The entire discussion of machzir gerushato, whether the putative wife or her tzara, is based on the premise that upon taking her back after divorce or widowhood from H2, there can be kiddushin, ie. that a second kiddushin will "chal". A strict reading of the pasuk "lo yuchal" would indicate that he can't take her back, not that he's prohibited; as such, one could read this as a situation where there is no kiddushin in the "remarraige" to H1, and, as such, there is certainly neither yibbum nor chalitza for the wife in question, but that her "tzarah" would be subject to yib or chal because she does not have the subject woman as a tzarah, and, as such, is judged solely on her own merit and without regard to the other woman.
I assume this issue is somehow addressed somewhere in shas; i would appreciate if you could point me in the right direction
charles jackson, new york, ny
The Pasuk states "Lo Yuchal l'Shalchah Kol Yamav" -- "he cannot send her away all of his days" (Devarim 22:29). One understanding in the Gemara in Temurah (5a) is that the last part of the Pasuk, "Kol Yamav" -- "all of his days," indicates that he is always supposed to remarry her. If it would have just said "Lo Yuchal l'Shalchah," it is possible that you would be correct (see Gemara ibid.). [A similar position (to your suggestion regarding Machzir Gerushaso) is indeed taken by Rav (92b) regarding Shomeres Yavam. Rav holds that even though the prohibition of Shomeres Yavam is only a Lav, the Pasuk states "Lo Sihyeh..l'Ish Zar" (Devarim 25:5) to teach us that she has no Kidushin ("Havayah") to anyone else.]
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose