1)

(a)We learn in a Beraisa that if a man divorces his wife because she has born him no children, she marries again, and the same story repeats itself, is she permitted to get married a third time (according to Rebbi who holds that two times creates a Chazakah) - she is permitted to get married a third time (even according to Rebbi who holds that two times creates a Chazakah), but only to someone who has already fulfilled the Mitzvah of "Pru u'Rvu".

(b)If she marries someone who has not had children, her Din will differ from the first two times - inasmuch as she will not receive a Kesubah (whereas the first two times, she did).

(c)Should her third marriage not produce children either, the first two husbands cannot then demand that, now that her infertility has been proven, she must return the Kesubah - because she can say that until now, she was able to have children (and the first two times, it was their Mazal that caused their childlessness), and it is only now that she became weak (because the Chazakah does not help to extract the money that she has already claimed. See Tosfos Yeshanim).

2)

(a)If, after subsequently marrying a fourth man and bearing him a child, the woman demands her Kesubah from her third husband, on the grounds that it must have been his Mazal that was responsible for their childlessness - we initially think to advise her to remain silent, because if she persists with her claim, her former husband will counter that, in that case, he would never have divorced her, rendering the Get that he gave her invalid, and the children from her current husband, Mamzerim.

(b)Rav Papa refutes this suggestion on the grounds that - if that were so, then Beis Din would be obligated to take the initiative and absolve her fourth marriage anyway. Why would we need to wait for her previous husband to say it?!

(c)If her third husband does indeed claim that the Get that he gave her is nullified (and her children from her fourth husband are Mamzerim) - we ignore his claim, on the grounds that she probably was sterile at the time when they were married (as was borne out by the Chazakah), and it is now that she became cured.

3)

(a)Should the husband claim that it is her fault that they have no children, and she claims that it is his - we believe her, says Rebbi Ami, because of the presumption that she knows better than he does, whether his seed shoots like an arrow (and therefore fit to germinate) or not.

(b)The difference whose fault it is, despite the fact that he intends to divorce her anyway is - with regard to whether she receives her Kesubah or not.

(c)And in a case where the husband threatens to marry another woman to put the matter to the test - Rebbi Ami rules that he is forbidden to put his threat into practice, and that, if he does, he will be obligated to divorce his wife and pay her Kesubah.

(d)Rava disagrees. According to him - a man is permitted to marry as many wives as he wishes (as long as he is able to provide for them).

4)

(a)The man might claim that his wife had a miscarriage during the ten years that they were married - in order to delay the beginning of the ten-year waiting period without having had children.

(b)Should his wife deny it, says Rebbi Ami - we will believe her, because of the Chazakah that a woman would not declare herself sterile (unless she really was).

(c)If a woman has three miscarriages - then he must (marry another wife or) divorce her and pay her Kesubah, because, here too, 'he was the one who did not merit to have children from her'.

(d)Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar tells us that a case was brought to the Beis ha'Midrash, where the husband claimed that she had only two miscarriages (in which case he was not obligated to divorce or to marry a second wife), and she countered that she had had three. There too - they believed her, and for the same reason (because a woman would not establish a Chazakah of miscarriages, unless it was true).

5)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, the Mitzvah of "Pru u'Rvu" does not apply to a woman. Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah however - rules that it does, because the Pasuk in Bereishis "va'Yevarech Osam Elokim Vayomer Lahem Pru u'Rvu ... " was said to Chavah, as well as to Adam.

(b)Rebbi Ila'a Mishum Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (citing the source of the Tana Kama as the Pasuk in Bereishis "u'Mil'u es ha'Aretz v'Chivshuhah") - learns from there that the Mitzvah of 'Pru u'Rvu' is confined to men, whose way it is to conquer.According to Rav Yosef, the Rabanan derive their opinion from the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Ani Kel Shakai, Prei u'Rvei" (written in the singular); whereas in the opinion of

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak justifies this Derashah, despite the fact that v'Chivshuhah" appears in the plural - because even though it is read in the plural, it is written in the singular ("v'Chavshah" [without a 'Vav']).

(d)Rav Yosef cites the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Ani Kel Shakai, Prei u'Rvei" as the Tana Kama's source - to avoid the Kashya that we asked (i.e. that "v'Chivshuhah" is written in the plural).

6)

(a)When Rebbi Ila'a Mishum Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon said that just as it is a Mitzvah to say something that will be heard, so too is it a Mitzvah to refrain from saying something that will not be heard, he meant - that it is a Mitzvah to refrain from rebuking someone whom one knows for sure will not accept his rebuke.

(b)Based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "Al Tochi'ach Letz Pen Yisna'eka", Rebbi Aba comments - that one is strictly forbidden to do so..

(c)The Pasuk in Mishlei concludes - "Hoche'ach l'Chacham v'Ye'ehaveka".

7)

(a)Rebbi Ila'a Mishum Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns that one is permitted to lie because of Darkei Shalom - from Yosef's brothers, who told Yosef that their father had instructed them before his death, to go and appease him for what they had done to him (even though he had said no such thing).

(b)Rebbi Nasan extrapolates from the Pasuk in Shmuel "va'Yomer Shmuel, Eich Eilech v'Shama Shaul va'Haragani" that it is even a Mitzvah to do so - because otherwise, Hash-m would not have subsequently responded by instructing him to pretend that he had really arrived at Yishai's residence to offer a sacrifice (to cover up his real reason for his having come).

(c)Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael's source for saying 'Gadol ha'Shalom'! - is Hash-m Himself, who told Avraham that Sarah had said 'va'Adoni Zaken', when what she had really said was 'va'Ani Zakanti'.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue over whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in our Mishnah (who maintains that a woman is included in the Mitzvah of "Pru u'Rvu" just like the man) or not. We try and prove from the fact that, when Rebbi Avahu quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying 'Halachah k'Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah', Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi turned away from him - that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds 'Ein Halachah ... ' (and Rebbi Avahu misquoted him).

(b)They did not simply correct him - because he was close to the king, and it would not have respectful to tell him that he had made a mistake.

(c)Others switch Rebbi Avahu for Rebbi Chiya bar Aba. Rav Papa objects to this switch however - on the grounds that, if so, why did they not just correct him and tell him that Rebbi Yochanan had never said such a thing.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan told that man who came to him in the Shul in Caesaria with his wife, who demanded a Get from him because her marriage had produced no children - that he should give her a Get and pay her Kesubah.

(b)We try to determine from there - that Rebbi Yochanan must hold like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, because if he held like the Chachamim, then why would he have made him pay her Kesubah?!

(c)We refute this proof however - on the grounds that she might have claimed that she wanted a divorce for other practical reasons (as we will explain shortly - and not just because she wanted children), in which case her claim would be valid and she would receive her Kesubah.

10)

(a)When Rebbi Zeira and Rav Nachman (independently) informed women under the same circumstances that they were not entitled to a Kesubah, since they were not commanded to fulfill the Mitzvah - the one said that she wanted a son to look after her when she became old, the other, that she wished for 'a stick for her old age and a spade for her grave'.

(b)Rebbi Zeira and Rav Nachman respectively, conceded that they were right - and ordered their husbands to pay their Kesubah.

11)

(a)The names of Rebbi Chiya and Yehudis' twins -were Yehudah and Chizkiyah.

(b)When Yehudis heard from her husband that a woman is not obligated to have children - she drank a potion that made her sterile, to avoid the excessive labor pains that she experienced at childbirth.

(c)When he heard what his wife had done - Rebbi Chiya commented that he wished that she would bear him another set of twins like the one they already had (Rav Yehudah and Chizkiyah).

(d)Pazi and Tavi - were the set of twin daughters of Rebbi Chiya and Yehudis.

(e)Besides them, they had no other children.

12)

(a)Rav Acha bar Ketina Amar Rebbi Yitzchak related - that the Chachamim forced the master of a half-freed Shifchah to set her free.

(b)We initially thought that this was due to the fact that since she was forbidden both to a ben Chorin and to an Eved, in which case she would be unable to have children ...

(c)... a proof that women are included in the Mitzvah of Pru u'Rvu (a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya).

(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes that proof however. He maintains that the Chachamim forced the master to set free his half-freed Shifchah Kena'anis (despite the fact that a woman is not obligated to have children) - because she was constantly being abused.