Inference: From here we can extrapolate that an Almanah min ha'Erusin gets a Kesubah, even if the Chasan did not write one ...

Proof: ... since one can assume that it speaks here where he did not write one, because if he did, why does the Gemara say that one 'asks him' to pay her Kesubah'?

Conclusion: ... It must therefore be speaking where he did not write one, yet the Gemara still says that one forces him to pay her Kesubah.

Implied Question: And in Perek ha'Kosev (Kesuvos, Daf 89b) when the Gemara asks whether an Almanah min ha'Erusin gets a Kesubah or not, it could have resolved the She'eilah from here ...

Answer: ... only it wants to resolve it not from Amora'im, but from a Mishnah (or a Beraisa [See Masores ha'Shas & Gilyon ha'Shas]).

Inference: Rabeinu Tam learns from here that witnesses are not required to validate a Kinyan.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Perek Vhezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 40a) states 'A Kinyan requires two, and one need not say "Write!" ' ...

Answer: ... it is not because without two witnesses it is not valid, because it certainly is ...

Answer (cont.): ... but that a Kinyan that is generally performed in front of two witnesses does not require a request to write - andnot that two witnesses are required.

Introduction to Proof #1: And this is also implied in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 45b) with reference to a case of a man who is standing in a barn without money ... , where it asks 'Why not be Makneh it with a Kinyan Sudar?', to which it replies that he doesn't have a Sudar either ...

Introduction to Proof #1 (cont.): Why does it not answer that there were no witnesses? ...

Proof #1: ... a proof that a Kinyan is effective without witnesses.

Proof #2: And one can also learn it from the first Perek in Sanhedrin (Daf 6a), where it says that a P'sharah (a compromise) can be performed with a single Dayan; And the Gemara rules there that a 'P'sharah requires a Kinyan' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: Because 'Silence is akin to admission', and it is therefore as if he knew it by himself ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but if he were to say 'I don't know', he (the witness) would not be believed to obligate him to bring a Korban ...

Source: ... since the Torah writes "O Hoda eilav (Or it was known to him personally)", 'but not that others made it known to him' (Yevamos, 87b).

Clarification (cont.): And this speaks specifically by one witness; but two witnesses are believed; and he brings a Korban through them.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in K'risus (Daf 11b) 'If two can bring him to the stricter death-sentence, should they not be able able to bring him to the more lenient Korban?'

Clarification (concl.): We must also say that he is silent, so the witness says to him that he ate Cheilev in a way that he must have known, and he remains silent.

Clarification: When the Tana says 'Lo Achalti', the same will apply in a case of 'Eini Yode'a' - where he is also Patur, since the Torah writes there "O Hoda" (See previous Dibur) ...

Implied Question: And the reason that it mentions a case of 'Lo Achalti''is ...

Answer: ... because it wants to say in the Seifa - in the case where two witnesses say 'Achaalta Cheilev' and he denies it ...

Answer (cont.): ... and in that case it is a Chidush according to Rebbi Meir, to say that he is Chayav even though he denies it.

Clarification: The witness said to him 'They became Tamei in front of you', and that is also how we will have to explain 'Achalta Cheilev', as Tosfos explained a little earlier.

Introduction to Question: But in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 54b) the Gemara rules that if Reuven, who is working in Taharos together with Shimon in Taharos, says to him 'Your Taharos became Tamei', he is believed, but not if he says "The Taharos with which we worked together on such and such a day' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And in answer to the question there "What is the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa?', Abaye answers 'Whatever is be'Yado he is believed, and whatever is not be'Yado, he is not believed' ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): ... and since the Seifa speaks where the Taharos are no longer be'Yado, he is not believed ...

Question #1: So how can Abaye say that he is believed when he says to him 'You ate Cheilev', even though it is not be'Yado to feed him Cheilev?

Question #2: And the same Kashya applies later - where he believes him to say 'Your ox was raped', even though it is not be'Yado to cause the ox to be raped?

Answer: The case there in ha'Nizakin is speaking where he is not silent, but contradicts him, whereas here it speaks where he is silent and does not contradict him.

Question: The Kashya remains on Rava however, since here it implies that he does not disagree with Abaye in what he says that whatever is not be'Yado requires his silence ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas there Rava says that if at first he found him and did not inform him, and then he found him and informed him, he is not believed ...

Question (cont.): ... implying that if he informed him immediately, he is believed under all circumstances, even if it is not be'Yado, and even if he is not silent ...

Question (concl.): ... whereas here, he does not argue with Abaye that if it is not be'Yado, he must be silent?

Answer: It is different there, seeing as it was be'Yado at one stage - at the time when he worked on the Taharos; whereas here it was never be'Yado, which is why we require him to be silent.

Conclusion: Presumably, the Halachah, is like Rava against Abaye.

Summary: It transpires that there are three Dinim in this matter ...

Din #1: There where it is be'Yado - such as the case where he is working with him in Taharos, he (the former) is believed, even though he (the latter) is not silent ...

Din #2: If it was never be'Yado - such as 'Achalta Cheilev' and 'Shorcha Nirva', he is believed there where he is silent, but not where he is not.

Din #3: In a case where it is not be'Yado now, but it was be'Yado at one stage, that is where Abaye and Rava argue, as Tosfos explained there, in connection with 'Taharos she'Asisi imach'.

Din #3 (cont.): Where according to Rava, there where he found him and informed him, he is believed, even if he is not silent; and, as Tosfos pointed out, the Halachah is like Rava.

Clarification: And the silence which the Gemara says results in being believed, refers specifically where he must have known about it - such as where the witness said to him 'Your wine became Tamei in front of you' - similar to 'You ate Cheilev' ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but if he said to him that his wine became Tamei not in his presence, and he is silent, that silence is not considered admission ...

Reason: Since the reason that he declined to answer is because he did not know for sure that it wasn't true.

Clarification: And when Tosfos said that regarding something that is not be'Yado the witness is not believed there where he is not silent - that speaks where he does not believe him like two witnesses, but where he does, he is believed ...

Source: ... as the Gemara will shortly say in the case of 'the blind man', where Rava says that he is believed, even though it is a Davar she'be'Ervah, which would otherwise requires two witnesses ...

Source (cont.): How much more so is he believed in other areas of Halachah.

Clarification: And when the Gemara says throughout Shas that 'One witness is believed by Isurin', that is specifically to render permitted, such as 'This meat has been Kashered' or 'This piece is Shuman (and not Cheilev) ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but to render something Asur he is only believed under the circumstances that Tosfos explained.