Citation: In Kesuvos (77a), Amora'im argue about one who married a woman and delayed 10 years [without children], whether or not we force him to divorce her.

Question: According to the opinion that we do not force, our Beraisa is difficult! It says Yotzi, which connotes coercion, like it connotes there!

Citation (77a - Rav): If one says I will not feed [my wife], and not give money for her [other] needs, Yotzi and he gives a Kesuvah;

Citation (cont. - Shmuel): Rather than forcing him to divorce, force him to feed her!

Answer: It seems that Yotzi connotes coercion only when he does improperly to his wife;

However, here he does (divorces) only because he may not neglect Pru u'Rvu, so it does not connote coercion.

All the cases there (77a) in which the Mishnah says "Yotzi and he pays a Kesuvah" are with coercion, since he does improperly to her.

Support: Also above (39a), we say that when he does not want to do Yibum or Chalitzah, we return to the oldest to force him, since he does improperly to her, since he does not want to do Yibum, and not exempt her.

Assertion: It seems that we force him with sticks. It is not merely verbally, for it says (77a) "a slave is not disciplined through words."

Question: The Gemara asks in Kesuvos (77a), according to the opinion that we force one who married and delayed 10 years without children, it should be taught with those [with blemishes or a foul smell] whom we force to divorce;

We can ask also about those taught in Kesuvos (70a, 71a, who were Madir their wives, i.e. forbade them through vows), and in Kesuvos (48a), one who says "I want [to have Bi'ah with her] only when I am in my garment, and she is in her garment" Yotzi v'Yiten Kesuvah;

We can ask also about below (65a). R. Ami said that one who marries a wife in addition to his current wife, Yotzi v'Yiten Kesuvah!

Answer: It did not teach these, because the coercion is due to the husband's offense. It teaches only those that come automatically, e.g. a leper and Pulipus (a bad smell from the nose or mouth).

Question: It teaches Mekametz (one who gathers dung, or a tanner), Metzaref (one who smelts copper, or quarries it) and a (large-scale) tanner, even though they adopted these professions after Nisu'in! (It is his offense!)

Answer: These do not intend to anger or pain her.

Question: It should teach one who has a claim [that her husband is impotent, and she needs children for her old age]. We say below (65a) that we force him to divorce her, even though he is blameless. What can he do if he is sterile?!

Answer: It seems that the Seifa taught "whether these were before they married, or after. R. Meir said about all of them, she can say 'I thought I could bear him...'"

Here it is not relevant to say 'I thought I could bear...' This answers most of the [above] questions.

The Yerushalmi's opinion: The Yerushalmi connotes that we do not force those in the Mishnah (77a).

In Kesuvos (63b), R. Chananel brought the Yerushalmi on the Mishnah that says that a Get coerced through Yisrael is Kosher, and through Nochrim is Pasul;

In the Yerushalmi, Shmuel taught that it is Pasul, and it disqualifies to Kehunah. He also taught that we force only Pesulos.

The Yerushalmi challenges him from the Mishnah of one who was Madir his wife... and answered "we heard that he divorces. Did we hear that we force him?!"

Inference: We force only where it was taught that we force him.

However, where Rabanan said Yotzi, and did not specify that we force, we tell him "Chachamim obligated you to divorce." If he does not divorce, one may call him a transgressor, but we do not force him with sticks.

R. Chananel's text: His text is like the opinion that one who says I will not feed her, and not supply her [other] needs, Yotzi and he pays a Kesuvah.

Implied question: Above (39a), we return to the oldest to force him!

Answer: We force him because he withholds from her all matters of marriage, both relations and food;

However, [if he withholds from her] only relations, or only food, we do not force him.

Implied question: In the episode with the Nasi's house in Kisari below (65b), R. Yochanan said Yotzi v'Yiten Kesuvah. It connotes there that we force him!

Answer: This does not prove that wherever it says Yotzi, we force. That was not a teaching. Rather, when the case came in front of him, he commanded that he divorce, and it connotes that he told them to force him;

Wherever it does not say explicitly that we force, we do not force, lest it be an improperly coerced Get through Yisrael, which is Pasul.

