Question (Rashi): The Mishnah connotes unlike this! It says that if one had Bi'ah with the Ketanah, and afterwards with the Chereshes, he disqualified the Ketanah;

Why don't we say that the Ketanah should stay with him in any case! If she (the Ketanah) is acquired, she is acquired (and the Chereshes cannot disqualify her);

If not (she is not acquired), she is like a stranger (only the Chereshes fell to Yibum)!

Answer (Rashi): We decree [that the Ketanah may not stay with him] lest he have Bi'ah with the Chereshes first, like in the Beraisa below.

Question: The Beraisa says that if he had Bi'ah with the Chereshes, he gives her a Get, and she is permitted;

Why don't we decree about one who had Bi'ah with the Chereshes, due to when the Ketanah's husband died and he (her Yavam) had Bi'ah with her?

Then she is not permitted through a Get, only with Chalitzah, for Bi'ah Pesulah does not exempt [from Zikah. We should decree in the Beraisa,] just like we decree in the Mishnah!

Answer: Perhaps since there would be no solution to permit the Chereshes [if we would decree, Chachamim] did not want to forbid her permanently.

Question: Granted, above (50b) we say that Bi'ah Pesulah does not exempt. We decree about Bi'ah after a Get due to Bi'ah after Chalitzah;

However, here, what concern is there?

Answer: Also here, if [Bi'ah Pesulah] exempts, people will say that Bi'ah of the Chereshes is Kosher Bi'ah, even though it is after Bi'ah of the Ketanah;

They will come to confuse her with an adult. After he had Bi'ah with the Gedolah, he will have Bi'ah with her sister.

Question: What does he lose through doing Chalitzah? Why don't we force him, in order to permit her?

Answer: He is embarrassed to do Chalitzah in Beis Din, for she spits in front of him.

Implied question: We should force him, for he put a finger between her teeth (and she bit it. This is a metaphor, i.e. he caused the problem), for he did not annul her vow!

Answer #1: He cannot annul until [she is his wife, i.e.] after Bi'ah.

Implied question: If the Tana holds like the opinion that a Yavam can annul [how can we answer? Tana'im] argue about this in Nedarim (74a), and above (29b)!

Answer: He holds like the opinion (Kesuvos 59b) [that when a woman vowed and her husband did not annul,] it is considered that she put a finger between her teeth. Therefore, we request that he do Chalitzah, but we do not force.

Implied question: He will come to establishing a name (when he matures, he can father children)!

Answer: This does not help, since [until now] he was never Kosher (able to father).

Support: Above (79b) we disqualify a Seris Chamah because he was never Kosher, even though such people can be cured in Alexandria of Mitzrayim.

Explanation: [Abaye] answers that the verse says [any Yavam]; this is unlike a Seris Chamah. His cure is not certain to come, the way a minor will [surely] mature.

Explanation: We learn from the fact that it did not write Achi ha'Mes Yavo Aleha.

Explanation: Above (17b), we exclude from this verse Eshes Achiv she'Lo Hayah b'Olamo;

Inference: If they were together in the world, even for one day, he does Yibum.

Suggestion: Perhaps we expound from "Yachdav"!

Rejection: If so, even a Seris would do Yibum for this reason, for they were together!

Explanation: [R. Meir holds that this is] even if we saw that they were secluded. R. Yosi says, if they were secluded, it is immediately.

"Immediately" is not literal, for he cannot claim until he finds a Beis Din.

Explanation #1: This means that we do not know that she was secluded, even though she entered Chupah.

R. Meir holds that one cannot restrain himself not to be secluded and have Bi'as Mitzvah.

Explanation #2: "She was secluded" means that we know surely that she was not secluded. R. Meir does not argue about this.