Explanation (R. Tam): This is only if he did Chalitzah, for the Chalitzah proves that he did not have Bi'ah with her;

This is like we say about a Ma'amar, that the Mi'un proves that she is a minor.

Distinction: However, if the Yavam died after three months, she must wait three months, for a Yevamah is more prone to have Bi'ah [with the Yavam] than an Arusah, and we decree [to forbid an Arusah for three months] due to a Nesu'ah.

Implied question: We say below (112a) and in Pesachim (72b) that a Yavam is bashful [to have Bi'ah] with his Yevamah. One is not bashful with his [Arusah] wife!

Answer: That means that a Yavam could withhold [from Bi'ah] for 30 days. Regarding the decree lest one marry his sister... we can say that his Yevamah is more prone to have Bi'ah [than an Arusah].

Explanation: [Rav counts from Nesinah,] even though surely he did not have Bi'ah with her after it was written, for if so, he would not divorce with it, for it is a Get Yashan.

In Gitin (18a), it explains his reason. People should not say that two women in one Chatzer [received Gitin on the same day], and one is permitted and one is forbidden;

People think that both were written just before they were given, and they will come to permit [remarrying] within three months.

Explanation (cont.): Also here regarding Chalitzah, [if two women in a Chatzer did Chalitzah], they will think that both of them did Chalitzah shortly after death, and come to permit marrying within three [months].

We answer that if we permit an Isur Kares, i.e. if he wants do Yibum after three months, he may. All the more so we permit an Isur Lav!

How could you forbid her to marry l'Shuk after Chalitzah? This would be a mockery. People would not heed it.

Explanation: Below (100b), we learn from this verse that Hash-m warned Avraham "do not marry a Nochris or Shifchah, lest your seed's lineage be attributed to her." (Rava need not expound like Rav Nachman, for he can expound this way. Perhaps even Rav Nachman expounds this way, and his Drashah here is a mere Asmachta.)

Inference: This implies that a male convert may marry a female convert, unlike those who forbid when they were previously married, lest they return to their wayward ways.

Explanation: This refers only to a Yevamah. It says "all of them" because it refers to all Yevamos, whether they were Arusos or Nesu'os, whether now they want to do Yibum or marry l'Shuk if they did Chalitzah within three months;

All of them must wait three months.

Explanation: This is not precise. She must wait three days for the semen to be absorbed. (Pregnancy can start up to three days after Bi'ah.)

Explanation #1 (R. Shimshon, grandfather of Rashba): One may marry a divorcee who is nursing, for she is not obligated to nurse;

It says in Kesuvos (59b) that if she was divorced, he cannot force her.

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): According to the Hava Amina that it is forbidden lest the fetus became a Sandal (flattened), or crushed during Bi'ah, there was no difference between a widow and divorcee;

The same applies to this reason (she must nurse the baby). The retraction was only regarding the reason.

Rebuttal #2: Also a widow, if she said "I will not be fed, and I will not work [for the orphans]", or she claimed her Kesuvah [and thereby forfeited her right to be fed], she is not obligated [to nurse].

Support: Also the She'altos of Rav Achai rules that there is no difference between a divorcee and a widow.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Eruvin 47a): Even Arusos he permits only to become engaged, but not Nisu'in. R. Yosi decrees to forbid an Arusah due to a Nesu'ah.

Rebuttal #1: This is unreasonable. If the text of the Beraisa of Redufah (below) says "R. Yosi permits to become engaged and have Nisu'in immediately", R. Yosi contradicts himself;

Here he decrees even an Arusah due to a Nesu'ah. All the more so he should decree a Nesu'ah Redufah due to a Nesu'ah who is not Redufah!

Rebuttal #1 (cont.): And even if the text of the Beraisa of Redufah says "R. Yehudah", it is difficult;

How do we prove in Eruvin (47a) and [our] Gemara that an individual argues with him, from the Beraisa of Redufah, and the first Tana of our Mishnah is R. Meir?

Perhaps R. Meir of Redufah holds like R. Yehudah of our Mishnah, and permits only to become engaged, but not Nisu'in;

R. Meir said "they must within three months" before Nisu'in, but Eirusin is permitted immediately!

Suggestion: [We cannot say so because] it taught Stam "they must wait" (i.e. even to become engaged).

Rejection: Also above (35a), regarding a convert, captive, raped or enticed woman, R. Yehudah says Stam "they must wait";

You must say that this is only regarding Nisu'in, for here R. Yehudah permits even a Nesu'ah to become engaged!

Rebuttal #2: What is the proof in the Gemara that R. Yochanan retracted, from the Beraisa (below) of Kerem [b'Yavneh], which says that all must wait three months? Perhaps this is only for Nisu'in, but Eirusin is permitted [immediately]!

Explanation #2: Rather, Rashi's Perush here is correct. R. Yosi permits also an Arusah to have Nisu'in. He argues with R. Yehoshua only about Avelus.

Proof (Rashi here): We know that R. Yosi is more lenient about Havchanah than R. Yehudah (above, 35a).

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. Perhaps he is lenient about a convert and a raped woman, because she turns over to avoid pregnancy, like we said above (35a);

However, he decrees an Arusah due to a Nesu'ah!

