Question #1 (Ri): These Amora'im are unlike the Halachah!

We hold below (106a) and in Kesuvos (74a) that a tricked Chalitzah is valid, and there is no Tenai in Chalitzah, because we learn from Tenai Bnei Gad u'Vnei Reuven, and we require that [the action] can be fulfilled through a Shali'ach;

If they held that there is no Tenai, they should not establish the argument of Rebbi and Rabanan about this!

Question #2: Rather than arguing about whether there is a Tenai in Chalitzah regarding a Ma'amar afterwards, they should argue about whether she is permitted l'Shuk!

Answer (Ri): Regarding Heter l'Shuk, all agree that it is Chalitzah, like we hold that there is no Tenai in Chalitzah;

Rather, regarding that it is a Chalitzah Pesulah, and does not totally uproot Zikah so that afterwards a Ma'amar in an expression of Zikas Yevamim will not work, we say that there is a Tenai.

Later, the Ri found [like this] in the name of R. Tam.

Explanation: This refers to when he gave a Ma'amar to one and did Chalitzah to the other.

Question: Why does this refute Rav Yosef? He does not do Chalitzah to Ba'alas Ma'amar due to Shmuel's law, that Chalitzah to Ba'alas Ma'amar does not exempt the Tzarah!

Answer: The Gemara suggested that our Mishnah supports Shmuel or refutes Rav Yosef;

If it does not support Shmuel, and the Tzarah is exempted through Chalitzah of Ba'alas ha'Ma'amar, if so it says that he does Ma'amar to one and Chalitzah to the other, to teach that he may do Chalitzah to whichever he wants;

This is to teach unlike Rav Yosef, who says that one may not spill the water of his well if others need it. (Since in any case Ba'alas Ma'amar needs a Get, he should do Chalitzah to her, and not disqualify also her Tzarah to Kehunah!)

Implied question: The Mishnah already taught this above!

Answer: It was taught here along with the other cases, since it is not a simple matter (most Tana'im disagree).

Explanation: The Seifa teaches that the same applies to two Yevamim and one Yevamah. (It is no Chidush that after Yibum, if the other gave her a Ma'amar, it is Batel.)

Question: Perhaps it taught the case of Bi'ah and then a Ma'amar for the case of two Yevamos and one Yavam! (The latter is forbidden only due to "Bayis Echad v'Lo Shnei Batim." It is a Chidush that Ma'amar does not take effect on her.)

Question: Why do we need this reason?

Above, we understood according to R. Yochanan, that we must teach that Ein Kidushin Tofsin in Chayavei Lavin, even though we already learn this from the Reisha;

Here also we could understand here for this very reason! (Here we discuss one Yavam and one Yevamah, so also Reish Lakish agrees that it is Chayavei Lavin! What forces us to say that one might have thought to decree? Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that it is unreasonable that the Tana would teach a third time that Ein Kidushin Tofsin b'Chayavei Lavin.)

Explanation #1: Mezid (intentionally) and Ratzon (willingly) are two matters. Ratzon is when he intends for the Mitzvah;

Even though this is obvious (that he acquires), he taught it, for the Tana is wont to do so everywhere (teach every case, even those that are obvious).

Question: In Bava Kama (26b), regarding "man is always Mu'ad" (pays full damage, for he is prone to damage), what is the difference between Mezid and Ratzon?

Explanation #2: Some say that the Mishnah means whether he is Shogeg or Mezid in a case of Ones, that they forced him, or whether he did it b'Ratzon (willingly).

Question: It should have taught when both of them are forced. This is a bigger Chidush!

Answer #1: Since it taught in the Reisha "he is Shogeg and she is Mezid", it said also here "he is Anus and she is not Anusah."

Answer #2: It did not say 'she is not Anusah, rather, b'Ratzon.' It says only "she is not Anusah", but she is Mezid or Shogeg. Both of them do not intend for the Mitzvah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He did not distinguish between Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of Bi'ah) and a full Bi'ah. In the second clause, Rashi explained that we do not distinguish between Bi'ah and Bi'ah, i.e. between Bi'ah k'Darkah and Lo k'Darkah.

Objection #1 (Ri): Since the Tana holds that Ha'ara'ah and full Bi'ah are the same, why does he teach also "we do not distinguish between Ha'ara'ah and a full Bi'ah"?

Objection #2: The Gemara (56b) explains "what does 'and similarly' refer to? It is Lo k'Darkah regarding Chayavei Lavin";

Inference: [This was already taught! We must say that] in the Reisha, "we do not distinguish" refers to Lo k'Darkah!

Correction (Ri): The scribes erred and wrote oppositely [in Rashi. Rather, the first "he did not distinguish" refers to between Bi'ah k'Darkah and Lo k'Darkah, and the latter "he did not distinguish" refers to between Ha'ara'ah and a full Bi'ah (Maharam).]

Explanation #2: However, we can explain the second clause like the first, ["he did not distinguish"] whether k'Darkah or Lo k'Darkah, and it comes to explain "and similarly."

Suggestion: They forced him, i.e. they threatened to kill him if he will not have Bi'ah with her.

Rejection #1: If so, what was the question from Rava, who says that Kishuy (an erection) is always intentional? I.e. this is not Ones, for the Kishuy he does willingly. They do not force him to have Bi'ah b'Kishuy;

We should establish it to be when they threaten him that he must have Bi'ah b'Kishuy!

Rejection #2: We cannot explain Rava's words when they threatened to kill him if he will not have Bi'ah with her by himself, like I will explain.

Explanation: Rather, whatever one does by himself, even through Ones of mortal threats, is considered willingly.

Question: It says that when Nochrim coerced him and he had Bi'ah with her [this is called Ones]!

Answer: The case is, they brought him upon her and inserted his Ever into his Yevamah, but not that he by himself had Bi'ah with her. It is like the case shortly below (54a), in which his Yevamah seized him [by the Ever, and without any action of his] he had Bi'ah with her.

Support: According to this, it is a proper question "there is no Ones regarding Kishuy!" It is always intentional.

Inference (Ri): A Yevamah is acquired only if he had Bi'ah amidst Kishuy, since we do not establish it when they stuck him on her without Kishuy.

Explanation #1: We can say that our Sugya is according to the opinion that one who has Bi'ah with Ervah with an Ever Mes (without Kishuy) is exempt.

We learn [Yibum] from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kichah-Kichah" from Arayos that she is acquired only through [Bi'ah of] Kishuy.

Explanation #2 (Ri): It is even like the opinion that is Mechayev one who has Bi'ah with Ervah with an Ever Mes. Regarding Yibum, the Bi'ah must be the kind that can perpetuate the name [of the Mes, i.e. impregnate].

Suggestion: They threatened to kill him if he will not bring himself to have Bi'ah with the Ervah.

Rejection: If so, even if Kishuy could be unintentional, we would know [that there is no Ones for Ervah] since for Giluy Arayos, Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor, like it says in Sanhedrin (74a)!

Explanation: Rather, the Nochrim force him (his Ever) into the Ervah, and he can avoid this only if he will be killed;

Rava teaches that he must submit to be killed if he knows that he cannot avoid Kishuy, for Kishuy is always intentional. This is considered like doing an action;

However, if Kishuy could be unintentional, or he was already in Kishuy, or he knows that will not have Kishuy, he need not submit to be killed, since he does not do any action. He is Karka Olam (totally passive);

This is like it says in Sanhedrin (54a) regarding Esther, that [initially] she [did not submit to be killed, because] she was Karka Olam. The reason is because we learn Na'arah Me'orasah there from a murderer;