(a)What must the surviving Dayanim write in a Shtar in the event that one of the three Dayanim who substantiated it died before he had a chance to sign his name?
(b)Rebbi Zeira heard this from Rebbi Aba. What would have happened had Rebbi Aba from Acco not reminded him about it?
(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak qualifies this ruling, inasmuch as if they had stated in the document that it had appeared before Beis-Din, it would no longer have been necessary to word it the way Rebbi Aba said. On what grounds do we object to his statement?
(d)We conclude that what Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak meant is that they added 've'Amar Lana Rabana Ashi'. Why is this acceptable?
(e)Why would it not suffice to add 'de'Bei Dina d'Rabanan Ashi'?
1)
(a)If one of the three Dayanim who substantiated the Shtar died before he had a chance to sign his name - the surviving Dayanim must write in the Shtar 'b'Mosav Telasa Havina, v'Chad Lesohi' (We were three, and one of us is no longer here).
(b)Rebbi Zeira heard this from Rebbi Aba. Had Rebbi Aba from Acco not reminded him about it - he would have forgotten it.
(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak qualifies this ruling, inasmuch as if they had stated in the document that it had appeared before Beis-Din, it would no longer have been necessary to word it the way Rebbi Aba said. We object to this statement however - on the grounds that maybe it was a 'Beis Din Chatzuf' (an impudent Beis-Din) consisting of (the) two Dayanim (who signed), which Shmuel (whose opinion is not accepted) considers to be a valid Beis-Din.
(d)We conclude that what Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak meant is that they added 'v'Amar Lana Rabana Ashi' - which is acceptable, because Rav Ashi would not be guilty of such an error (as ruling like Shmuel with regard to a 'Beis Din Chatzuf').
(e)It would not suffice just to add 'de'Bei Dina d'Rabana Ashi' - because maybe the Beis-Din of Rav Ashi held like Shmuel (and ruled accordingly not in the presence of Rav Ashi).
2)
(a)Our Mishnah now discusses a woman who claims that she is divorced or that her captors did not violate her. When is she believed and when is she not, if she claims in front of Beis-Din that ...
1. ... she was married, but is now divorced?
2. ... she was captured, but that her captors did not violate her?
(b)What if there are witnesses, but they only came after she is already married?
2)
(a)Our Mishnah now discusses a woman who claims that she is divorced or that her captors did not violate her. If she claims in front of Beis-Din that ...
1. ... she was married but is now divorced - she is believed as long as there are no witnesses that she was married (because of 'ha'Peh she'Asar'), but not if there are.
2. ... she was captured but that her captors did not violate her - she is believed as long as there are no witnesses that she was captured (for the same reason).
(b)If there are witnesses, but they only came after she is already married - she may remain with her husband.
3)
(a)What does Rebbi Asi initially attempt to learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh"?
(b)On what grounds do we reject this Derashah?
(c)In fact, we use the Pasuk for the Derashos of Rav Huna Amar Rav and of Rebbi Yonah (respectively). What do they learn from ...
1. ... "la'Ish"?
2. ... "ha'Zeh"?
3)
(a)Initially, Rebbi Asi tries to learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh" - the Din of 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir'
(b)We reject this however, on the grounds - that it is a Sevara, and does not require a Pasuk.
(c)In fact, we use the Pasuk for the Derashos of Rav Huna Amar Rav and of Rebbi Yonah (respectively), who learn from ...
1. ... "la'Ish" - that, when a father declares that he married off his daughter to a certain man, he is believed to forbid her to everyone else.
2. ... " ha'Zeh" - 'v'Lo l'Yavam', meaning that if the husband claimed that his Yevamah had committed adultery before his brother died, he is not obligated to pay the hundred Zuz fine of a Motzi-Shem-Ra.
4)
(a)Why is a woman who first claims that she is married, and then says that she is available for marriage, not believed?
(b)How does Rabah bar Rav Huna then establish the Beraisa, which rules that she is?
4)
(a)When a woman claims that she is married, she becomes Asur to every other man because of 'Shavya l'Nafshah Chatichah d'Isura' (she has rendered everyone else forbidden by virtue of her statement). Consequently, she cannot be believed when she subsequently says that she is available for marriage.
(b)To reconcile this with the Beraisa, which rules that she is believed - Rabah bar Rav Huna establishes the Beraisa when she gives a plausible reason as to why she issued her first statement.
5)
(a)What did a certain woman reply, when they asked her why she told the first batch of potential suitors that she was betrothed and then accepted Kidushin from subsequent suitors?
(b)What did the Chachamim rule there?
(c)What ruling did Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah bring before the Chachamim in Usha?
5)
(a)When they asked that woman why she first told potential suitors that she was betrothed and subsequently accepted Kidushin from other suitors - she replied that, the first batch of suitors were not nice people, so she turned them down by claiming that she was already betrothed; whereas the second batch were.
(b)The Chachamim rules there - that she was believed.
(c)Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah brought before the Chachamim in Usha, the ruling - that a woman who gives a reasonable excuse as to why she contradicted herself, is believed.
6)
(a)What did Rav rule when Shmuel asked him about a wife who first informs her husband that she is Tamei and then, on the same night, she tells him that she is Tahor?
(b)How did Shmuel react to Rav's ruling?
(c)What did Shmuel do when it came to the crunch?
6)
(a)When Shmuel asked Rav about a wife who first informs her husband that she is Tamei and then, on the same night, she tells him that she is Tahor - that he may believe her, provided she gives a plausible reason for her first statement.
(b)Shmuel reacted by making Rav repeat it to him forty times, until he felt sure that he would not forget it.
(c)When it came to the crunch however - Shmuel did not want to rely on Rav's leniency.
