Inference: [Maseches Semachos] connotes that even if one has no children at all, he may not have Bi'ah until after 30 days.

Rejection: Perhaps it mentioned what is permitted for both of them, but if he has no children at all, it is permitted even within Sheloshim.

Opinion #2 (Ri): If he has no children at all, even Nisu'in is forbidden within Sheloshim, since he may not have Bi'ah until after 30 days.

Support: This is why Maseches Semachos mentioned Nisu'in, for the case when he has no children. Even Nisu'in is forbidden.

Explanation (Rabbeinu Yosef): The Isur [for an Avel within 12 months of losing a parent] to enter Beis ha'Simchah refers only to Simchah of Reshus (not a Mitzvah).

Proof - Citation (Maseches Semachos 9): An Avel over any relative may not enter Beis ha'Simchah until 30 days, and an Avel over his father or mother may not enter for 12 months, unless it was a Seudas Mitzvah.

Possibility: Perhaps Seudas Mitzvah is permitted only after 30 days, and it refers to an Avel over his father or mother;

However, it connotes a little that it is permitted even within Sheloshim.

Alternate text: Some texts say before this 'he should do Chalitzah to one, and Yibum to the other! The Torah says "who will not build" - once he did [Chalitzah, which shows that he will] not build, he may not build.'

Rejection #1: We do not need a verse for this. Since he did Chalitzah to one, he cannot do Yibum with the other, since Chalitzah does not apply to her, like we said above that he does not do Chalitzah to two houses.

Rejection #2: 'He does not do Chalitzah to two houses' connotes that the other is permitted l'Shuk without any action [to her];

The verse "Lo Yivneh" is extra to teach like we expound above (10a) to uproot Kares from [a Yavam who marries] a Chalutzah. It is forbidden only with a Lav.

Question: A Cheresh (deaf-mute) or Chereshes cannot do Chalitzah, yet they do Yibum, like it says below (112b)!

Answer: Chalitzah applies to them, just their mouth hurts (they are disqualified from it, since they cannot say the verses).

Assertion: The text does not say "also, it is a decree lest people say 'a house is partially...'"

Proof: If the Torah permits to do Yibum to one and Chalitzah to the other, we would not refrain due to a decree.

Question: (How could we think so?) If so, why would we need a verse that he does not do Chalitzah to two houses?!

Question (R. Yom Tov b'Ribi Yitzchak): Still, how does the case of Tzaras Tzarah arise? Tzaras Ervah cannot marry his second brother. The Torah forbids her to him (because he had two wives)!

Regarding him (the second brother), the Ervah is not considered outside! (We must say that neither widow is Ervah to him. If not, he could not do Yibum with either!)

Answer: The case occurs if the Ervah is forbidden due to Chayavei Aseh or Chayavei Lavin and Aseh to all of the brothers. She may not do Yibum, and her Tzarah is permitted. (The Ervah is considered outside, since even had she fallen alone, Yibum would be forbidden.)

Question: This is a Stam Mishnah followed by a Machlokes! (If so, the Halachah need not follow the Stam. How does it help that our Stam Mishnah is like Shimon ha'Teimani?)

The Gemara asks like this in Bava Basra 122b! "If you will say that our Stam Tana is R. Yochanan ben Brokah, this is a Stam followed by a Machlokes!"

Answer: Even though it is not considered Stam (to say that the Halachah surely follows it), it is considered like a majority against an individual, like I explained above (42b DH Stam).

In Bava Basra, the Gemara relied on another question "also, why does it say 'except'?" [This rejects the Hava Amina that the Mishnah is Stam like R. Yochanan ben Brokah, to teach that this is the Halachah].

Observation: We still could have asked that we already have a Stam Mishnah like him in Kidushin (66b) "whenever there is Kidushin... this is one who has Bi'ah with any Ervah."

Explanation: It taught Machazir Gerushaso, rather than other Chayavei Lavin, for a Chidush;

Even though it says "Hi To'evah", but her children are not To'evah (Mamzerim), they are tainted (forbidden to Kehunah).

Suggestion: We should learn from the Kal va'Chomer that also she becomes a Chalalah!

Rejection: We say in Kidushin (77b) that Chalalah comes only from Isurei Kedushah. I explained this above (15b).

Explanation: This means that she is Kosher to Kehunah like we conclude, i.e. to Terumah. She is forbidden to Kohanim, for she is a divorcee!

