Assertion (Ri): R. Yochanan's words were said primarily on this Mishnah. This is when he said "all agree", i.e. R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Elazar, who discuss protesters.

Support: This is why we do not answer here "this is only when there is Chezkas Kashrus, but when there is no Chezkas Kashrus, he did not say";

The Gemara answered like this in Kidushin (73b) regarding a midwife, who is believed to say "this is a Kohen." [We did not answer so here], for he refers to the Mishnah here.

Question: Since he refers to the Mishnah here, how did we ask from him there (in Kidushin) and in Gitin (9a)?

Perhaps R. Yochanan taught that there is no protest less than two, because there is one witness who is Machshir!

Answer: The Gemara knew that R. Yochanan discusses like we conclude, that there were rumors that he is a divorcee's son (a Chalal), and afterwards one witness came to dispel the rumors, and two came [to protest];

In such a case, R. Yochanan taught that there is no [protest] less than two.

Implied question: [Perhaps he said so only here], because there is one witness who is Machshir, and the rumors!

Answer: (It is not due to them.) It is as if they are not here. (They do not make it harder to protest,] for the witness is weaker than the rumors [and he would not dispel the rumors], if not for the Chazakah.

Proof: Rumors disqualify, but one witness does not disqualify. (This shows that one witness is weaker than rumors.)

Explanation: He comes to exclude only one witness (he is not considered protest). However, rumors disqualify, like we conclude.

Explanation #1: This is not precise. We (Beis Din) did not demote him. Rather, automatically he descended.

Proof: If it were precise, and we demoted him, why do we reinstate him? There is disgrace to Beis Din!

Suggestion: Perhaps there is disgrace only when he was demoted twice.

Rejection: It is clear from our Sugya that even through one time, there is disgrace.

Explanation #2: It was a real demotion. There is disgrace to Beis Din only when they demoted him through testimony, but there is no disgrace in demotion through rumors.

Implied question: We say in Gitin (81a) that we are not Mevatel rumors, regarding a [suspected] divorcee to a Kohen!

Answer #1: That is because there is a solution. (If she wants to remarry, she can marry a Yisrael. We are Mevatel rumors that came after she married a Kohen. Forcing him to divorce her is not considered a solution. Also) here, if we will not reinstate him, he will be Pasul forever, so we are Mevatel.

Answer #2: Chachamim were lenient about Terumah mid'Rabanan [to be Mevatel rumors].

Explanation: We stand two [witnesses] against two [who contradict them, and they cancel each other], and we establish the man on his Chazakah. We had a Chazakah that his father is a Kohen.

Question: We say in Kidushin (66a) regarding Yanai ha'Melech "the matter was investigated, and it was not found (that he is a Chalal). What was the case?"

Citation (66a): If two said that [his mother] was captured, and two said that she was not, this is Trei v'Trei (two pairs of contradictory witnesses)! Why should we rely on these (the latter)? Rely on these (the former)! Why did we say that it was not found?

What was the question? Just the contrary, we should match two with two, and establish the man on his Chazakah. We should establish Yanai based on the Chazakah of his mother, that she was not captured!

Answer #1: Rashi explained there that the mother's Chazakah does not help to be Machshir Yanai, because the witnesses did not come to disqualify the mother to Kehunah, rather, to testify about Yanai.

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): Why shouldn't the mother's Chazakah help for her son, since it cannot be that she is Kosher unless her son is Kosher?!

Rebuttal #2: Also, here, even though they testify about the son to disqualify him, the father's Chazakah helps to be Machshir him!

Answer #2 (Ri): The reason is because we conclude in Yevamos (31a) that every case of Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Rabanan. (Mid'Oraisa, the witnesses cancel each other, and we leave the matter in its Chazakah.) Also [the law of] the mother is a Safek mid'Rabanan;

This is why we ask there "[why should we rely on these]? Rely on these!"

Granted, mid'Oraisa, we match two with two, and establish the woman in her Chazakah. In any case, mid'Rabanan we should disqualify her [due to Safek]!

Here, regarding Terumah mid'Rabanan, they were lenient to permit him to [eat] it in a case of Trei v'Trei, and establish him on his Chazakah.)

Implied question: Above, we said that if two say that [her husband] died, and two say that he did not die... however, if she married and afterwards witnesses came, she does not leave.

Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, we leave her in the Chazakah of being married. She should leave, even if she married one of her witnesses [and both say that they are sure that he died]!

Answer (R. Tam): The Chazakah that a woman checks carefully before remarrying weakens Chezkas Eshes Ish.

