Explanation: Rebbi does not argue with the verse! Rather, there R. Shimon ben Gamliel's words are fulfilled. It is Muchzak only after three times.

Inference: She collects a Kesuvah from the second.

Support: Also below, we ask "if she married a third and did not have children from him, may the first ones demand from her [to return the Kesuvah that she collected from them]?" This implies that that [also] the second paid her a Kesuvah.

Question (Ri): Why does she get a Kesuvah from the second? Since he forbids her to marry a third man [unless he already has children], this shows that he holds that two times makes a Chazakah!

Suggestion: She gets a Kesuvah because she says to him "only now (after I married you) I became weak." His field was flooded. (His Mazel caused this, so he suffers the loss.)

Rejection: If so, what was the question "if she married a third... Can the first two say 'this reveals that you caused [that we had no children]'? Or, can she say 'only now I became weak'?

Even though she did not marry a third (i.e. even before this), she received a Kesuvah from the second only because she can say 'only now I became weak'!

Answer (Ri): Rebbi agrees that regarding money, it is not a Chazakah until three times, like we find regarding Shor ha'Mu'ad. He does not argue about Shor ha'Mu'ad, like I explained above.

Question: Here, regarding Isur (the third man's Chiyuv of Pru u'Rvu), we do not rely on the majority of women who are fertile, because the Chazakah was weakened through a Chazakah based on two occurrences;

Regarding money, we rely on this majority, even though it was weakened through two occurrences;

Normally, we say oppositely! We rely on the majority regarding Isur, but regarding money we do not rely on it!

Assertion: It seems that this is only if she delayed 10 years with the third, similar to the case below of "she married a third, and had no children from him."

Explanation: This is because regarding money, she is not established to be barren until three times.

Question: Also from the third she should not lose a Kesuvah. She can say to him "now I became weak", like she said to the first and second!

Answer: The claim "now I became weak" does not help to collect. It helps only to avoid returning what she collected from the first two.

Question: If she delayed with him 10 years, how can it say below regarding if she married a fourth and had children from him "or perhaps he can say 'I did not divorce you with intent for this' (that she is fertile)"?

Even if she is fertile, he must divorce her, since he did not merit to have children from her!

Answer (Ri): She leaves immediately without a Kesuvah.

Suggestion: This is a Kenas, like Sheniyos, because she married b'Isur.

Rejection: Below, we ask, if she married a fourth and had children from him, may she claim a Kesuvah from the third? If it is a Kenas, how can she claim from the third?! (Even if she is fertile, we fined her!)

Explanation (Ri): Rather, the case is, the third did not know [that she was childless from two husbands]. She leaves without a Kesuvah because it is a Mekach Ta'os;

Even so, when she has children from the fourth, [perhaps] she can claim from the third, for this reveals that it was not a Mekach Ta'os.

Support: The Ri found like this in Halachos of Rav Yehudai Gaon, that the case is, he (the third) did not know. However, if he knew, she has a Kesuvah.

Implied question: The Tosefta says that if she married one who has no children, she leaves without a Kesuvah, for her Nisu'in is Minus (heresy).

Answer: It seems that the scribes erred, and wrote Minus in place of Ta'os. Minus does not apply here at all.

Question - Citation (Gitin 46b - Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one divorces his wife due to Ailonis, he may not return her...

Citation (cont.): If she married another and had children, and she demands a Kesuvah [from the first], R. Yehudah says "he tells her, your silence is better than your speech!"

We should ask also there, if she is quiet, are we quiet?! (The Get was Batel!)

Answer: There, since R. Yehudah enacted that he may not remarry her, there is no concern for ruin. (He decided absolute to divorce her);

According to Rabanan, even though he may remarry her [if she did not marry someone else], we are not concerned for ruin. Since he was not concerned to check well for Simanim of Ailonis, he resolved to divorce in any case. Therefore, we are quiet;

When she demands a Kesuvah, he can say "I did not divorce you with intent to pay a Kesuvah!"

Distinction: However, here there is no enactment not to remarry her. We ask properly "why are we quiet?!"

Even Rabanan, who are not concerned there for ruin, this is only regarding a Safek Ailonis. Since he was not concerned to check well, he resolved to divorce in any case;

However, here he cannot check. The case proves that he divorces her due to [lack of] children, for she already married two, and she did not have children from them, so there is ruin.

This is why we ask according to everyone "are we quiet?!"

Support: In Gitin, it connotes that he can ruin her only if he said that he divorces her due to ill repute, a vow or Ailonis;

Here, even if he did not say that he divorces her due to barrenness, he can ruin her, like I explained.