Question: According to R. Akiva, why is she Pasul to Terumah? He is not a Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah (forbidden from birth to her)!

Below (69a) we ask "we should say that 'one who had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her [becomes a Zonah]' refers to Machazir Gerushaso, and we answer that we require Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah.

Answer: The Sugya there is according to Rabanan. R. Akiva does not require Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah, like it says in Kidushin (75b);

Citation (75b): He (their child) is a Mamzer. Need we teach that he disqualifies her?!

Question (Ri): What does R. Akiva expound from "she is a To'evah"?

He does not expound "her children are not To'evah", for they are Mamzerim;

Also he cannot expound "her Tzarah is not To'evah", for she cannot have a Tzarah, since R. Akiva holds that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayavei Lavin!

Inference: A Zonah is Pasul to Terumah, for she becomes a Chalalah, just like a widow [who married a Kohen Gadol].

Support: Also in Sotah (6a), regarding the Mishnah "these are forbidden to eat Terumah", it says "if you will say that this is before she drinks, she is [assumed to be] a Zonah!" It is obvious that [a Zonah] is forbidden to Terumah.

Question #1 (Ri): What is the source that she is forbidden to Terumah? The verse says "Ishah Zonah... Lo Yikachu" (Kohanim may not marry her). We do not find that she is forbidden to Terumah!

Question #2: Below (68b), we ask "we should say that 'one who had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her [becomes a Zonah]' refers to Chayavei Kerisos!"

Why do we need the verse "Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar" for Chayavei Kerisos? Since Chayavei Kerisos make her a Zonah, she is forbidden to Terumah!

Answer (Ri): "Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar" teaches that a Zonah is forbidden to Terumah;

[L'Ish Zar includes] all Chayavei Kerisos, even those that are through Kidushin, and he is not Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah (he was not forbidden to her from birth)...

[Also] all Chayavei Lavin according to R. Akiva, including Machazir Gerushaso, (who is not Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah, like the Gemara implies above, that she is forbidden from Terumah according to R. Akiva), are included in l'Ish Zar.

Support: This is like we say in Kidushin (75a) "[the child] is a Mamzer. Need we teach that he disqualifies through his Bi'ah?!"

Even according to R. Yehoshua, who holds that the child is not a Mamzer since they (Chayavei Kerisos) are severe, they are considered like Zarim Etzlah me'Ikarah.

Implied question: We require below (69a) Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah!

Answer: This is only for Chayavei Lavin, and according to Rabanan, who do not exclude [Chayavei Lavin] from "Ki Sihyeh", which connotes that those that can have Havayah (Kidushin), only Chayavei Kerisos, which are severe. (I.e. "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar..." forbids eating Terumah. All Chayavei Kerisos are severe, so they are called Ish Zar, and Bi'ah with them forbids to Terumah.)

Rather, only regarding Chayavei Lavin [which are not so severe, he is called Ish Zar to disqualify from Terumah only if he is Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah];

Therefore, we need the [next] verse "[u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh] Almanah u'Gerushah" - someone to whom widowhood and divorce apply [returns to eat Terumah], to include a Nochri and slave. (I.e. this excludes one who had Bi'ah with a Nochri or slave. We include a Nochri and slave among those who disqualify to Terumah. Tosfos (68b DH Oved) says that a Nochri or slave is not called a Zar, for Mamzerus does not apply to him. Others say that he is not a Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah, for he could marry her after he converts or is freed.)

According to R. Akiva, who holds that there is a Mamzer from a Nochri and slave, and he learns them from l'Ish Zar, he expounds Almanah u'Gerushah differently below (69a).

Observation: From all those with whom Kidushin does not take effect, she becomes a Zonah, like it says in Temurah (29b) "just like Arayos, Kidushin does not take effect with them, and she becomes a Zonah..."

The term "Zonah" connotes one who cannot have Kidushin, only Bi'as Zenus, but not a Lav of lashes.

Implied question: Why did the Torah need to write "Zonah... Lo Yikachu"? Since a Zonah is forbidden to Terumah, a Kal va'Chomer from a divorcee teaches that she is forbidden to Kehunah! A divorcee is permitted to Terumah, and forbidden to Kohanim!

From this Kal va'Chomer we learn below (68b) that converts of Amon and Mo'av disqualify [through Bi'ah] to Kehunah.

