Explanation (Ri): The way the Gemara speaks, "Noladim" means those who will be born.

Support #1: In Nedarim (30b), we infer "Noladim connotes those who will be born."

Support #2: In Gitin (13b), we say "if so, if one transferred ownership to Noladim who were not [born] at the time the money was given, will you also say..."

Explanation: She may not do Yibum, for she was forbidden to her husband;

Since she is forbidden to the one to whom she was [initially] permitted (her husband), all the more so she is forbidden to one (the Yavam) to whom she was [initially] forbidden!

Implied question: We could have established it like R. Shimon, e.g. he was born before [his brother] was Mekadesh her!

Answer: The Gemara prefers to establish it like Rabanan, and he was born even after he was Mekadesh her.

Rashi's opinion: This is Rashi's text. He explains that it is because we expound ["Asher Lo Yivneh Es Beis Achiv"] - he builds one house, and not two. A Lav derived from an Aseh is an Aseh.

Question: Since we need the verse for the law itself, that he may not do Yibum to both Yevamos, what is the source that the verse [also] uproots the Isur [of Eshes Ach] from Kares to an Aseh?

Answer (R. Tam): The text says "one of them says that it is a Lav." Also R. Chananel explained like this. When he does Yibum with one, "Lo Yivneh" applies to the Tzarah;

We apply to her "once he did not build, he may not build (marry) her." Similarly, only a Lav forbids the brothers to her, according to R. Yochanan.

The text "later, he or one of the brothers had Bi'ah with her Tzarah" is fine.

However, according to Rashi, the text says "an Aseh". They argue only about the brothers, but all agree that he (the brother who did Chalitzah) has an Isur Aseh.

Observation: She is not literally Asurah, She is exempt even from Chalitzah, like Rashi explained.

Observation: This refers only to a Vadai Sotah (we know that she was Mezanah). A Safek Sotah needs Chalitzah, like we bring below;

"V'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah" refers to one who Vadai had Bi'ah, like we conclude below. However, it does not say Tum'ah regarding Sotah Safek. (Maharam - the Bi'ah is called Tum'ah.)

Question (Mishnah): If she entered with him to a secluded place, she is forbidden to her husband and to Terumah;

We expound (Sotah 28) from the three times it says v'Nitme'ah. One teaches that she is forbidden to her husband, one forbids to the Bo'el [even after she will be widowed or divorced], and one forbids to Terumah!

Answer: The Torah forbids only because it is a Safek lest she had Bi'ah and was defiled. Really, Tum'ah is written only regarding Vadai Bi'ah.

Question: Since Tum'ah is written only regarding Vadai Bi'ah, why is she forbidden to her husband and Terumah?

Answer #1: The Torah made Safek like Vadai, like it says there;

Citation (Sotah 28) Rhetorical question: If she [Vadai] was defiled, why does she drink? If she was not defiled, why does her husband make her drink?

Citation (cont.) Answer: The Torah teaches that the Safek is considered like Vadai [Tamei].

This is why a Safek Sotah requires Chalitzah. The Torah made a Safek like Vadai only to be stringent, but not to be lenient, to exempt her without Chalitzah.

Answer #2: Above (3b), I explained that our Sugya concludes that Rav said that Tum'ah is written regarding her (a Sotah, therefore she exempts her Tzarah, like Arayos), i.e. where there is a Lav;

This is fine, for that Tum'ah is written only regarding one who Vadai had Bi'ah.

Question: Since Rav considers a Vadai Sotah like Ervah, Safek Sotah should be considered like Safek Ervah. If so, why did we ask that she should do Yibum?!

Question: Why don't we ask from the first Tana, who says that the brother of each (her real husband, and the man she mistakenly married) do Chalitzah? According to Rav, Chalitzah is not needed!

Answer: Chalitzah is not difficult. Mid'Oraisa she needs Chalitzah, for she is [only] a Sotah mid'Rabanan;

We ask from R. Shimon only because whatever Chachamim enact, they enact like Torah law, so we should have forbade her to do Yibum.

Question: Perhaps R. Shimon [indeed forbids Yibum; he] said only that b'Di'eved she exempts her Tzarah, but not l'Chatchilah!

Answer #1 (Ri): The first Tana agrees about b'Di'eved. We do not find that they argue about this. (Therefore, they must argue about l'Chatchilah.)

Question: Why didn't [R. Shimon] say that the brother of the first (i.e. her real husband) may do Chalitzah or Yibum, to connote [that this is] l'Chatchilah?

Answer (Ri): R. Shimon teaches another matter along with this, that even though there is a Tzarah who is more appropriate for Yibum, even so, Bi'ah or Chalitzah of [the Sotah mid'Rabanan] exempts her Tzarah l'Chatchilah;

One might have thought that it does not exempt her, for she (the Sotah mid'Rabanan) looks like the latter's wife.

Question: Rav Chisda wants to infer that mid'Oraisa, a Sotah is permitted. We should challenge him from a Mishnah (Sotah 2a, 6a, and brought below) that a Safek Sotah may not do Yibum!

Answer: One might have thought that it teaches that she may not do Yibum, i.e. mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: It is clear there that she is forbidden mid'Oraisa!

Answer #1: We cannot prove anything from the Mishnah itself.

