Explanation #3 (R. Tam): She says "I want him", but she does not want to be divorced without a Kesuvah. "I will pain him", until he divorces her and gives to her a Kesuvah;

However, if she says "he is repulsive to me, and I do not desire him, and not his Kesuvah", we do not force her to retract through saying that her pardon does not help, since it is mistaken pardon, i.e. she says [that she pardons] due to her pain.

Due to this, her husband would not divorce her, for he does not want to he give a Kesuvah.

Rather, it is total pardon. Amidst this, he will think to divorce her.

Mar Zutra says that we force her. It is like mistaken pardon. This is called coercion, for through this, she will remain married against her will, for her husband will not divorce her, for he would need to give a Kesuvah.

According to Mar Zutra there is no difference between a Moredes who says I want him and I will pain him", and one who says "he is repulsive to me."

Support: Also R. Chananel explained that we do not force the husband to give a Get. Also Rashi did not explain that we force the husband to give a Get.

Question: Since it was not resolved, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. Since she had seized, we do not take from her! (They ruled properly.)

Answer: There was more silk that she had not seized. (They ruled that she keeps all the silk.)

In Version #1, he said "because Rav Zevid is a great man, you flatter him?!" due to the silk she had seized. (They ruled that he takes it from her.)

In Version #2, he said due to the silk she had not seized. The husband was holding it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She wants only to do Yibum. Similarly when he wants to do Yibum, she wants only to do Chalitzah.

Question: What was the question "also [when he demands to do] Yibum, since she is attached to him, they will not give to him another wife?" He can do Chalitzah!

Answer: He does not want to do Chalitzah, lest he need to give a Kesuvah.

Explanation #2: He demands to do Chalitzah, and she does not want to do Chalitzah, and not Yibum. The same applies when he demands to do Yibum.

Similarly, when we say here that she demanded, he does not want to do Chalitzah, and not Yibum.

Question: If so, what was the question "also a Shomeres Yavam has a claim [why she needs children]!"?

Why must we say that she has a claim? Even if she has no claim, we can ask from the Mishnah in Yevamos (39a)!

[It says that if no brother wants to do Yibum], we return to the oldest [brother] and say "the Mitzvah is upon you. Do Yibum or exempt her." The Gemara says that we return to the oldest to force him.

Inference: Also when she demands, we force him, even if she has no claim!

Answer #1: We can say that we force him, but we do not write a letter of rebellion to increase her Kesuvah [unless she has a claim].

Answer #2: We can explain that this itself (that we force the oldest brother) is when she has a claim. Therefore, we ask due to this reason (also a Shomeres Yavam has a claim).

Question: If R. Yochanan's teaching is according to Mishnah Acharonah, like the simple connotation, what was the question "also [when he demands to do] Yibum, since she is attached to him, they will not give to him another wife?"

According to Mishnah Acharonah, he cannot force her to do Yibum, and he does not want to do Chalitzah, rather, Yibum!

It is not relevant to discuss forcing her to do something he does not demand!

Answer: Initially, we thought that R. Yochanan's teaching is according to Mishnah Rishonah. Therefore, we asked that he should be able to force her even to do Yibum;

At the end, when we answer "this is like Mishnah Rishonah, and this is like Mishnah Acharonah", also R. Yochanan's teaching is according to Mishnah Acharonah. We accede [to a demand] to do Chalitzah, but we do not accede [to a demand] to do Yibum.

Implied question: Similarly, we could have answered "this is for [a demand to do] Chalitzah, this is for [a demand to do] Yibum according to R. Yochanan, and both are according to Mishnah Acharonah!

Answer: The Gemara preferred to establish both of them when he demands to do Yibum, similar to an Arusah taught [with it], in which he demand to make Nisu'in with her, and she rebels. R. Tam explained like this.

Question: What was the Hava Amina to say that it is like Mishnah Rishonah? Just the contrary! According to Mishnah Rishonah, it is more reasonable to say oppositely!

We should accede [to a demand] to do Yibum, but we do not accede [to a demand] to do Chalitzah!

Answer #1: Even according to Mishnah Rishonah, we should accede [to a demand] to do Chalitzah, because the Torah made it dependent on him - "if the man does not want", like it says in Yevamos (39b)!

However, one might have thought that we do not hand her over for Yibum b'Al Korchah.