Explanation: The Gemara answers that here ruin does not apply, for we say that now she healed. When he divorced her, she was not proper [to bear children];

However, regarding ill repute, a vow or Ailonis, there is ruin, when it becomes revealed that the ill repute was false, and she was not an Ailonis also from the beginning, for if she was, she would never heal.

Also a vow, since he can annul it, it is as if there was no vow.

Question: In Nidah (12b), it says about a woman without a Veses, [one who divorces her] may not remarry her, even if she gets fixed (gets a Veses), due to ruin.

Now (based on Tosfos' answer), he cannot ruin her, for we say that now she became healthy, like we say now!

Answer #1 (Ri): There is different. No cure helps so much for barrenness. Therefore, when he divorced her, she was not proper to bear children, for it is not common that she be cured. He absolutely divorced her;

It is common that one who has no Veses is cured of this. He did not absolutely divorce her. He will say "had I known that a potion helps for her, I would not have divorced her."

Answer #2 (R. Shlomo of Daryush): There, we are concerned lest she establish a Veses like she began to establish shortly before divorce. (E.g. she last became Nidah on the fifth of the month, and also every month after divorce she becomes Nidah on the fifth.)

Then, we cannot say that she became cured only now, for it is revealed retroactively that she was cured while still married.

Question: What is the case?

Answer #1: She delayed 10 years with him.

Rejection: If so, why do we need the reason that he does not shoot like an arrow? Even if he shoots like an arrow, he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah, since he did not merit to have children from her!

Answer #2: He did not delay [10 years].

Question: Perhaps she [lies, for] she desires another man, like Mishnah Acharonah in Nedarim (90b);

Citation (90b - Mishnah): At first, they used to say that three women leave and receive a Kesuvah. [One of them is] one who says "Shamayim is between us", i.e. it is clear in front of Shamayim that he does not shoot like an arrow. The Gemara connotes like this.

They retracted to say [otherwise], lest a woman desire another man and ruin [her marriage to] her husband. Rather, if she says "Shamayim is between us", they [resolve this] through request;

Both of them request mercy. Alternatively, R. Chananel explained that they make a meal and appease [each other].

Suggestion: There [is different, for] she does not come due to a claim. Here, she comes due to a claim!

Rejection #1: In any case, we should be concerned [here] lest she desires another man.

Rejection #2: There, if she does not come due to a claim, what does she want from him?

Also, according to Mishnah Rishonah, why did they say Yotzi v'Yiten Kesuvah?

Implied question: In the case at the end of our Sugya, we force when she comes due to a claim. Why are we not concerned lest she desires another man?

Answer: We can establish it when it is known that he is sterile, or she delayed 10 years with him without children, and he has children from another wife;

If she were not coming due to a claim, we would not force due to Pru u'Rvu, since he has children.

Suggestion: The case here is when she delayed 10 years with him, and he has children, and she comes due to a claim!

Rejection: If so, even if he shoots like an arrow, we would force him, since he did not merit to have children from her.

Defense: However, we can resolve this a little. Since he has children, we should not attribute the Ones to him. Rather, we should say that she did not merit, like we said above;

Therefore, we need the reason that he [does not] shoot like an arrow.

Implied question: He has children from another wife! (Surely, he shoots like an arrow!)

Answer: Perhaps afterwards he was impaired. We should believe her, for the matter indicates [like she says], for she delayed 10 years and did not give birth.

Implied question: Why did she [wait 10 years, and] not say immediately [that he does not shoot like an arrow]?

Answer: It is because until 10 years, we would not be concerned for her words. We would assume that she desires another man.

Answer #3: We can establish it when he did not delay with her 10 years, and she comes due to a claim;

Since she has a proper claim, they did not want to make her lose, we leave the law like Mishnah Rishonah; they were not concerned lest she desires another man.

The case in Nedarim is when she does not come due to a claim;

In any case, according to Mishnah Rishonah, Yotzi v'Yiten Kesuvah, for perhaps she does not enjoy relations so much when he does not shoot like an arrow.

Alternatively, she claims that she wants a commemoration, for one without children is considered like a Mes.

Answer #4 (Rivam): Here we discuss one who married a third husband. We said that she leaves without a Kesuvah;

The Chidush is that if she said that he does not shoot like an arrow, she is believed, and she does not lose her Kesuvah from him. She is proper for him, since he cannot father children.

Question #1 (Ri): The words connote that he says that it (lack of children) is due to her, and she says that it is due to him. Because they were together a long time without children, they come to Beis Din.

Question #2: Why aren't we concerned lest she claims this and lies, for the sake of the Kesuvah?

