Implied question (Ri): According to the opinion that Yesh Zikah, there is no need to decree [against] Yibum after Chalitzah, lest they come to do Yibum first. (All know that Achos Zekukaso is forbidden.)

It connotes like this below (27b. This is why R. Yochanan said "I do not know who taught the Mishnah of sisters [married to two of four brothers. I.e. he could not explain it like any Tana.]

If so, we should permit one [Yavam] to do Chalitzah [to one sister], and one [Yavam will do] Yibum [with her sister]!

Answer (Ri): Since each Yevamah was once forbidden, she is permanently forbidden, even the first [who fell to Yibum];

R. Yochanan is the only one who holds that a Yevamah who was permitted, forbidden, and permitted again returns to her initial Heter. This forced him to say "I do not know who taught the Mishnah of sisters!"

Implied question: According to the opinion that Ein Zikah [we should permit one Chalitzah and one Yibum]!

Rav, who says that Ein Zikah, below he does not hold that since she was once forbidden [she is permanently forbidden]!

Answer: In any case we decree not to do Chalitzah to one and Yibum to one, lest he do Yibum first;

Since Ein Zikah, people will err and think that he may do Yibum first, for people do not consider that perhaps the other [brother] will die [and Mitzvas Yevamin will be Batel for her sister];

However, here each can say that he did Yibum with his Yevamah.

Implied question: We should decree lest he do Yibum first!

Answer: Even if he does Yibum first, we can say that he properly did Yibum with his Yevamah;

We must say so according to the opinion that Ein Zikah.

Question (R. Moshe b'Ribi Yakov of Biham): We say below (36b) that if [a man died and left a baby, and] he died within 30 days [of his birth, so it is a Safek Nefel], if she married a Yisrael, she does Chalitzah;

If she married a Kohen, she does not do Chalitzah.

Why doesn't she do Chalitzah [due to Safek]? A Safek Chalutzah is permitted to a Kohen!

Answer: There, she does Chalitzah after she married, so people will say that Chachamim determined that the baby was a Nefel, and therefore they obligated Chalitzah. They will come to permit a [Vadai] Chalitzah to a Kohen;

Here, each one who marries her says that he knows that she is not a Chalutzah. This is why he married her!

Explanation: The entire verse would be like the simple meaning. We would not expound from "Bechor" that the Mitzvah is for the oldest to do Yibum;

Rather, it means that the Bechor, i.e. the first child that the Yevamah will bear, will be called like the name of the Mes;

We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah that it does not really refer to the name, rather, to inheritance. Since it refers to inheritance, we can establish the verse only to discuss the Yavam;

If it discussed the Bechor that the Yevamah will bear, and the verse says that he will stand in place of the Mes for inheritance, i.e. the Bechor will inherit the Mes, it should have said "Yakum Al Shem Achi Aviv";

Now we cannot say that [Beis Din] should say to the Yavam, like we say below (for now he stands in place of his father, and not in place of his brother).

Explanation: We go to the brother younger than him. If he does not want, we go to his brother, i.e. other regular brothers (not the Bechor) younger than him;

If they do not want, we return to the oldest.

Alternate text: Some Seforim say only "we go to the Katan." We must say that this means the brother below him, since it did not say like the Mishnah (39a) "we go to all the brothers."

Observation (Ri): We could have said that it is for importance, to teach that his inheritance does not return in Yovel.

Explanation: The Mishnah connotes that he may not marry her, but others may marry her l'Chatchilah.

Observation: Geirei Arayos (converts due to lions, which is mentioned here) does not mean the same as according to the opinion that the Kusim (Nochrim who were settled in place of the exiled 10 tribes) were Geirei Arayos;

There, the Kusim served their gods, like it says in Sefer Melachim;

The opinion that they were proper converts holds that afterwards, they totally converted.

Explanation: Granted, if you will say that she is not a full convert, l'Chatchilah he may not marry her, for she is a Safek convert. Perhaps she converted just to marry a particular man;

B'Di'eved, he need not divorce her. We are not stringent due to this concern.

Explanation (Ri): If one was suspected about [Bi'ah with] a single woman, one need not be stringent not to marry her due to slander;

Just the contrary! (If he truly raped her,) it is a Mitzvah to marry the woman he raped. It says "Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah"!

Implied question: How did Iti ha'Giti convert (in the days of David) and Bas Paro convert in the days of Shlomo?

Answer: We did not accept converts in the days of David and Shlomo due to concern lest they [are insincere, and] merely seek royal wealth. They (Iti and Bas Paro) did not need [to convert to get] this!

Question: We say below (79a) regarding the episode with the Giv'onim that 150,000 converts were added to Yisrael in the days of David!

Answer: They converted by themselves, like we find [in the days of] Mordechai and Esther "Rabim me'Amei ha'Aretz Misyahadim."

Support: Some texts say "they did not accept converts in the days of David and not in the days of Shlomo. Rather, they became Gerim Gerurim (they converted by themselves).

Implied question: A Nochri came to Hillel and said "convert me on condition that I become Kohen Gadol" (Shabbos 31a)!

Answer: Hillel was sure that in the end, he would convert l'Shem Shamayim.

The same applies to the one who came to R. Chiya and said "convert me on condition that I marry that Talmid."

Explanation (R. Tam): She must leave the peddler if she married him. The entire Sugya discusses one who was suspected [of Bi'ah].

Suggestion: She must leave her husband!

Rejection #1: A woman is forbidden to her husband only through Kinuy (warning not to be secluded with a man) and Stirah (seclusion), or if they are seen acting like adulterers.

Rejection #2: Regarding her husband, these are rumors after Nisu'in. We say below (92a) that we are not concerned for rumors after Nisu'in;

Spit on top of the canopy is no better [reason to force her to leave] than rumors that do not cease.

Proof: Below, we say that according to Rebbi, we force her to leave even due to rumors that cease, based on this Beraisa! (I.e. Davar Mechu'ar is like rumors that cease.)

Conclusion: Rather, surely she must leave the peddler if he married her. Spit on top of the canopy is a rumor before her marriage to the peddler [so we force her to leave due to it]. Also R. Chananel explained like this.

Support (Ri): Amidst the Halachah, it seems that we do not force a woman to leave her husband due to rumors;

"Beis Din forces to leave through witnesses" connotes that it is clear that we force her to leave her husband only through witnesses.

Implied question: From one who was suspected, the Beraisa says that we remove due to rumors if she has no children from her first husband;

Strengthening of question: Further, below, Rabah bar Rav Nachman says that the text says "he divorced her". If so, if someone suspected married her, he must divorce her;

Answer: Due to rumors, we do not force her to leave her husband, only [she must leave] the suspected adulterer.

Implied question: In the episodes at the end of Nedarim, why do we need reasons to permit the wife?