Answer #2: If he demanded to do [Yibum, or] even Chalitzah, we accede to him. If he demanded to do specifically Yibum, we do not accede to him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): In Yevamos (39b), regarding the Mishnah in Bechoros (13a), it brings Mishnah Rishonah and Acharonah that we bring here;

Rav said about this "we do not force." Rashi explained that even according to Mishnah Acharonah, that Mitzvas Chalitzah has precedence, we do not force him to do Chalitzah when both of them are happy to do Yibum;

We do not say that they do not intend for the Mitzvah, and [it is as if] he have Bi'ah with Ervah. Rather, if he wants he does Yibum, even though Mitzvas Chalitzah has precedence.

However, if he wants to do Yibum, and she says 'I do not want him', and says recognized matters [for this], if we can trick him [to do Chalitzah], we trick him;

If we cannot trick him, we force him to do Chalitzah.

Source #1 - Citation (Yevamos 4a - Rav Sheshes): What is the source that if a Yevamah fell to a leper, we do not muzzle her in front of him (ignore her claims, and let him do Yibum b'Al Korchah)?...

Suggestion: Perhaps this is only if he is a leper.

Rejection: It applies to any proper excuse that she gives for her words.

Source (below, 77a - Mishnah): A case occurred in Tzidon in which a tanner died, and he had a brother who was a tanner. (They work with excrement. Most people cannot bear their smell.) Chachamim said that [the Yevamah] can say "I could bear your brother, but I cannot bear you."

Source #2: We rule that we write an Igeres Mered against an Arusah, but not against a Yevamah.

Conclusion: For all of these reasons, we force him to do Chalitzah, and she receives her Kesuvah;

In all the cases here when we do not force, both of them consent [to do Yibum].

Rebuttal (of Source #1 - Ri): There is no proof from a leper and tanner. [We force him to do Chalitzah] only [if he is] a leper and tanner], for we force him such a husband to divorce!

Rebuttal (of Source #2 - Ri): There is no proof from the law that we do not write an Igeres Mered against a Yevamah. There, we do not write even without an excuse, because Mitzvas Chalitzah has precedence!

If so, according to Rashi, even without an excuse we should say that we force!

Rejection #1 (of Explanation #1): We can prove oppositely from there, that we do not force him! If we can force him, why do we say that we do not write an Igeres Mered [against a Yevamah]?

We should have said better than this, that we force him to do Chalitzah!

Rejection #2: We say in our Sugya that if he demands to do Yibum, we do not accede. This implies that we do not write an Igeres Mered for him [against her].

[According to Rashi,] just the contrary! We accede to her, and force him!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rav discusses every case. In every case we do not force.

Support: Even according to R. Tam, who explains that Rav said "we do not force" according to Mishnah Rishonah, that we do not force to do Yibum, even though Mitzvas Yibum has precedence...

Explanation: [It is plausible that Rav taught according to Mishnah Rishonah, for] this is relevant nowadays when we know that they intend for the Mitzvah, e.g. they come to do Chalitzah. Surely they do not intend for beauty, or for [the status of] being married;

However, when it is not clear to us that they intend for the Mitzvah, we force verbally, and distance them from Yibum, for we hold like Aba Sha'ul (that Chalitzah has precedence), like we explained in Yevamos (39b).

Also according to R. Tam, if he demands to do Yibum, we do not force him to do Chalitzah. Rather, we trick him if she does not want [to do Yibum];

Distinction: However, if he does not want to do Yibum, and not Chalitzah, it seems that we force him.

Question: Sechar Shabbos through Havla'ah (one is paid for Shabbos and weekdays together) is permitted, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (58a) "if he was hired for the week, month or year, we give to him wages for Shabbos"!

Answer: Here it is forbidden, for we do not add for every whole week together, rather, the amount for every day;

If he is appeased (ceases rebellion) today or tomorrow, in the middle of the week, we do not join all the days of the week together.

Explanation: This disqualification of the body [to eat Terumah] is not the decree among the 18 decrees [made on the day that Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel] that one who eats a Rishon l'Tum'ah... like we explained in Eruvin (82b).

Question: Also according to him, this is difficult according to the opinion that on Shabbos night, she literally eats with him!

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara could have said "also according to you [it is difficult]"!

According to the conclusion, it is fine. All the extra meals are for guests and passersby.