Answer #5 (R. Shmuel b'Ribi Chayim): The case is, she delayed with her third husband 10 years. This is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that Chazakah is established after three times;

The conclusion of our Sugya is like him, like it says "he says that she miscarried twice, and she says that she miscarried three times."

Support: This explains "he says that it is due to her", for now she is established through three times, and she should lose her Kesuvah. She says that it is due to him. We conclude that she is believed.

Pesak: If she claims that he cannot have Bi'ah, our Rebbeyim ruled that she is believed even according to Mishnah Acharonah;

Only when she claims that he does not shoot like an arrow, we are concerned lest she lies, for her husband does not know that she lies, like it says in Nedarim (91a);

However, a matter that he would know if she lies, she is believed from Rav Hamnuna's law (we believe a woman who tells her husband "you divorced me"), for a woman cannot be brazen in front of her husband.

Implied question: Hash-m said Pru u'Rvu to Adam ha'Rishon!

Answer: That was a mere Berachah. It was not a Mitzvah.

Inference: If she were commanded, we would understand why she receives a Kesuvah.

Question: If she were commanded, she could be punished through inability to fulfill Pru u'Rvu. We should say that she did not merit! This is clear from above.

Answer (Rivam): Here, it is known that he is sterile.

Question: Why do we ask "why should she get a Kesuvah?", and not "why must he divorce her?"

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): Whenever we force due to her, she receives only [the primary Kesuvah of] 100 or 200 Zuz (if she was a Be'ulah or Besulah, respectively, when she married);

She does not receive Tosefes (what he voluntarily added). He did not add with intent that he will be forced to divorce her.

Source: He infers from Kesuvos (54b). It says that Tenai (stipulations of the) Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah. This is relevant for Moredes (one who rebels against her husband)...

It did not say that this is relevant for one who comes due to a claim and similar cases [in which we force him to divorce].

Implied question: Why did it not say that this is relevant for one who delayed 10 years? She gets also Tosefes. She is not worse than an Ailonis, whom we say receives Tosefes (Kesuvos 101a)!

Answer: It is obvious. Since we do not force him due to her [she receives even Tosefes]. What can she [do] if Beis Din forces him due to [his Mitzvah of] Pru u'Rvu?

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Tenai Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah in every way.

Implied question: Why do Mema'enes and her "colleagues" (other cases taught with Mema'enes) receive Tosefes, even though they do not receive the primary Kesuvah?

Answer: It is revealed that she was never Mekudeshes.

Rebuttal: This cannot be! Regarding a claim "I paid", Tenai Kesuvah are not like the Kesuvah!

If he claims "I paid the Kesuvah", his words have no effect. Regarding Tosefes, he is believed to say that he paid. This is clear from the episode with Shabtai, the son of R. Merinus!

Answer: We can say that the Chasan himself did not add, rather, his father Shabtai. This is not considered like a regular Tosefes. This is not the place to elaborate.

Support: I found a Teshuvah of Ritzva about a woman who claimed that her husband cannot have Bi'ah, and he claimed that he can, just she kicks and causes that he cannot have Bi'ah;

We do not say that she is believed due to Rav Hamnuna's law, since she was claiming the Kesuvah.

When her husband admits that he cannot have Bi'ah, he ruled that he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah, even if she does not come due to a claim, since he cannot fulfill Onah at all.

She receives only 100 or 200, but not Tosefes, for one who entered the Chupah but did not have Bi'ah, the Gemara (Kesuvos 56a) did not resolve [whether or not she receives Tosefes].

Perhaps he added only on condition that there will be Chivas (dearness of) Bi'ah. (Here also, he did not have Bi'ah with her!)

According to Rav Hai Gaon, who says that regarding every unresolved question, we divide, here we divide. (She gets half the Tosefes.)

Distinction: However, he returns the entire dowry she entered to him, what is known that know that she brought to him.

However, this that they write a big dowry for the Kalah (more than she really entered) seems to him (Ritvza) like Tosefes.

Distinction: However, if the husband can have Kishuy, and there is at least entrance of the crown, but he does not have strength for full Bi'ah, it seems that there is Tosefes, for there is Chivas Bi'ah through entrance of the crown.

If he cannot have Bi'ah because her womb is narrow, he wrote that if he waited three years, he should wait one more year.

Even regarding [inability to have] Kishuy, he wrote that he should not rush to destroy his house (divorce her), for Hash-m has much mercy.

Based on the reason that R. Chananel wrote why there is no Tosefes when she comes due to a claim, because he did not write [Tosefes] with intent that he will be forced to divorce her, this does not apply one who cannot have Bi'ah;

It is known that from the beginning, she married him for this.

Note: Perhaps Tosfos means that all know that a woman marries in order to have proper Bi'ah, and one who cannot do so will need to divorce her.