrace since she spits at him.]

47) A Kohein Hedyot (or even a regular Yisrael, can't marry an Iylanus unless he already has a wife and children. R' Yehuda says that a Kohein Hedyot is forbidden with an Iylanus since she's considered like a Zonah. As the Pasuk says “he was Zonah without Pirtza.” Anything where there's no Pirtza (population growth) has a status of Zonah. [Tosfos points out: it doesn’t refer to a minor who can't have children, since she'll eventually grow up and have children. It only refers to an Iylanus who can never have children.]

48) The Rabanan say that we don't consider someone a Zonah but a convert or free slave. [Tosfos says: even if they became Jews younger than three years old, they're considered Zonahs since they're products from non-Jews who are deep in promiscuous relations, they're forbidden from the Torah. Although in Mesechta Avodah Zara there's an argument whether they decreed for a non-Jewess to be forbidden for being a Zonah (or that they don't allow their wives to be open for all to consider them Zonahs) implying that they're definitely not Torah Zonos; we can answer this easily according to Abaya who holds that you're only Chayiv for Zonah from the Torah if Kiddushin can take effect. After all, the Torah says “don't take” i.e., by Kiddushin, and don't make the children into a Chalal. Therefore, Zonah only applies after they convert and Kiddushin can take effect. However, even according to Rava who says that, if a Kohein has relations with a non-Jewish Zonah, he gets Malkos (and if he paid for the relations, it's forbidden to bring it as a Korban), that's only if he has a Z'nus relations (i.e., promiscuous). However, if they live as in wedlock, she's not considered a Zonah until after she converts. As, in that case, Rava would agree that the Drasha of “you shall take” for Kiddushin will exclude those who Kiddushin doesn't take effect.] Also, the Rabanan held that a Zonah is someone who had an unlawful relations [Tosfos: from someone who's forbidden with Kareis, and not like Rashi who says it applies to anyone who's forbidden.]

49) R' Eliezer says a Zonah is only like it's simple meaning (an adulteress married woman). R' Akiva says: even an unmarried woman who constantly has promiscuity, (but she's not a Zonah from one relations). R' Masia b. Charash says: even if she was a Sotah, and her husband was taking her to drink in the Mikdash, but had relations with her on the way is considered a Zonah. R' Elazar says that she's a Zonah even if they're both not married and they had an out of wedlock relations.

50) We have a Braisa that R' Eliezer forbids a Kohein to marry a minor, and the Rabanan permit. We can't explain the reason for R' Eliezer is because he holds like R' Meir who worries about a minority chance, and we need to suspect that she'll develop into an Iylanus, and he holds like R' Yehuda that an Iylanus is a Zonah. After all, he doesn't hold of R' Meir since he allows doing Yibum to a minor wife and doesn't worry that the girl will develop into an Iylanus (that can't have Yibum). We also see that he argues with R' Yehuda, since he only hold that an adulterer is a Zonah, not an Iylanus in wedlock.

51) Rava answers: he holds we need to worry that someone will seduce her to have relations with him, and that will forbid her to her Kohein husband. However, a Yisrael doesn't need to worry about it since she's not of mature mind, we consider her seduction as an Onness.

52) R' Pappa answers: we refer to a Kohein Gadol, and he holds like the opinion that he must marry a 'woman,' and not a minor. Alternatively, he holds that, when the Torah says 'virgin,' it infers to a Naarah (and not a Bogeres or minor). [Tosfos asks: if so, why would the Torah ever need to say “a virgin Naarah” if it's anyhow implied by the word 'virgin?']

53) In the Mishna, Beis Shammai says that you don't fulfill the Mitzvah of Pru U'rivu but with two sons. As he learns it from Moshe who separated from his wife after two sons. We can't learn it from Breishes that a male and female was created, since there it's impossible to be in any other way, and we can't extrapolate from a case where it's impossible in another way to nowadays, where there are many girls for your two boys to marry. Beis Hillel holds that you only fulfill it with a boy and girl like by Breishes, and we don't learn from Moshe since he did it because of a Kal V'chomer, if the Jews need to separate from their wives for a one time meeting with Hashem, so he should separate always since he's always on call with Hashem. Hashem agreed to him. [Tosfos says: it's not a true Kal V'chomer, since he shouldn't stop Pru U'rivu indefinitely just because the Jews stopped for a few days. Also, receiving the Aseres Hadibros may be different. This is why it's considered doing it by his own volition. That's why Ahron and Miriam was upset by it, since it wasn't a true Kal V'chomer that he needed to do. Although Hashem agreed, that's only because of the rule that “the way someone wants to head, Hashem leads him there.”]

