Previous daf

1)

(a) If one of the three Dayanim who substantiated the Sht'ar died before he had a chance to sign his name - the surviving Dayanim must write in the Sh'tar 'be'Mosav T'lasa Havina, ve'Chad Lesohi' (We were three, and one of us is no longer here).

(b) Rebbi Zeira heard this from Rebbi Aba. Had Rebbi Aba from Acco not reminded him about it - he would have forgotten it.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains - that if they stated in the document that it had appeared before Beis-Din, it was no longer necessary to word it the way Rebbi Zeira did. We object to this statement however - on the grounds that maybe it was a 'Beis-Din Chatzuf' (an impudent Beis-Din) consisting of (the) two Dayanim (who signed), which Shmuel (whose opinion is not accepted) considers to be a valid Beis-Din.

(d) We conclude that what Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak meant is that they added 've'Amar Lana Rabana Ashi' - which is acceptable, because Rav Ashi would not be guilty of such an error (as ruling like Shmuel with regard to a 'Beis-Din Chatzuf'). It would not suffice just to add 'de'Bei Dina de'Rabana Ashi' - because maybe the Beis-Din of Rav Ashi (not in the presence of Rav Ashi) held like Shmuel.

1. ... she was married but is now divorced - she is believed as long as there are no witnesses that she was married (because of 'ha'Peh she'Asar'), but not if there are.
2. ... she was captured but that her captors did not violate her - she is believed as long as there are no witnesses that she was captured (for the same reason).

(a) Initially - we try to learn 'ha'Peh she'Asar' from the Pasuk "es Biti Nasati *la'Ish ha'Zeh*".

(b) We reject this however, on the grounds that it is a S'vara, and does not require a Pasuk.

(c) In fact, we use the Pasuk for the D'rashos of Rav Huna Amar Rav and of Rebbi Yonah (respectively), who learn from ...

1. ... "la'Ish" - that, when a father declares that he married off his daughter to a certain man, he is believed to forbid her to everyone else.
2. ... " ha'Zeh" - 've'Lo le'Yavam', meaning that if the husband claimed that his Yevamah had committed adultery before his brother died, he is not obligated to pay the hundred Zuz fine of a Motzi-Shem-Ra.

(a) When a woman claims that she is married, she becomes Asur to every other man because of 'Shavya le'Nafshah Chatichah de'Isura' (she has rendered everyone else forbidden by virtue of her statement). Consequently, she cannot be believed when she subsequently says that she is available for marriage.

(b) She is nevertheless believed - should she give a plausible reason as to why she issued her first statement.

(c) When they asked that woman why she first told potential suitors that she was betrothed and subsequently accepted Kidushin from other suitors - she replied that, the first batch of suitors were *not nice people*, so she turned them down by claiming that she was already betrothed; whereas the second batch *were*.

(a) When Shmuel asked Rav about a wife who first informs her husband that she is Tamei and then, on the same night, she tells him that she is Tahor - that he may believe her, provided she gives a plausible reason for her first statement.

(b) Shmuel reacted by making Rav repeat it to him forty times, until he felt sure that he would not forget it.

(c) When it came to the crunch however - Shmuel did not want to rely on Rav's leniency.

6)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if two witnesses testify that a man died and two others testify that he did not, his wife is not permitted to marry, but that, if she did, she may remain with her husband. In a similar case, where two witnesses testify that a woman is divorced and two testify that she is not - he issues the same ruling.

(b) Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi argues with the Tana Kama in both cases. He holds - that even if she subsequently married, she must leave her husband.

(c) Rebbi Menachem be'Rebbi Yossi agrees with the Tana Kama - that if she was already married by the time the second witnesses testified, she may remain with her husband.

(a) The problem with allowing the woman to remain with her husband is that - seeing as there are two witnesses who testify that she is married, anyone who performs Bi'ah with her, is entering into a Safek Kares (for which one is Chayav an Asham Taluy).

(b) Rav Sheishes answers this Kashya - by establishing the Beraisa when she married one of the witnesses who testified that her husband was dead (who is not Chayav an Asham Taluy because he is certain that her husband is dead).

(c) Neither is *she* Chayav an Asham Taluy - because the Tana speaks when she claims to be certain that he is dead, since otherwise, he would have turned up.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan echoes the Beraisa in all respects, except that in the Seifa (the case where two witnesses testify that a woman is divorced and two testify that she is not) he concludes that, even if they married, she must leave her husband. In order to reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha -Abaye amends the case from two against two witnesses, to one against one.

(b) To explain his words, he establishes him like Ula - who says that wherever the Torah believes one witness, he has the status of two witnesses. Consequently, in ...

1. ... the Reisha - Rebbi Yochanan is saying that, when one witness testifies that a man died he is believed like two, and even if another witness testifies that he is still alive, once she marries, she may remain with her husband. .
2. ... the Seifa - if one witness testifies that a woman is divorced, and another witness testifies that she is not, she remains an Eishes Ish, and must leave him even if they are already married (see Tosfos Yeshanim at foot of page).

(c) In the Reisha, she is not permitted to marry him Lechatchilah - because of Rav Asi, who quotes the Pasuk in Mishlei "Haser Mimcha Lazus S'fasayim" (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum'), from which we learn that a person should keep away from situations which create unpleasant rumors.

(a) Rava reestablishes Rebbi Yochanan by two witnesses against two, and the reason that the woman is obligated to leave her husband in the Seifa, is because he holds like Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi by Gerushin, but not by Misah. This is because, in the latter case, she will be unable to deny that he is alive, should he turn up. Consequently, she will be afraid to marry unless she is certain that he is dead (so she is permitted to remain with her husband , like the Rabbanan) - whereas, in the former case, even if her husband claims that he did not divorce her, she will not be afraid to contradict him and say that he did (so she must leave her husband, like Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi).

(b) Rav Hamnuna rules that if a woman says to her husband that he divorced her, she is believed - because she would not have the Chutzpah to make such a claim if it was not true.

(c) Nevertheless, Rava in the name of Rebbi Yochanan contends with the possibility that a woman will confront her husband and claim that he divorced her - because she *has two witnesses* to support such a claim (whereas Rav Hamnuna speaks when she does *not*).

(d) Rav Asi establishes Rebbi Yochanan by two against two, like Rava, and he is speaking when the witnesses testify that the man had just died or that he just divorced his wife. Consequently, in the former case, where it is not possible to verify the testimony of the witnesses, we accept their testimony, as we explained according to Rava. The latter case however, is different - because it is possible to verify the witnesses testimony by asking her to produce her Get, which can hardly have got lost so soon after the divorce. If she is not able to do so, then we assume that she is not divorced, and she must leave her second husband.