Rejection of text: This text is wrong, like Rashi explained.

Support: We cannot derive at all that since she does not do Chalitzah within three months in order to marry after three months that Chalitzas Me'uberes is not Chalitzah;

Surely R. Yochanan agrees that within three months it is not Chalitzah, like the Mishnah says "a Yevamah may not do Chalitzah until three months;

This is because even if Eliyahu would come and say that she is not pregnant, she cannot do Yibum. Therefore, she cannot do Chalitzah.

Distinction: However, [after three months and] within nine months, she could do Yibum if Eliyahu would come and say that she is not pregnant, or even if she miscarried. Therefore, it is a proper inference.

The correct text: The text says "she should do Chalitzah within nine months, and marry after nine months!"

Question: It is astounding that [the Makshan] did not anticipate the coming question "according to you [she should do Chalitzah and marry after nine months!]"

Explanation: This refers only to other women who are not divorcees. We explicitly establish this like this below (119b).

Implied question: Below (41b), regarding "a Yevamah may not do Chalitzah until three months", and the Gemara initially explains that this is lest she have a viable baby, and she will require an announcement [that the Chalitzah was invalid and she is Kosher] for Kehunah...

[The Gemara asks] granted, this applies to a widow. How can you answer for a divorcee [who is Pasul to Kehunah in any case]?

Answer (Ri): There, it comes to teach the law of all women who fall to Yibum. If there were a different law for a divorcee, it should have specified;

Here we discuss if an episode occurred with a woman whose husband and Tzarah went overseas. It is fine to say that this is only with other women, who are not divorcees.

Support: Even further, below (119a) we establish [another Mishnah] there to be only regarding a divorcee, for we asked against what we bring here. (I.e. that Mishnah discusses only a divorcee, and our Mishnah discusses only a widow, and not a divorcee.)

Implied question: Why doesn't [Rava] count here the argument (Chulin 29b) about whether Shechitah is from beginning to end [or if only the last moment is considered Shechitah]?

He (Rava) holds like him (Reish Lakish, in that argument) in Zevachim (30a)!

Answer: Reish Lakish cited Levi the elder [there. Rava counts only where Reish Lakish said his own opinion.]

Implied question: Why doesn't he count [the argument in] Avodah Zarah (6b)? A Beraisa supports Reish Lakish, who says that if one bought or sold [before the Nochri festival], it is permitted.

Here he counts [even] matters in which a Beraisa supports him!

Answer (Ri): In any case, there the Halachah follows R. Yochanan;

Regarding the Mishnah "Chachamim say, before is forbidden and afterwards is permitted", the Gemara asked "Chachamim hold just like the first Tana"! It answered that they argue about one who bought or sold. (Chachamim forbid, like R. Yochanan. The Gemara gave other answers there. According to the other answers, the Halachah follows Reish Lakish! In any case, we can say that Rava holds like this answer - Aruch l'Ner.)

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (15b), regarding a wolf and lion, a Beraisa supports Reish Lakish [who says that we kill them only if they killed].

Answer: There, they argue about R. Eliezer's opinion, but they do not hold like him.

Explanation: We explain there in our Mishnah that it is because he stipulated against what is written in the Torah;

R. Yochanan ben Brokah argues (Bava Basra 130a), and says that if he said about someone proper to inherit him, his words are fulfilled.

There it explains the reason because it says "v'Hayah b'Yom Hanchilu Es Banav" - the Torah authorized a father to bequeath to anyone he wants.

Implied question: The [same] verse says "Lo Yuchal Levaker" (one cannot make a younger son the firstborn, to inherit a double portion)!

Answer: [One cannot change] only the extra portion of a Bechor. One may change the standard portion of inheritance;

Implied question: What do Rabanan learn from b'Yom Hanchilu Es Banav?

