Explanation: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that this case can be understood as referring to a rumor that is before marriage. This rumor went out beforehand, and she was spoken about in these rumors before she married the Kohen.

Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah said to him that if so, you have not allowed a daughter of Avraham Avinu to sit (i.e. to stay married) with her husband who is a Kohen. He does not know what was said about her before he married her, and what he should do about it.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the rumor is insufficient to make her forbidden to marry a Kohen Gadol. Earlier, as well, Rashi explained that she obtained a name in the city of having being promiscuous, for example by having relations with a Nochri or with a slave, who are people that make her unfit to marry a Kohen through these relations. He could seemingly have also said that she had relations with people who she is forbidden from due to a punishment of Kares (i.e. her father).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that promiscuous relations in general mean that it is unknown who exactly made her unfit to marry a Kohen. She has the status of having had relations with a Nasin or Mamzer until she can bring proof otherwise. This is as the Gemara states in Kesuvos (14a) that a woman does not check someone's lineage before she has promiscuous relations.

Even according to Rabban Gamliel (in Kesuvos 13a) who says that she is believed, this is where she says that she had relations with a Jew of good lineage. However, if she says that she never had relations or that she does not know who she had relations with, even Rabban Gamliel would agree that she has the status of having had relations with a Nasin or Mamzer.

Explanation: This is not only referring to a married woman, about whom we could say that if it really had been true it would have been made public knowledge. Even an Arusah, about whom such a rumor would not have been as widely spread, does not give us cause for suspicion.

Implied Question: We can assume that Rebbi Aba is not arguing on Ula's statement earlier and on the Beraisa quoted by Levi. This is indeed implied from the fact that the Gemara does not say, "And Rebbi Aba says" (implying he is arguing). (Note: How can we reconcile Rebbi Aba's position with these opinions above?)

Answer: In the cases earlier where there was circumstancial evidence that the rumor was true, it was not necessary to come to a clear conclusion. However, where there is no circumstancial evidence, it is necessary to have a clear conclusion.

The rumor discussed earlier is only applicable to Kidushin, whereas this rumor applies regarding divorce just as it applies to Kidushin.

Opinion: The correct explanation appears to be the second explanation quoted by Rashi, that Ploni and Ploni came back from overseas and said that this never happened.

The Gemara asks later (89b), "If you will say that it is when it is found that the original Kidushin is invalid (i.e. the witnesses who supposedly started the rumor deny they said so), we should nullify the rumor!" (Note: This implies that we are indeed discussing a case where the witnesses say they did not say she was Mekudeshes.)

His first opinion does not appear to be correct.

Rav Yosef proves his position from Rav Chisda's statement, "until they hear from kosher witnesses" implying that we do stop a rumor. This is because we do not quickly suspect the rumor is true (until we check it out and hear from people who directly heard from kosher witnesses that they were married).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Beraisa (quoted by Levi) stated earlier that women said that she had been Mekudeshes. (Note: Why is the rumor believed there, but not in our case?)

Answer: Perhaps in the Beraisa earlier the women are believed because of all of the circumstancial evidence pointing in that direction (i.e. candles lit etc., as stated in the Beraisa).

Text: Some Sefarim have a text, "And people are going in and out," and they do not have the text, "women."

Observation: This phrase implies that he holds like Rebbi Yochanan and unlike Rabah bar Rav Huna (quoted earlier in our Gemara) who says that the excuse that breaks the rumor can even take place from the time of the rumor until ten days afterwards.

Opinion: An incident came before Rabeinu regarding a woman about whom a rumor started after her marriage that she had accepted Kidushin from someone else (before she married her current husband, and never received a Get). The man whom she was rumored to have received Kidushin from attended her marriage to her current husband.

Rabeinu Tam said that she does not require a Get from the first man, and is permitted to her current husband. Firstly, we never act on the suspicion of a rumor that only starts after a woman is married.

Additionally, being that she was Mekudeshes to her husband in front of the man whom she was rumored to have married she is permitted, as a woman would not have been so brazen to marry someone else in front of her husband.

Opinion: We rule according to the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as the Gemara always asks questions from his opinion (showing that it is the law).

Additionally, in Kesuvos (22b) the Gemara entertains that Rav Hamnuna's law is actually an argument between Tannaim. However, the Gemara concludes that everyone holds of Rav Hamnuna.

Implied Question: In the end of Nedarim (91a), Rabah pushed aside the proof brought by Rav Hamnuna. (Does Rabah argue on Rav Hamnuna?)

Answer: Even so, this is the law. Rabah also might really agree with Rav Hamnuna (he just stated that his Rav Hamnuna's proof is not necessarily a proof.)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the people from the house of Rav who sent to Shmuel were the students of Rav, and in Sura they would negate a rumor. (Note: This should change the law in this case, as the Gemara is basing itself on the fact that in Neharda they would not negate a rumor! Shmuel should have answered based on their presumably asking according to Rav!)

Answer: Even so, he would not rule on their question in a way that was unlike what he truthfully held.

Question: Does Rav Huna really hold that Rav Hamnuna's law applies even when she is not in front of her husband? The Mishnah in Kesuvos (22a) states that if there are witnesses that she was a married woman, she is not believed to say she is divorced!

Answer: Rav Hamnuna certainly was only discussing a case where she was in front of her husband. However, to be stringent and require that she receive a Get from the second person, Rav Hamnuna holds that she is believed even when she is not in front of him.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Kesuvos (22b) that one opinion holds that when she is not in front of him she also will not be so brazen. (Note: Perhaps Rav Huna holds like this opinion?)

Answer: This means that she is believed with the Migu claim that she had (before witnesses arrived that she was married, or after she married and witnesses then came and said she had been married).

Explanation: If they found that the rumor was correct it is obvious that Rav Huna holds that she does not require a Get from her second husband and she marries the first.

Being that the first person was certainly Mekadesh her (first) and she is also Mekudeshes to the second person according to Rav Huna, being that she stretched out her hand and accepted the Kidushin, we suspect that the first person divorced her.

If the second husband will divorce her and she will marry her first husband, this would be returning to her first husband from Eirusin (which is why Rav Huna holds this is forbidden).

However, if they did not ascertain that the rumor was true and the first Kidushin is only a rumor, I would think that it is permitted for the second person to divorce her and for her to marry the first "(rumored) husband." This is why Rav Huna says that even so (that the rumor that she had a first husband was not substantiated) the second husband should not divorce her (in order for her to marry the first "husband") etc.

Opinion: The statement of Rav Shinina is according to Rav Huna. Similarly, Ameimar's ruling that she is permitted to both is according to Rav Huna. Rabeinu Elchanan says that this implies that the law follows Rav Huna.