1)

(a)According to Rav Nachman, when someone produces two of the same documents with two different dates - the second document invalidates the first.

(b)Faced with Rav Huna, who said above that a woman who produces two Kesuvos, one of two hundred Zuz and one of three, may claim with whichever Kesubah she chooses - we initially suggest that the two Amora'im argue.

(c)We reconcile the two opinions however, by citing Rav Papa who states - that Rav Nachman will concede that the owner of the document may claim with whichever document he pleases, if the second document adds as much as one date-palm to the sale or the gift, conforming with the opinion of Rav Huna.

(d)If one of the documents is described as a sale and the other, as a gift, the second one will not cancel the first either. The first document always has the advantage of authorizing the claimant to claim from earlier buyers. The advantage of the second document if the first document is described as ...

1. ... a sale and the second one as a gift - will be that the owners of the neighboring fields will not have a claim on the field (i.e. to have first rights to purchase it - known as 'Dina d'Bar Metzra'), since this does not extend to a gift.

2. ... a gift and the second one as a sale - will be that the seller has accepted responsibility to reimburse him should a creditor claim the field (which applies automatically to a sale but not to a gift).

2)

(a)The second document negates the first one - only if both documents are identical (either proof of a sale or of a gift, with nothing added in the second document).

(b)According to Rafram, the reason for this is because writing a second document that is no different than the first is tantamount to admitting that the first one was forged; whereas according to Rav Acha - it is because the recipient has been Mochel the Shibud (foregone the additional rights that enable him to claim from the buyers) from the earlier date.

(c)One of the ramifications of the Machlokes between Rafram and Rav Acha is that according to the former, the witnesses are Pasul, too (see Tosfos Rid), whereas, according to Rav Acha, they are not. The second, is with regard to reclaiming any fruit that the recipient ate in between the two dates, and the third, who has to pay the field-tax for that period (according to Rafram, the original owner remained the owner in both regards, whereas according to Rav Acha, it was the recipient).

3)

(a)Concluding the Sugya that we began above (on 43b), Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel cites Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds that the father may claim the Manah or the Masayim already from the Erusin and the Tosefes from the Nisu'in (when the Kesubah was written). The Chachamim say - that he may claim both only from the time of the Nisu'in.

(b)The Halachah is like the Chachamim.

4)

(a)If a Giyores who converted (even before she turned three) together with her mother, became betrothed and committed adultery - she is sentenced to Chenek (strangulation - as if she was a Be'ulah) and not to Sekilah (stoning - like a Besulah) ...

(b)... because the Torah writes in Ki Setzei "Ki Asesah Nevalah b'Yisrael" (to preclude a Giyores).

(c)The Din of both 'Pesach Beis Avihah' (putting her to death at the entrance of her father's house) and 'Me'ah Sela' (if her husband slandered her the morning after the wedding) will not apply to her either.

5)

(a)If the same girl was conceived before her mother's conversion but born after it - she will be sentenced to Sekilah, and not Chenek (though she will not have the Din of a bas Yisrael in the other two regards).

(b)If she was both conceived and born after her mother converted - she is considered a fully-fledged bas Yisrael regarding all three issues.

6)

(a)The Torah writes that a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah should be stoned "el Pesach Beis Avihah". In fact though, she is stoned even if she has no father or if her father does not own a house (as we will see later in the Sugya).

(b)The Torah writes "el Pesach Beis Avihah" - as a Mitzvah, but not as a crucial condition of the Sekilah.

7)

(a)Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "u'Sekaluhah Kol Anshei Irah ba'Avanim va'Mesah" - that a betrothed girl who was born bi'Kedushah but not conceived bi'Kedushah, is sentenced to Sekilah.

(b)We learned this Halachah from the otherwise superfluous word "va'Mesah" - restricting the Limud to the Din of Sekilah of the girl (to the preclusion of the Din of Malkus and payment of a hundred Shekalim for speaking Lashon ha'Ra pertaining to her husband).

(c)The Pasuk cannot come to include a girl who was ...

1. ... both born bi'Kedushah and conceived bi'Kedushah - since she is a fully-fledged bas Yisrael in all regards, as we explained earlier.

2. ... born and conceived she'Lo bi'Kedushah - because of the Pasuk "Ki Asesah Nevalah b'Yisrael", from which we just precluded her.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Motzi Shem Ra) "v'Nasnu la'Avi ha'Na'arah" - that the Dinim of Motzi Shem Ra do not apply to a husband who slanders his orphaned wife.

(b)Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Mefateh) "v'Im Ma'en Yema'en Avihah", 'le'Rabos Yesomah li'Kenas'. To reconcile this with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, Rebbi Yosi bar Avin or Rebbi Yosi bar Zvida establishes it - when she became an orphan after the marriage had been consummated.

(c)Rava disagrees with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina. He extrapolates that a Yesomah is entitled to Kenas (irrespective of when her father died) from the Beraisa cited by Ami: "Besulas Yisrael" 've'Lo Besulas Gerim' - because if even a Jewish orphan would not be subject to Kenas, why would we need to preclude a Giyores (who also has no father)?!

(d)We know that a Besulas Gerim is an orphan - because of the Pasuk in Yechezkel "v'Zarmas Susim Zarmasam", which teaches us that the Torah considered the Zera of a Nochri like that of an animal (as we learned in Yevamos).

9)

(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah takes for granted that a man would not be Chayav for being Motzi Shem Ra on his wife who is a Ketanah. The Pasuk could not possibly be talking about a Ketanah - because how could it then go on to sentence her to Sekilah, should his accusation be substantiated?

(b)Resh Lakish learns from the fact that "Na'arah" is written there with a 'Hey' - that whenever it is written without a 'Hey', the Torah incorporates a Ketanah.