54) There's a Braisa that says that R' Nosson says: Beis Shammai says that you need two sons and two daughters since Adom said that Sheis is now fills up the quota of the two sons and daughters as taking the place of Hevel. (However, Beis Hillel says that it's not a make up for the quota, but Adom was just thanking Hashem for giving him another child in Hevel's place.) Another Braisa says that R' Nosson says that Beis Hillel held that you only need one son or daughter, since you fulfill “I created the world to be inhabited.”

55) R' Nachman b. Shmuel holds: even if somebody has children, he shouldn't be without a wife.

56) The Mishna says that you shouldn't refrain from the Mitzvah of being fruitful unless he already has children; R' Yehoshua says that he should still have even more children, since you don't know which children will be Kosher. (R' Akiva says similarly that someone should have Talmidim in his old age even though he had Talmidim earlier.)

57) If he doesn't have children, he should marry a woman that is shown to be able to be fruitful. However, if he has children, he can marry one that can't produce children. The practical difference is if you could sell a Sefer Torah to marry a wife who can have children, [Tosfos adds: besides the practical difference if you can marry one who's not fruitful. Alternatively, everyone has a Mitzvah to marry one that can produce children, but the question is if you can sell a Sefer Torah, and we don't allow it for one who has children, since, in that case, he can marry one who can't produce children.]

58) If a convert had children before he converted; R' Yochanan says that he fulfilled his obligation of Pru U'rivu. After all, a non-Jew has lineage to his father. Therefore, his firstborn after conversion is not a Bechor for inheritance since it's not his first seed. Reish Lakish says that he didn't fulfill his obligation, since a Ger is like a newborn child. [Tosfos says: even though, regularly, R' Yochanan agrees to the concept of a convert is like a newborn, but here is different since these children already had their lineage traced to him before conversion, he fulfilled his Mitzvah even after his conversion.] The firstborn after the conversion is considered the Bechor for inheritance. We don't consider the children of the Ger as being from his lineage but only before the conversion, and not after.

59) However, everybody holds that there is no Yichus to a slave. [Tosfos says: everybody holds that he's not Yoitza Pru U'rivu with the children he had when he was a slave. Although we say that the only reason we force a master to free his half slave since, being a half free man, is forbidden even to another slave, implying if he would be permitted to a slave, he can fulfill the Mitzvah; but that's not true as we say here. Rather, even though he won't fulfill even “I created the world to be inhabited,” since that is dependent on Pru U'rivu, as R' Nosson said previously; but since there would be the slightest semblance of the Mitzvah, we wouldn't force the master to free him.]

60) If he had children and they died; R' Huna says that he fulfilled the Mitzvah since he accomplished finishing all the souls in the storehouse 'Guf' (that's needed for the coming of Moshiach). R' Yochanan says that he's not Yoitza since he didn't fulfill “I created the world to be inhabited.” R' Huna was disproved from a Braisa that says that, if one of his sons died or found to be unable to have children, he's not Yoitza Pru U'rivu

61) Grandchildren are like children (i.e., if the children die, but they leave over children, the father is Yoitza). This is even if his daughter left over a son, or his son left over a daughter, since he fulfills “I created the world to be inhabited.” [Tosfos says: even though two sons are not in the place of a son and daughter to be Yoitza, but here where you were already Yoitza with a son and daughter, and the daughter leaves over a son, the son can be in her place.]

62) However, everybody holds that you're not Yoitza if you have a grandson and granddaughter from one child, and the second child died without children.

63) Anyone who doesn't live with a wife lives without happiness, without blessing, without goodness. In Eretz Yisrael they say: also without Torah and without a “protecting wall.” R' Elazar b. Azarya says: also, without peace.