22b----------------------------------------22b
7)
(a)The Tana of the Beraisa states that if two witnesses testify that a man died and two others testify that he did not, his wife is not permitted to marry, but that, if she did, she may remain with her husband. What does the Tana say in a similar case, where two witnesses testify that a woman is divorced and two others testify that she is not?
(b)Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi argues with the Tana Kama in both cases. What does he say?
(c)On what condition does Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi concede that he is not obligated to divorce her?
7)
(a)The Tana of the Beraisa states that if two witnesses testify that a man died and two others testify that he did not, his wife is not permitted to marry, but that, if she did, she may remain with her husband. In a similar case, where two witnesses testify that a woman is divorced and two testify that she is not - he issues the same ruling.
(b)Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi argues with the Tana Kama in both cases. He holds - that even if she subsequently married, she must leave her husband.
(c)Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi concedes that he is not obligated to divorce her - if she was already married by the time the second witnesses testified.
8)
(a)What is the problem with allowing the woman to remain with her husband?
(b)How does Rav Sheshes solve the problem?
(c)And on what grounds is the woman not Chayav an Asham Taluy?
8)
(a)The problem with allowing the woman to remain with her husband is that - seeing as there are two witnesses who testify that she is married, anyone who performs Bi'ah with her, is entering into a Safek Kares (for which one is Chayav an Asham Taluy).
(b)Rav Sheshes solves the problem - by establishing the Beraisa when she married one of the witnesses who testified that her husband was dead, and who is not Chayav an Asham Taluy, because he is certain of the fact.
(c)Neither is the woman not Chayav an Asham Taluy - because the Tana speaks when she too, is certain that he is dead, since otherwise, he would have turned up.
9)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan rules that whether two witnesses say 'Mes' and two say 'Lo Mes', or two witnesses say 'Nisgarshah' and two, 'Lo Nisgarshah', the woman is forbidden to marry. What distinction does he draw between the two, in the event that she is already married?
(b)How does Abaye amend the case, in order to reconcile the two conflicting rulings?
9)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan rules that whether two witnesses say 'Mes' and two say 'Lo Mes', or two witnesses say 'Nisgarshah' and two, 'Lo Nisgarshah', the woman is forbidden to marry. In the event that she is already married, he rules that in the latter case - he is obligated to divorce her; whereas in the former, he is not.
(b)To reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha -Abaye amends Rebbi Yochanan's ruling (from two pairs of witnesses) to two single ones.
10)
(a)To explain his words, Abaye establishes Rebbi Yochanan like Ula. What does Ula say?
(b)How does Abaye now explain ...
1. ... the Reisha?
2. ... the Seifa?
(c)In the Reisha, why is she not permitted to marry him l'Chatchilah?
10)
(a)To explain his words, he establishes Rebbi Yochanan like Ula - who says that wherever the Torah believes one witness, he has the status of two witnesses.
(b)Consequently, in ...
1. ... the earlier case - Rebbi Yochanan is saying that, when one witness testifies that a man died he is believed like two, and even if another witness testifies that he is still alive, once she marries, she may remain with her husband.
2. ... the latter - if one witness testifies that a woman is divorced, and another witness testifies that she is not, she remains an Eshes Ish, and must leave him even if they are already married (see Tosfos Yeshanim at foot of page).
(c)In the Reisha, she is not permitted to marry him l'Chatchilah - because of Rav Asi, who quotes the Pasuk in Mishlei "Haser Mimcha Lazus Sefasayim" (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum'), from which we learn that a person should keep away from situations which create unpleasant rumors.
11)
(a)Rava re-establishes Rebbi Yochanan by two pairs of witnesses, and the reason that the woman is obligated to leave her husband in the Seifa, is because he holds like Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi (who says Tetzei) by Gerushin, but not by Misah. Why is that?
(b)We query Rava however, from Rav Hamnuna, who rules that if a woman says to her husband that he divorced her, she is believed. Why is that?
(c)Then how can Rava in the name of Rebbi Yochanan claim that a woman will confront her husband and claim that he divorced her?
(d)Rav Asi establishes Rebbi Yochanan by two against two, like Rava, and he is speaking when the witnesses testify that the man had either just died or just divorced his wife. Why is that a reason to differentiate between Misah and Gerushin?
11)
(a)Rava re-establishes Rebbi Yochanan by two pairs of witnesses, and the reason that the woman is obligated to leave her husband in the Seifa, is because he holds like Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi (who says Tetzei) by Gerushin, but not by Misah, because - whereas, in the case of Gerushin, even if her husband claims that he did not divorce her, she will not be afraid to contradict him and say that he did, in the case of Misah, should her husband turn up, she will be unable to deny that he is alive. Consequently, she will be afraid to marry unless she is certain that he is dead, and he therefore permits her to remain with her husband, like the Rabanan)
(b)We query Rava however, from Rav Hamnuna, who rules that if a woman says to her husband that he divorced her, she is believed - because she would not have the Chutzpah to make such a claim if it was not true.
(c)Nevertheless, Rava in the name of Rebbi Yochanan claims that a woman will confront her husband and claim that he divorced her - because she has two witnesses to support her claim (whereas Rav Hamnuna speaks when she does not).
(d)Rav Asi establishes Rebbi Yochanan by two pairs of witnesses, like Rava, and he is speaking when the witnesses testify that the man had just died or that he just divorced his wife. Consequently, in the former case, where it is not possible to verify the testimony of the witnesses, we accept their testimony, as we explained according to Rava. The latter case however, is different - because it is possible to verify the witnesses testimony by asking her to produce her Get, which can hardly have got lost so soon after the divorce. If she is not able to do so, then we assume that she is not divorced, and she must leave her second husband.
