Clarification: The Gemara could not answer here that it speaks by Kidushei Safek ...

Reason: Because it speaks where his brother subsequently betrothed her with a P'rutah, an Rav Chisda was coming to invalidate the Kidushin of the first brother, as he says 'You do not have the authority to forbid her on the latter (brother) one' ...

Reason (cont.): And if the first Kidushin was a Safek, then she would require a Get from the first brother, in which she would be forbiddento the second one on account of Gerushas Achiv.

Authentic Text: This is the text according to Rabeinu Tam, and not 'Idis'; and it is the Sofrim who mixed up 'Idis' with 'Uris'.

Source: 'Uris' means the west, as we find in Perek Lo Yachpor (Bava Basra, Daf 25a), in connection with 'Shechinah in the west' - 'What is "Uri'ah"? "Avir Kah (the airspace of Hash-m)".

Refuted Text: And not 'Uri'ah' the east (the air-space that faces the Shechinah)', as Rashi explains.

Proof: And this goes well with the statement of the B'nei Bavel, who declared 'There are witnesses in Uris!' - i.e. in Eretz Yisrael, which is in the west, as the Gemara says 'be'Ma'arva Amri (They say in eretz Yisrael)' ...

Proof (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Chanina, who was from eretz Yisrael, proclaimed 'Her witnesses are be'Estan', and she should be Asur!', meaning in Bavel, which is in the north, since 'Estan' means the north ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Megilah (Daf 28b) 'Torah-study requires clarity like a day of Ist'na' ...

Reason: Since the north-wind stops the rain ...

Proof: As the Pasuk in Iyov (37) writes "Gold comes fro the north", which Yonasan translates as 'From the north the Est'na comes'.

Refuted Explanation #1: One cannot explain that 'We suspect that there may be witnesses' ...

Reason: Because then there would be no limit, since there is always room for suspicion.

Refuted Explanation #2: Nor can we explain that 'There are witnesses who know that it was worth a P'rutah' ...

Reason: Because it is obvious that one would then need to be strict.

Authentic Explanation: The Ri therefore explains that what 'There are witnesses' means is that - there is a distinct rumor that there are witnesses in Eretz Yisrael or overseas.

Explanation (Text) #1: Some texts read ' ... since she makes herself ugly, should we also be lenient by Eishes Ish'?

Explanation #2: Whilst others explain 'If we are lenient by a captive' - that is because even if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, we do not know whther she was defiled, in which case, she is not forbidden min ha'Torah ...

Explanation #2: Should we also be lenient by Eishes Ish where, if there are witnesses that the Kuchla-stone was worth a P'rutah, she is a proper Eishes Ish' - in which case, it would not be right to be lenient regarding her.

Explanation #3: Yet others explain 'If we are lenient by a captive - because it only involves the Isur La'av of Zonah, shall we also be lenient by Eishes Ish, which involves an Isur Misah?'

Refutation: This explanation is not correct however, seeing as sometimes a captive also involves an Isur Misah ...

Case: If he is a Kohen from whom she has a son, who is a Chalal and who then serves on the Mizbe'ach on Shabbos, which is a Chiyuv Misah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks about someone who, after sending his wife a Get, catches up with the Shali'ach and informs him that he is negating the Get ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And we now suspect that the latter will nevertheless hand her over the Get despite the fact that the husband negated it, and that she will use it to remarry.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since it is not logical to say that the Shali'ach will hand her the Get after the husband has negated it. Since when does the Gemara speak about Resha'im?

Introduction to Explanation #2: We therefore need to explain as the Gemara states in Gitin (Daf 32a) - 'At first he would appoint a Beis-Din, in whose presence he would negate the Get; Until Raban Gamliel instituted that they should not do so'.

Explanation #2: Only there is a Machlokes there (on Daf 33a) what the Din will be in the event that the husband does negate it; According to one opinion 'it is negated - and according to him the fear is justified, in that the woman, not aware that it has been negated will go and use it to get married.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But even according to the opinion there that holds that 'If he negates it, it is not negated', nevertheless, it will stigmatize the Get (See Masores ha'Shas).

Current Minhag: Nowadays, the Chasanim rely on this to live with their mothers-in-law

Current Minhag (cont.): Because even according to the opinion earlier, that suspects, the reason that they are len ient nowadays is due to the benefit of living there rent-free ...

Reason: Proof enough that they are not living there because of their mother's-in-law per se, but because of the other benefits that they receive.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam attributes the P;ritzus to the fact that one requires either witnesses of the actual Bi'ah or of the seclusion, and designating witnesses for that is immodest.)

Question: The Gemara in Perek Raban Gamliel ( Yevamos, Daf 52a) states 'The Mitzvah of Yibum is to be Mekadesh and then to be Bo'el; if one makes Be'ilah without being Mekadesh, receives Malkos, mi'de'Rabbanan, like Rav' ...

Question: And there it has nothing to do with the witnessess, seeing as mi'd'Oraysa, a Yevamah can only be acquired with Bi'ah?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is immodest to make the initial Kinyan with Bi'ah, similar to 'Someone who betroths without a Shiduch'

Clarifying Text: This is the correct text, without the words 'whether she agrees or not' ...

Proof: As the Gemara says later (on Daf 13a) 'Let it say "Mekudeshes' S'tam, like it said there?'