Explanation: Since she is believed to say "my husband died, and I will do Yibum", and we are not concerned lest she lies because she loves him;

If we should be concerned lest she does not investigate well because she loves him, and she relies on the witness, we should not believe her to say "my husband died" to do Yibum", lest she lies because she loves him!

Conclusion: Rather, surely love of him does not stop her from investigating well. Even though she investigates well, she is not believed to say that her son died, and afterwards her husband died;

Chachamim believed her only about death of her husband, to remove her from Chezkas Eshes Ish through her investigation, due to Agunah (inability to remarry);

They did not want to believe her to remove her from Chezkas Isur to the Yavam, even though she investigates well, and we can believe her through one witness.

Explanation: There, there is more reason to say that she does not investigate well, because she hates him.

Even though love of him does not stop her from investigating, hatred causes her to refrain more. Hatred of haters is greater than love of lovers.

Also, it is more common that she hates him than that she loves him, like it connotes that below (117a, 118b).

Also, it is harder for her when she falls to him when she hates him, than it is pleasant [to fall to him when she loves him].

When she loves him, it is not so pleasant, for perhaps he will do Chalitzah. And even if he will do Yibum, she is not so happy, for she could have found many men like him, or better than him;

However, when she hates him, she cannot be saved from him to marry someone else unless he does Chalitzah. She is forced to marry someone she hates, or be an Agunah.

Therefore, we ask whether the primary reason is because she investigates, and here she does not investigate well;

If the reason is because it is Avid l'Igluyei, we can rely on a small amount of investigation. Also here, she investigates a little, even though she hates him.

Question: What was the question? A Mishnah below (118b) says that she is believed to say that her husband died, and afterwards her son died. Since she is believed, all the more so one witness is believed!

Answer: She is believed due to a Migo. If she wanted, she could have said that her husband died, and not mentioned her son;

Regarding one witness, there is concern lest those who hate her hired him [to testify falsely], or he (the witness) himself is suspected to ruin her, when she relies on him and does not investigate well;

Therefore, we do not believe him like we believe her, for she has a Migo and he does not have a Migo;

He reasons that if I testify only about the husband, when she hears that the son died, she will investigate who died first, and I cannot ruin her;

However, if I testify about both of them, the son and the husband, when she hears that also the son died, she will rely on me and be ruined.

Distinction: Even if [one] witness is believed here, we can still ask the other two questions below, one witness when there is a quarrel (between her and her husband), and one witness in war.

We can say that here, she investigates more than there.

Also there, we ask whether the primary reason is because she investigates, and we require much investigation;

Or, the reason is because it is Avid l'Igluyei, therefore we rely on a small amount of investigation, like these cases.

Question: Why do we need to infer from the Seifa? We could have asked from it (the Reisha) itself!

How is one witness believed to say that her sister died, so she may marry her [sister's] husband? Igun does not apply there. If she does not marry him, she can marry someone else!

Answer (Ri): We could have rejected that regarding a woman, Igun applies even in such a case. Perhaps she will not find another man to marry her;

However, to say that his wife died, so he may marry her sister, we do not see that she wants to marry him. The witness came for the man [to permit him], like the words connote.

Question: In any case, we can derive that one witness is not believed to say that her sister died, so she may marry her [sister's] husband, even if Igun applies. She does not investigate, since there is no severity in the end (if her sister returns)!

Answer: Based on what I explained above (93b) that women are used to investigating well, this is fine.

Explanation: This is not needed according to Rabanan, even though [the child] is a Mamzer mid'Rabanan, like I explained above (92b. Our Sugya is unlike the Stam Gemara in Gitin, which says that if she married l'Shuk, all of the fines apply lest she be confused with a woman who remarried based on one witness, and then her husband returned. Alternatively, obviously Rabanan do not believe her to say that her Yavam died. Often she hates the Yavam, so she is concerned only for Kilkul mid'Oraisa.)

Explanation #1 (Ri): One witness is believed to say that her husband died so she may do Yibum. We do not say that because she loves him, she does not investigate well.

For an Isur Lav (Yevamah l'Shuk), all the more so we do not say that because she hates him, she does not investigate well!

Explanation #2 (Rashi): "Isur Kares" refers to [one witness who says that] her husband died, so she may remarry.

Objection (Ri): There, there is no reason why she will not investigate well, like there is here, i.e. she hates him.

