Implied question: A Chazakah (she is destined to be permitted l'Shuk when her husband dies) supports the majority [result of pregnancy, which is not Zokek l'Yibum, i.e.] females and miscarriages! (Why must she be concerned for the minority?)

Answer: She is concerned, because her Chazakah was weakened, since her mother-in-law left pregnant.

Explanation: We learn from the extra word "she, her Tzarah." "She, her Tzarah" connotes that the Tzarah herself is pregnant. It does not connote another Tzarah, [to be concerned] if perhaps he married.

Question: A Mishnah above (118b) says that [if she says] "I had a son overseas. My husband died, and then my son" [she is not believed to permit herself l'Shuk];

She should be believed through a Migo. She could have said that her son is still alive. We would we rely on the majority of women who get pregnant and give birth!

Answer: The case is, two witnesses say that both of them died, so she could not say that her son is still alive.

Question: Why don't we establish it also like Rabanan? Rabanan follow the majority when it does not depend on an action, but not when it depends on an action!

The Gemara answers like this in Bechoros (20a).

Answer #1: Our Gemara is like Rabah, who disagrees with that answer [there].

Answer #2: This is not considered dependent on an action, rather, it comes automatically, for a man [normally] has relations with his wife.

Question #1: How can R. Meir disagree? It says "Acharei Rabim Lehatos"!

Question #2: Where do we find that R. Meir and Rabanan argue about nine stores? We find that they argue only about a Katan and Ketanah!

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara was not precise to say nine stores and Sanhedrin [for they do not argue about these]. Rather, [it should have said] a minority like in Chulin (11a, i.e. a minority of animals are Treifos) and Avodah Zarah (40b, i.e. in a minority of places, images are worshipped).

Explanation: [R. Meir] is concerned for the minority. However, we do not hold like R. Meir.

Implied question: The Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir regarding this, that he is concerned for the minority!

Answer: Even so, we do not hold like him, for it says in Chulin (11b) how can R. Meir eat meat? (He should be concerned for the minority of Tereifos!)

Inference: It is fine that we eat meat.

Question: R. Yochanan rules like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that if one bought a nursing animal from a Nochri, it is exempt from Bechorah...

[This is only] when its child clings to it and nurses from it, for [the mother] would love the child only if it gave birth to it;

However, he does not exempt due to milk, even though most animals do not have milk unless they gave birth.

Inference: We are concerned for the minority [that have milk even though they never gave birth], even though there is no Chazakah with the minority.

Suggestion: We should establish the animal in the Chazakah that it never gave birth.

Rejection: Just the contrary! We should establish [its first] child in the Chazakah that it is not Kadosh, for it was Chulin in the womb!

Answer: R. Yochanan rules like R. Shimon ben Gamliel only regarding this, that it would love the child only if it gave birth to it.

Note: Seemingly, if R. Yochanan relies on the majority, he would exempt from Bechorah even if he ruled unlike R. Shimon ben Gamliel! The next line of Tosfos addresses this.

This is relevant when we saw that it had milk before it gave birth, for then we cannot exempt due to milk.

Consequence: [Based on this,] it is possible that R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that [normally] milk exempts.

Support #1: Now it is fine that R. Shimon ben Gamliel is not concerned for the minority in Avodah Zarah (40b);

He does not decree other places due to that one place [where images are worshipped], like R. Meir decrees there.

Support #2: Also, R. Shimon ben Gamliel said that all Mitzvos that Kusim are established [to observe, they observe more meticulously than Yisrael]. He is not concerned [for the minority who do not observe them]!

Support #3: Also R. Yochanan ate from what Kusim slaughtered.

Retraction of Supports #2,3: However, we cannot bring a proof from Kusim [that R. Shimon ben Gamliel or R. Yochanan are not concerned for the minority]. Due to one Rasha, we do not establish all of them to be Resha'im!

Support #4: However, in Kidushin (80a), regarding two matters in which Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol (it has no understanding to ask whether or not it became Tamei) and Chachamim made them [as if they have Da'as Lish'ol], it connotes that also R. Yochanan holds like Rabanan of R. Meir. (He agrees that the dough is Tamei, like Chachamim, just he holds that we do not burn it.)

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (39b), R. Yochanan said that [the Mishnah] excludes fish innards and cheese of Beis Onaiki. The Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir (who forbids benefit from them. R. Yochanan rules like a Stam Mishnah!)

Answer: There, it is a Stam followed by a Machlokes (Tana'im argue about this in a subsequent Mishnah (40b), so the Halachah does not necessarily follow the Stam).

Implied question: R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that any baby who survived 30 days is not a Nefel;

Inference: If a baby did not survive 30 days, it is a Safek [Nefel], even if he fell from the roof or a lion ate him (nothing shows that he was ill), in Shabbos (136a);

We hold like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Even though most are not Nefalim [we are concerned for the minority]!

Strengthening of question: Also, there we forbid [slaughtering] an animal within eight days [of birth, due to Safek Nefel]. We do not follow the majority!

