Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava was picking the brains of his Talmidim (among them, Rav Papa). He asked them whether the wife of a Kohen who has been raped is still entitled to her Kesuvah. She might have lost it, because the Torah gives an Anusah who is the wife of a Kohen the same Din as the wife of a Yisrael who committed adultery.
Why might she nevertheless still be entitled to it?

(b) How did his Talmidim resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah?

(a) What She'eilah did the B'nei Yeshivah ask concerning a woman who claims in her husband's presence that he divorced her?

(b) Rav Hamnuna maintains that she is believed.
How does he reconcile his ruling with the Mishnah Acharonah, which does not believe a woman who says to her husband 'Temei'ah Ani Lecha'?

(c) And how does Rava, who holds that the woman is not believed, reconcile this with the Mishnah Rishonah, which does believe a woman who says 'Temei'ah Ani Lecha'?

(d) How will ...

1. ... Rava reconcile his opinion with 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinecha', according to the Mishnah Rishonah (where her statement is not embarrassing ... yet she is believed)?
2. ... Rav Hamnuna reconcile his opinion with 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinecha' according to the Mishnah Acharonah, where she is not believed, even though she knows that her husband knows, too?

(a) Like whom is the Halachah, like Rav Hamnuna or like Rava?

(b) We know that she also receives her Kesuvah, because the Sugya compares this case to our Mishnah, where she goes out and receives her Kesuvah.
Why else is it obvious that she does?

(c) Does she receive her entire Kesuvah?

(d) In the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, according to the Mishnah Acharonah, will a woman be believed if she claims that her husband is not intimate with her at all?

5) How do we reconcile Rav Hamnuna here (who holds that the woman is believed more when she knows that her husband knows too, than when she knows that he does not, and Rebbi Ami in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto' (who says - regarding a case where the man places the blame for their childnessness after ten years on his wife, whilst she places it on him), that, if she claims that his Zera does not shoot like an arrow, she is believed, *because* she knows that it does, whereas he doesn't?

6)

(a) What did the man comment when his wife, who would always bring her husband water the morning after Tashmish, brought him water to wash one morning?

(b) And what did Rav Nachman rule when she retorted that it must then have been one of the Nochri spice-merchants currently in town?

(c) Why must her husband have been a Kohen?

7)

(a) What did that woman reply when her husband asked her why she seemed less jovial than usual?

(b) What did she reply when he told her that she must have made a mistake, since there had been no Tashmish?

(c) What did Rav Nachman rule in that case?

(a) What did that would-be adulterer do when the woman's husband arrived home unexpectedly?

(b) On what grounds did Rava then permit the woman to her husband?

(c) What did that other would-be adulterer shout out to the woman's husband, who was about to eat some dates that were lying there?

(d) On what grounds did Rava then permit the woman to her husband?

(a) If not for Rava's ruling in the previous case, what would *we* otherwise have ruled?

(b) Can we imply that, if not for Rava's lenient rulings, the woman would have become forbidden to her husband?

(c) Then what *would* we have ruled were it not for Rava?

On to Nazir