64) A person is obligated to “spend time” with his wife before he leaves on a trip, even if it's close to her Vest (i.e., time that she's expecting her period), which is the day, or night before. However, this is if it's a voluntary trip, but if it's a Mitzvah, he doesn't need to since he's busy readying himself for the Mitzvah.

65) [Rashi explains it to mean that he needs to spend the time with relations. Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara in Shvuos seems to conclude that the prohibition of having relations close to her Vest is from the Torah. Even if it's rabbinically forbidden, why should we permit it if he's leaving voluntarily? Rather, it doesn't mean to have relations. Rather, it means to spend time with her and to be with her, and the text should read that even if she's a Nida, since she enjoys spending time with her husband.]

66) It's a Mitzvah to marry off your child right before adulthood. [Tosfos says: this is even for a son. Although they didn't enact even rabbinical Kiddushin for a male minor, but it won't be considered promiscuous.]

67) If someone's married for ten years and his wife didn't give him children, he can't ignore his obligation of having children, he needs to divorce her and give her her Kesuva [Tosfos: and there's an argument in Kesuvos if we even force him to divorce her. This would seem that one needs to give a Kesuva even to women we force him to divorce. Only in the case where she married a tanner and she claims that she thought she can handle his smell, but she really can't; she doesn't get a Kesuva since the whole marriage could have been a trick to force him to pay out a Kesuva.] You can't say it's her Mazal caused them not to have children, and, therefore, she's not entitled to a Kesuvah. After all, she doesn't have an obligation to have children, only him, so we assume it was his Mazal that caused them not to have children.

68) Rebbi holds that a Chazaka is two times, and R' Shimon b. Gamliel holds it to be three times. Therefore, if one gives a Milah to his first two sons, and they died, or even if this happens to cousins (i.e., sons of sisters); Rebbi holds that he can't do Milah to a third child since they have a Chazaka that they die from Milah because the family's blood is “too loose or too hard.” R' Shimon b. Gamliel says to do Milah a third time, until it happens a third time.

69) This, that we see that you can make a Chazaka among cousins; you shouldn't marry into a family that has three sick people, or were smitten with Tzaras.

70) [Rashi says: if you shouldn't do Milah, like when there's that Chazaka, if you do the Milah on the eighth day on Shabbos, it's considered as Chilul Shabbos since Shabbos wasn't given to be pushed off for this Milah.]

71) They also argue regarding the marriage of a woman. If a woman was widowed twice, Rebbi says that she shouldn't marry a third time, while R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that she could until the fourth time. R' Huna says the reason: since we're afraid that there is some disease in her that's transmitted to her husband. R' Ashi says: it's her Mazal that killed them. The practical difference between them: if he dies before Nesuin, or falls off a tree. He didn't die by having a disease transmitted to him, but it could have been caused by her Mazal.

72) R' Yosef Paskins like Rebbi regarding Nesuin and Malkos (i.e., if someone gets Malkos twice on a Lav of Kareis, we bring him into solitude and feed him barley until his stomach breaks open. [Tosfos explains: he holds that the amount of Malkos makes him the Chazaka. However, according to the opinion that the amount of sins make a Chazaka, even R' Shimon b. Gamliel will hold that you would do this if he got Malkos twice and did the sin a third time. However, it's possible that R' Shimon b. Gamliel holds that you need to warn him that the next time he'll be entered into the solitude, so you don't bring him in until the fourth sin.] He Paskins like R' Shimon b. Gamlile regarding a Nidda's Vest (i.e., she needs to see thrice to establish a Vest, and needs to not see on those days to uproot a Vest) and regarding a Mu'ad ox. [Tosfos explains: Rebbi doesn't argue to say that the ox is a Mu'ad after two gores, since the Pasuk says three gores explicitly. However, we're just saying that we find the concept of a Chazaka of three times like R' Shimon b. Gamliel holds.]

