Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, a man who says 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' is believed.
Why do we not check whether there is blood or not?

(b) Why is he believed? Is he also believed to deprive her of her Kesuvah?

(c) We ask why he should not remain permitted, seeing as is a S'fek S'feika. How will it be a S'fek S'feika?

(d) One answer is that Rebbi Elazar speaks about the wife of a Kohen (who is forbidden to her husband even if she was raped).
What is the second answer?

(a) Rebbi Elazar's Chidush is that 'Shavya Anafshei Chatichah de'Isura'. But do we not already know this from the Mishnah in Kidushin, where a man who says to a woman 'Kidashtich', is forbidden to marry her relatives, even though she remains permitted to marry him?

(b) In the Mishnah in Kidushin, why do we not simply ask the witnesses, to ascertain whether he really did betroth her or not?

(a) In another statement, which two things does Rebbi Elazar require before a woman becomes forbidden to her husband?

(b) Ho do we initially interpret his words 'ke'Ma'aseh she'Hayah'?

(c) What problem do we have with those words?

(d) We also ask that in any event, Bas Sheva was not forbidden to Uri'ah. How do we know that?

(a) How do we therefore reinterpret 'ke'Ma'aseh she'Hayah'?

(b) We present a contradiction between Rebbi Elazar's two statements after inferring from his second statement 'be'Kinuy u'Stirah In, Pesach Pasu'ach, Lo'. This inference is proved unacceptable however, because then, we could also infer 'be'Kinuy u'Stirah In, Eidim, Lo'.
How do we know that a woman is forbidden to her husband with two witnesses, even without Kinuy u'Stirah?

(c) We finally establish that, according to Rebbi Elazar, either two witnesses or one witness following Kinuy and S'tirah, will cause a woman to become forbidden to her husband.
From where do we know that a woman is not forbidden to her husband through the testimony of one witness (where there has not been a prior Kinuy and S'tirah)?

(a) What is the implication of the word "Eid" throughout the Torah?

(b) What can we therefore infer from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Eid Ein Bah"?
What do we learn from that inference?

(c) In light of the two Dinim of Rebbi Elazar, how do we view Pesach Pasu'ach?

(d) What is now the problem with Bas Sheva?

6)

(a) One reason that Bas Sheva was not forbidden to her husband and to David is because she was an Anusah.
What is the other?

(b) What did Yishai mean when he instructed David "... ve'es Arubasam Tikach" (Shmuel)?

(a) Going back to our Mishnah, why must a Besulah marry on Wednesday?

(b) Why can this not be due to a concern that, due to his anger abating, he will pay her the Kesuvah?

(c) Abaye tries to prove from here that 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' is believed.
Why is there in fact, no proof?

(d) Why might Ta'anas Pesach Pasu'ach not forbid the man on his wife, even if Ta'anis Damim does?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel goes even further than Rebbi Elazar with regard to Pesach Pasu'ach.
What does *he* say?

(b) We will learn later in a Mishnah (on Daf 12a.) that someone who eats by his father-in-law *in Yehudah* without witnesses, is not believed if, after the wedding, he claims that his wife was not a Besulah.
What can we infer from the Mishnah?

(c) Why can the Tana not be referring to his wife becoming forbidden to him?

(d) Then to what must he referring? What does Rav Yosef try to prove from here?

(a) If the Ta'anah in the above Mishnah is one of Pesach Pasu'ach, why is he not believed in Yehudah, when he says that she is not a Besulah?

(b) And why is he believed elsewhere? How do we know that he does not hate her?

(c) How do we refute the proof from here that Pesach Pasu'ach is believed even to cause his wife to lose her Kesuvah? On what grounds is he believed elsewhere if not because of Ta'anas Pesach Pasu'ach?

Next daf