Today’s daf is dedicated for Yom HaShoah in memory of all those who died in the Holocaust. Today's daf is sponsored by Lenore Davis in honor of her parents, Rabbi Ruby Davis ztl and Susan Davis. "They prioritized torah learning in our home. With this daf, I complete Shas!"  Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari on the 12th yahrzeit of her father, Ivor Rhodes (Yisrael ben Meir ve-Sara). "Dad was the quiet, undemonstrative member of the family. He was hard-working, caring, generous and honest to a fault--a true gentleman... with a wicked sense of humor and a lifelong addiction to puns. Today I pledge to make as many terrible puns as I can in his honor."  The Mishna stated that if one performed maamar and then had intercourse with his yevama, that is the mitzvah. What does it mean "that is the mitzva"? Does it show the Mishna supports Rav Yehuda's statement that this is the ideal way to perform the mitzvah? If not, how can that sentence be explained? Rav Yehuda also said that if one had intercourse and then performed maamar, it would also be effective. But doesn't one receive lashes if one skips maamar and goes straight to intercourse with the yevama? Yes, but the lashes are rabbinic so on a Torah level it would be effective. Rav would give lashes to men who betrothed through intercourse or betrothed on the street or without a rearrangement of the families or who canceled a get or gave a get with a declaration that the giving of the get was under duress, or one who acted brazenly to a messenger of the court, or didn't come to the court after 30 days to repeal an ex-communication, or lives in his father-in-law's house (for fear something may transpire between him and his mother-in-law. Nehardea had a different version of when Rav would give lashes. What would the ketuba of a yibum marriage include? If a get is written incorrectly (it says she is divorced from him and not permitted to any other man - which is normally not an effective get), and was given to a yevama, would it be effective to forbid her to his relatives and also forbid him and his brothers from performing yibum with her? A similar question is asked with regard to a case of a get with a stipulation given before marriage "When I marry you, this will be your get." What if a get is given specifically to remove the zika or only the maamar - is it effective or not? Rav establishes that the Mishna goes according to Rabbi Akiva who holds that in negative prohibitions, marriage is not effective. A question is raised against this from a different statement of Rabbi Akiva. That difficulty is resolved and a braita is brought to support Rav. If one performed chalitza and then betrothed her, Rabbi Akiva holds the betrothal is ineffective, the rabbis hold it is effective and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it depends on whether he betrothed her for the purposes of marriage or yibum, as betrothal for purposes of yibum is effective only because of the zika, which in this case no longer exists. Rav Yosef compares Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's position to a case of one who hoes the property of a convert who died (ownerless property) thinking it was his own. Abaye rejects the comparison and suggests a comparison to a different case which is actually effective, and therefore reinterprets Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's position.