Answer #1: There, we are stringent lest people come to be lenient about Ervah [assume that a baby is viable, and exempts his mother from Yibum], and we require her to do Chalitzah when he died within 30 days;

They did not want to rely on the majority to permit her l'Shuk without Chalitzah, lest people say that he yawned and died (which indicates that he was a Nefel) and come to slander and ruin;

Therefore, also regarding Avelus, [his parents] are exempt, lest people come to be lenient about Ervah.

Answer #2: Even without this, we can be lenient there (about Avelus), for we hold that the Halachah [always] follows the lenient opinion regarding Avelus.

Explanation #1: Chachamim forbade also an animal [within eight days]. They decreed about an animal due to people. Without a decree about animals, the decree about people would not endure.

Explanation #2: They forbade a healthy animal [within eight days], lest people come to permit a sick animal, which resembles yawning and dying.

Question: According to R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority, what is the case of Demai (produce of an Am ha'Aretz? Chachamim enacted to tithe it due to Safek);

Since there is a minority of Amei ha'Aretz who do not separate Ma'aser, and also there is Chezkas Tevel (mid'Oraisa, one must be concerned for the minority, and tithe it)!

Answer #1: If R. Meir is not concerned for the minority mid'Oraisa, rather, only mid'Rabanan, even when a Chazakah is with it, this is fine.

Answer #2: We are not concerned for a minority in such a case. If he (someone that we know) is established [not to tithe] is suspected, are all of Yisrael established?!

Implied question: Regarding the Kusim, R. Meir decreed about all of them, due to the minority who were corrupted, like it says in Chulin (6a)!

Answer: The Kusim are different. They are one nation, and they are not careful about Mitzvos like Yisrael

Explanation: Now we are thinking that just like Chazakah l'Shuk helps together with the majority, also Chazakah l'Yibum helps together with the minority of miscarriages.

Observation: There was no need to say so. Even Chazakah were stronger than the majority of women, who get pregnant and give birth, we should be concerned according to R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority;

Note: The Bach changes the text of Tosfos to say that a Chazakah is not as strong as a majority, like our Gemara. R. Simchah of Desvi says that Tosfos' text [of the Gemara] is better than our text.

The Gemara says the truth, that it is no stronger than a majority.

Question: In Kidushin (80a) and Chulin (86a), regarding a child found next to a dough, we join the minority [of children] who do not touch to the Chezkas Taharah [of the dough], and this weakens the majority, and we are Metaher the dough;

Here, we say that [a minority with a Chazakah] is like an even Safek, and we are stringent!

Answer (R. Tam): A child is Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, so the Safek is Tahor, even in Reshus ha'Yachid. Therefore, this weakens the majority.

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): If so, how do we ask from this in Bechoros (20b) against R. Yehoshua, who is concerned for the minority, but here, he is not concerned for the minority!

Here, it is [considered] a miniscule minority. This is why he is not concerned!

Answer (R. Elchanan): When she left pregnant, her Chazakah was weakened, for there is a fetus in her womb. Even so, R. Yehoshua is not concerned. [The Makshan there] considers it [here] like a minority, since the first Tana forbids when she left pregnant.

Question #2 (R. Elchanan): R. Yehoshua says that when she left pregnant, she is concerned, and we are concerned for the minority, even though there is no Chazakah with it;

In the Reisha, regarding a woman whose husband and Tzarah went overseas, we require a Chazakah with the minority!

Answer (R. Elchanan): Surely, he does not require a Chazakah with the minority;

Implied question: Why do we mention in the Reisha a Chazakah with the minority?

Answer: This is only so the Chazakah will not support the majority, for then the minority would be considered a miniscule minority.

Question: Regarding cheese of Beis Onaiki, which R. Meir forbids because most calves of that city are slaughtered for idolatry...

Citation (Avodah Zarah 34b): Why does he say "most [are slaughtered for idolatry]"? Even the minority [is reason to forbid], for R. Meir is concerned for the minority!

What was the question? [If it were only a minority], since most are not slaughtered [for idolatry], and there is a Chazakah, that the milk [in the calf's stomach] has Chezkas Heter, [the minority is considered miniscule, and even R. Meir is not concerned for it]!

Answer: There is different, for after Shechitah, the majority was weakened, like it says here.

Question (Ri): What is the Chidush?

Answer: Perhaps it teaches that we do not forbid one due to the other.

Question (Ri): [If so,] why didn't R. Elazar argue in the previous Perek (117a), regarding "everyone is believed to testify for her, except for her mother-in-law.... A Tzarah and Yevamah are listed [among those not believed]!

And [even] if R. Elazar discusses after the Tzarah married, in any case he should argue about the case "my husband died, and afterwards my mother-in-law died, she may marry, and her mother-in-law is forbidden.

R. Elazar would not forbid, since her daughter-in-law married!

Answer (Ri): These are different. Above, surely the Tzarah or Yevamah comes to testify about the other woman. Even R. Elazar agrees that she is not believed;

However, here each does not intend to testify about the other woman, rather, for herself. Automatically, she is believed about her Tzarah, since they do not intend to testify about the other woman.