Explanation #1: Some say that this is only if the rumors say that the marriage was forbidden from the beginning;

We are not concerned for such rumors, for since he made Nisu'in, presumably he investigated, and found that they were false;

However, regarding something that occurred after Nisu'in, we properly forbid due to rumors.

Support: Based on this, the case above (24b) of a peddler is understood. (It is like rumors of Zenus after Nisu'in. Rebbi says that she must leave, for it is due to something that occurred after Nisu'in.)

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2 - Ri): This cannot be! We explicitly say in Gitin (81a) that we are never concerned [for rumors after Nisu'in] regarding one (a Kohen) who wrote a Get to his wife, and they are living together [Shmuel said that] she must leave, and the matter needs investigation;

Citation (81a) Question: Rav Ashi taught that we are not concerned for rumors [that begin] after Nisu'in! (This shows that this applies even regarding something that occurred after Nisu'in.)

The case of the peddler is like I explained above. (If she married the peddler, she must leave him, for the rumors preceded her marriage to him.)

Explanation (Ri): The Rishon is before she heard (that really, her son died first), and the Acharon is after she heard, like in the Seifa, like the Gemara explains.

Suggestion: In the Gemara's conclusion, here Rishon and Acharon refer to from her first husband and latter husband, i.e. the Yavam, for they fined her and forbade her to the Yavam.

Rejection: You are forced to say that the Mamzer here is mid'Oraisa, like I will explain;

There is no Mamzer mid'Oraisa from the Yavam, even according to R. Akiva, who considers Zenus of a Yevamah like Zenus of a married woman to forbid her to the Yavam;

Even a married woman is not forbidden mid'Oraisa through a mistake;

Here, even mid'Rabanan she is not forbidden to the Yavam, based on how we establish our Mishnah below (94a) to be when there were contradictory pairs of witnesses, and through Edei Hazamah (we found that one of the pairs were not present where they claimed to see the testimony).

She does not even need a Get from the stranger she married, if initially she married based on two witnesses, just like she would be permitted to return to her husband if he were alive.

Question: In Gitin it connotes that even according to Rabanan, there is a Mamzer from a Yevamah l'Shuk!

The Gemara (Gitin 80b) questions the Mishnah, which says "all Arayos for whom we said that their Tzaros are permitted [if a Tzarah remarried, and then the Ervah was found to be an Ailonis, so the Tzarah needed Chalitzah or Yibum, all of the fines apply." We infer that] this is only if she married, but not if she was Mezanah.

Citation (80b) Suggestion: This refutes Rav Hamnuna, [who says that Zenus of a Yevamah forbids her to the Yavam]!

Citation (cont.): She is forbidden only through Nisu'in, for then she resembles a woman whose husband went overseas [and remarried based on one witness who testified that he died, and later he returned].

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Or, perhaps it (the Mishnah) discusses Nisu'in, and the same applies to Zenus. This supports Rav Hamnuna!

Inference: If so, the Gemara wants to say that the Mishnah is like Rabanan;

According to R. Akiva, surely she is forbidden to the Yavam, even according to the opinion that argues with Rav Hamnuna. This is clear from Sotah (18b).

Conclusion: That Mishnah says that all of these fines apply. This shows that according to Rabanan, there is a Mamzer from a Yevamah!

Answer (Ri): There, he is a Mamzer mid'Rabanan, because she is confused with a woman whose husband went [overseas];

However, our Mishnah connotes that he is a Mamzer mid'Oraisa, since the Seifa says "if they said to her 'your husband died', and she married... the latter is not a Mamzer."

If the first is a Mamzer mid'Rabanan, why isn't the latter a Mamzer?!

Just like they fined regarding her husband, they should fine regarding the Bo'el, that even after her husband died or divorced her, he is forbidden to her, and the child from him is a Mamzer!

Suggestion: We discuss one who married based on witnesses, and therefore they did not fine her.

Rejection: If so, in the Reisha, why did they fine a Yevamah [l'Shuk]?

Question: Since Rabanan agree that there is a Mamzer mid'Rabanan from a Yevamah, how did [R. Yehoshua] say above (15b) "I testify to you that children of Tzaros [who remarried without Chalitzah] were Kohanim Gedolim"?

