Citation (91b): "If he really sinned [with her], he would be afraid." "If he really sinned, he would want the husband [to eat poisoned food and die]."

Answer (Ri): There, she says [to her husband] "I am Tamei (forbidden to you, due to Zenus)", like the Mishnah regarding which those episodes are brought. Even so, she is permitted due to the reasons given;

However, when she says "I am Tehorah", she is permitted without the reasons given.

Question: When she says "I am Tamei", why is she permitted? She made herself a forbidden entity [through her admission]!

Answer: Chachamim saw that women degenerated, and put their eyes on other men [and sought ways to get divorced, in order to marry them], and most who said ["I am Tamei"] were lying. Therefore, Chachamim saw it proper to permit them.

Observation: Rav himself does not distinguish between rumors cease and rumors that do not cease.

Alternate text: This is not in old texts. Rather, it says "Rabah bar Rav Nachman says that the text says 'he divorced her.' Here we discuss the husband, and here the adulterer. Here Chachamim said... This is wrong."

This is one answer. It means as follows. Rabah bar Rav Nachman says that the text says 'he divorced her.' Since it says 'he divorced her', here (in our Mishnah of a suspected adulterer) the husband [divorced her], and here (regarding the Mishnah of a vow) the husband divorced her, and Beis Din did not expel her;

Even so, it says in our Mishnah "if he married her, he expels her", and similarly in Gitin (45b) if he married her, he expels her. Rabah bar Rav Nachman answered properly;

We conclude that this is wrong. [There] he learned that the rumors were false;

The Isur to remarry her is not because people think that she was forbidden to him due to ill repute. People think that he learned that the rumors were false;

Rather, it is due to ruin (perhaps after she remarries and has children, he will realize afterwards that the rumors were false, and his Get was mistaken and invalid) or [to deter Bnos Yisrael from] Pritzus (wantonness, regarding vows), like it says in Gitin.

Question (Ri): How can Rabah bar Rav Nachman compare it? Didn't he know this reason? A Beraisa there (46a) explicitly explains these reasons!

Answer #1 (Ri): He had not heard the Beraisa.

Answer #2 (Ri): Rabah bar Rav Nachman knew the reasons of ruin and Pritzus. However, he held that if he married, he expels her, because people do not know the reasons of ruin and Pritzus;

Rather, they think that she is forbidden to him due to ill repute, since he divorced her due to this. Therefore, if he married her, he divorces due to gossip, like our Mishnah here.

We conclude that this is wrong. People will not err about this. There is a big difference between our Mishnah here and the Mishnah there. Here, he strengthens the rumors [through remarrying her]...

Implied question: Abaye (Gitin 23b) says that this Mishnah discusses Chutz la'Aretz! (However, in Eretz Yisrael, women suspected to hate her may not bring the Get, lest the husband come and dispute it.)

Answer: In any case, [the Gemara] properly deduces that we may rely on what is written. (They are not believed in Eretz Yisrael because we suspect lest they intend to ruin her.)

Implied question: Since he may not marry her even when he says "he died", there was no need to teach "we killed him"!

[We did not need it to teach that she may marry others, for] even when he says "I killed him", she may marry others!

Answer: It was taught only due to R. Yehudah, who distinguishes between "I killed him" and "we killed him."

Question (R. Chayim): In Makos 6a, we ask "the murder victim or Nirva (man who was raped) should save [the murderer or Rove'a (man who sodomized him), for the victim is a Pasul witness];

Inference: The victim of murder or rape is disqualified from testimony because he is a Sonei (hates him). Here, the Gemara connotes that he is Kosher!

Answer: We do not disqualify a Nirva there because he is a Sonei.

Explanation #1: Rather, he consented to the Bi'ah. He is Pasul because he is a Rasha, even according to Rava below, who says that even when he consented he is Kosher;

In any case, when there are witnesses that he consented, it is as if one of the witnesses was found to be a relative or Pasul.

Implied question: After this, the Gemara (there) asked "the murderer or Rove'a should save, i.e. himself!" We could have asked that the Nirva, whom we were discussing, should save himself, since we discuss one who consented to the Bi'ah! (Also he is Chayav Misah.)

Answer: Since until now we discuss saving the murderer and Rove'a, we said so.

Explanation #1A (R. Yitzchak): Also the murder victim is not disqualified due to hatred there. Rather, he is disqualified because he became a Terefah. A Terefah is disqualified from testimony, like it says in Sanhedrin (78a).

Explanation #2 (Ri of Orlins): The Gemara asks that the murderer or Nirva should save when they are relatives of the murderer or Rove'a.

Question (Ri): Indeed, granted, [the Gemara asked properly that] we cannot say that the murder victim truly saves [a relative who kills him], for the Torah obligated one who wounds his father;

However, what was the question from a Nirva? (Perhaps indeed, a Nirva saves the Rove'a when they are relatives!)

Suggestion: Also regarding a Nirva [we cannot say that he saves], for we expound Ervas Avicha literally, that he has Bi'ah with his father!

Rejection: That is regarding Kares, but we do not find a Chiyuv Misah for this. (Perhaps there is no Misah, because always, one of the witnesses is a relative!)

Question (Riva): In Kesuvos (18b), Rava himself concludes regarding the Mishnah there that if we do not have another source to validate signatures on a document [except for the witnesses themselves], they are believed to say "[it is false]; we were coerced to sign"...

