1)

(a)If a Kohen divorces a woman, assuming the Chatzer belongs ...

1. ... to him - she is obligated to move out of the Chatzer.

2. ... to her - he is obligated to move out.

3. ... to neither but they are both renting - she is obligated to move out.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Hinei Hash-m Metaltelecha Taltelah Gaver" - that it is harder for a man to move from place to place than for a woman, a proof that if the Chatzer is owned by both of them, it is the woman who has to move out of the Chatzer and not the man.

2)

(a)The Beraisa rules that objects belonging to her father (Nichsei Milug), after they are divorced, that her husband borrowed from her whilst they were still married, a wife may re-claim from him - only via a Shaliach (because we are afraid that direct communication will lead to intimacy).

(b)If, in spite of that, they appear in Beis-Din for a Din Torah - Rav Sheshes rules that the Beis-Din do not deal with their case.

(c)According to Rav Papa, we place them in Cherem; whereas Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua maintains - that one gives them Malkus (and does not place them in Cherem).

3)

(a)Rav Nachman citing a Beraisa in Evel Rabasi, qualifies the above Beraisa. He substantiate the Tana's ruling - there where the divorce took place after they were married ...

(b)... but if it took place after the betrothal - she is permitted to claim from him directly (because they are not sufficiently familiar with each other to warrant suspicion).

(c)In light if what we just learned, Rava explained to Rav Ada bar Masna that, in the case of a Kohen who divorced his former wife to whom he had been betrothed, he ordered him to pay his debts through a Shaliach - because he noted from the signs and hints that passed between them, that they were more familiar than most betrothed couples.

(d)According to the second Lashon, Rava did not require a Shaliach. Rav Ada bar Masna ...

1. ... asked Rava - why he did not.

2. ... countered, when, in reply, Rava cited Rav Nachman - that this case was different, because of all the signs and hints that passed between them.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah permits a grown-up to testify ...

1. ... on what he saw when he was a child.

2. ... on his father or his Rebbe's signature, thereby substantiating the Shtar (even though his father or his Rebbe died when he was still a child).

3. ... that a woman married in the manner that proves she was a Besulah (even though he was a child at the time).

(b)Besides the signature of his father and of his Rebbe, the Mishnah also believes him - on the signature oh his brother.

(c)Besides testifying that he would be taken from school to be Toveled and to eat Terumah, the above list also includes testifying - that he used to receive a portion of Terumah in the granary (in which case, he must be a Kohen).

(d)The Tana incorporates in his list regarding ...

1. ... Tum'ah - that a certain location is a Beis ha'Pras.

2. ... Shabbos - how far they used to walk on Shabbos.

5)

(a)A Gadol is not believed when he testifies that he remembers how so-and-so owned a path leading to his field - because such a weak testimony is insufficient to extract money (which requires two witnesses).

(b)Neither is he believed when he says 'Ma'amad u'Misped Hayah li'Ploni ba'Makom ha'Zeh' - meaning that so-and-so had the right to eulogize his deceased on a certain piece of land, and to stand and sit seven times, as they were being taken to be buried (for the same reason).

(c)In all of the cases where he is believed - we believe him only together with another witness.

6)

(a)In spite of having taught us that we believe ...

1. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his father, the Tana nevertheless needs to add that he is also believed when he attests to the signature of his Rebbe - because a child spends more time with his father than with his Rebbe, so we might have otherwise believed him on his father's signature, but not on his Rebbe's.

2. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his Rebbe, the Tana needs to add that he is also believed when he attests to the signature of his father - even though his fear of his father is not as intense as that of his Rebbe.

3. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his father and of his Rebbe, the Tana needs to add that he is also believed when he attests to that of his brother - even though neither of the above reasons applies there.

(b)The reason that we believe him in such an important issue as verifying a Shtar (particularly as it involves extracting money) from the debtor is - because the verification of a Shtar (Kiyum Shtaros) is only mid'Rabanan. Min ha'Torah, the witnesses who sign on a Shtar are considered as if their testimony has already been corroborated (as we learned above earlier in the Perek).

(c)And he is believed when he testifies that a woman was a Besulah when she married, despite the fact that, there too, it is a matter of extracting money from her husband - because, since the majority of women are Besulos when they marry, we consider the testimony no more than a 'Giluy Milsa' (a revelation) on something that is destined to become known anyway.

