Explanation: This question is according to Rabanan, but not according to R. Meir.

Inference (Bahag, She'altos): We say in Kesuvos (60b) that the Halachah follows R. Meir's decrees. This refers to only to his decrees, but not to his fines.

Observation: We infer similarly in Kesuvos (16b) regarding "every virgin who marries has a Kol (publicity), and in Nidah (29a) "all animals secrete Tinuf (fluids, the day before giving birth)."

However, in Chulin (53a), regarding "every animal that is Dores (poisons through its claws), its claw does not fall off", we are not meticulous to say that "all" is not precise.

Question: How does waiting three months help for Havchanah (to avoid a Safek about who is the father)?

We can still come to a Safek if she marries immediately [after three months] and gives birth after six months and one day, or even three days!

He can be the son of the first husband, if the semen was not absorbed until the third day, or the son of the latter, for one who gives birth after seven months can give birth in partial months (i.e. anytime during the seventh month, even after six months and a day)!

(Difficult) Answer #1: It would be astounding to say that she must wait three months and three days.

Rejection: Below, it seems that three months is precise, for it says "except for the day he died and the day she became Mekudeshes.

Suggestion: Once she waited three months, she may marry, and we are not concerned lest she gave birth from the latter after six months and two or three days, for we rely on the majority, who give birth after nine months.

Rejection: If we rely on the majority, who give birth after nine months, she should be permitted to marry even within three months, for we rely on the majority. She must wait only one month, and there is no Safek!

If she will give birth at the end nine months from the death of the first [husband], we have no doubt perhaps it was after seven months from the latter, for we rely on the majority who give birth after nine months!

Conclusion: Rather, you must say that whenever we can come to a Safek, Chachamim were stringent.

Answer: [If it is from the first,] the fetus would not delay so long to be recognized until a third of the days [of even a short pregnancy of six months and a day] from when she married the latter [five months from the start of pregnancy].

Question: Why don't we leave her in her Chazakah that she may do Yibum? She should be exempt from Asham Taluy, and the second child should be Kosher!

We join the minority who give birth after seven months to the Chazakah, and this weakens the majority (who give birth after nine months), so we rely on the majority, for whom the fetus is recognized after a third of the days!

Above (30b), we consider this to be a Chazakah (that she may do Yibum) regarding Safek Kidushin;

Below (119a), even if her Tzarah was pregnant, we consider her to be b'Chezkas Zekukah.

Suggestion: There is another majority. Most women become pregnant and give birth. Therefore, we should establish her to be pregnant from the first [husband].

Rejection: It is totally unreasonable to say about women who delayed several years with their husbands and never became pregnant, and their husbands died, that [now] most of them are pregnant.

Below (119a) we say [that there is such a majority] regarding a woman whose husband and Tzarah went overseas. (Maharam - here, there is a Re'usa, that we did not notice pregnancy before her husband died. There, we see no Re'usa. I ask that also there, if the Tzarah was here many years without children, and they went overseas and her husband died a week later, it is unreasonable to assume that just now she became pregnant! However, Tosfos ha'Rosh answers like Tosfos' suggestion. Just like on 119a we rely on the majority who give birth, also here. He did not discuss how long they were overseas.)

Implied question: We say in Kesuvos (13b), regarding one of 10 Kohanim who separated and had Bi'ah with a woman, that the child is a Shetuki;

I.e. he is silenced from laws of Kehunah. [Even though we know that his father is a Kohen, for Kehunah] we require a Kohen's seed who can trace his lineage to his father!

Answer: The Gemara (100b) asks this, and answers that mid'Rabanan we require that he can trace his lineage to his father;

Chachamim decreed this [to silence from Kehunah] a child born from Zenus, but not a child born through marriage.

Implied question: In Kidushin (73a), regarding Rava's teaching that mid'Oraisa a Shetuki is Kosher, we ask "if so, a Shetuki should not be allowed to marry a Shetukis!"

Answer: This does not mean that Rava holds that a Shetuki may marry a Shetukis. Rather, we asked because Rava said his law there also according to Rabanan;

Therefore, we asked that also according to Rabanan, a Shetuki should not forbidden to marry a Shetukis.

Explanation: There is Pas b'Salo (he is like one who has bread in his basket. His is not beset from his Yetzer Ra), for he could have Bi'ah if he wanted;

Since sometimes he does not have Bi'ah with her, she did not have desire, and would not see blood.

Proof: If you would not say so, also seclusion would be forbidden, like it says in Kesuvos (4a) regarding a Chasan whose wife became Nidah. He sleeps among men, and she sleeps among women. (Seclusion is forbidden before he has Bi'ah with her.)

Explanation (cont.): There was no problem of marrying a woman in another country, for if it occurred that he had Bi'ah with her and she became pregnant, he would bring her back to his city.

Explanation: Even Chachamim who argue with Sumchus agree here, that we cannot say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to take money from another, one must bring proof), for neither is more Muchzak than the other;

This is like when these come to inherit, and these come to inherit. We say (Bava Basra 158b) that they divide [the inheritance].

Explanation: He says Kam Dina (the previous ruling stands) only after he split the property (the inheritance of the first to die), but not if he did not yet split it.

Tosfos' explanation: You will not receive anything.

Rashi's explanation: If you are quiet, I will give to you [a path for] a low price.

Rejection: The Mishnah says "he buys a path for 100 Maneh (a fortune. This is about 70 years income - Maharsha Kesuvos 105a.)

A similar case: In Bava Kama (8a), regarding "if [one who owed damages, a loan and a Kesuvah] sold them [his Idis, Beinonis and Ziburis, i.e. high, middle and low quality land] to one buyer, all [the land] is in place of the owner (everyone collects like their normal law);

The woman collects [her Kesuvah] from Ziburis, even if he bought the Idis last, due to [the threat] "if you are quiet [and accept the Ziburis... if not, I will return the land to the seller...]"

She cannot say "when you will return [the land, you can force me to accept Ziburis. Until then, I demand what you bought last!]", since he does not seek to uproot her from her law (what she should receive).

Distinction: When one bought from one, he cannot say "... if [you will] not [be quiet], I will sell the land to four buyers" [and then you cannot force any of them to sell a path to you]. Since he does not come from four [buyers], we do not allow him.

Question: When four come from one, the one [seller] should return the price of a short path (to one of the sellers, who will give a path to the one who lost it)!

Answer: The seller can say "I sold only the rights that I have in it." (I was not paid for the path, so I need not return anything.)