Implied question: It says in Kesuvos (81a) regarding "he should say 'I inherit my brother. I need not bury his wife [for I do not inherit anything from her]!'"...

[He need not bury her] to avoid paying her Kesuvah, for the Kesuvah was not given to be paid in his [brother's] lifetime!

This is rejected, for [only] Beis Shamai expound the text of the Kesuvah (that it is due to be paid only when she may remarry). They consider a document destined to be collected as if it was collected!

Summation of question: What is the difficulty? Perhaps even Beis Hillel [expound the Kesuvah], for they [retracted and] agreed [to Beis Shamai]!

Answer #1: Beis Hillel did not retract due to expounding the Kesuvah, rather, due to the Kal va'Chomer.

Answer #2: That was a mere Dichuy [in Kesuvos] to establish it like Beis Shamai. In the conclusion there, it can be like Beis Hillel.

Note: The Maharsha says to see Tosfos there (81a DH Man), who says that in the conclusion there, Beis Hillel can expound the Kesuvah.

Answer #3: Some say that Beis Hillel do not expound the Kesuvah as much as Beis Shamai.

Rejection: If it is reasonable to expound in Kesuvos like here, why don't Beis Hillel expound?

If it is not reasonable, what is the source that even Beis Shamai expound?

Question: Do Beis Hillel argue with Hillel their Rebbi, who expounds the Kesuvah in Bava Metzi'a (104a)?!

Citation (104a): Hillel used to expound the words that commoners use. People of Alexandria were Mekadesh their wives, and at the time of Chupah, others grabbed them...

Citation (cont.): Hillel found written in their [Kesuvos] "when Tinas'i (you will have Nisu'in) with me, you will be my wife. I.e. you are not Mekudeshes until Chupah.)

Answer (Ri): There is different. There, it was known and proven that they wrote this because others grabbed [their wives. I.e. surely, they mean that there is no prior Kidushin];

However, here, "when you will marry another" means through clear testimony, and not through other means;

Beis Shamai hold that in any case we apply "you will marry another" [even if it was not through clear testimony].

Explanation: She (Chanah) wants to ruin her (Leah, her Yavam's wife), for she fears lest her husband die, or her Yavam will die, and [after Yibum] they will be Tzaros.

Implied question: Above (95b), Shmuel holds that a Yevamah is not like an Eshes Ish. If so, [if Leah did Yibum based on a false report that her husband died], when [Chanah's] Yavam (Leah's husband) returns, she may return to him! (Chanah has no reason to testify falsely, for it will not prevent the possibility of becoming Levi's Tzarah.)

Answer #1: In any case, [Chanah] intends to embarrass [Leah].

Answer #2: Perhaps [Chanah's] husband will do Chalitzah, and [Leah] will marry someone else, and then she will be forbidden to her husband and Yavam, and will not fall to Chanah's husband for Yibum.

Question: Once [Chanah] testifies that her Yavam died, perhaps her husband will do Yibum, and [Leah] will be her Tzarah immediately! (Why would Chanah bring upon herself what she seeks to avoid?!)

Answer: She is not concerned for this, for she knows that [Leah's] husband is alive, and he will return and ruin [Leah].

Explanation: We ask against our Mishnah, which taught only five.

Explanation: In any case, we permit her to marry. Since she sees that her mother-in-law is forbidden, also she (her daughter-in-law) will not ruin herself.

Question: What is the concern? In any case we should permit her mother-in-law after her daughter-in-law remarries, for she will not be pained, for she will not be her daughter-in-law again!

Answer: In any case we must be concerned lest her mother-in-law marry before her daughter-in-law, and [the daughter-in-law] intends for this. It turns out that she forbade her mother-in-law!

Therefore, Chachamim did not want to permit her, even after her daughter-in-law marries.

Opinion #1: We could have said that there is different, for it does not cross her mind that her husband will die;

However, a daughter-in-law can know that her husband will come, and she (her mother-in-law) will tell her son matters about her (the daughter-in-law).

Opinion #2: Or, perhaps the Gemara equates them, for it is not so clear that her husband will return from overseas.

Question (Ri): In Kesuvos (22b), regarding R. Yochanan's teaching "two say that he died...", it connotes that Ula's law is b'Di'eved;

He agrees that l'Chatchilah she may not marry due to Rav Asi's teaching - "Haser Mimcha Ikshus Peh" (divert from yourself harsh talk and accusations)!

Answer: Here we infer as follows. Only because she married, she need not leave. Had she not married, she may not marry, and if she married, she must leave.

This connotes as follows. Only because she married (before the other witness came), she need not leave. Had she not married, she may not marry, and if she married, she must leave. Therefore, we ask from Ula's teaching.

Question: How do we answer "if they permitted her to marry, and one came and said that he did not die, she does not leave her first Heter"? This connotes that she may marry l'Chatchilah!

Answer: Surely, l'Chatchilah she may not marry. "She does not leave her first Heter", i.e. if she married, she need not leave;

The Seifa, in which one says that he died and one says that he did not die, she may not marry, discusses when they came together. Even if she married, she must leave.

Question: In Kesuvos (22b), what did R. Yochanan teach? The Mishnah teaches this!

Answer: R. Yochanan teaches that l'Chatchilah she may not marry due to Rav Asi's teaching.

Question: Here it connotes that Ula discusses only when they came one after the other, i.e. when they permitted her to marry [before the latter witness came];

In Sotah (31b), it connotes that Ula discusses every case, both together, and one after the other!

Citation (31b - Mishnah): If one witness said that she became Tamei (had Bi'ah in seclusion), and one witness said that she did not become Tamei, she drinks...

Citation (cont.) Inference: This is because the latter witness contradicts her. If not, one witness is believed mid'Oraisa...

Citation (cont.) Question: Since one witness is believed mid'Oraisa, how can the latter witness contradict him? Ula said that whenever the Torah believed one witness, he is like two!

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (Ula): The Mishnah should say "she does not drink."

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (R. Chiya): She drinks.

Citation (cont.) Question: According to R. Chiya, the Mishnah refutes Ula!

Citation (cont.) Answer: We distinguish between when they came together, or one after the other.

Inference: Ula discusses when they came together, just like one after the other, therefore he needed to change the text; he did not answer like R. Chiya.

Answer #1: We can say that Ula discusses only when they came one after the other;

However, he holds that it is difficult to establish the Mishnah when they came at the same time, for it connotes that it is also when they came one after the other.

Answer #2 (Ri): Even if Ula discusses every case, this is only there, for the Torah believed one witness about Sotah, like we learn there from "v'Ed Ein Bah";

However, here regarding a woman (testimony that her husband died, one witness) is believed only mid'Rabanan, he is considered like two only when they came one after the other.

Implied question: Since there is a distinction between mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan, why did we bring Ula's teaching [here]?

Answer #1: He holds that two witnesses one after the other for a mid'Rabanan law is like mid'Oraisa when they come together.

Answer #2 (Ri): We ask because it connotes that had she not married, mid'Oraisa she may not marry, for it says she must leave, and it did not teach that the child is a Mamzer. (Maharsha - he comes to show that you cannot say that Ula's law does not apply here because it is mid'Rabanan. Since the child is not a Mamzer, we must say that the first witness is believed like two, just like when the Torah believes him.)

Also, since the Seifa teaches that if one says that he died and one says that he did not die, she may not marry, this implies that they came at once;

If [the first witness is not believed like two because it is] mid'Rabanan, even one after the other [she should be forbidden to marry]!

Distinction: However, if one witness and one [opposing] witness came one after the other, she need not leave, but she may not marry;

If two say that he died, and one says that he did not die, even if she did not marry, she may marry.

If one witness and one [opposing] witness came together, she may not marry. If they came one after the other, she would be permitted to marry, like Torah law, if not for scandalous talk.

Question: A Mishnah in Sotah (31b) says that if one witness said that she became Tamei, and two said that she did not become Tamei, she drinks...

Citation (31b) Inference: If one witness [said Tamei] and one witness [contradicted him], she would not drink. This refutes R. Chiya!

Citation (cont.) Counter-question (Seifa): If two said Tamei and one said not Tamei... rather, the Mishnah discusses Pasul witnesses.

Why don't we establish the Reisha to discuss Pasul witnesses, due to the reason we asked here, that [if it discusses Kosher witnesses,] this is obvious!?