(d)Seeing as the slave of a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah, we know that the school-friend about whom the witness testifies (to permit him to eat Terumah), is not the slave of a Kohen, based on a statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who forbids a person to teach his Eved Torah, in which case, the friend who attended school cannot have been a Kohen.

7)

(a)We query Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi however, from a Beraisa which discusses an Eved who lent his master money, whose master appointed him as an administrator or who put on Tefilin in his master's presence - about which the Beraisa rules that these are not an indication that their master has set them free.

(b)The fourth item in the list is - an Eved who reads even just three Pesukim in the Torah in Shul.

(c)We reconcile this with the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - by establishing it when the Eved did so of his own accord, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is speaking about his master teaching him Torah (or arranging for him to study in the same way as he does for his son).

8)

(a)When the Tana accepts the testimony of the witness in our Mishnah to allow someone to eat Terumah d'Oraisa - he is in fact, referring to Terumah d'Rabanan.

(b)He also accepts the testimony of the same witness when he testifies that his friend used to receive Terumah at the granary together with him. We know that he was not the Eved of a Kohen - because otherwise, he would only be permitted to receive a portion of Terumah at the granary if he was accompanied by his master.

(c)In the opinion of Rebbi Yosi - an Eved is indeed permitted to accept Terumah even when his master is not present.

(d)In the town of Rebbi Yosi therefore, they would not elevate someone to the Kehunah on the basis of the fact that he received Terumah at the granary (in case he was an Eved) - in Rebbi Yehudah's town however, they would.

9)

(a)We object to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi's statement that on the sole occasion that he testified that someone was a Kohen, the Beis-Din permitted an Eved to the Kehunah on the basis of his testimony - on the basis of the principle - that Hash-m does not place a stumbling-block to Tzadikim (to bring about sin through them).

(b)The donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir refused to eat the un-Ma'asered food that its captors fed it.

(c)So what Rebbi Elazar ... really testified was - that when he testified in the town of Rebbi Yehudah that he had witnessed how a person (who was actually the Eved of a Kohen) received a portion of Terumah at the granary in his father, Rebbi Yosi's town, they wanted to accept his testimony, but realized their mistake in time.

(d)We permit the witness in question to testify regarding the border of T'chum Shabbos - only because we hold Techumin mi'de'Rabanan.

10)

(a)A Beis ha'Pras - is an area of one hundred Amos in all directions from the spot where a grave was plowed over.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permits blowing one's way through a Beis ha'Pras in certain instances (see Tosfos DH 'Menafei'ach'). Chazal were not concerned that one may walk over Tamei bones (and become Tamei b'Ohel) - because the bones that are only the size of a barley-grain render Tamei through touching and carrying (and which he will avoid through blowing), but not through Ohel; whereas bones that are sufficiently large to render Tamei through Ohel, can be easily seen and avoided.

(c)When Rav Yehudah bar Ami Amar Rav Yehudah said 'Beis ha'Pras she'Nidash Tahor' - he meant that once that area has become well-trodden, it is considered Tahor (because any bones that were there, would have been ground into pieces that are smaller than a barley-grain).

(d)All these leniencies come to prove - that Beis-ha'Pras is only mi'de'Rabanan.

11)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa believes a grown-up who testifies that his father told him when he was a child that one family is Tahor, and another family, Tamei. What he means is - that one family is Kasher (from the point of view of Yuchsin) and one is not.

(b)And when he said 've'she'Achalnu bi'Ketzatzah shel bas Peloni' - he was referring to a custom that was prevalent in those days: that if one of the brothers married below his status, they would break a barrel filled with fruit in the middle of the street, and announce publicly that they did not want their families to join with his.

(c)He also accepts his testimony when he recalls how they used to carry Chalah and Matanos to so-and-so - though we restrict this to when the witness himself was involved in the carrying, and not if he testified that someone else used to do so.

12)

(a)In all of the above cases - if the grown-up was a Nochri who converted or an Eved who was set-free and who was now testifying what he saw before the conversion and the setting-free respectively, he is not believed.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah maintains - that in this regard, he is believed, too.

(c)We know that Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah does not come to argue with the Tana Kama's last statement ('Derech Hayah li'Ploni b'Makom ha'Zeh, Ma'amad u'Misped Hayah ... ') - because nobody would believe him to the point of extracting money.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah and the Rabanan is - whether we take for granted that a Nochri is not careful in his assessment of the details (the Rabanan), or whether we can presume that his intention to convert will prompt him to be careful (Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah).