Alternative text: Some delete "Rabah" from the text, for she is at least a widow [if not a divorcee], and she is not proper for a Kohen Gadol.

Defense (of our text - Ri): The text properly says "Rabah", for she is forbidden even to a Kohen Hedyot, for he permits her because he says (i.e. means that) he divorced her, and he does not say (i.e. mean that) he has children.

Proof: If so (he means that he has children), he would be believed like our Mishnah taught that [if he said] "this is my son", he is believed. Why was R. Yochanan's teaching brought regarding this?!

Explanation: Rather, it means as follows. She is proper for a Kohen Gadol, i.e. she does not need Yibum [or Chalitzah], for I divorced her. She is permitted to everyone, even to a Kohen Gadol regarding Zikas Yevamim (an obligation to do Yibum or Chalitzah before remarrying).

Alternative text: R. Menachem's text says [that she is proper for] Kehunah. I.e. she does not need Yibum, and [if her father is a Kohen] she returns to the Kehunah of her father's house to eat Terumah.

Explanation: There are rumors here that there are witnesses overseas.

Assertion: The text does not say "there are witnesses overseas", for if surely there are witnesses, why did [Rav Yosef] say "now they are not here"? (Still, we should be stringent!)

Suggestion: [Abaye] means that we should be concerned lest there are witnesses.

Rejection: Surely, we are not concerned for this, for the Mishnah says that if he said "I have children", he is believed, and likewise he is believed to say "I have no brothers", Migo (since) if he wants, he could divorce her.

Support: Similarly, in Kesuvos (23a), regarding Shmuel's daughters who were captured, [the Gemara] asks "they say that there are witnesses overseas"!

Distinction: However, if there are no rumors, we should not be concerned on our own lest there are witnesses, for the Mishnah teaches there that if she says 'I was captured, and I am Tehorah", she is believed.

Question: Rav Yehudah contradicts himself! In Bava Kama (46a), Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel "this is Sumchus' opinion, but Chachamim say that a great general rule in monetary laws is ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah";

It explains there that this great general rule is even if the victim is Bari (Vadai), and the damager is Shema (unsure). This shows that Rav Yehudah holds that Bari v'Shema, Bari is not better!

Answer: Only regarding a lender, Rav Yehudah holds that Bari is better, for it is a weighty Bari, for had he not lent to him, he would not be brazen to say "you owe to me 100", for the [alleged] borrower knows that he did not borrow anything from him;

The Shema of the borrower is inferior, for he should have known whether or not he borrowed. Therefore, he is liable.

Distinction: However, regarding an ox that gored a cow, the victim's Bari is not weighty, for he knows that the damager does not know when it give birth, i.e. before or after the goring. Therefore, he claims Bari, for he knows that the damager will not contradict him;

The damager's Shema is not inferior, for there is no reason why he should know, for he was not there!

Question #1: It says in Kesuvos (12b) that Abaye said to Rav Yosef that Rav Yehudah's teaching that [if one said] "you owe to me 100", and the other said "I do not know", he is liable, this is like Shmuel;

[Shmuel] ruled there like R. Gamliel, that she is believed when she says "I was raped after Eirusin, and [my husband's] field was ruined" (it is his bad Mazal that I was defiled);

Now, even Rav Yehudah agrees there that she is not believed! Since the husband does not know when she was raped, her Bari is not weighty, like the case of a victim and damager!

Comment - Answer #1: We can say that the Gemara could have said "also according to you!" (Abaye held that R. Gamliel believes her because she is Bari. The Gemara concludes that he believes her due to a Migo or Chazakah, so Abaye's assertion, that Rav Yehudah holds like Shmuel, is rejected. This comment points out that the Gemara could have said "also according to you (Abaye), that it is due to Bari v'Shema, your assertion is wrong, for her Bari is not weighty!)

Note: Maharsha explains that this comment is from Tosfos Yeshanim. It is not part of our Tosfos.

Question #2: Similarly, in Bava Metzi'a (116b), regarding [a house and the Aliyah on top of it fell, and different people own them,] "if he recognizes some of his rocks, he takes them (and the other receives broken rocks corresponding to them)", and we establish it when [the other] said "I do not know"...

It says [there] that we should say that this refutes Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan, who say that [if one said] "you owe to me 100", and the other said "I do not know", he is exempt.

Now, this refutes also Rav Yehudah, for he agrees there that he is exempt (i.e. he need not accept broken rocks corresponding to whole rocks that the claimant claims), for it is an inferior Bari, for the other does not know if they were his rocks, since many rocks resemble each other!

Answer: Here, Abaye does not distinguish between the weighty Bari of a lender and an inferior Bari, for he says here "really, he is liable. Here is different, for it is like "you owe 100 to someone else";

Inference: If he himself had said "I am your brother", and [the other] says "I do not know", [the claimant] takes from his portion, even though it is an inferior Bari, for they do not know whether or not they have a brother overseas.

Support: Now it is fine that in Kesuvos, Abaye said [that Rav Yehudah taught like Shmuel, that she is believed with an inferior Bari against a proper v'Shema], and in Bava Metzi'a (116b) we say that it refutes Rav Nachman, for according to Abaye, it does not refute Rav Yehudah.

Answer (cont.): "This is a great general rule" in Bava Kama, Abaye does not establish it to include when the victim is Bari and the damager is Shema;

Rather, he establishes it for what it says there "alternatively, it comes to teach what was said (above, 92a) that if one sold an ox to his friend, and it was found to be a gorer [and it is not known whether he bought for plowing or to slaughter it], we follow the Chazakah (whoever is holding the money, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah applies to his opponent), even against a majority (e.g. most people buy for plowing). It is not proper to elaborate here.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This is like a healthy person's gift. He cannot retract from it.

Question: A Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 18a) says that if one found gift documents and receipts, he does not return them. I can say that...

The Gemara infers "if he said to give them, we give", and we establish it to discuss a Shechiv Mera, for there is no concern lest he gave to another, for even if he gave to another, he can retract.

Now, it teaches a gift, i.e. from today and after death, which is like Matanas Shechiv Mera, which does not acquire until after death. If he cannot retract, why do we give when he says "give"?

Answer (R. Tam): "From today and after death" means "from today, if I will not retract until after death." We discuss when he explicitly specified "from today, if I will not retract until after death";

Presumably, if he said "from today and after death", from today he acquires the Guf (permanent rights), and after death he acquires Peros, like it connotes in our Mishnah below (136a).

Implied question: It says here like the wording below (136a)! (Presumably, they are the same case.)

Answer: Even so, they do not discuss the same case.

Support: We find like this in Gitin (26b). If one said to a scribe "write a Get to my wife. After I marry her, I will divorce her", it is not a Get, lest people [assume that it was given on the date of the Get, and] say that he divorced her before [conception of] her child;

Contradiction: In Yevamos (52a), it says that [if one said to a scribe] "write a Get to my Arusah. After Nisu'in, I will divorce her", it is a Get"!

Resolution #1: We must say that in Gitin, we discuss when he wrote [in the Get] that day [that he writes it], and in Yevamos he wrote the date [it will be given, i.e.] after Nisu'in, even though the wording in both places is the same!

Disclaimer (and resolution #2): However, we can say that [in Gitin] it means that it is not a Get l'Chatchilah, i.e. mid'Rabanan, but mid'Oraisa it is a Get.