Question: When there are two witnesses [that her husband died, and no one contradicted them] she does not check, for there is no severity at the end! (Chachamim permitted a woman to remarry based on one witness who says that her husband died, but if her husband returns after she married, she is punished with 13 fines, including permanent Isurim to her old and new husbands.)

It says in Yevamos (87b) that if she married without permission [and her husband returned], she may return to him. The Gemara explains that she married based on two witnesses (i.e. without permission of Beis Din, i.e. the enactment to permit based on one witness)!

Answer: Since the witnesses contradict each other, there is the severity if she remains with her husband based on her Vadai claim (that he died).

Question: When two say that she was divorced, and two say that she was not divorced, why does she not leave when she married, and afterwards witnesses came? She does not check carefully!

Only when [they say that] he died, she checks carefully, for she fears lest he return, and everyone will know that he did not die;

[Even though a woman who says to her husband "you divorced me" is believed, because she lacks the audacity to lie about this] she is not believed to say that he divorced her, for not in front of her husband, she can be very brazen.

Also, when there are witnesses who support her [claim that she was divorced, even in front of her husband], she can be very brazen!

Answer: Regarding this, she checks carefully, and weakens Chezkas Eshes Ish. She always fears lest [the witnesses who say that she was divorced] will be Huzam or disqualified due to theft.

Question: Initially, we did not know that we discuss when she says that she is sure [that he died]. Why did it say that she herself is liable Asham Taluy [for Bi'ah with her new husband]? We should have said that she brings a Chatas [since mid'Oraisa it is not a Safek. She has Chezkas Eshes Ish!]

Answer: We ask, even if you will say that Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Oraisa, like I explained in Yevamos (31a), in any case she is liable Asham Taluy.

It is not proper to elaborate [here]. I explained this in Kesuvos (26b).

Question: He should be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could say that it is a proper document!

Answer #1 (Rivam): We do not rely on a Migo to take money from someone.

Implied question: [This is not considered taking money,] for he was Muchzak in the land!

Answer: His Chazakah has no effect, for land is in the Chazakah of its owner, since he does not have a document or Chazakah, only mere words, that he says that he had a proper document and lost it;

We rely on Migo only to keep money, when he could have exempted himself through a Migo.

Alternatively, [we rely on Migo] if he has a document or Chazakah, and his opponent comes to disqualify his proof;

Then, he can validate [his proof] through a Migo, e.g. "he bought it from you in front of me", Migo if he wanted, he could have said "I bought it from you, and I ate [the Peros of] it for the years of Chazakah."

Objection (Ri): Since the Gemara does not explain so explicitly, this connotes that it is not due to this!

Answer #2 (Ri): Rav Yosef holds that we do not apply Migo here, since he has no Migo unless he lies first. He needed to lie first and say "this is the document."

Answer #3: We do not apply Migo here, because he changed his claim. Initially he claimed "this is the document", and now he retracts and admits that it is a mere [worthless] shard, but he had a proper document.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He (Rav Idi bar Avin) was unsure whom the Halachah follows.

Consequence: He is forced to make a poor distinction between Trei v'Trei and a Safek about whom the Halachah follows.

Implied question: Why didn't he establish it in the Chazakah of the original owner, like the property of Bar Shatya (a man who alternated between sanity and lunacy)?

We say (Kesuvos 20a, that if he sold property, and two pairs of witnesses argue whether he was sane at the time) we stand two [witnesses] against two, and we establish the property in the Chazakah of Bar Shatya.

Answer: There, it is as if the two pairs of contradictory witnesses are not there, and we establish the property in the Chazakah of the original owner;

However, here we have a Safek whom the Halachah follows. It is not so applicable to establish the property in the Chazakah of the original owner, and take it from the one who is [now] Muchzak in it.

Objection #1: This is a poor answer.

Objection #2: Also, "the Halachah is" connotes that he totally rules like Rabah, and not due to Safek, and even if [one] did (gave a verdict) like Rav Yosef, he did nothing (we retract the ruling, for it is wrong)!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The reason that the Halachah follows Rabah regarding land, and it follows Rav Yosef regarding coins, is because we rely on Migo to establish property [in its Chazakah]. We should establish land in the Chazakah of its current owner.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (85a), it says "Migo they could say that nothing ever happened (you didn't pay), they are believed to say they took payment for a loan without a document). We do not rely on a Migo to take money from someone!

Answer: There is different, for there is a document. (Enabling collection of a document is not considered taking money from someone.)

Explanation: The rumors said that the land belonged to orphans.

Suggestion: Perhaps the rumors said that initially, it was of their father, but now they did not know!

Rejection: If so, he could have said that he bought it.