Explanation: Really, she does not claim Vadai. R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds like both of them (R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua). When she did not claim Vadai, all agree that we require two majorities.

Implied question: In the answer, why didn't we say that really, she does not claim Vadai?

Answer #1: This is because in the question, it did not say "if she claims Vadai..."

Answer #2: Also in the answer, she claims Vadai, and there is a Migo.

Implied question: If so, there is a contradiction about the Halachah!

Answer: Shmuel rules like R. Gamliel only b'Di'eved, like it says above "do not do an action unless the majority are Kosher."

Implied question: Above, [Shmuel] connotes that through one majority, we permit l'Chatchilah!

Answer: R. Chiya bar Aba holds that l'Chatchilah, we require two majorities. The Mishnah says "she may marry", which connotes l'Chatchilah. [According to him, we needed to say that it was on the market day].

Explanation: [She went] to their house. [We must say so,] for even in the city is not considered Kavu'a, for it is like being found between stores, which is not considered fixed.

Similarly, a baby cast in the city is not considered Kavu'a, since he was not found in a house.

Therefore, Rashi explained that the Bo'el separated from his house.

Question: In Nazir (12a), regarding David who told a Shali'ach "go be Mekadesh any woman to me", he is forbidden to all women in the world, we ask from a Ken Stumah (two birds; one will be Chatas ha'Of, and one Olas ha'Of. If one bird flew away, we replace it, and offer them. One who finds a bird need not be concerned lest it was from that Ken, and it was fixed to be a Chatas [or Olah]. If David wants to marry a woman, why are we concerned lest she is the relative of the one his Shali'ach was Mekadesh?)

We conclude "I said to you a woman, who does not move [so she is considered Kavu'a in her house], and you asked against me from an Isur that roams?!"

Citation (12a) Suggestion: Also here, [perhaps the Shali'ach] found her in the market and was Mekadesh her!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: There, she returns to her fixed place.

Inference: Regarding man, "anyone who separates, separates from the majority" does not apply, for he returns to his fixed place.

Answer: This is not difficult. There, at the time of the Isur, when he has Bi'ah with any woman, [perhaps] the woman that the Shali'ach was Mekadesh returned to her fixed place;

Here, when they (Bo'alim) go to her, at the time of the Isur he is not in his place.

Question: According to R. Shimon [who expounds the verse to exempt one who killed a different person than he intended for], what is his source for Kavu'a?

Suggestion: We conclude in Sanhedrin (79a) that R. Shimon holds like Rebbi, who learns "Nesinah-Nesinah" [to obligate money in this case], and "v'Arav Lo" [is not needed to exempt from death, so it] is extra, to teach about Kavu'a.

Rejection: Still, according to Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah, what is the source for Kavu'a? He does not hold like Rebbi, for when he did not intend, [Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah] holds that he is exempt from paying money! (He needs "v'Arav Lo" to exempt from death!)

Question: According to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is not considered Hasra'ah, even if we were stringent about Safek Nefashos, he would be exempt, for it is Hasra'as Safek!

If this is according to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is considered Hasra'ah, how do we exempt him when it turns out that he killed a Yisrael? [If we are unsure which of two men is one's father,] he obligates the son if he hit one of them and then the other!

And regarding Nosar, when they said to him "do not leave over" [he is liable if he left over] even though [at the time] it is a Safek [if he will transgress]!

Answer: (It is like the opinion that it is Hasra'ah.) There is different, for he knows that surely he will come to Isur if he leaves over, or hits both of them. Therefore, it is considered Hasra'ah;

However, here he does not know that he will surely come to an Isur, for he does not know who he will strike.

Observation: We could have answered that a child is different, for he has no Chezkas Kashrus.

Explanation: [Since he holds that] for all generations, one majority suffices, this is difficult (why Rav does not follow one majority for lineage).

He holds that it is unreasonable to say that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah to permit with two majorities, but for all generations, even two majorities do not suffice.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): R. Chanin did not teach that it was [at the time] the wagons of Tzipori. There was only one majority.

Support: According to this, it is not difficult that for all generations, we require two majorities. They argue only about how the episode occurred.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): R. Chanin did not teach "[one majority suffices to establish a found baby to be a Yisrael,] but not for lineage." He holds that for all generations, one majority suffices.

Question #1: According to this, it is difficult for R. Chanin, like whom does R. Yochanan ben Nuri hold? He holds that one majority suffices! We asked like this above.

Question #2: It is unreasonable that any Amora would argue about that teaching "but not for lineage", for [the Gemara says that] Rav himself said it, and not an Amora [in the name of Rav].

Therefore, to R. Yirmeyah's question we do not answer "the one who taught this did not teach this."

Implied question: Why couldn't we say that [he is considered a Nochri] regarding that we do not sustain him?

Answer: For this, we do not require a majority of Nochrim. Also if only half [were Nochrim, we need not sustain him]!

Only regarding a majority of Yisre'elim, Rav said that he is like a Yisrael to obligate sustaining him.

Implied question: We could have said that [he is considered a Yisrael] regarding that we sustain him, like Rav taught!

Answer: We rather taught that we return his Aveidah. This is a bigger Chidush, for it is a great Isur [to return a Nochri's Aveidah, about which it says] "Lema'an Sefos ha'Ravah...";

However, to sustain him is not such a Chidush, for we sustain poor Nochrim along with poor Yisre'elim.

Even according to Shmuel, who holds that we do not follow the majority regarding monetary laws, this refers to [cases like] one who sells an ox, and it was found to be a gorer. The money came to his hand b'Heter, and the buyer willingly gave it to him;

However, here [Shmuel] agrees that we follow the majority. (If a Yisrael lost the Aveidah, it came to the finder's hand b'Isur, and in any case it was not given willingly.)

Question: We could have said that when it is half-half, he is a Nochri, and when our ox gored his ox [we are exempt]!

Strengthening of question: We could have established everything regarding goring!

Answer (Maharam): We preferred to find a Chidush in each.

Explanation: The case is, she is not holding a Kesuvah. If there is a Kesuvah, we should see [in] her Kesuvah whether she is a Besulah or widow!

Implied question: According to the opinion that one who claims against an action of Beis Din, and says "I paid" is believed, in any case (even if she has a Kesuvah) here he should be believed to say "I married you when you were a widow", through a Migo that he could have said I paid you!

Answer: He is not, for it is a Migo against witnesses.

Inference: Rashi's Perush connotes that only when the other does not claim from him, he is believed through a Migo, for he could have been silent. However, if the other claims, he is not believed.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. The Seifa says "if there are witnesses... [that the field belonged to] his father, and [the other says 'I bought it from him',] he is not believed.

Inference: If there are no witnesses, even though the other claims from him, he is believed through a Migo, for he could have said "it never belonged to your father"!

[We infer this] because it did not teach if he claims from him, he is not believed (which is a bigger Chidush).

Support: Also the Gemara asks "let it teach 'this field was yours"!

Inference: The other claims from him. Therefore, he answers "surely, it was yours, and I bought it from you!"

However, if he did not claim from him, it is not relevant to say "it was yours", for presumably he himself knows this!