Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Often,] when Leah does Chalitzah, she brings her sister Rachel with her to Beis Din, and some people think that Rachel did Chalitzah;

Therefore they forbid also Rachel's Tzarah, even if both are married to a stranger, for they will think that they were married to his (the Choletz') brother, for he did Chalitzah to Rachel.

Question #1: This is astounding! The Mishnah says "her sister, when she is alive." This implies that if she died, [her sister] is permitted!

Also below (49a), a Mishnah teaches that if one did Chalitzah to Leah and she died, he may marry her sister (Rachel).

Summation of question: Why is this permitted? People think that Rachel did Chalitzah!

Question #2: The Mishnah permits the brothers, even though they go with him (the Choletz) to Beis Din!

Question #3: We forbid the Tzarah only in a situation of Mitzvah (Yibum), like it says above (8a);

Above (27a), regarding one who began doing Chalitzah to the sisters, we bring our Mishnah here, i.e. both of them are married to his [the Choletz'] brothers!

Answer #1: We can resolve Rashi's explanation a little if she married his brother, and not a stranger.

Answer #2 (Ri): The text says "this one goes with him to Beis Din", i.e. to do Chalitzah.

Since she did Chalitzah, she resembles a divorcee more, so we forbid the Tzarah of her relative when she (the relative, and hence also the Tzarah) is married to a brother, for she resembles Tzaras Ervah;

However, if Leah's Tzarah does Chalitzah, and not Leah, Leah does not resemble a divorcee. Even Rachel, the relative of the Tzarah of the Chalutzah, is permitted.

Alternate text: Some texts do not say "[go] with him", and not "with her", rather, "this one goes to Beis Din, and this one does not."

Observation: Above (29a), we did not want to say that "this is [the case in which they said 'woe to him! He loses his wife and his brother's wife']" excludes the case here, because he was negligent [for being Mekadesh Achos Zekukaso], like I explained above.

Implied question: Why did the Mishnah discuss when the Yevamah died, rather than when his wife died? This would be a bigger Chidush [if she is permitted, like Rav says]!

Answer: Since it needed to teach about when the Yavam died, it taught also about when the Yevamah died.

Implied question: Above (27b), Rav permits even if she was not permitted from the beginning!

(If two sisters fell to two brothers, they are forbidden.) He said that if the first [to fall] died, the second is permitted!

Answer: This is only regarding Zikah mid'Rabanan. Here, Achos Ishah is mid'Oraisa. It is permitted only because she was permitted from the beginning.

Explanation #1: This is needed only to teach unlike Beis Shamai, who say that Ma'amar totally acquires.

Explanation #2: It mentioned a Ma'amar to teach that even though the latter's Zikah is not complete, she forbids this one.

Question: Why don't we ask from this Beraisa against Rav (28a), and answer that R. Eliezer taught it, like we answer here?

Observation: Still, we could have said that R. Elazar's reason is like we explain below (109a, we decree lest she be confused with an 'orphan in the life of her father'), but in this Beraisa, perhaps he does not argue!

Question: Perhaps she may not do Chalitzah lest she rely on the Chalitzah to marry l'Shuk, and we are concerned lest she be found to be pregnant with a viable baby, and a fetus exempts only after it is born!

Answer: We are not concerned for this. Surely she will not marry within three months, and after three months, if she is found to be pregnant, she will not err;

Also, one may not marry Me'uberes Chavero (a woman pregnant from another man. We are not concerned lest people transgress this.)

Explanation: Based on this reason, "she does not do Chalitzah" in the Mishnah is [merely] good counsel [but it is not forbidden].

Question: According to Reish Lakish, since an Arusah is not pregnant, why can't she do Chalitzah?

Answer: According to Reish Lakish, they decreed an Arusah due to a Nesu'ah;

However, R. Yochanan holds that a Nesu'ah herself is [forbidden to do Chalitzah] merely due to [a possible need for] a proclamation about [her Heter to] Kehunah, so we would not decree.

Question: Why did we mention a divorcee? We could have asked about one who is only Arusah [since she is not pregnant]!

Question: We should challenge Reish Lakish from R. Yosi!

Answer: Also Reish Lakish holds that she may not do Chalitzah within three months because she may not do Yibum.

Implied question: We could have asked from the Mishnah (23b), a man was Mekadesh one of two sisters, and he does not know which one. (They do Chalitzah, even though Yibum is forbidden!)