73) If she married the first one and didn't have children, and to a second one and didn't have children, and she must be divorced [Tosfos: and the second one also needs to give her a Kesuva]; she shouldn't marry a third man who doesn't yet have children since she has a Chazaka that she can't have children. [Tosfos says: the reason the second one must give her a Kesuvah, even though his marriage made this Chazaka that she can't have children; since it's only a Chazaka regarding the Mitzvah of having children. However, regarding monetary laws, everybody agrees that a Chazaka is thrice, as we see by the Mu'ad ox. However, Tosfos remains with a question: since the majority of women can have children, how can this “two time” Chazaka take her out of the status of being assumed part of the majority regarding Mitzvos, and not regarding money, although regularly we say that you follow the majority regarding Mitzvos (and Issur) and not by money.] If she does marry the third person, he needs to divorce her [Tosfos: immediately] without a Kesuva [Tosfos: since it's a mistaken marriage if he didn't know that she has a Chazaka of not having children.] If he marries her for ten years and didn't have a child, the first two husbands can't claim their Kesuvos back since it was shown retroactively that she can't have children [Tosfos: even regarding money] since she could claim that she could have had children earlier, and only now she became weak.

74) If she marries a fourth person, and she has a child, she can't claim her Kesuva from the third husband [Tosfos: claiming that the marriage wasn't a mistake.] You can't say the reason is so for him not to claim that it was a mistaken divorce since he would never have had divorced her have he known that she could have children. After all, if this would be a true claim, we would need to worry that's she's truly still his wife and her child is a Mamzer. [Rashi says: therefore, we need to say that he definitely divorced her completely even on the doubt if it was true.] The reason she can't claim the Kesuva is because the husband can claim that she couldn't have children when they were married, and now she became healed. [Tosfos explains the difference here that, if it would be true that he didn't divorce completely, we would have a problem with the child, and by the case that he divorced since she's an Iylanus, has a bad reputation, or she makes vows, and it came out to be false, she can't claim the Kesuvah since he'll claim that he didn't divorce her if he would have known the true circumstance and it will bring rumors to the legitimacy of the child, but we're not really worried that the child is illegitimate. After all, there, they have an enactment never to take back his wife if he divorces her because of those claims. Therefore, since there's no turning back, we assume he wants to divorce her completely since, if he really wanted to keep her, he would have done more research to find the truth. However, by us, there's no enactment not to take her back, so when he divorces, there's no proof that he wanted to completely divorce her under all circumstances, even if he divorced without saying it's because she didn't have children. So, the Gemara answers: that just because she has a child now is no proof that she could have had a child earlier when married to the third man, since she might have healed in the meantime.]

75) [Tosfos says: it's not similar to the case that, if he divorced her because her periods were inconsistent, they enacted for him never to take her back in order that he shouldn't claim that if he knew that her period will become consistent, I would have never divorced her, and we don't say that she was healed after the divorce; that's because it's common to fix the periods through medicine, so he can claim that he didn't divorce her completely. However, if she couldn't have children, it's not common to heal, so we can assume that he completely divorced her. The Rash from Darvush answers: we're afraid that, by her last period by him, it would be the first of consistent periods, and it would show retroactively that her periods became consistent before the divorce, and you can't claim she was only healed after the divorce.]

76) If he claims that it's her fault that we don't have children, and he shouldn't pay a Kesuvah, and she claims that it's his fault since he can't shoot out the semen like an arrow (but only can dribble), she's believed. After all, she's the one who can tell if he shoots out like an arrow or not. [Tosfos asks: what's the case? After all, if it's after ten years, then he needs to divorce her with a Kesuva even if he “shoots like an arrow.” If it's within ten years, she's not believed since we assume that she's saying it in order to get divorced since she might have had eyes on someone else (like the later Mishna in Nedarim holds). Tosfos answers: we refer to after ten years and he has children from another marriage, so we don't say that this childless marriage is a punishment for him, but for her, unless she claims that he can't shoot like an arrow anymore. Alternatively, it's within ten years, and the later Mishna is only worried that she's saying this to get out of the marriage if she's claiming a weak claim, that she's not having pleasure from the relations, or that she wants a male offspring. However, if she has a strong claim, that she needs a child to take care of her in her old age and make sure that, when she dies, that she's buried, we don't worry that she's just claiming it to get out of the marriage. R' Shmuel b. Chaim answers: we refer to after ten years for the third marriage (according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel who says that three is a Chazaka). He claims that this makes a Chazaka that she can't have children, and she claims it not to be a Chazaka since it was because he doesn't shoot like an arrow; so we believe her since she would know if he would shoot like an arrow or not.]