Answer #1: They use it for another Drashah, and they need Lo Yuchal Levaker because the Bechor has less rights, e.g. he does not receive [an extra portion of] Ra'uy (property destined to come to his father) like Muchzak (what the father already owned);

One might have thought that he has less rights also for this (the father can stipulate that. he not receive an extra portion. Lo Yuchal teaches that this is not so.)

Answer #2: (The verse discusses a Bechor whose mother is Senu'ah.) We need [Lo Yuchal], for one might have thought that since his mother's marriage is hated (forbidden), his father can make another son the Bechor.

Implied question: Rava himself said (Bava Basra 130a) that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Brokah! (If so, the argument of Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan is not relevant to Halachah. In what sense does the Halachah follow Reish Lakish?)

Answer: In any case, it is relevant that the Halachah follow Reish Lakish regarding a gift to someone not proper to inherit him.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, even if the son did not die in his father's lifetime, [the buyer] does not acquire, for this is like (Bava Metzi'a 16a) "what I will inherit from father is sold to you" (it does not acquire, for it is not yet in the world), since Kinyan Peros is strong like Kinyan ha'Guf!

Answer: Regarding this, Kinyan Peros is not strong to totally annul the son's Kinyan ha'Guf;

Since the field ultimately comes to the son, it is considered a sale.

Implied question: In Usha, they enacted that if a woman sold her Nichsei Melug (property she brought into the marriage) in her husband's lifetime, and died, her husband takes the property from the buyers. (According to R. Yochanan, there was no need to enact. Since her husband had Kinyan Peros, she could not sell even Kinyan ha'Guf, i.e. permanent rights to the land!)

Answer #1: Indeed, according to R. Yochanan, there was no need to enact it.

Support: In Bava Kama (88b), we conclude that Takanas Usha was [only] according to Reish Lakish.

Answer #2: (It is even like R. Yochanan.) Kinyan Peros of a wife is better [than other cases of Kinyan Peros], for her husband owns Peros only due to her. Also, he owns Peros only due to Chachamim's enactment.

Answer #3 (Ri of Orlins): We need Takanas Usha [even according to R. Yochanan] for when he wrote to her "I have no claims to the Peros of your property."

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (55b), regarding the five cases in which one must add a Chomesh, we say that Chachamim [of R. Meir] did not strengthen their enactment like Torah law. (If a Zar ate b'Shogeg Terumas Ma'aser of Demai, he does not add a Chomesh.)

Answer: This is because they did not need to strengthen it.

Observation: Here, regarding Isur, R. Meir fines [perhaps even more than Torah law]. Regarding money, e.g. Kesuvah, [he holds that] they did not strengthen [their decree] even like Torah law!

R. Meir says (Kesuvos 56b) that anyone who stipulates against what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is Batel;

Inference: If he stipulates against a mid'Rabanan law, his stipulation is valid.

Question: It is difficult to say that Rabanan here [who argue with R. Meir] are R. Yehudah [who argues with him about stipulating about a Kesuvah]. He holds regarding Kesuvah that Chachamim strengthened their words more than Torah law!

Answer: (They are R. Yehudah.) In a common matter, they strengthened [their words];

Here, it is not common that one will marry a Me'uberes Chavero or Meinekes Chavero (a woman pregnant with or nursing another man's baby).

Implied question: It was taught (Sotah 24a) that [if one married] Meinekes or Me'uberes Chavero, he can separate her and return her afterwards!

Answer #1: The word "Hafrashah" connotes both [through divorce, and without divorce]. "Yotzi" connotes only through a Get.

Answer #2: There, he [married Meinekes or Me'uberes Chavero, and] warned her [against seclusion, and] she was secluded. We are not concerned lest he have Bi'ah with her, for the Torah forbids her [until she drinks Mei Sotah], so no Get is needed.

Pesak: Based on this, the Ri of Orlins ruled that if one was Mekadesh Meinekes Chavero, she does not need a Get. Mere separation suffices, even according to R. Meir;

This is because even without this (Isur of Meinekes Chavero) she is forbidden to him, for Kalah without Berachah (an Arusah, before Nisu'in) is forbidden to her husband like a Nidah.

