Assertion: Above (29b), the text says Rabah [and not Rava] regarding "according to Beis Shamai, does a Ma'amar make Nisu'in or Eirusin?"

Proof: His answer connotes that he agrees that [Beis Shamai agree that] he does not inherit her. (This is unlike Rava says here.)

Observation: According to Rava, this is fine. Ma'amar helps to divide the property only after death, but not in her lifetime, for she is Vadai, and they (the brother's heirs) are Safek.

Even so, he did not want to establish the Reisha to be when he gave a Ma'amar, for Rava holds that just because she is Vadai is not a reason why she may sell l'Chatchilah.

Therefore, he established it when he did not give a Ma'amar.

Implied question: Above, Rabah holds that she may sell l'Chatchilah for this reason, because she is Vadai!

Answer: Rava does not hold like this.

Pesak (Rav Achai Gaon): The Halachah follows Abaye, for Rav Papa is Basra, and he holds like Abaye.

Question: Why isn't this included in Ya'al Kegam (an acronym of the six places in which the Halachah follows Abaye against Rava)?

Answer: Other Amora'im are involved in the argument. (Ya'al Kegam lists only arguments only between Abaye and Rava.)

Question: How does this help the Yavam (that the Kesuvah is on the deceased's property)? If the deceased's property does not suffice, Chachamim enacted a Kesuvah for her from the Yavam's property!

Suggestion: If the deceased sold his property, she takes the property from the buyer, even though the Yavam has Bnei Chorin (property he did not sell)!

Rejection: If so, it will be light in his eyes to divorce her (since she will not collect from his property)!

Answer #1 (Ri): This enables the Yavam to sell his fields. Even if afterwards the deceased's property became flooded [and worthless], she may not take from property that the Yavam sold;

If she was his [regular] wife (not a Yevamah), she would take the sold property.

Question: However, according to the Hava Amina in Kesuvos (95a) that if Bnei Chorin were flooded, she cannot take sold property, this is difficult!

Answer #2: It is relevant that if he divorced her and afterwards the deceased's property was flooded, she may not take from the Yavam's Bnei Chorin.

Inference: It did not say "until he heals." This implies that even if he says to let him (the deaf-mute or lunatic) to do Yibum immediately, we do not heed him, because we do not muzzle her. (If she gives a proper reason not to do Yibum, we honor it.)

Similarly, we could have listed also a leper. (If he says to let the leper do Yibum, we do not heed him.)

Observation: Even if "Lo Ratzu" meant that they do not want to do Yibum, rather, Chalitzah, we could have asked [why we return to the oldest].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): When both of them want to do Yibum, we do not force him to do Chalitzah due to the Mitzvah, that we would say that they do not intend for the Mitzvah;

However, if she does not want to do Yibum, because she gives an excuse, if we cannot trick the Yavam [to do Chalitzah], we force him to do Chalitzah.

Source #1 (Rashi): We learn from a leper and tanner. (If we cannot trick him, we force him to do Chalitzah.)

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. We force [even] such husbands to divorce their wives!

Objection (to Explanation #1): It seems that for other excuses, we do not force.

Proof: If not, why did [Chachamim] toil below (106a) to trick [Yevamim]? They should force him to do Chalitzah!

Suggested source #2 (for Rashi): We learn from a letter of rebellion. (We write such letters against an Arusah who refuses to have Nisu'in, but not against a Shomeres Yavam. This is because we force a Yavam to do Chalitzah!)

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. If it were, even without an excuse [we should force him]!

Rather, the reason [we do not write against a Shomeres Yavam] is because the Mitzvah of Chalitzah has precedence, like we conclude.

Objection #2 (to Explanation #1): Also, there R. Yochanan said that if he demands to do Yibum, we do not comply;

If we force to do Chalitzah, there is no need to say that we do not comply with a demand to do Yibum!

Objection #3: Since he said "the Torah made it dependent on you", this implies that even nowadays, that Mitzvas Chalitzah has precedence!

Explanation #2: R. Tam's text says "Mitzvas Yibum has precedence over Mitzvas Chalitzah. Rav said that we do not force."

This refers to initially, when people intended for the Mitzvah. It teaches that we do not force people to do Yibum, e.g. when people who intended for the Mitzvah came in front of Rav.

Also Rav Yehudah, who enacted "if you want, do Yibum", discusses people who come in front of us for Chalitzah.

If they would do Yibum, they intended for the Mitzvah. They were not intending for beauty or marriage, for they were not thinking to do Yibum, rather, Chalitzah!

However, we do not allow others to do Yibum. Just the contrary, we force them to do Chalitzah.

Pesak (R. Tam): The Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul, like the Stam Mishnah in Bechoros (13a). The Halachah does not follow Rami bar Chama, who says that they retracted to say that Mitzvas Yibum has precedence, like Rabanan.

Support #1: Above (3a), we establish the first Mishnah like Aba Sha'ul.

Support #2: Below (109a), Bar Kapara's Beraisa says that one should always cling to Chalitzah, like Aba Sha'ul.

Support #3: The Stam Gemara in Kesuvos (64a) is like Aba Sha'ul.

Implied question: Above in our Sugya connotes that Bi'ah is preferable!

Answer: That refers to people who intended for the Mitzvah.

Support #4: R. Chananel ruled here that Mitzvas Yibum has precedence, but he retracted in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah and ruled that Mitzvas Chalitzah has precedence.

Assertion: It seems that the text does not say "on the ground." There is no need for this, like it says below (106b) regarding a tall Yavam and short Yevamah, and the wind took the spit.

Explanation: He wants to be called a married man.

Explanation (Ri): This is not like below, "he may marry her for beauty or for Ishus." There, Ishus means for the sake of Mitzvas Yibum.

Support: We find like this below (53b). Regarding "even if both of them are Shogeg or Mezid", Mezid refers to Zenus;

It is unlike what R. Nechemyah says there "the Torah included Bi'as Shogeg like Mezid". That Mezid means intent for the Mitzvah, and also regarding "even if he is Shogeg and she is Mezid."