Question: We do not warn [forbid with lashes] based on a Kal va'Chomer!

Answer: The Gemara says there that this is a mere Giluy Milsa.

Answer #1: We need the Lav of Zonah to teach that one is lashed twice.

Answer #2: Also, we need it to teach [that one becomes] a Zonah from [Bi'ah with] a Nochri and slave according to Rabanan of R. Akiva. There is no Lav to Terumah from l'Ish Zar, only from Almanah u'Gerushah, for we learn [Nochri and slave] from Almanah u'Gerushah. (There is no Lav in this verse. We merely infer that she may not return to eat Terumah after Bi'ah with a Nochri and slave.)

Answer #3: We need the Lav of Zonah for a convert and freed slave;

Even according to Abaye, who says (Temurah 29b) that a Kohen who has Bi'ah with a Nochris Zonah is not lashed due to Zonah, if she converted, he agrees that he is lashed, for his seed from her traces their lineage to him.

Answer #4: Also, it is because she became a Zonah, and the Torah forbade her due to Zonah, that Chayavei Kerisos are included in l'Ish Zar;

The Gemara connotes here and everywhere that the name Zonah causes her to be disqualified.

However, from a Nochri and slave, even though she becomes a Zonah, for they cannot have Kidushin with her, this is not included in l'Ish Zar;

Only Chayavei Kerisos, which are severe, are included.

Question: In Kidushin (75b), the Gemara asks "[the child] is a Mamzer. Need we teach that he disqualifies through his Bi'ah?!"

Inference: When the child is a Mamzer, surely this is included in l'Ish Zar, even if she does not become a Zonah.

However, according to R. Yehoshua, who holds that the child is not a Mamzer from Chayavei Kerisos (without Misas Beis Din), the name Zonah causes this to be included in l'Ish Zar.

This is difficult to say that whenever [a teaching] connotes that the name Zonah causes the Isur to Terumah, this is like R. Yehoshua! (The Halachah does not follow him.)

The Ri's opinion: Above (35a), the Ri brought that all [Arayos] through Kidushin, since he is not Zar Etzlah me'Ikarah, are not included in l'Ish Zar.

A Zonah is Pesulah for Terumah because the Torah included her [Isur to Kohanim] with Chalalah. Therefore, she is Pesulah for Terumah like a Chalalah.

Question: Based on this, we must resolve the question below (68b) "we should say that 'one who had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her [becomes a Zonah]' refers to Chayavei Kerisos!" (Since Chayavei Kerisos make her a Zonah, we already know that she is forbidden to Terumah.)

Inference: According to R. Yehoshua, Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Kerisos, for Tefisas Kidushin depends on the name Zenus, like it connotes in Temurah (29b);

Support: Also below (53a), [we ask] "must [the Mishnah] teach that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Kerisos?!" This connotes that no one disagrees.

Implied question: The Gemara below connotes that Mamzerus depends on Tefisas Kidushin!

Also, below (45b), we say "just like Kidushin does not take effect on Eshes Av, and the child is a Mamzer..." This connotes that whenever Kidushin does not take effect, the child is a Mamzer!

Answer: This is according to Shimon ha'Teimani and R. Akiva;

Because the Torah revealed that there is a Mamzer from Chayavei Kerisos, like we learn below (49a), and the Torah revealed also that Kidushin does not take effect on them, like we say in Kidushin (68), therefore we say that these depend on each other;

However, according to R. Yehoshua, even though Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Kerisos, the child is not a Mamzer, like he learns at the end of this Perek that a Mamzer results only from Chayavei Misas Beis Din.

Support: Therefore, below, we say "all agree" (that if a slave or Nochri fathered the child of a Bas Yisrael, the child is a Mamzer) refers to Shimon ha'Teimani;

We do not say that R. Yehoshua agrees, i.e. even though R. Yehudah said that the child is not a Mamzer from Chayavei Kerisos, that is only [for Chayavei Lavin who can have Kidushin with others...]

This is because R. Yehoshua holds that that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Kerisos, even though the child is not a Mamzer.

Question: In Temurah (5b), we ask against Rava, who says that whenever the Torah said not to do [an act], Iy Avid Lo Mehani (if he did it, it does not help), from a widow to a Kohen Gadol;

The Torah said not to marry her, and a Mishnah says "whenever there is Kidushin and an Aveirah, e.g. a widow to a Kohen Gadol..."