Answer #2 (Rav Yitzchak): We challenge only Rav, for he equates a Sotah to Ervah mid'Oraisa, and exempts even from Chalitzah;

Therefore, for a Sotah mid'Rabanan, we should forbid her to do Yibum.

However, the Mishnah in Sotah says that a Safek Sotah does Chalitzah. It is not difficult if we say that a Sotah mid'Rabanan may even do Yibum.

Answer #2 (to Question (c) - R. Yitzchak): R. Shimon forbids Yibum l'Chatchilah.

Source #1: The Seifa says "the child is not a Mamzer." If Yibum were permitted l'Chatchilah, obviously the child is not a Mamzer!

Source #2: The Yerushalmi says that according to R. Shimon, it is a "Pasul Chalitzah." If she may do Yibum, it is a Kosher Chalitzah!

Explanation: We ask [against Rav] from R. Shimon's words "she exempts her Tzarah." Since he says that a Sotah mid'Oraisa does not do Chalitzah or Yibum, Chalitzah of a Sotah mid'Rabanan should not help to exempt the Tzarah!

Question: Either way you say, her Chalitzah should help!

If she is considered like a full Sotah, also her Tzarah should not need Chalitzah;

If she is not considered like a full Sotah, she properly exempts her Tzarah!

Answer: The Gemara holds that since she resembles a Sotah mid'Oraisa, her Chalitzah is as if nothing happened, so she should not exempt her Tzarah.

Question: How can Rabanan uproot the verse from its simple meaning? It discusses Machazir Gerushaso!

Answer: They hold that it is unreasonable to call marriage of a divorcee "Tum'ah", since the Bi'ah is permitted.

Question: Since there is no Lav forbidding a Safek Sotah, why does it say (Sotah 7a) that if her husband had Bi'ah with her on the way [to take her to drink], he is lashed?

Answer: The verse makes a Safek like Vadai to be stringent, like I explained above.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is written regarding Machazir Gerushaso.

Objection: Obviously it is written regarding Machazir Gerushaso! Rabanan do not argue about this!

Explanation #2 (Rashba): Havayah (Kidushin) and Ishus (marriage) are written regarding it, i.e. v'Hutama'ah - "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon Asher Shilchah Lashuv Lekachtah Lihyos Lo l'Ishah Acharei Asher Hutama'ah";

Observation: This discusses Machazir Gerushaso, and "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" refers to "Lihyos Lo l'Ishah";

Havayah and Ishus do not apply to Sotah, for he never divorced her!

Explanation: We do not ask about her herself, for according to R. Yosi ben Kiper surely she is exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum, for Tum'ah is written regarding her, like Arayos;

Also according to Rabanan, obviously she does Chalitzah, but not Yibum;

Even if you will say that it was uprooted (Acharei Asher Hutama'ah applies only to Sotah, and not to Machazir Gerushaso), she does not do Yibum due to a Kal va'Chomer;

She became forbidden to the one she was permitted to (i.e. her husband). All the more so she becomes (permanently forbidden) to the one she was forbidden to (the Yavam)!

And even if you will say that the verse does not leave its simple meaning, we do not exempt her from Chalitzah, since the verse of Tum'ah is written primarily regarding Sotah, and not regarding Machazir Gerushaso.

This is because it is unreasonable to call marriage of a divorcee "Tum'ah", like I explained above.

Support: Below, we say "she or her Tzarah does Chalitzah." We want to resolve that according to Rabanan, the verse does not leave its simple meaning, and even so, it does not exempt her from Chalitzah, like I explained;

Explanation: Rather, we ask about her Tzarah, according to R. Yosi ben Kiper, whether she is exempt from Chalitzah, or if she may even do Yibum;

According to Rabanan we ask whether [her Tzarah] may do Yibum. [Perhaps] it is obvious to them that the Kal va'Chomer is not strong enough to push off the Tzarah [from Yibum];

Or, she does Chalitzah, but not Yibum, because the verse does not leave its simple meaning.

Explanation: He comes to resolve the first question;

According to the second version, which holds that surely Rabanan hold that it was totally uprooted, [there is no proof, for] we can say that it is like Rabanan.

Implied question: A Pasul Chalitzah (Yibum was forbidden) must be repeated with all of the brothers!

Answer: This is only if he did Chalitzah to the sisters, which does not exempt the Tzaros, or he did Chalitzah to the Yevamah who received a Get;

This does not exempt the Tzarah, for the Zikah was weakened.

In other cases, even though Yibum was forbidden, since the Zikah is complete, she exempts.

Question: How did he "fix up" the Beraisa [unlike its simple reading]?

Even though he means to say "she or her Tzarah", it is fine that it says Hi v'Tzarasah, just like "Chalatz v'Asah Bah Ma'amar [Nasan Get u'Va'al" means that he did Chalitzah, and Ma'amar or Get or Bi'ah - below 50b];

Also, in Nedarim (66b), it says [about a Na'arah Me'orasah] "Aviha v'Ba'alah annul her vows", and it needed to teach in the Seifa "if her father annulled but her and husband did not, or her husband annulled but her father did not, it is not annulled";

If not, we could have said that "Aviha v'Ba'alah" means her father or husband.

Explanation: The question is whether she forbids her to do Yibum;

The Kal va'Chomer does not exempt even her herself from Chalitzah;