Implied question: A Beraisa (42a) says "therefore, a couple who converted must wait three months"!

Answer #1: That is like R. Yehudah, who is concerned lest she did not turn over well.

Answer #2: It is even like R. Yosi. It means "therefore, a couple who converted must wait if it is known that she had Bi'ah and did not turn over.

Answer #3 (Ri): We can distinguish one who did not guard herself at all, when she converts with her husband;

[She did not guard herself] because all the seed is from him, and she is not concerned to distinguish between seed conceived in Kedushah from this husband, and seed not conceived in Kedushah.

Explanation: We should decree that they must wait.

Suggestion: Perhaps we ask that we should decree [that they wait] due to a Bas Yisrael!

Rejection: If so, the Gemara did not answer this at all! (Why doesn't R. Yosi decree?)

Explanation: Similarly, a convert and Shifchah who [later] was freed turn over, since they intend to convert;

However, R. Yosi agrees about one who is freed due to a tooth or eye [that her master ruined. She did not know that she will be freed.].

Implied question: In Kesuvos (51a), the Mishnah says [that one writes in the Kesuvah] for a Kohenes "[if you are captured,] I will return you to your land." We do not infer like this (that this excludes a Yisraelis)!

Answer: We infer like this only here, because when we answer that it means wives of Kohanim, this is still difficult, for this implies that this excludes wives of Yisraelim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Our Sugya is due to "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar."

Objection (Ri): "U'Vas Kohen" does not teach about an Eshes Ish and all Chayavei Kerisos who are forbidden through Kidushin, for they are not called Ish Zar initially (before the Kidushin)!

Support #1: Below (56b), Rava says that if a Kohen's wife was raped, and he had Bi'ah with her, he is lashed due to Zonah and due to Tum'ah;

If "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar" teaches also about an Eshes Ish, he should be lashed also for this verse!

The verse forbids also to Kehunah. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer [from Terumah] below (68b). We do not consider this warning from a Kal va'Chomer, rather, a Giluy Milsa (it reveals that the verse forbids also to Kehunah).

Support #2: We say "even though she is permitted to her husband, she is Pasul to Kehunah." If it is due to the verse of Bas Kohen, obviously we do not distinguish between Ones and Ratzon (whether she was forced or consented)!

Suggestion: Perhaps [Rav Sheshes] comes to teach this, that the verse of Bas Kohen applies to Chayavei Kerisos through Kidushin, since Mamzerus applies to them (their children), even though he was not initially a Zar (forbidden) to her!

Rejection: If so, he should have taught this explicitly, and automatically we would know that in this verse we cannot distinguish Ones from Ratzon regarding an Eshes Ish more than for other Pesulei Kehunah!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rather, she is Pesulah li'Kehunah due to Tum'ah and Zonah, like it says below (56b);

According to the version that says there that any case of Ones is not called a Zonah, the Pesul to Kehunah is due only to Tum'ah.

Question (Ri): Tum'ah is not written regarding a Yisrael's wife who was raped. Since it says "v'Hi Lo Nispasah", we infer that if she was raped, she is permitted;

If so, why is she Pesulah li'Kehunah? The Isur Tum'ah includes [Isur to] her husband, the Bo'el, Terumah and also Kehunah. Since she is permitted to her husband, she should be permitted also to Kehunah!

Answer (Ri): The verse "Lo Nispasah" discusses only Tum'ah of [Isur to] her husband. We should establish the first "Nitme'ah" regarding her husband. Regarding her husband, Ones is permitted to Yisrael;

However, the last "Nitme'ah", from which we learn the Isur to Terumah and Kehunah, does not distinguish between Ones and Ratzon, whether she is a Kohen's wife or a Yisrael's wife. We forbid in every case;

Since we find that a Kohen's wife is forbidden even through Ones, we should not distinguish between Ones and Ratzon regarding Terumah and Kehunah, even for a Yisrael's wife.

Distinction: However, regarding the Bo'el, even though it says "v'Hi Lo Nispasah", we can distinguish between Ones and Ratzon regarding a Yisrael's wife;

It is logical that she is forbidden to the Bo'el only when she is forbidden to her husband.

Consequence: According to the Ri, the Pesul of a Zonah to Terumah is not from the verse of Bas Kohen. Rather, perhaps because the Torah included her [Isur to Kohanim] with Chalalah, she is Pesulah for Terumah like a Chalalah.

Reference: Below (44b) the Ri discussed this.

Implied question: Why didn't it teach "one who did Chalitzah to a pregnant woman", like the Gemara says?