Here, only after Nisu'in we require a Get.

Implied question: If one was Mekadesh within three [months of when she was widowed or divorced], if not that it suffices that he fled (37a), we would have required a Get!

Answer: Regarding Meinekes u'Me'uberes Chavero, we were not stringent.

Rejection: Why is Kalah without Berachah more severe than Meinekes Chavero? Both of them are mid'Rabanan!

Inference (Ri): A Beraisa (Kesuvos 60a) says that if the husband of a nursing woman died, she may not become Mekudeshes or have Nisu'in;

If one who was Mekadesh must give a Get, there is no need to say that she may not have Nisu'in!

Rebuttal #1: Some texts there say "she may not have Nisu'in or become Mekudeshes." We can say that it teaches this (Nisu'in is forbidden), and even this (Kidushin).

Rebuttal #2: Even if the text says "she may not become Mekudeshes or have Nisu'in", we can say that it mentioned Nisu'in due to R. Yehudah, who permits even Nisu'in after 18 months. (He holds that this is the time for nursing.)

Pesak (She'altos of Rav Achai, Vayera 13): Regarding Meinekes u'Me'uberes Chavero, if one transgressed and was Mekadesh, we uproot her from him through a Get;

Even if he is a Kohen [and will not be able to remarry her afterwards], we make him lose her.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We discuss when the baby yawned and died.

Rebuttal: In such a case, even Rabanan agree that if he yawned and died, he was a Nefel!

Explanation #2: Rather, we discuss when he fell from the roof or a lion ate him, like it says in Shabbos (136a). There, we rule like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Question: Why don't we follow the majority of women, who give birth to viable babies?

Answer (Ri): We are concerned for a common minority like this, just like [one who drowned in] endless water (one cannot see the shore in all directions. We are concerned lest he survived and left the water outside our sight - below, 121a). His wife is forbidden [to remarry];

[We are concerned for a common minority] also regarding Goses (someone mortally sick who will probably die). We may not testify about him that he died, to permit his wife.

Question: Perhaps there we are stringent due to Ervah! (Yehudah Ya'aleh derives that our Tosfos holds that Yevamah l'Shuk is not called Ervah. Other Rishonim disagree.)

Answer: In any case, since the minority of Nefalim is common, we are stringent for it.

We are stringent also not to eat an animal within eight days, like it says in Shabbos (136a, lest it is a Nefel, and Shechitah does not permit it).

Distinction: However, regarding Avelus they were not stringent. We should be lenient about Avelus;

Source - Citation (Bechoros 49a): All agree regarding Avelus that we do not mourn [a baby that died within 30 days], for Shmuel taught that in Aveilus, the Halachah [always] follows the lenient opinion.

Implied question: It says in Maseches Semachos that we conduct Aninus and Avelus over Sefekos!

Answer: It seems that there it discusses a Safek whether the baby was born after nine months from her first husband, or after seven months from her latter husband. It would be disgraceful if nether family mourned over him, for surely he is related to one of them!

The text: It seems that this is the text, unlike Rashi's text in Shabbos (136a) "if he died at the end of 30 days,"

Support: In Bechoros (49a), we say that day 30 is like the day before it. There is no difference between if it died on day 30 or within 30 days;

Why did he mention day 30 [more than any other day within 30]?

Defense of Rashi: However, Bahag wrote that on day 30, even if he yawned and died, Rabanan hold that he was not a Nefel;

Only within 30 days we say there in Shabbos that if he yawned and died, all agree that he was Mes (Nefel);

Inference: The text here says "he died on day 30." If not, what would be the source for this distinction?

Alternate explanation: Some establish this text even if he fell from the roof or a lion ate him;

Only on day 30, we rely on Rabanan. Perhaps also regarding Avelus, he is considered viable.