(Mishnah): If Reuven authorized Shimon to be Mekadesh Reuven's daughter to a man, and Reuven himself was Mekadesh her to David, and Shimon was Mekadesh her to Moshe, whichever Kidushin was done first takes effect.

If we are unsure which came first, David and Moshe both divorce her. If they agree, one divorces her, and the other marries her.

Similarly, if Leah told Shimon 'be Mekadesh me to a man', and she accepted Kidushin from David, and Shimon was Mekadesh her to Moshe, the first Kidushin takes effect;

If we are unsure which came first, they both divorce her. If they agree, one divorces her, and the other marries her.

(Gemara): The Mishnah needed to teach both cases;

Had it taught only about the father, one might have thought that this is because a man knows about lineage (so when he was Mekadesh his daughter, he had full intent);

A woman is ignorant about lineage, perhaps she intends that her Kidushin not takes effect if the Shali'ach will be Mekadesh her. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Had it taught only about her, one might have thought that this is because a woman is careful from whom she accepts Kidushin (so when she does, she has full intent);

A man is not so careful to whom he is Mekadesh his daughter, perhaps he intends that his Kidushin not takes effect if the Shali'ach will find someone better. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Rav): If a man was Mekadesh his daughter when he was abroad, and she accepted Kidushin at home, and she is now a Bogeres, since she is now a Bogeres, her Kidushin takes effect.

(Shmuel): We are concerned for both Kidushin.

Question: How old was she?

If she is in the six months after becoming a Na'arah, Rav would not say that since she is now a Bogeres, her Kidushin takes effect! (It is rare (Rashi) or impossible (Tosfos Yeshanim) for a Na'arah to becomes a Bogeres in less than six months. Surely, she was a Na'arah (who cannot Mekadesh herself) at the time of Kidushin!)

Answer #1: Rather, she became a Na'arah more than six months ago.

Objection: If so, Shmuel would not be concerned for both Kidushin. He himself said that there are only six months between Na'arus and Bagrus (surely, her own Kidushin takes effect)!

Answer #2: Rather, both acts of Kidushin were on the day that completes six months after becoming a Na'arah.

Rav says, since now she is a Bogeres, we assume that she was a Bogeres from the start of the day;

Shmuel says, perhaps she became a Bogeres only now.

Question: According to Shmuel, why is this different than the case of a Mikvah?

(Mishnah): If a Mikvah (that was once known to be full) was measured and found to be deficient, all Taharos dependent on the Mikvah (they touched things immersed in the Mikvah be Metaher them) are retroactively Teme'im, whether this is in the Reshus ha'Rabim or Reshus ha'Yachid.

Answer: That is different, for we leave the immersed items in their Chazakah. They were Teme'im (we assume that the Mikvah was deficient at the time.)

Question: Why don't we rely on the Chazakah that the Mikvah was full?

Answer: We see, it is lacking in front of us!

Question: Here also, we see that she is a Bogeres in front of us!

Answer: Perhaps she just became a Bogeres now.

Question: There also, perhaps the Mikvah became deficient just now!

Answer: Regarding the Mikvah, there are two reasons to assume the Taharos are Teme'im (the Mikvah is now deficient, and the immersed items had Chezkas Tum'ah). Regarding the girl, there is only one reason to assume that her Kidushin took effect.

Question: According to Shmuel, why is our case different than the following?

(Beraisa): If one regularly designated quantities of wine in a barrel to be Terumah on his Peros and checked the barrel, if he finds that it turned to vinegar, we have no doubt about three days. Past three days, we are in doubt.

Question: Why is there a Safek about the barrel, but not about the Mikvah?

Answer (R. Chanina of Surya): The Tana of the Beraisa of the barrel is R. Shimon. Also regarding a Mikvah, he is in doubt.

(Beraisa): All Taharos that touched things immersed in the Mikvah are retroactively Teme'im, whether this is in Reshus ha'Rabim or Reshus ha'Yachid;

R. Shimon says, in Reshus ha'Rabim, they are Tehorim. In Reshus ha'Yachid, we suspend them (if they are Terumah or Kodshim, we do not eat them. We do not burn them until they become Vadai Teme'im.)

