(Mishnah): If Reuven says to Leah 'I was Mekadesh you', and she denies it, he is forbidden to marry her relatives, and she is permitted to his relatives.

If she says 'you were Mekadesh me', and he denies it, she is forbidden to his relatives, and he is permitted to hers.

If he tells Leah 'I was Mekadesh you', and she says 'no, you were Mekadesh my daughter (Dinah)', he is forbidden to marry Leah's relatives, and permitted to Dinah's. Leah and Dinah are permitted to his relatives.

If he says 'I was Mekadesh your daughter', and Leah says 'no, you were Mekadesh me', he is forbidden to Dinah's relatives, and permitted to Leah's. Leah is forbidden to his relatives, Dinah is permitted to them.

(Gemara): It was not enough to teach the Reisha.

Had the Mishnah taught only when he claims that he was Mekadesh her (that she is permitted to his relatives), one might have thought that this is because a man can speak freely (he can always marry other women);

A woman who says that he was Mekadesh her forbids herself to all other men. One might have thought that surely it is true, and he is forbidden to her relatives. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why is the next case (...she says 'no, you were Mekadesh my daughter'...) needed?

Answer: One might have thought that just like mid'Oraisa a father is believed about Kidushin of his daughter, mid'Rabanan a mother is believed. This clause teaches that a mother is not believed.

Question: Why is the Seifa (he says 'I was Mekadesh your daughter'...) needed?

Answer: It was taught merely for parallel structure.

(Rav): We force (him to divorce her).

(Shmuel): We request.

Question: Which case do they discuss?

Suggestion: They discuss the Reisha.

Rejection: She does not need a Get from him! (There is no reason to force or request.)

Answer: They discuss the second case ('you were Mekadesh me').

Question: Granted, we may request him to give a Get. Why would Rav say that we force him?

(If he divorces her, we consider him to be her ex-husband.) He can say that he does not want to become forbidden to her relatives!

Answer: They do not argue. Rav completes Shmuel's words;

Shmuel said that we request that he give a Get. Rav remarked that if he gives a Get on his own, we force him to pay a Kesuvah.

Support (Rav Acha bar Rav Ada bar Ahavah, citing Rav): We force and request.

Objection: That is a contradiction!

Answer: We request that he give a Get. If he gives a Get on his own, we force him to pay a Kesuvah.

(Rav Yehudah): If one was Mekadesh in front of one witness, we ignore it.

Question: If both of them agree that he was Mekadesh her, what is the law?

Rav Yehudah could not give a clear answer.

Answer (Rav Nachman): We ignore Kidushin in front of one witness, even if both agree that he was Mekadesh her.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): If Reuven says to Leah 'I was Mekadesh you', and she denies it, he is forbidden to her relatives, and she is permitted to his.

If witnesses saw the Kidushin, she should be forbidden to his relatives!

If no witnesses saw the Kidushin, he should be permitted to her relatives!

Rather, one witness saw the Kidushin (and he is forbidden to her relatives)!

Answer: No. He claims that he was Mekadesh her in front of two witnesses, and they went abroad.

Question (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If a man divorced his wife, and they spent the night in the same room in an inn, she does not need another Get;

Beis Hillel say, she needs another Get.

Question: What is the case?

If no witnesses saw the Kidushin, why do Beis Hillel require another Get?

If two witnesses saw the Kidushin, why don't Beis Shamai require another Get?

Answer: Rather, one witness saw the Kidushin.

Counter-question (Reisha): Beis Hillel admit that if she was divorced from Kidushin (before Nisu'in), no other Get is required, for he is not intimate with her.

If Kidushin in front of one witness is valid, it makes no difference whether she was divorced from Kidushin or Nisu'in!

Answer: Rather, there are two witnesses about seclusion, but no witnesses about Bi'ah;

Beis Shamai hold that we do not say that they surely had Bi'ah (and the witnesses about seclusion are considered witnesses about Bi'ah);

Beis Hillel hold that they surely had Bi'ah. Witnesses about seclusion are witnesses about Bi'ah.

Beis Hillel admit that if she was divorced from Kidushin, they are not witnesses about Bi'ah, for he is not intimate with her.

(Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa): We ignore Kidushin in front of one witness, even if both agree that he was Mekadesh her.

Version #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The great Beis Din says that we ignore Kidushin in front of one witness, even if both agree that he was Mekadesh her.

Question: Who is the great Beis Din?

Answer: It is Rav.

Version #2: Rabah bar Rav Huna said this in Rav's name. The great Beis Din is Rebbi.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar R. Ami - Beraisa): Two men and a woman came from abroad; there is a package among them. Each man claims 'the other man is my slave, the woman is my wife, and the package is mine.' She claims 'they are both my slaves, and the package is mine.'

The law is, she needs a Get from each man, and she collects a Kesuvah from the package.

Question: What is the case?

If each man has witnesses that she is Mekudeshes to him, she could not claim that they are her slaves and the package is hers!

Answer #1: Rather, each has one witness that he was Mekadesh her.

Objection: One witness who is contradicted (by another witness or the defendant) is not believed!

Answer #2: Rather, all agree that she does not need a Get to get married;

She needs a Get from each man in order to collect a Kesuvah from the package.

The Beraisa is like R. Meir, who says that the lien to collect a Kesuvah is on Metaltelim, as well as on land.

Question: What was the final ruling about Kidushin in front of one witness?

Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): We are not concerned.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We are concerned.

Question (Rav Ashi to Rav Kahana): Do you learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Davar-Davar" from monetary cases? If so, just like there, a person's admission is believed absolutely like 100 witnesses, also regarding Kidushin!

Answer (Rav Kahana): No. Regarding monetary cases, a person's admission is believed absolutely because it does not harm anyone else;

One's admission about Kidushin harms others (it forbids her to other men). He is not believed.

Mar Zutra and Rav Ada Sava were brothers. They divided up their property without witnesses.

Question (Mar Zutra and Rav Ada Sava): Does "according to two witnesses a matter will be established" refer to when the parties want to retract? If so, since we do not want to retract, our division stands.

Or, does the verse teach that transactions do not take effect without witnesses?

Answer (Rav Ashi): Witnesses are needed only for (disproving) liars. Transactions work without witnesses.

(Abaye): If Reuven told Shimon 'you ate Chelev' and Shimon was silent, Reuven is believed.

Support (Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'you ate Chelev' and Shimon said, 'I did not eat', Shimon is exempt (from a Korban).

Inference: Had Shimon not contradicted him, Reuven would have been believed.

(Abaye): If Reuven told Shimon 'your food became Tamei' and Shimon was silent, Reuven is believed.

Support (Beraisa): If Reuven told Shimon 'you became Tamei' and Shimon said 'I did not', Shimon is exempt.

Inference: Had Shimon not contradicted him, Reuven would have been believed.