Inference: According to the version in which Rashi explained "stand and do Chalitzah", this connotes one must stand to do Chalitzah;

Perhaps this is l'Chatchilah, but it does not disqualify [if she sat], like I explained above (103a) regarding "whether standing, sitting or leaning."

Explanation: This is only in a case like here, in which he requests a large amount in a place where people take only a small amount.

Support: Similarly, in Bava Kama (116b), regarding one who went to bring cabbage and plums for a Choleh. He receives only his usual wage. (The Gemara there says that he gets his full wage! Zera Yitzchak says that words are missing from our Tosfos. Aruch l'Ner suggests that Tosfos alludes to what he wrote there. Why can't he say "I was joking with you"? We must say that the worker could have received the full amount elsewhere. If not, he receives only his usual wage.)

However, where people take a large amount, there he cannot say "I was joking with you", even if he did not spend anything for the amount for which he demands wages.

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (33a), [R. Yosi said that even if he explained only one Mishnah to him, he is considered his Rebbi.] Rava said "such as Rav Sechorah, who explained to us 'Zuhama Listron' (a ladle to push aside the froth). I.e. he enlightened my eyes about that Mishnah.

Answer: The text there should say "Rabah". Rava was a Talmid Muvhak (Rav Sechorah was his primary Rebbi), like it connotes here and everywhere.

Implied question: Some texts there say "Rava". (How can we answer for them?)

Answer: He means that even if he explained only 'Zuhama Listron', I would tear for him (like for a Rebbi).

Explanation (Rashi): We are concerned lest the latter Beis Din err, and marry her off without recognizing the Yavam. They will rely on the first Beis Din.

Question: Why does the first Beis Din do Chalitzah, even if they do not recognize?

We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses that she did Chalitzah in Beis Din, and the latter Beis Din will rely on them, and she will marry l'Shuk without recognition [that she did Chalitzah with her Yavam]!

Answer: Witnesses do not give partial testimony. They will ask them whether the first Beis Din recognized them. Surely we are not concerned for something so unlikely (that they will not be asked about this.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The latter Beis Din is not concerned] lest the first Beis Din did [Chalitzah] without recognition.

Question #1: This is unlike the meaning of "Beis Din erring" according to Rav Sechorah, i.e. the latter Beis Din.

According to Rava, "we are not concerned lest Beis Din err" refers to the first Beis Din!

Question #2 (Ri): In Bava Basra (138b), Rav Dimi said that the Halachah is, we are not concerned lest Beis Din err;

Citation (138b) Question: Why is this different than Rava? Rava taught that we do Chalitzah only if we recognize, for we are concerned lest Beis Din err!

Inference: The text in Rava is "we are concerned lest Beis Din err"!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The text of old Seforim is correct. The text in Rav Sechorah is "we are not concerned", and the text in Rava is "we are concerned."

Explanation: [Rav Sechorah holds that] we are not concerned lest Beis Din err, i.e. lest the latter Beis Din err to let her marry based on Chalitzah, i.e. [witnesses] testified about Chalitzah without recognition [that he was really her Yavam];

We are not concerned for such a mistake. Rather, they will check whether the first Beis Din recognized.

Rava holds that we do Chalitzah only if we recognize, lest the latter Beis Din err, to let her marry based on witnesses who will say that they [the first Beis Din] did [Chalitzah] only with recognition.

Question (Rabbeinu Yehudah): A Tosefta teaches that we do Chalitzah even if we do not recognize her. This is difficult for what Rava himself holds!

Answer (Rabbeinu Yehudah): The Tosefta teaches Torah law. The Amora'im here discuss the law mid'Rabanan.

Question: Rava taught in Sukah (38b) that [in Hallel] one should not say "Baruch ha'Ba" and afterwards "b'Shem Hash-m", and Rav Safra said that this is a mere pause, and we are not concerned for this!

Answer #1: Rava accepted Rav Safra's opinion [and retracted to say that we are not concerned for a mere pause].

Answer #2: Perhaps we can distinguish [why there we are concerned for a pause, but here we are not].

The text: It is written in precise Seforim "Lo Avah." The Mesores (tradition) proves like this. It says that in three places, Lo Avah is Samuch (connected) - "Lo Avah Hash-m Hashchisecha", "Lo Avah Yabmi", "Yisrael Lo Avah Li." (Maharshal - the Mesoreh says that in all these places, there is a Makaf. I.e. there is no Trup (cantillation) for the word Lo. It is read together with Avah without any pause. However, one need not say "Yabmi" in the same breath. In "precise Seforim", i.e. Gemaros, it says "Rava admits about "Lo Avah." It does not say "Yabmi".

Note: Sefer ha'Terumah explains that the Mesoreh teaches that there is no Vav, i.e. it is not "v'Lo Avah". "Precise Seforim" refers to accurate Sifrei Torah. If the text were v'Lo, there would be no concern, for even if she pauses, she cannot mean "no, he wants me" - Maharsha.)

In two places in Sefer Devarim, it is at the beginning of the verse - "v'Lo Avah Sichon", "v'Lo Avah Hash-m Lishmo'a El Bilam." (Maharsha - the Mesores lists 17 places where a verse begins with v'Lo Avah with a Vav. Tosfos brought only those in Devarim.)

There are other verses to which that Mesores does not apply [for they are not at the beginning of a verse] - "v'Lo Avah Nosei Kelav" regarding Sha'ul, and "v'Gam El Melech Mo'av Shalach v'Lo Avah" regarding Yiftach.

Implied question: It says above (39b) "she spat in front of us in Beis Din. It was seen on the ground." This is in all the Seforim, and in the Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin!

Answer: Perhaps we require this for the ideal Mitzvah. (See above Tosfos 39b, who said that the text does not say "on the ground", based on our Gemara of a tall Yavam and short Yevamah, and the wind took the spit.)