77) [Tosfos says: his Rebbis Paskins that we only say to the later Mishna in Nedarim that she's not believed to say that her husband can't shoot like an arrow because we're worried that she just wants to marry someone else since the husband can't contradict her. However, she's believed to say that he can't even connect to her at all. Since he can contradict her, we have a Chazaka that she won't be brazen to make such a claim before her husband.]

78)If she miscarries, we count the ten years after the miscarriage.

79) If he claimed that she miscarried within ten years, and he shouldn't be forced to divorce her, and she says that she didn't, we believe her. After all, if it was true that she miscarried, she wouldn't claim otherwise and strengthen the claim on her that she's barren.

80) If she miscarries thrice, we assume her to have a Chazaka to miscarry, and he divorces her without a Kesuvah.

81) If he claimed that she only miscarried twice, and he shouldn't be forced to divorce her, and she says that she miscarried thrice, we believe her. After all, if it was true that she didn't miscarried thrice, she wouldn't claim otherwise and strengthen the claim on her that she miscarries.

82) Only the man is obligated in Pru U'rivu, and not the woman. R' Yehuda b. Beseira says that even that woman is Chayiv. There's an argument who we should Paskin like. The Gemara concludes that the Halacha is like the Chachumim.

83) The same way that there's a Mitzvah to rebuke in a case where it would be accepted, it's a Mitzvah not to rebuke when it won't be accepted.

84) It's a Mitzvah to lie for peace.

85) Even though a woman is not obligated to have children; if she didn't have children with him, he could force him to divorce her (so that she can have children with another) because she needs a child to take care of her in her old age and make sure that, when she dies, that she's buried. She can also claim her Kesuva. [Tosfos quotes R' Chananel: she can only get her basic hundred/two hundred Zuz, but not any addition. After all, the Gemara in the beginning of the fifth Perek of Kesuvos doesn't count as a practical difference that the addition to the Kesuva has the same status as a Kesuva regarding divorcing because she doesn't have any children. After all, he didn't write this addition in order to pay when he's forced to divorce her. R' Tam Paskins that he does pay the addition since it's totally like the Kesuva itself.]

86) [Tosfos quotes Ritzvah: if she claims that he can't have an erection, and he claims that he does, but his wife kicks, and that causes that he can't have relations; we don't just believe the wife since she wouldn't make such a brazen claim before her husband. After all, we don't say that when she's claiming a Kesuvah. If the husband agrees that he can't, he's forced to divorce her even without any special claim since he can't perform his obligatory timely relations with her. Therefore, he gives her the hundred/two hundred Zuz of her Kesuva and not the addition. After all we have an unresolved inquiry in Kesuvos if she's only entitled to it after the first relations, and if they didn't have it, it's a question if he owes it, and the collector must bring a proof that she's owed it. R' Hai says: whenever the Gemara concludes with a 'Teiku,' you split it. However, she should get back the part that was added for the property she brought into the marriage, but not the amount that it was inflated (if they add an extra third) since that's part of the addition.]

87) [Tosfos concludes: however, if he can penetrate with the top of his organ, she receives the addition too, since that's considered as if they had relations. If her area is too small for him to enter, and you waited three years to see if it improves, you should wait another year. Even if he can't have an erection, he shouldn't be forced to divorce right away, since Hashem has a lot of mercy. Even according to the above R' Chananel, if he knows that he can't have an erection and can't have relations, she gets the addition to the Kesuva, since he wrote it for her from the beginning knowing that he can't have relations, so he wrote it for her even without relations.]

88) Although a woman is not commanded to have children, if someone owns a half slave and half free woman; if she's acting promiscuous, he needs to free her. After all, the reason why she's allowing herself to have relations with everybody is because she can't marry, since she's forbidden to both a free man and a slave.