Support (for Explanation #2): From the Beraisa of Redufah we can deduce, if the text says R. Yosi, that he does not decree even a Nesu'ah Redufah due to a Nesu'ah who is not Redufah. All the more so he does not decree an Arusah due to a Nesu'ah!

Implied question: Why did R. Yochanan rule like R. Yosi, and not like R. Yehudah, since both [Tana'im] agree [about Havchanah]?

Answer #1: He comes to rules like R. Yosi also regarding Avelus.

Answer #2: He mentioned R. Yosi because Nimuko Imo (he has great reasons for his laws), like Rashi said.

Question: When the Gemara changes the text [of the Beraisa of Redufah] to says "R. Yosi says, all women may have Nisu'in", it asks "is R. Yosi not concerned for Havchanah"?!

Why is this difficult? We should say that "all women" refers only to Arusos, but not to Nesu'os!

Also initially (before we changed the text) "all" was not precise. It referred only to Nesu'os, for Arusos are permitted even Nisu'in!

Answer: These are different. Now, "all" is precise. It refers both to Arusos and Nesu'os. However, the inference, that they may only become engaged, but not have Nisu'in, does not apply all women. It is only for Nesu'os;

However, the simple meaning of the Mishnah [which permits Eirusin] applies to all women.

Question (R. Tam): Below, a Beraisa says "all of them may not have Nisu'in until three months." This connotes even Arusos, just like "all women"!

It is difficult to distinguish between "all of them" and "all women"!

Answer (R. Tam): The text of the Beraisa of Redufah says "R. Yosi permits to become engaged". The text does not say "to have Nisu'in";

R. Yosi decrees an Arusah due to a Nesu'ah.

Rebuttal #1: It is difficult to erase the text of all Seforim, which say "have Nisu'in."

Rebuttal #2: Also, if [he permits only] to become engaged, even a Nesu'ah is permitted!

Assertion: The text does not say "R. Yehudah", for in Eruvin (46b) R. Yakov bar Idi said in the name of R. Yochanan that when R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah;

When R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue, the Halachah follows R. Yosi, and there is no need to say that when R. Meir and R. Yosi argue, the Halachah follows R. Yosi.

The Gemara derives that these general rules are wrong, since R. Yochanan needed to rule like R. Yosi [here], even though an individual argues with him.

If the text said "R. Yehudah", [even if the rule is true] R. Yochanan surely needed to rule like R. Yehudah [here], to show that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi, who argues with him!

Implied question: We say in Beitzah (2a) that regarding [Muktzeh on] Shabbos, the Stam Tana is like R. Shimon, for the Mishnah says "we may cut gourds..."

R. Yehudah argues in the Seifa, and says "if it was not a Nevelah from Erev Shabbos..."! (Since the Stam is followed by a Machlokes, the Halachah need not follow the Stam!)

Answer: Even though it is not considered a totally Stam Mishnah, it is considered a majority against an individual.

Question - Citation (Shabbos 81b) Question: Does R. Yochanan really forbid Davar she'Eino Miskaven (something one does not intend for)?

Citation (cont.): R. Yochanan taught that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah, and a Stam Mishnah says that a Nazir may smooth his hair and separate the hairs [even though he might pull out hairs], but he may not comb his hair.

Why is this difficult? It is a Stam Mishnah in Nazir (42a), and an argument in Beitzah (23a) regarding combing animals with thin and fine combs;

In two different Masechtos, we say (Avodah Zarah 7a) that we do not know the order (which was taught first. Perhaps the argument was taught last!)

Suggestion: R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah, even if the Stam is followed by a Machlokes.

Rejection: We explicitly say here according to R. Yochanan "it is a Stam followed by a Machlokes" [so the Halachah need not follow the Stam]!

Answer: Surely, R. Yochanan agrees that when a Stam is followed by a Machlokes the Halachah [need] not follow the Stam. However, in two Masechtos, R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows the Stam.

He holds that we should presume that it is a Machlokes followed by a Stam, and not a Stam is followed by a Machlokes;

We should not say that Rebbi [taught an argument to show that he] retracted from his ruling [in the Stam], unless we explicitly see so.

However, other Amora'im hold that in two Masechtos, we do not know the order of the Mishnah, so the Halachah [need] not follow the Stam.

Question: In Eruvin (92a), R. Yochanan rules like R. Shimon, whether or not they made an Eruv;

The Gemara asks that R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah, and brings a Stam Mishnah in Eruvin (76). It is a Stam followed by a Machlokes!

Answer (R. Aharon Kohen): The primary question against R. Yochanan is only that he did not decree when they made an Eruv. This matter is a Machlokes followed by a Stam;

It is a Machlokes regarding three Chatzeros in Eruvin (45b), and a Stam in Eruvin (76b). On 92a, they do not argue about a decree.

Question: In Avodah Zarah (21a), regarding renting houses, Shmuel rules like R. Yosi, even though there is a Stam Mishnah afterwards like R. Meir! (Aruch l'Ner - some Amora'im hold that R. Yochanan never said that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah. All the more so we need not say that Shmuel says so!)