Explanation (Ri): We must say that pregnancy with viable children is not common without Simanim. However, sometimes it happens, for the Gemara asks "we should check"!

Support #1: Also, it asks "according to the opinion that we are not concerned, how can we answer?"

If there are never children without Simanim, they definitely fell out!

Support #2: Also, the words "we are concerned" connote that it is a mere concern, but not that they Vadai fell out;

Because it is not common to have pregnancy without Simanim, we do not find a mother-in-law doing Mi'un, for we are concerned for Simanim, like we conclude.

Rabah bar Livai said "during the time, she dies and the fetus dies", even though sometimes she lives, because it is not common.

Rav Bivi's Beraisa says "perhaps she will die", due to the minority [who live], even though Rabah bar Livai was not concerned to say "perhaps" due to the minority.

Question: What is the Gemara's source that Rav Zevid does not want to say that there are never children without Simanim, like his words connote?

Answer: If he comes to teach that there are never children without Simanim, in what way does he argue with Rav Safra? Also he holds that there are never children without Simanim, like Rav Safra!

Rather, surely he comes to say that children are not a Siman of adulthood, rather, hairs. When there are not hairs, we do not establish her to be a Vadai adult.

Therefore, we ask "let us check!", and we answer that we are concerned lest they fell out.

We are concerned to consider her a Safek adult regarding Chalitzah and Kidushin mid'Oraisa, and punishment, and many matters.

Rashi's opinion: Rav Zevid holds that during the time is like after the time. This is not the Halachah.

Ri's opinion: Normally, Rav Zevid agrees that during the time is like before the time. Here is different, for due to the children, we consider the Simanim as if they are after the time, like I explained also according to Rav Safra.

Question: Since there are no children without Simanim from the time of pregnancy, we should check before birth;

If there are no Simanim, we need not be concerned lest they fell out, for pains of birth did not come yet!

Answer: "Due to pain of birth" is not precise. Likewise, we are concerned lest they fell out due to pain of pregnancy;

We said "due to pain of birth" only because we asked "let us check the mother-in-law" in order to permit Mi'un, i.e. after birth. Therefore, it mentioned pain of birth;

Similarly, if we checked before birth and did not find, we are concerned lest they fell out due to pain of pregnancy.

Suggestion: If we would explain Rav Zevid's words to means that there is no birth without Simanim, this would explain well why he mentioned pain of birth, and we would not need to say that he is concerned for pain of pregnancy!

Rejection: However, we cannot say so, for if so, this does not answer for Rabah bar Livai at all.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say [also] "she did Mi'un, or she was found to be Ailonis"?

Answer #1: This is because our Mishnah comes to teach that even if he married [the Tzarah] and later divorced [the Ervah, the Tzarah is permitted];

If she did Mi'un, or was found to be an Ailonis, this is no Chidush, for the initial Kidushin was Batel. There is no difference whether he married and later she did Mi'un, or she did Mi'un and later he married.

Answer #2: He refers to "one of all these Arayos", and Mi'un and being found to be an Ailonis do not apply to all of the Arayos.

Reference: Below (30a) I will explain why it discusses three brothers.

Implied question: Here it was not appropriate to mention "the first" [Nisu'in], for there are not two Nisu'in!

Answer: It is due to below (108b) that we say so;

Citation (108b - Mishnah): If one divorced his wife and remarried her, she is permitted to the Yavam. R. Eliezer forbids;

The Gemara explains there that R. Eliezer is unsure whether death makes her fall to Yibum, or the initial marriage makes her fall.

Explanation #1: Even according to R. Gamliel, who holds that we do not teach a minor to do Mi'un (109a), that is to remove her from her husband. (Here he would admit, for her husband already died, and Mi'un enables Yibum.)

Explanation #2: Or, we ask that when she did Mi'un, her Tzarah should do Yibum. The Mishnah connotes that the only solution is Chalitzah.

Explanation: Also here, at the time she falls [to Yibum], she looks like Tzaras Bito.

Question: What is his source that Rami bar Yechezkeil's reason is because at the time she falls, she looks like his daughter-in-law?

Perhaps the reason of Rami himself is due to R. Oshaya, that she may not do Mi'un to his Zikah!

Answer: We must say that Rami's reason is because at the time she falls, she looks like his daughter-in-law, since he mentions the Isur to his father;

This implies that she is permitted to other men. If she may not do Mi'un to his Zikah, she is forbidden to all men [until she does Chalitzah]!

Question: If so, Rami bar Yechezkeil's Beraisa is difficult for R. Oshaya!

Answer #1 (R. Moshe Kohen): We can say that we discuss after she did Chalitzah. Therefore, she is permitted to other men, but not because she does Mi'un to his Zikah.

Answer #2: She did Mi'un to the Yavam after he did Yibum, and there is no [longer any] Zikah;

Even so, she is forbidden to his father, because at the time she falls she looks like his daughter-in-law.

Question: What was the question? Perhaps they expound Litzror like R. Shimon (8b, to exempt two sisters who fall to Yibum from different brothers), and Aleha like Rebbi (8b, to teach about Chatas, so they have no source to forbid Tzaros)!

Answer (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): It is reasonable to expound Litzror regarding Tzaros, unless we heard somewhere that they are permitted.

Question: Still, even though they expound Chutzah to imply that there is an inner [wife], they should expound Litzror to forbid a Tzarah not b'Mekom Mitzvah!

Answer: We cannot expound like this, for it says "Legalos Ervasah" (singular, i.e. only) one [is forbidden];

We do not need this is to teach about b'Mekom Mitzvah (Chutzah teaches this), rather, it teaches about not b'Mekom Mitzvah.

Observation: Alternatively, we could have said that it teaches like Shmuel, who argues with Rav (below 92b). He establishes the verse to teach a Lav [for Yevamah l'Shuk].

Implied question: There is also a Hei at the beginning, for it says ha'Chutzah!

Answer: This means to the outside, like ha'Midbarah, which means to the Midbar.

Explanation (Ri): WE need to include an Arusah because it says "Beis Achiv";

In Yuma (13a), it connotes that "Beis" connotes a Nesu'ah.

Question: Since the Isur of Achos Ishah does not take effect, the Ervah herself should do Yibum!

Answer: The Isur of Achos Ishah is suspended. If the Isur of Eshes Ach will be uprooted, Achos Ishah will take effect. Therefore, it (Eshes Ach) is not uprooted.

Explanation (Rashi): They disqualify from Kehunah, but not from Terumah.

Rejection: This cannot be! She becomes a Zonah from [a Bi'ah that is] Chayavei Kerisos [other than Nidah], like we say below (44b) regarding one who marries his Chalutzah!

Terumah is forbidden to a Zonah, like we will explain there.

Retraction: Rashi himself retracted below (15b) regarding "you cannot learn from a widow [to a Kohen Gadol], for she herself becomes a Chalalah."

Implied question: We say in Sanhedrin (68a) that R. Akiva was wounding himself over the death of R. Eliezer so much that his blood was spilling to the ground!

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): We can say that the Torah forbids only in the way of scratching.

Answer #2: He was pained over the [loss of] Torah, like the Gemara says there. "I have many coins, and I have no moneychanger!" (I have many questions, and no one to answer them.)