Previous daf

1)

(a) If a man claims that he betrothed a woman and she denies it, she is free to marry his relatives.
Why is *he* forbidden to marry hers?

(b) The same will apply in the reverse case.
What does the Tana say about a case where the woman denies the man's claims but counters that he betrothed her daughter? Why is the man then permitted to marry the daughter's relatives (provided they are not also close relatives of her mother), and vice-versa?

(c) Is he required to give her Get?

(d) And what will be the Din be in the reverse case, where the man claimed that he betrothed the daughter, and the mother counters that it was her whom he betrothed and not her daughter? Whose relatives are forbidden to whom?

1. ... that the man is not believed to forbid his relatives on the woman he claims he betrothed, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat this Halachah in the case of the woman?
2. ... these two cases, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat this Halachah in the case of the daughter?
3. ... these three cases, why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us the final case ('Kidashti es Bitech, ve'Hi Omeres Lo Kidashta Ela Osi')?

(a) With reference to the second case (of 'Hi Omeres Kidashtani ... '), Shmuel says that we ask the man to give her a Get (to enable her to marry). What is the problem with Rav, who says that we force him to do so?

(b) Then what *does* he mean when he says 'Kofin'?

(c) And what did Rav's Talmidim mean when they quote him as saying 'Kofin u'Mevakshin'?

(a) Rav Yehudah made a statement 'ha'Mekadesh be'Eid Echad, Ein Chosheshin le'Kidushav'. Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel adds 'va'Afilu Sh'neihem Modim'.
Why is that?

(b) What is the alternative interpretation of Rav Yehudah's statement?

(c) What was Rav Yehudah reply when they asked him which of the two interpretations he had in mind?

(a) How does Rava attempt to refute Rav Nachman's ruling, from our Mishnah, where the Tana forbids the woman's relatives on the man (and vice-versa)? What makes him think that the Tana must be speaking about Kidushin that took place with one witness?

(b) We reject this proof however, on the grounds that, according to the man, there were really two witnesses.
If that is so, why is there any room for doubt whether he did betroth her or not? Why not call the witnesses?

(c) According to Beis-Shamai in the Mishnah in Iduyos, if a man who divorced his wife, stays with her overnight in a hotel, she does not require a second Get.
What do Beis Hillel say?

(d) What makes us think that the Tana must be speaking when there is one witness (that he betrothed her with Bi'ah [a Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel])?

(a) What does the Tana say there in the Seifa, in a case where they were divorced from the Eirusin?

(b) Based on this Seifa, how do we refute the Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel?

(c) So we establish the Mishnah in Iduyos when there were Eidei Yichud.
What is then the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?

(d) And why will Beis Hillel concede that no Get is necessary if they were divorced from the Eirusin?

7)

(a) Various Amora'im agree with Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel ('ha'Mekadesh be'Eid Echad Ein Chosheshin le'Kidushav, va'Afilu Sh'neihem Modim'). In the the first Lashon, Rabah bar Rav Huna issues this ruling; in the second Lashon, he quotes Rav. Both Leshonos conclude 'Bei Dina Rabah Amri ... '.
To whom does this refer, according to ...

1. ... the first Lashon?
2. ... the second Lashon?

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa cites a case where two men arrive from overseas accompanied by a woman and goods, and each man claims the woman is his wife, the other man, his slave and the goods, his.
What does the woman claim?

(c) What does the Tana rule?

(d) What does Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami try to prove from here? What makes him think that the Beraisa speaks when there is one witness?

(a) On what grounds do we refute the current interpretation of the Beraisa?

(b) So how do we establish the Beraisa?

(c) Then what is the Tana coming to teach us? What is the Chidush?

(d) What happens to the rest of the goods?

(a) Rav Kahana (the contemporary of Rav Ashi) holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Kidushav', because he learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Davar" "Davar" from Mamon; Rav Papa, holds 'Chosheshin'.
Based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim (re. admitting to part of a claim) "Asher Yomar Ki Hu Zeh", what does Rav Ashi ask on Rav Kahana?

(b) On what grounds does Rav Kahana refute Rav Ashi's query from 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din'?

(a) Mar Zutra and Rav Ada Saba divided the property of their father Rav Mari bar Isar without witnesses.
Why did they then come before Rav Ashi? Were they disputing the division?

(b) What was Rav Ashi's reply?

(a) Abaye rules that if one witness testifies that a person ate Cheilev, he is believed.
What are the ramifications of this ruling?

(b) On what grounds ...

1. ... is he believed?
2. ... might we have otherwise thought that he is not believed? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "O Hoda Eilav Chataso"?

(c) And he proves it from a Mishnah in K'riysus.
What does the Tana there say in a case where someone rejects the testimony of one witness who testifies that he ate Cheilev?

(d) And what does Abaye extrapolate from there?

(a) What does Abaye rule in a case where someone rejects the testimony of one witness who testifies that his Tahoros became Tamei?

(b) What are the ramifications of this ruling?

(c) Abaye extrapolates this ruling from a Mishnah in Taharos.
What does the Tana there say in a case where someone rejects the testimony of one witness who testifies that his Tahoros became Tamei?

Next daf