Summation of question: This is why we ask here whether the Migo weakens the Chazakah. [Perhaps it does not, because] she says based on estimation!

Answer: There is different. Granted, he is distracted with his workers, but in any case he is considered somewhat of a liar to claim that he definitely paid him;

Therefore, we should believe him through a Migo "I never hired you", since he claims that it is clear to him that he paid him, and he does not attribute [the dispute] to [his own] forgetting, and also, he has a Migo.

Question: Why don't we say [that she has] a Migo that she could have said that he died on his bed?

Answer: When he was killed in war, we say a Migo that she could have said that he was killed not in war;

However, we do not [believe her to] say [that] he was killed, due to [a Migo that she could have said that] he died.

Implied question (Ri): This is like the question in Bava Basra (5b) of one who says "I paid you within the time (before the loan was due)", if he is believed through a Migo. He could have said "I paid you after the time";

Does the Migo weaken the Chazakah, or not?

Answer (Ri): [Perhaps] there, [the Migo] weakens [the Chazakah], but here it does not, since she says based on estimation;

[Alternatively, if we say that] there, it does not weaken [the Chazakah], this is because it is not common at all to pay within the time, but here it weakens the Chazakah, for it could be true that he died in war.

Observation: Similarly [we cannot learn from] Kidushin (64a). If one said at the time of Kidushin "I have sons, and I have no brothers", and at the time of deaths "I have no sons, and I have brothers", he is believed to permit;

Explanation: This means if it was vice-versa (he initially said that he has only brothers, but no sons, and at the time of death said oppositely, he is believed), but he is not believed to forbid [his wife l'Shuk after his death].

Citation (64a): This is Rebbi's opinion. R. Noson says...

The Gemara explains that Rebbi's reason is that the Migo weakens the Chazakah, since if he wanted, he could exempt her [from Zikas Yibum] through a Get.

However, here she says based on estimation. Therefore [the Migo] does not weaken the Chazakah.

R. Noson holds there that it does not weaken [the Chazakah. Even so, he is believed, for] at the time of death, it is proper to believe him more.

Possibility #1: He will not say based on estimation, because the matter is prone to become known.

Possibility #2: Or, perhaps one witness is believed because she investigates well before marrying, and here she will not investigate well;

Explanation: Really, one witness would not say based on estimation, like a woman herself would;

Even so, we should not believe him. Granted, he does not say based on estimation. [However,] here she does not investigate;

She relies on him more than when he says that he died on his bed, since there are Raglayim l'Davar (supporting evidence).

Alternative explanation of Possibility #2: Perhaps one witness is believed because she investigates well before marrying, so even if he says based on estimation, he is believed.

Rejection: Even if she investigates well, why should he be believed, since he says based on estimation?!

Citation (Berachos 63a): R. Akiva did not leave a Chacham as great as himself in Eretz Yisrael, therefore he was able to be Me'aber years in Chutz la'Aretz.

We must say similarly in Megilah (18b) about R. Meir, who went to be Me'aber the year in Asya, that he did not leave a Chacham as great as himself in Eretz Yisrael;

Asya is Chutz la'Aretz, like we say in Bava Basra (56a). Kini, Kenizi and Kadmoni (they will be added to Eretz Yisrael in the future) are [now called] Asya, Ardiskis and Aspamya.

Implied question: Why weren't they Me'aber the years in Eretz Yisrael?

Answer: There was an Ones that prevented them.

Observation: The Yerushalmi says that Yirmeyah, Yechezkeil and Baruch ben Neriyah were Me'aber in Chutz la'Aretz.

Question (Ri): In Sanhedrin (26a), it says that R. Chiya bar Zarnuki and R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak [were going to Asya for Ibur Shanah]. R. Yochanan was greater than them, for Reish Lakish called them cattle shepherds [and R. Yochanan did not object].

Answer: They were not going to make a leap year, just to calculate whether they must make a leap year.

Proof: It was Shevi'is. This is clear from the episode, for he said "a Kohen plows [in Shemitah. Kohanim were suspected of transgressing Shemitah";

In Sanhedrin (12a), it says that we are not Me'aber the year in Shemitah.

Some Ones prevented them from making the calculation in Eretz Yisrael, like I explained above.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that women saw that they drowned, but they did not see the bodies leave the water. Therefore, they said based on estimation.

Explanation: [They saw them] right after they left the water. However, [even] if they delayed in the water a long time, we are not concerned, for water preserves [the appearance] when there is no wound, like it says below (121a);

However, when the body delays after coming up [from the water], it swells up.

Explanation: However, we do not believe them based on recognition [without Simanim], for they say based on estimation, and due to a small matter (resemblance) they will say that these are the women's husbands.

Explanation (Rashi): Water changes the form of the face.

Rejection: We say below (121a) that water preserves [the appearance] when there is no wound!

Implied question: If Simanim are not mid'Oraisa (to rely on them to return an Aveidah, and also for matters of Isurim, how could Rebbi rely on them)?

Answer #1: Here we discuss Simanim Muvhakim (utterly reliable. All agree that) they are mid'Oraisa, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (27b).