According to Chachamim, we assume that the wine was surely vinegar when Terumah was declared, and the Peros are Vadai Tevel (untithed).

(Implied question: Also regarding the girl, we should say that she was surely a Bogeres at the times of Kidushin!)

Answer: Terumah is different, for the Peros had a Chazakah to be Tevel.

Question: Rather, we should rely on the Chazakah that there was wine in the barrel, it had not soured!

Answer: We see that it is vinegar in front of us!

Question: Here also, we see that she is a Bogeres in front of us!

Answer: Perhaps she became a Bogeres just now.

Question: There also, perhaps the wine soured just now!

Answer: Regarding the Peros, there are two reasons to assume that it is Tevel (we see vinegar in front of us, and the Peros had a Chazakah of being Tevel). Regarding the girl, there is only one reason to assume that her Kidushin took effect.

Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa - R. Yakov): (If a Shechiv Mera (one who fears lest he die from his illness) gave a gift and recovered, he can retract. If Reuven wrote a document giving all his property to Shimon, and now claims that he was a Shechiv Mera, even if Shimon seized the property,) Reuven can take back the property without proof, but Shimon can take it from Reuven only if he proves that Reuven was healthy at the time;

R. Nasan says, if Reuven is healthy now, Shimon gets the property, unless Reuven can prove that he was a Shechiv Mera at the time;

If Reuven is sick now, he keeps his property, unless Shimon can prove that Reuven was healthy at the time.

Apparently, Rav holds like R. Nasan (we assume that he was then like he is now), and Shmuel holds like R. Yakov (we are unsure how he was then, so we leave money in its Chazakah).

Rejection #1: Rav can hold even like R. Yakov;

R. Yakov requires Shimon to bring proof in that case, for we leave money in its Chazakah, but we cannot rely on the Chazakah that she was a Na'arah on the day she will become a Bogeres!

Rejection #2: Shmuel can hold even like R. Nasan;

R. Nasan requires Reuven to bring proof if he is now healthy, for most people are healthy. One cannot say that he is different without proof;

There is nothing unusual about saying that she was a Na'arah at the time of Kidushin!

Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue like the following Beraisos.

(Beraisa #1): If one was Mekadesh his daughter when he was abroad, and she accepted Kidushin at home, and she is now a Bogeres, since she is now a Bogeres, her Kidushin takes effect.

(Beraisa #2): We are concerned for both Kidushin.

Apparently, Beraisa #1 is like Rav, and Beraisa #2 is like Shmuel.

Rejection: Both Beraisos can be like Shmuel. Beraisa #1 discusses when she claims that she was a Bogeres at the time. Beraisa #2 discusses when she does not say this.

Suggestion: Just like the Beraisos need not argue, perhaps Rav and Shmuel do not argue! (Shmuel discusses when she does not claim that she was a Bogeres.)

Rejection: A case occurred in which Rav Yosef Brei d'Rav Menashiya ruled like Rav, and Shmuel said (sarcastically, to show his disapproval) 'is this Talmid greater than all others?!' (He relies on his Chachmah to permit a Safek Eshes Ish!)

If they don't argue, why was Shmuel upset? Perhaps she claimed that she was already a Bogeres! (Rather, it must be that they argue; the case was, she did not claim she was a Bogeres.)

(Mar Zutra): The Halachah follows Shmuel.

(Rav Ashi): The Halachah follows Rav.

The Halachah follows Rav.

(Mishnah): If a man went overseas with his wife, he returned with his wife and with children, he is believed to say that it is the same wife, and that the children are from her;

If he says that his wife died, and these children are from her, he must prove that the children are from her, but he need not prove about her lineage.

If he returns and says 'I married this woman overseas, and these are her children', he must bring proof about her lineage, but need not prove that they are her children.

If he says that he married a woman and she died, and these children are from her, he must prove that the children are from her, and about her lineage.

(Gemara - Rabah bar Rav Huna): In all cases when he need not prove that the children are from his wife, the case is, her children are clinging to her.

(Beraisa): If a man returned from overseas and said 'I married a woman overseas. These are her children, he must bring proof about her lineage, but not about the children;

He must bring proof about old children, not about young children.

The case is, he has one wife. If he has two wives, he must prove about her lineage and that all the children are from her.