This was even according to Beis Shamai, who hold that they were Bnei Yevamah l'Shuk!

Answer: There, they did not marry due to a mistake, rather, through a ruling of Beis Din. They are not destined to leave [their husbands] at all. The reason of confusion with a woman [whose husband went overseas] does not apply at all;

It applies only when she married due to a mistake, and she is destined to leave.

Implied question: The Yerushalmi establishes the [Mishnah] in Gitin like R. Akiva. (If so, there is no proof to Rabanan!)

Answer (Ri): The Yerushalmi holds like the first version of Rav Gidal below, who says that there are no Kidushin and Nisu'in for a Yevamah. Even Nisu'in does not forbid her to the Yavam;

Rav Gidal holds unlike Rav Hamnuna. Since she is not forbidden through Zenus b'Mezid, also regarding Nisu'in b'Shogeg, Chachamim did not decree.

Suggestion: We should decree lest people say that [a brother] did Chalitzah, and she married [the stranger. If she does Yibum afterwards, it looks like] he returns to marry his Chalutzah!

Rejection: Even regarding a [married] woman we are concerned for this (lest people say that the first divorced her, and she married the latter) only due to a fine.

Proof: If she became Mekudeshes, she may return to her husband. We are not concerned [lest people say...], because we do not fine her.

Answer (cont.): Also, according to this version [of Rav Gidal], we are not concerned for confusion with a woman whose husband went overseas.

According to this version, you are forced to say that the Mishnah in Gitin is like R. Akiva.

Implied question: Below (94a), in the Sugya of one witness about a Yevamah, we say that according to R. Akiva, we need [the Mishnah that teaches that a woman is not believed to say 'my Yavam died' to marry a stranger. It connotes that one witness is believed];

Citation (94a): One might have thought that since R. Akiva says that there is a Mamzer from a Yevamah, she is concerned for Kilkul (ruin), and checks [well before marrying].

Note: All of the fines are considered "Kilkul." Tosfos below discusses Kilkul due to Rav Hamnuna's law, i.e. becoming forbidden to the Yavam. Below, he says that often she hates the Yavam, so she is concerned only for Kilkul mid'Oraisa. This must mean that the child of a Yevamah l'Shuk is a Mamzer. She would like to be forbidden to the Yavam!

Inference: According to Rabanan, there is no Kilkul if she married l'Shuk based on mistaken reports, not due to Rav Hamnuna's law, and not due to confusion!

Answer #1: You are forced to say that that Sugya is unlike the Stam Gemara in Gitin. Rather, it is like the first version of Rav Gidal and the Yerushalmi.

Answer #2: It is obvious to them (Rabanan, that she is not believed to say that her Yavam died), since it is more common that a Yevamah hates the Yavam than that she loves him;

It is logical that she is concerned only for Kilkul mid'Oraisa, even though normally she is concerned for Kilkul mid'Rabanan. (Therefore, it must be like R. Akiva.)

Support: We conclude that she is not concerned even for Kilkul mid'Oraisa. Therefore, it is not astounding if we need not teach that she is not concerned for Kilkul mid'Rabanan.

Pesak (Ri): The two latter versions of Rav Gidal are primary. The child is a Mamzer according to Rabanan, like the Sugya in Gitin (80b).

Implied question: The Halachah does not follow Rav Hamnuna, like we say in Sotah (18b)!

Answer: Even so, due to concern for confusion, the child is a Mamzer mid'Rabanan.

Even if you will say that the Halachah follows the first version of Rav Gidal, like the Yerushalmi, that according to Rabanan the child is not a Mamzer, she must leave [her husband, even if the Yavam later did Chalitzah or died].

Support #1: R. Chananel and the Ri ruled like this. Even if he has several children, she must leave, and even according to Rabanan.

Support #2: The Yerushalmi establishes the Mishnah in Gitin like R. Akiva, but Chachamim say that there is not a Mamzer from a Yevamah, but she must leave;

It discusses when she has children, for it says there "she leaves both of them, and 13 matters (fines) apply to her.

This is unlike Bahag, who distinguishes between when she has children and when she no children.

Alternate text: Some texts say below all of Bahag's words.

