Implied question: People with intestinal illness are exempt from Tefilin, for they cannot be careful [to avoid passing gas. Why did Rebbi wear Tefilin?]

Answer: Rebbi conducted with exceeding Kedushah, and knew to be very careful.

Explanation: The Midrash says that before a person prays that Torah enter his body, he should pray that delicacies not enter his body. It cites this episode (statement) of Rebbi.

Opinion #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): This question is not according to Bar Kapara, who says below that [forfeiting the Kesuvah] is only regarding the primary Kesuvah of 100 or 200 Zuz, but she [always] gets additions to the Kesuvah.

Regarding the Torah Kesuvah, Marsa bas Baisus and the poorest Yisraelis are the same.

Note: Surely, "Torah" Kesuvah means the primary Kesuvah. Above, Tosfos mentioned 100, the primary Kesuvah of a widow, which all agree is mid'Rabanan.

We ask here according to R. Yochanan, who says that she does not get even additions.

Opinion #2: It seems to me that we ask according to everyone, for here we discuss according to R. Meir;

Below, Bar Kapara discusses only according to Rabanan, who say that when she is living in her father's house, she can collect her Kesuvah for 25 years. Since she waited so long, she pardoned her Kesuvah.

Bar Kapara said that she pardoned only 100 or 200, but the additions, which are like a mere gift, she did not pardon, just like any other creditor, who does not pardon.

However, R. Meir says that she loses [her Kesuvah] because in 25 years she does favors [for neighbors] from the orphans' property corresponding to her Kesuvah. There is no difference between the additions and 100 or 200, for "the burden is according to [the strength of] the camel" (richer people do greater favors).

Proof #1: If you will not say so, rather, that Bar Kapara refers to R. Meir's opinion as well, since Bar Kapara says that she gets additions, he does not hold that "the burden is according to the camel";

If so, it is difficult why [one who married when she was] a widow, whose Kesuvah is 100, may collect it for 25 years, and [also one who married when she was] a Besulah, whose Kesuvah is 200, may collect it for 25 years!

Proof #2: Surely Bar Kapara teaches according to Rabanan, for the entire Sugya below is according to Rabanan.

Question: Why don't we infer similarly from the Mishnah, how will she collect when she did not delay 25 years? Rather, we must say that she is holding her Kesuvah, and the Mishnah says that after 25 years, she pardoned!

Answer: We cannot challenge our Mishnah, for we can say that in our Mishnah she collects through witnesses that her husband died. We discuss Rav's opinion, and he holds (89b) that a widow collects through witnesses of death.

Implied Question: We ask regarding the Beraisa "if she does not have the Kesuvah in her hand, with what will she collect?" (If we did not challenge our Mishnah, for we could say that she collects through witnesses of death, we should not challenge the Beraisa, for we can say that she collects through witnesses of divorce!)

Answer: Here, "Kesuvah" really means a Get. It is as if the Get says that he owes her 100 or 200. According to Rav, a divorcee collects only with a Get (but not through witnesses of divorce).

Question: If so (Rav holds that she always gets Tosefes), why did Rav say above that the Mishnah discusses only when she does not hold a Kesuvah, but if she holds a Kesuvah, she can always collect her Kesuvah?

What proof is the Kesuvah document? According to Rav, she does not collect through it! (Rav holds that the Mishnah discusses 100 or 200. These are collected through witnesses of death, or a Get! Hafla'ah answers that above, Rav said in the name of R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi that if she has her Kesuvah, she always collects, for R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds that we write receipts. If her husband or the heirs have no receipt, this is like a proof that she did not collect. Rav holds that we do not write receipts. He establishes the Mishnah to be when she holds the Kesuvah. If not, we do force her husband or the heirs to pay and take a receipt, lest they lose the receipt, and she will collect again.)

Explanation: [The text says Rabah,] for Rabah holds that he must return Peros from the day that the Adrachta was written (it authorizes her to take from his property). Rabah holds like this in Bava Metzia (35b).

Rava holds [that she receives Peros only] from when the days of announcement [auction of the land] are finished. (He would not give to her from when the Adrachta was written, even if it was written properly!)

Question: However, she said "you say that [if a document does not mention] Acharayus, the scribe erred (and there is Acharayus)." This implies that the text is "Rava", for Rava said so in Bava Metzia (15b)!

Answer: The correct text is "Rava." She demanded Peros from the day it was written. This was her claim, but Rava disagrees.

Implied Question: Why did Rava say "show me your Adrachta"? (In any case he would not give to her from before the days of announcement finished!)

Answer: This is not because if it were written correctly, he would have returned to her Peros from the day it was written;

Rather, he asked to see it, because if it wasn't written correctly, [Rav Chiya] would not need to return Peros even from the end of the announcement, since the Adrachta was written mistakenly, like he concludes.

Observation: This is the text of R. Tam. (The second judge's father was named Avishalom, and not Avshalom.)

Proof: R. Meir said in Sanhedrin (103b) that Avshalom has no portion in Olam ha'Ba. How could we use his name?

We say in Yoma (38b) "v'Shem Resha'im Yirkav" - we do not give names of Resha'im to people.

Avishalom is a person's name, like it says about Aviyah "v'Shem Imo Ma'achah bas Avishalom").

Opinion #1: Similarly, in Shabbos (12b) regarding "Shevna of Yershulayim", the text does not say Shevna, rather, Shachna, for Shevna (who opposed Chizkiyah) was a Rasha.

Opinion #2: Some say that there were two "Shevna's." (Pnei Yehoshua - if there were two "Shevna's", and one was a Tzadik, we may use the name, so the text in Shabbos may say Shevna.)

Source: It says in Yeshayah (22:15) "Ko Amar Hash-m Tzevakos Lech Bo El ha'Sochen ha'Zeh El Shevna Asher Al ha'Bayis", and it says afterwards "Mah Lecha Po... Hinei Hash-m Metaltelcha..." This connotes that he was a Rasha!

Afterwards, at the end [of the episode, 37:1-2] it says "va'Yhi ki'Shmo'a ha'Melech Chizkiyahu va'Yikra Es Begadav va'Yiskas ba'Sak va'Yavo Beis Hash-m va'Yishlach Elyakim Asher Al ha'Bayis v'Es Shevna ha'Sofer v'Es Ziknei ha'Am Miskasim ba'Sakim..." This implies that there was another Shevna [who was a Tzadik].

Rebuttal: This is no proof. Also this [latter] Shevna is the first. The verses [in Tanach] are not [necessarily] in [chronological] order. (Initially he was righteous, and then he soured.)

You are forced to say that the later Shevna, who was in the episode of Sancheiriv (who prepared to conquer Yerushalayim) was a Rasha, for it says in Sanhedrin (26a) that Shevna sent to Sancheriv "Shevna and his supporters have made peace with you. Chizkiyah and his supporters did not make peace."

When he and his faction wanted to leave the wall [of Yerushalayim, to meet Sancheriv], he left first, and Gavriel came and closed the door. Sancheriv killed him, and regarding this, Yeshayahu had prophesized about him "Hinei Hash-m Metaltelcha." (We explained like Zera Yitzchak.)

Even though here (37:2) he is called a scribe, and there he is called "appointed on the Bayis (Mikdash)", in any case it is one person.