Explanation: She is believed to say [that her husband died,] so she will do Yibum, even though [sometimes] she loves him, but she is not believed to say that her Yavam died, because [sometimes] she hates him.

Suggestion: [The Gemara] holds that the Mishnah connotes that his (Yakov's) wife (Leah) and Giso (husband of his wife's sister) went, for if Leah's sister were single, it would not need to teach that she (Leah) may return to him (Yakov. Only when Leah's sister becomes forbidden to her husband due to her marriage to Yakov, one might have thought that we forbid also Leah to Yakov.)

Rejection: [Even if she were single,] it needs to teach that Bi'ah of her (Leah's) sister does not forbid her, from a Kal va'Chomer from Eshes Ish, like it says below!

Explanation: Rather, [the Gemara] holds that the Mishnah connotes that she was Nesu'ah, for R. Yosi taught about this "whoever forbids to others..."

Inference: The first Tana discusses forbidding to others. (Yakov forbade Leah's sister, i.e. to her husband.)

Explanation #1: The case is, two witnesses told him (Yakov) that his wife died, and one witness said that Giso died.

However, if one witness told him that his wife died, he could not marry her sister.

Explanation #2: There were two witnesses also about Giso. This is like the opinion above (91a) that Rabanan argue with R. Shimon when she married without permission [of Beis Din, rather, based on two witnesses], and fine even when there are two witnesses.

Support: Also below in our Sugya, we ask that she (Leah) should be forbidden through her sister's Bi'ah, just like one whose husband went overseas;

You are forced to say that this is according to the opinion that fines when there are two witnesses that his wife died, for we can establish [that he was permitted to marry her sister] only when there were two witnesses.

Explanation: We impose all the fines in our Mishnah (87b).

Exception: However, she does not need a Get, for there is no concern lest people say that this one (Giso) divorced for, and this one (Yakov) married her;

Reason: Since his (Yakov's) wife is alive, he cannot be Mekadesh her sister. All know that he married her (sister) due to errant reports. Therefore, his (Yakov's) wife is permitted to him.

Implied question: The Mishnah says that if the first (Leah, his first wife) died, he is permitted to the second (her sister! This shows that also another fine, i.e. permanent Isur to her new husband, does not apply.)

Answer: That does not refer to when his wife and Giso went overseas. Since her (Leah's) sister is forbidden to Giso (her husband), she is forbidden also to him (Yakov). Rather, this clause discusses a single woman.

Explanation: He (the Makshan) infers that his wife and Giso went overseas, unlike R. Akiva;

However, if it discussed a single woman, obviously his wife's sister would not need a Get, even according to R. Akiva;

This is because fines do not apply to her, like it says below that we do not fine, since Mezid Bi'ah of her sister does not forbid her.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say that he adds also Eshes Aviv and Eshes Achi Aviv?

Answer: It is not common to marry them through false reports, for they are forbidden even after death [of his father or uncle].

Observation: This answer is only according to R. Ami below (95b);

According to R. Yitzchak Nafcha, we cannot establish the first Tana like R. Akiva, for according to him, R. Yosi holds like R. Akiva, who distinguishes between his Arusah and Giso, and Ishto (Nesu'ah) and Giso, but the first Tana does not distinguish them.

Implied question: According to the opinion (Kesuvos 74a) that if one was Mekadesh on condition and had Bi'ah [for Nisu'in], she does not need a Get [because he did not pardon the Tenai. There is a Tenai in Nisu'in!]

Answer: In any case, it is not common that Nisu'in is Batel due to a Tenai, for there is Chivas (dearness) of Bi'ah [so normally, he pardons the Tenai, and also] so his Bi'ah will not be Bi'as Zenus.

Proof: Shmuel holds like this (she does not need a Get), and he holds that there is no Tenai in Nisu'in, below (107b)!

Implied question: Why didn't he ask why in the Beraisa, R. Akiva did not add Chamoso?

Answer: We could say that he addresses Rabanan according to their reasoning;

I (R. Akiva) hold that also Chamoso [needs a Get. Even if you argue about Chamoso,] you should agree to me about Eshes Ach and Achos Ishto!

However, in the Mishnah, R. Akiva should have taught about Chamoso, for it is a bigger Chidush than Achos Ishto.

Explanation: The Torah did not exclude from a Lav and Kares, only from burning.