Answer #1: This is a bigger Chidush. Even if the fetus was not recognized at the time of Chalitzah, and it looks like a proper Chalitzah, even so he did not disqualify her when the baby is found to be viable.

The Gemara mentioned a pregnant woman for a Chidush. Even though the fetus was recognized, since she miscarried, it is a proper Chalitzah.

Answer #2: The Mishnah mentioned when [afterwards] she was found to be pregnant due to the Seifa (when he did Yibum). We cannot say that he did Yibum with a pregnant Yevamah, for if so he was Mezid. He is not obligated a Korban, for knowledge [of the Aveirah] would not have deterred him.

Explanation: We discuss one who did Chalitzah within three months, similar to the Seifa of one who did Yibum, which is within three months;

If it (the Seifa) were after three months, why is he Chayav Korban? Since for most women, the fetus is recognized after a third [of the pregnancy], and this woman was not [recognizably pregnant], what should he have done? (There was no reason for him to delay Yibum more than three months!)

Support: We say like this in Shevu'os (18a) "to exclude Ones" regarding one who saw blood [during Bi'ah] not at the time of her Veses (when her menstrual period normally begins).

Question: If so, when the child is not viable, why is she forbidden to his relatives?

Within three months is not Chalitzah, for the Mishnah below says "a Yevamah may not do Chalitzah or Yibum until three months";

The Gemara explains that since she may not do Yibum [within three months], she may not do Chalitzah!

Answer #1 (Ri): Granted, it is not Chalitzah. However, she is forbidden to his relatives because mid'Oraisa, it is Chalitzah.

Answer #2: Also, b'Di'eved if she did Chalitzah [within three months], even mid'Rabanan she does not need another Chalitzah;

We say below that if brothers did Chalitzah to a Yevamah within three [months], she must wait three months [before remarrying]. This implies that she does not need [another] Chalitzah.

Explanation #1: This is not precise [that she needs Chalitzah only] from the [other] brothers. Also from the Choletz, her Zikah was not uprooted!

Explanation #2: He means [that she needs Chalitzah] from the brothers of the deceased.

Explanation #1: This is because she miscarried at the end, but not if the baby was viable. (It is revealed that retroactively, he had a child.)

Explanation #2: When the baby is viable, we learn from "Lehakim Shem" and "Lo Yimacheh", which excludes this man, whose name is not wiped out.

Explanation: Since at the time the fetus was proper to live [the Chalitzah is invalid].

Question #1: If so (it is considered a proper fetus), she should be permitted l'Shuk without Chalitzah, just like Pasul children (Mamzerim), which also we learn from "Ein Lo"!

Question #2: Also, why do we say below that a baby does not exempt until he is born?

Answer: We say also "Ayen Alav" that she may not do Chalitzah or marry as long as she is in Safek.

Implied question: Below (41b), regarding a Safek in which one was Mekadesh one of two sisters, we consider that Chalitzah and Yibum apply to her, for if Eliyahu would come ad say that he was Mekadesh this one (she could do Yibum).

Answer: Here is different. This Safek is not feasible to clarify now, for we cannot know the future;

However, there we need to know only what [already occurred] at that time.

Question: According to Reish Lakish, if one did Yibum with his pregnant Yevamah, and she miscarried, why is he exempt from a Korban, since Bi'as (Yibum of a) Me'uberes is not considered Bi'ah? If so, this is Eshes Ach not b'Mekom Mitzvah!

Answer (Ri): Even so, he is not lashed, just like a minor who had Bi'ah with his adult Yevamah. We say below (111b) that she stays with him while he grows up.

Implied question: Above (26a), regarding [the Mishnah of] four brothers, Beis Shamai say Yekaimu. They did not say "if they want"!

Answer: There, one cannot err. (Therefore, the Tana did not need to specify.)

Implied question: All the more so she herself may not marry or have Bi'ah [with the Yavam]!

Answer: The Chidush is that her Tzarah may not marry in any case. (If it is a viable baby, no one is Zekukah l'Yibum. If it is a Nefel, Yibum was already done!)

Implied question: Above, [R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish] challenged [the other from the Seifa,] if one did Yibum...!

Answer: [Abaye holds that] this never happened. (No one brought a challenge from there.)

Support: We find like this in Nidah (24b) regarding [whether they argue about Tum'ah of birth if] the face that was slightly mashed, and in several places.

Explanation: He agrees about Bi'ah [that one may not do it during pregnancy], lest he come to Isur [if the child is viable].