1)

(a)When Rebbi Elazar rules that a man who says 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' is believed - he is speaking in a case when there is no blood, either because his wife is from the family of Durteki (which does not have Dam Besulim), or because the cloth went lost.

(b)And he is believed - on account of the principle 'Shavyah Anafshei Chatichah d'Isura', just like anyone is believed when he pronounces something forbidden, but only regarding himself (as if it was a Neder), not regarding others. Consequently, his wife will not lose her Kesuvah.

(c)We ask why he should not remain permitted, seeing as it is a Sfek Sfeika - a Safek whether the incident did not perhaps occur before they were engaged, and even if it occurred afterwards, perhaps she was raped (either way, she will still be permitted to him).

(d)One answer is that Rebbi Elazar speaks about the wife of a Kohen (who is forbidden to her husband even if she was raped). The second - that he is speaking when the betrothal took place before she turned three (in which case, the incident cannot have occurred before the engagement, because her Besulim would have returned by the time they got married).

2)

(a)Rebbi Elazar's Chidush is that we apply the principle 'Shavyah Anafshei Chatichah d'Isura'. Despite the fact that we already know this from the Mishnah in Kidushin, where a man who says to a woman that he betrothed her, is forbidden to marry her relatives, even though she, who denies his claim, remains permitted to marry his - he needs to repeat it here, because, whereas there, the husband knows with absolute certainty that he betrothed that woman, here, it is possible that he made a mistake, because a Bachur who marries for the first time is prone to err in this matter.

(b)In the Mishnah in Kidushin, we cannot simply ask the witnesses to ascertain whether he really did betroth her or not - because the Tana speaks where the witnesses have gone overseas and are not available for questioning.

3)

(a)In another statement - Rebbi Elazar requires Kinuy (warning by her husband not to seclude herself with a certain man) and Stirah (contravention of that warning) for a woman to become forbidden to her husband.

(b)When he adds 'k'Ma'aseh she'Hayah' - we initially interpret this to mean like the episode of David and Bas-Sheva, who was warned by her husband Uriah before secluding herself with David ha'Melech.

(c)The problem with that interpretation is - that Uriah could not possibly have warned her, seeing as Bas-Sheva had had no dealings with David before that incident!

(d)We also ask that in any event, Bas Sheva was not forbidden to Uriah - because if she would have been, she would also have been forbidden to David (and he would subsequently not have been permitted to marry her).

4)

(a)We therefore reinterpret 'k'Ma'aseh she'Hayah' - to mean that from David and Bas-Sheva we learn that when there is no Kinuy and Stirah, a woman is permitted to her husband.

(b)We try to infer from Rebbi Elazar's ruling (which requires Kinuy & Stirah for a woman to become forbidden to her husband) - that she does not become forbidden through her husband claim of 'Pesach Pasu'ach', a contradiction to his own first statement!

(c)And we counter that with 'Kinuy u'Stirah In, Eidim, Lo' - meaning that, by the same token, one can also infer that she does not become forbidden via the testimony of two witnesses (even without Kinuy u'Stirah) ...

(d)... and we know that she does - either from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar" or from the Pasuk in Naso "v'Hi Lo Nispasah".

(e)We finally establish that, according to Rebbi Elazar, either two witnesses or one witness following Kinuy and Stirah, will cause a woman to become forbidden to her husband. We know that she is not forbidden to her husband through the testimony of one witness (where there was no prior Kinuy and Stirah) - from a 'Gezeirah Shavah, "Davar" "Davar" mi'Mamon.

5)

(a)We amend Rebbi Elazar's second statement 'Ein Ishah Ne'eseres al Ba'alah Ela al-Yedei Kinuy u'Stirah' - by dividing it into two rulings; that a woman is only forbidden to her husband through the testimony of two witnesses or through Kinuy & Stirah even via one witness (who saw them committing adultery).

(b)We learn that a woman is not forbidden via one witness even without Kinuy & Stirah - from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Davar" Davar" from money matters.

(c)To reconcile this with the Pasuk "v'Ed Ein bah", which implies that if there is one witness, she is forbidden, even without Kinuy & Stirah" - by applying the principle that wherever the Torah writes 'Ed' (and not 'Ed Echad'), it is referring to two witnesses.

(d)Kinuy & Stirah itself requires - four witnesses, two for the Kinuy and two for the Stirah.

(e)Regarding our original problem - Rebbi Elazar considers 'Pesach Pasu'ach' like two witnesses (with regard to forbidding her on himself as we explained).

6)

(a)The problem with Bas Sheva is - that seeing as it was common knowledge (which is like two witnesses) that David had committed adultery with Bas-Sheva, why was she not forbidden to him, like 'Pesach Pasu'ach'? (See also Tosfos DH 'Mipnei').

(b)One reason that Bas Sheva was not forbidden to David ha'Melech is because he knew that she was taken by force. The other - because the every soldier in David (and before in Shaul)'s army used to write a Get before going into battle, on condition that, should he die in battle, his wife would be divorced retroactively.

(c)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns this from the Pasuk in Shmuel - "v'es Achecha Tifkod l'Shalom, v'es Arubasam Tikach" ...

(d)... which, according to the Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, constitutes Yishai's instructions to David - to inquire after his brothers and to negate their Kidushin (by collecting their Gitin).

7)

(a)Going back to our Mishnah, a Besulah must marry on Wednesday - because of the fear that otherwise, assuming that he discovers that she is not a Besulah, by the time Beis-Din convene (on the following Monday), his anger will have abated, and he will forgive her and not take her to Beis-Din.

(b)It cannot be due to a concern that, due to his anger abating, he will pay her the Kesuvah - because, although it is sinful to continue living with her, there is nothing wrong with paying her Kesuvah, should he choose to do so.

(c)We refute Abaye's proof from here that 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' is believed - because we do not know that the Tana is referring to Ta'anas 'Pesach Pasu'ach' and not to Ta'anas Damim (that there was no Dam Besulim).

(d)'Pesach Pasu'ach' not forbid him to live with his wife, even if Ta'anis Damim does - because, whereas the latter claim is not subject to error, whereas the former is (as we explained on the previous Amud).

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel goes even further than Rebbi Elazar with regard to Pesach Pasu'ach. According to him - the husband is even believed to deprive his wife of her Kesuvah ...

(b)... because of the Chazakah ' that a person does not take the trouble to arrange a wedding-feast, and then allow it to go to waste.

(c)Rav Yosef queries Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel from a Mishnah (later in the Perek), which discusses a Chasan in Yehudah who eats by his future father-in-law. The Tana does not believe him when he claims Ta'anas Besulim - because in Yehudah, it was customary for a betrothed couple to be intimate before the marriage.

(d)This implies - that in Galil, the Chasan is believed.

9)

(a)The Mishnah cannot be referring to the Chasan being forbidden to live with the Kalah - because if so, why should he not be believed even in Yehudah (on account of 'Shavyah Anafshei', seeing as he claims that they were not intimate before the wedding).

(b)So he must be referring - to the woman losing her Kesuvah.

(c)On the assumption that the Beraisa is speaking about Ta'anas Besulim, Rav Yosef now asks why Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel sees fit to repeat a ruling that already appears in a Mishnah.

(d)We refute his Kashya however - by establishing the Mishnah by Ta'anas Damim (and not Ta'anas Besulim).