Answer: We did not, for we would have had to elaborate.

Note: R. Akiva Eiger did not understand this. The Mishnah explicitly says so. From the Beraisa we brought, we needed to elaborate to find what is the case! Aruch l'Ner answers that it is better to bring a concise Beraisa, even if we must elaborate in order to explain it, than to bring a longer Mishnah.

Implied question: We could have asked from the Mishnah (26a, if two sisters fell to two brothers), they do Chalitzah but not Yibum!

Answer: We could not ask from there, for we cannot say that they should wait (without Chalitzah or Yibum) unable to remarry (until the Yevamim or one of the sisters die);

However, here, she can wait until the Safek is clarified, like the case above, in which she can wait until after three months.

Implied question: However, we could have asked from the Mishnah (30b) of Safek Kidushin [to the Ervah. The Tzarah does Chalitzah, but not Yibum! Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that we could say that there we discuss when the Ervah died after the husband, and it is very unlikely that the matter will ever be clarified. Here, the sisters involved in the Safek are here. They should wait until it is clarified!

Implied question: Why didn't we say that a Safek Kidushin arose with an Ervah? It is a Safek whether or not [her Tzarah] is Tzaras Ervah!

Answer: If so, it should have said "the Sefekos, their Tzaros do Chalitzah, but not Yibum."

Observation: Regarding Safek divorce, we could have established that they do not do Yibum, lest it is his brother's divorcee.

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that does not decree below (42b) a minor due to an adult, that refers to Havchanah;

Regarding a Yevamah, he agrees [that we decree].

Suggestion: We discuss one who fled due to her, in order to prevent her from marrying. He does not want to do Chalitzah or Yibum.

Rejection: In Kesuvos (107b), we ask this against Shmuel, who is concerned for Tzerari (lest her husband left money for her);

If he fled due to her, why should we be concerned for Tzerari?!

Explanation: Rather, he fled due to rebellion, or for monetary reasons.

Explanation #1: This is not only if he fled. The same applies if he became sick. Since he did not flee due to her, rather, due to Ones that occurred to him, what is the difference whether he fled or became sick?!

Support: The Yerushalmi says that the same applies if he became sick.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): This is only if he fled, but not if he became sick. (Aruch l'Ner - this is not in our text of Rashi.)

Implied question: In Kesuvos 2a, the Gemara asked "if he became sick [when the scheduled time for Nisu'in came], what is the law?" (Must he feed her? This should be just like here!)

Answer: There, he became sick just when the scheduled time came. Here, he became sick after he stood in judgment. He should have married her immediately, before Ones occurred (therefore, surely he must feed her).

Explanation (Ri): This is only if he agreed to do Yibum and fled. If he wanted to do only Chalitzah, it is unreasonable that Chachamim would enact that the Yavam feed her, since he will not do Yibum, rather, Chalitzah;

They enacted food for her from him only if he fled, but not if he did not flee, since it is not common to delay Yibum, since he is in front of us and agreed;

Due to the short time that it is normal to delay, they did not enact food for her.

Question: Above (29b), it connotes a little that also when he did not flee, he is obligated to feed her!

It says "he stood in judgment, and they allotted food for her from him." It does not mention at all that he fled!

Suggestion: [Perhaps there is different, for] there he gave a Ma'amar, like I explained above.

Rejection: Regarding this, there is reason to distinguish between whether or not he gave a Ma'amar only when there are two Yevamim;

If neither gave a Ma'amar, neither is obligated in food, even if one of them agreed to do Yibum and fled.

There, we needed to establish it when he gave a Ma'amar, for otherwise he could not annul her vows.

Assertion: It seems that Chachamim fined him. Since he did not do Yibum, they enacted food for her.

Support: He does not receive her earnings, like it says in Kesuvos (107b) "there is no concern [lest she accepted to feed herself] from her earnings, since he has no lien on them."

Rejection: Based on what I explained that when he did not flee, she is not fed, there is no proof that he does not receive her earnings;

There is no concern lest he told her "feed yourself from your earnings", since he had no lien on her earnings until he fled and they allot food for her.

Defense (of Support - Ri): According to this explanation, the Gemara should have said [that before he fled,] "he was not obligated to feed her" [rather than "he had no lien on her earnings"].