Answer #2 (Ri): [Even standard] Simanim help together with recognition.

Pesak (R. Chananel): If a woman and one witness testified about a boat that sank, and they said that he died, do not help, and all the more so a Nochri, even if he spoke l'Fi Tumo (unaware of the consequences).

Question: How do we permit wives of men who drowned, through recognition, without any recognition of Simanim?

Answer: Perhaps [R. Chananel] discusses when the form of the face is partially missing, for fish ate from it, and remains only what it says in the Mishnah (below 120a, i.e. the forehead and nose; some include the cheeks).

Support: R. Tam explains like this below, regarding "we testify until three days." This is when the form of the face is partially missing, like the Mishnah explains;

However, if the face is intact, one may testify even after many days.

Explanation (Ri): We discuss one who deposited in front of witnesses. Therefore, he could take them if he had a Siman Muvhak;

If there are no witnesses, how does a Siman help? He (the Shomer) can say "I bought them"!

Explanation (cont.): We likewise explain in Bava Metzi'a (70a), it says "what do we do with orphans' coins? We find a man with pieces of gold...

Citation (70a): He must have pieces of gold. It is not enough that he has Kelim. Perhaps someone deposited them, and the owner will give a Siman and retrieve his deposit! (Also there, he must have witnesses.)

Question: In Kesuvos (85b), regarding a silver cup deposited in the house of Chasa. Chasa died, without leaving any instructions... (David claimed it, and gave a Siman. Rav Nachman ruled that David gets it.)

Citation (85b): This is only if David is not frequent in the house. If he is, perhaps another man deposited it, and David saw it there.

Inference: He did not deposit with witnesses, and even so [Rav Nachman] said "firstly, I know that Chasa is not established to be rich (it is unreasonable that it is his). Also, David gave a Siman."

Summation of question: Why does a Siman help, since he did not deposit with witnesses?!

Answer: Both reasons are needed, that Chasa is not established to be rich, and David gave a Siman. (Therefore, he does not need witnesses.)

Question: In Kesuvos (13b), regarding an Arus and his Arusah, Rav Yosef said "firstly, they admit (that she is pregnant from him);

Citation (13b - Rav Yosef): Also, Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel.

Citation (cont. - Abaye) Objection: If they did not admit, would R. Gamliel be Machshir [the child]?!

Summation of question: What was the question? Perhaps Rav Yosef requires both reasons [just like Rav Nachman requires both reasons]!

Answer: If the reason that they admit did not suffice by itself, it would not help that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, for R. Gamliel is Machshir only when the majority are Kosher to her;

Here, everyone is Pasul to her (their child from her is a Mamzer), except for the Arus.

Therefore, [Abaye] asked "if they do not admit...", i.e. if the reason of admission does not suffice by itself, does it help to join to it that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel...?!

Inference: Here it connotes that number and measure are not Simanim.

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (23b), it says "since weight is a Siman, also measure and number are Simanim"!

Answer: There we discuss an amount that is not normal to store away;

Here, people often store away this measure. (Ya'avetz - they often store away in a Kli of this measure, and it is normal to fill the Kli.)

Question: What is difficult from this? Regarding money, we should always be concerned lest he cleared them out, and not remove money from its Chazakah!

Answer: He sees it proper to compare them, since it is common to clear them out, and even so we are not concerned for this [regarding Isur];

[Therefore,] also regarding money, we should remove it from its Chazakah, since we are not concerned, even though it is common.

Explanation (R. Chananel): This is like it says in the Yerushalmi Ma'aser Sheni (4:6), that R. Yonah and R. Yosi were partners in barrels of wine;

Citation (cont.): After R. Yonah died, his son R. Mani said to R. Yosi that every barrel that says "R. Yonah" is his.

Citation (cont.) R. Yosi: It used to be his. Now, it is mine.

Explanation: The case is, there was no Chazakah of another Yitzchak [Reish Galusa], and caravans were common;

If caravans were not common, and there was no Chazakah, a Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 20a) teaches that one returns all deeds of Beis Din (we are not concerned lest it is from a namesake. Why would Abaye be concerned?!)

If caravans were common, and there was a Chazakah of two Yitzchak's, why wasn't Rava concerned?!

Below, regarding Anan bar Chiya of Chigra, Rava was concerned lest he went on a fast camel, since another Anan was Muchzak there.

Inference: [Here], we discuss when there was not a Chazakah.

Question: Why didn't Rava bring from his Rebbi Rabah, who said (Bava Metzi'a 18b, Gitin 27a) regarding a Get found in Rav Huna's Beis Din, that we return it, since there was no Chazakah [of a namesake], even though caravans were common?

Answer: Indeed, he could have. Rather, he preferred to bring a proof from earlier Amora'im.

Question #1: How did Rava learn Isur from money?

We ask this against Rabah in Bava Metzi'a (20b) regarding a Get found in Rav Huna's Beis Din.

Question #2: When there was a Chazakah of two Yitzchak's, Rava agrees, like I explained above. Here, there was a Chazakah of two Chavi bar Nanai's!

Answer: Rava compares a monetary case with a Chazakah to a case of Isur without a Chazakah.