Assertion: It seems that regarding all those [Ba'alei Mumim] about whom it says (Kesuvos 77a) we force him to divorce, he pays a Kesuvah, even though he divorces b'Al Korcho.

Support #1: We ask there that we should teach with them (those we force to divorce) one who delayed 10 years [with his wife without children], and it answered that here (Ba'alei Mumim) he pays a Kesuvah.

Support #2: It connotes there that we would have taught with them a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a divorcee or Chalitzah to a Kohen Hedyot, if not that it does not teach when the Torah obligates divorce;

These women receive a Kesuvah, like it says below (85a)!

One who has a claim [that her husband is impotent] we say below (85a) that she gets a Kesuvah, even though we force him to divorce her.

Implied question: R. Gershom wrote in a Teshuvah that a leper does not pay a Kesuvah. He derived this because it was taught regarding a tanner who married a woman. She can say "I thought that I can bear him, but now I cannot";

If we forced him to pay a Kesuvah, women would scheme and marry him and say so, in order to receive a Kesuvah immediately!

Answer: Perhaps she has no Kesuvah because she can scheme, but others have a Kesuvah.

Note: The Mordechai here (48) says in the name of the Ri "likewise, whenever she did improperly, she has no Kesuvah, but when she did not do improperly, she has a Kesuvah.

Support: A Tosefta (Kesuvos 7:11) explicitly teaches that he (a man with a bad smell) divorces and pays a Kesuvah.

Explanation: It is not an absolute proof, for we cannot learn from there that he must divorce his wife, even if it is impossible [to marry another] without divorce [for Avraham did not divorce Sarah];

Just the contrary! We should learn from there that even if you will say that normally, who is married and marries a second wife must divorce [his first wife] and pay a Kesuvah, when he delayed with her 10 years without children, he may marry a Tzarah [without divorcing], like Avraham did!

Perhaps Hash-m will have mercy, and he will merit children from her (his first wife), just like Avraham eventually merited from Sarah.

Question: Also Yitzchak did not wait more than 10 years, based on what I explained that Rivkah was only three when he married her. Until she was 12, it was not proper for her to give birth!

Note: He waited 11 years after she was 12! Perhaps Yitzchak was 40 and a half when he married, he waited 9 years until she was 12, and 10 years later she became pregnant, so he was 60 when she gave birth.

Answer #1: Midrashim argue about this, like I explained above (61b. Rava holds that she was 14 when she married.)

Answer #2: It is clear from Sanhedrin (69b) that earlier generations were able to give birth much before this time (12 years).

Explanation: This is like we say below, that Avraham and Sarah were Tumtumim.

Implied question: Presumably, Avraham was already torn (i.e. the flesh covering his genitals) when he married Sarah [so he could father children]!

Answer #1: Here we ask according to R. Yehudah, who says below (81a) that a Tumtum who was torn cannot father children.

Answer #2: Even according to Rabanan who argue with R. Yehudah, it is not common that he father children.

Implied question: This verse is in Tefilas Moshe! (Why do we say that lives shortened in the days of David?)

Answer: Presumably, David said it (Aruch l'Ner - this verse), for we find that he lived this amount, but Moshe lived longer. David didn't know how long he will live! Presumably, also Moshe did not know earlier - perhaps he wrote it earlier! Would have changed it, just due to himself?

Explanation (Ri): He asked whether the Halachah follows Rebbi or R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and he answered that the Halachah follows both of them.

Question (R. Moshe): In Sanhedrin (81b), we establish this even like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Aveiros are Machazik (establish his nature that he will sin again. The first two times he is lashed. The third time he is given Kipah - we lock him in a cell and help cause him to die.)

Answer #1 (Ri): Even though there is a Tana there who holds that Aveiros are Machazik, the words of the Mishnah connote to Rav Yosef that the Tana holds that lashes are Machazik;

It seems difficult to him (Rav Yosef) to say that it says "one who was lashed and [lashed] again" only to teach that we discuss Aveiros for which one is lashed.

Answer #2: Even if you will say that he holds that Aveiros are Machazik, perhaps Rav Yosef holds that one must be warned before he gets Kipah.