Observation: This is even according to Rabanan of R. Akiva, for Rav holds like Rabanan.

Source #1: Rav is Machshir the child of a Nochri or slave who had Bi'ah with a Yisraelis (above, 45a);

According to R. Akiva, the child is a Mamzer, like it says in Kidushin (75b).

Source #2: Also below in our Sugya, R. Yanai says that they voted and concluded that Kidushin does not take effect on a Yevamah. R. Yochanan said that we learn this from a Mishnah...

[Reish Lakish] rejected this, for one could say that the Mishnah is R. Akiva. This connotes that [R. Yanai] taught even according to Rabanan.

Implied question: Above, it says "this is R. Akiva's opinion, who says that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Lavin." This connotes that this depends on the child of a Yevamah [l'Shuk] being a Mamzer! (If so, since Chachamim hold that the child is not a Mamzer mid'Oraisa, Kidushin Tofsin Bah.)

Answer: I explained this above (49a DH ha'Kol. The Beraisa means that this is R. Akiva's opinion, who says that Ein Kidushin Tofsin even with Chayavei Lavin not of She'er. The Vov in "v'Lo Yigaleh" teaches that the child is a Mamzer, therefore Ein Kidushin Tofsin. Chachamim say "there is no Mamzer from a Yevamah", even though Ein Kidushin Tofsin Bah, since she is unlike Eshes Av (from which we learn Mamzerus), who can become Mekudeshes to others.)

Explanation (R. Tam): He is unsure whether it comes to teach only a Lav, or also that Ein Kidushin Tofsin. I explained this above (49a).

Explanation (R. Tam): We discuss one who became Mekudeshes, but did not have Nisu'in. Only when the Yavam wants to do Yibum, we forbid her to the second (the Arus);

If he does not want to do Yibum, he does Chalitzah, and she is permitted to the one who was Mekadesh her.

We do not fine due to Kidushin, even a married woman, only if she transgressed and had Nisu'in;

Just like she may return to him (her husband), she is permitted to the Mekadesh if her husband died or divorced her, all the more so here a Yevamah is permitted to the Mekadesh.

Pesak: R. Tam ruled like this in practice, regarding a woman who did not know that she had a Yavam, and became Mekudeshes. He permitted her to the Mekadesh after the Yavam did Chalitzah.

Implied question: Here we ask that [a sinner] should not profit!

Answer: That is because "the Yavam do Chalitzah and she is permitted to her husband" connotes that he must do Chalitzah, for we force him, even if he wanted to do Yibum, had the other not been Mekadesh her;

Therefore, we ask that he should not profit. If the Yavam himself wanted to do Chalitzah, she is permitted to him (the Mekadesh). He did not profit, and Rav Ashi did not need to teach this.

Question: Also now, what is the Chidush that the second (the Mekadesh) gives a Get?

It need not teach that he must give a Get. Ameimar already ruled explicitly that the Halachah follows Shmuel!

Answer (R. Tam): The Chidush is that we force him to give a Get, in order that he will not profit through his sin;

However, if she had Nisu'in, even if the Yavam wants to do Chalitzah, she is forbidden to her husband, and she must leave both of them.

Support #1: The Yerushalmi concludes like this. If a Yevamah married without Chalitzah, she must leave. We do not say that he (the Yavam) does Chalitzah, and he (her husband) keeps her.

Support #2: The Mishnah in Gitin (80a) says that a Yevamah [who married] l'Shuk must leave both of them, even regarding Nisu'ei Ta'os (she thought that she was permitted). All the more so we fine more if she married b'Mezid!

Question: Perhaps if he married her b'Mezid, it is not appropriate to decree and fine, just like we do not fine him when they were Mezaneh, because Nisu'in b'Mezid is not common, just like Zenus!

Answer: Even so, it is unreasonable to establish this matter to discuss Nisu'ei Mezid, which the Gemara was not discussing.

However, "we find that a sinner profits" connotes a little that we discuss Mezid.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi connotes that we discuss when she married, for he explained that Rav Ashi holds unlike Rav Hamnuna.

Pesak: R. Chananel rules like Bahag, that even if she became Mekudeshes, she must leave the Mekadesh;

The Ri holds that R. Tam's opinion is primary.