[Rava concludes that] this is only when they say "we were mortally coerced." However, if they say that they were monetarily coerced, they are not believed.

Why aren't they believed? We should divide their words, and say that they were coerced, but not monetarily, rather, mortally!

Answer #1 (Ri): We do not divide words in order to disqualify a document, for mid'Oraisa, witnesses who signed a document, it is as if their testimony was investigated [and accepted] in Beis Din.

Answer #2: In any way they were coerced, if it was not mortally, they are Resha'im. Therefore, we do not [divide their words and] attribute the coercion to be mortal, for it is the minority.

Explanation: He cannot disqualify himself [from testimony or swearing], but he is believed to say regarding eating Chelev "I was Mezid", like it says in Kerisus 12a;

We should not force him to bring Chulin b'Azarah according to his words. (One brings a Korban only for Shogeg.)

Implied question: We say in Kidushin (50a) regarding "bring to me from the window or bag" [and he brought to him Hekdesh], that one would not establish himself to be a Rasha and say that he was Mezid!

Answer: This does not mean that he would not be believed to say "I was Mezid." Surely he is believed! Rather, he would not want to say in a way that would establish himself to be a Rasha.

Question: Now it connotes that one who was willingly Nirva is Pasul for testimony. In Sanhedrin (26b), there is an opinion that someone suspected of Arayos is Kosher for testimony!

Answer: There we discuss one who is suspected, for he is lewd and enters seclusion with Arayos, but it is not Vadai that he had Bi'ah with Ervah, like Rashi explained there.

Implied question: One opinion asks there "how can it be that he is lashed 40 times on the shoulder, and he is Kosher?!" (This shows that he Vadai had Bi'ah!)

Answer: We lash for ill repute.

Question: Even if he Vadai had Bi'ah with Ervah, why is he Pasul? We require a Rasha of Chamas (extortionist), who is evil to Shamayim and to people;

This one (who transgressed Arayos) is not evil to people, just like one eats Nevelos in order to anger Hash-m is Kosher [for testimony] according to Rava there (27a)!

Answer: This one is like one eats Nevelos for appetite. All agree that he is Pasul, even though he is not evil to people;

Since he is suspected to transgress for his own benefit, he is suspected also to testify falsely for the sake of money. The same applies to one who had Bi'ah with Ervah.

Question: Here, R. Yehudah holds that we do not divide a person's words;

Below (47a), a man came in front of R. Yehudah and said "I converted by myself", and R. Yehudah said "you are believed to disqualify yourself, but you cannot disqualify your children";

This shows that [he holds that] we divide a person's words!

Answer: We can say that there, he is not believed due to testimony, for one is considered a relative to himself [so he cannot testify about himself];

Also, if he were believed to disqualify himself, how could his children be Kosher?!

Rather, there we disqualify, i.e. we forbid him to a Bas Yisrael, for he established [every Bas Yisrael] to be forbidden [to himself];

Alternatively, if a Yisrael's ox gored his ox, the Yisrael is exempt, due to the litigant's admission [that his conversion was invalid].

The ruling of R. Yehudah is itself difficult. There I will explain it with Hash-m's help.

Explanation (Ri): Even though he said "we killed him", it is as if he said "I was with those who killed him."

Support: R. Tam and R. Chananel explain like this in Gitin (73b) "the case is, he said 'from when I am in the world'" means that it is as if he said so.

Alternate text: Some texts say "bi'Mezigas." It is like bi'Megizas Avrai (just the letters were switched), like Simlah and Salmah (Ri).

Implied question: We say in Gitin (32b) that also two are called a Beis Din!

Answer #1 (Ri): Even so, the Gemara inferred properly. Since we say that it is [permitted] because they are a Beis Din, and did not say "because they are two", this shows that two do not suffice.

Answer #2: Also, it is like Chalitzah, which is with three.

Implied question: There is an opinion that is Machshir Chalitzah in front of one judge!

Answer: Our Tana does not hold like him. Surely one is not called a Beis Din! Also, there is gossip about one.

Explanation: Even though it is permitted, a Ba'al Nefesh (pious person) should distance himself, like a Beraisa teaches about this;

Citation (Chulin 44b): If one judged a case, vindicated or obligated, was Metaher or Metamei, and witnesses who testified, all of them may buy [the matter they judged or testified about], but Chachamim said "distance from what is ugly or resembles [ugly]."

Question: We say in Gitin (67a) regarding concern lest she hire witnesses [to forge a Get], "people [might] say [false matters, e.g. 'her husband asked you to write a Get'], but they do not do an act (e.g. sign without authorization)!" (Why did the Gemara ask that if she did Mi'un or Chalitzah in front of two, they should not be suspected? This is mere speech!)

Answer: When they testify falsely, this is considered an act, like Rashi explained, since through their mouths, it is completed;

There, we call "speech" only telling another, e.g. he says from (in the name of) the husband to the scribe and witnesses to write and sign the Get. The matter is not finished through them (the liars).

Distinction: This is unlike one who was suspected of a married woman. There, it is proper that he divorce her. If it is true [that they had Bi'ah], she is forbidden to him!

Here, he forbade her through a vow. Even if he forbade her improperly, since her husband divorced her, mid'Oraisa she is permitted to the Chacham.