1)

(a)Having taught us that whichever Kidushin took place first, negates the second one ...

1. ... by a man, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it in the case of a woman because, seeing as women are not generally expert in Yichus like men, we would have thought that the woman accepted her Kidushin (not in order to negate that of the Shali'ach, but) to take effect in the event that the latter did not succeed in his mission (but not if he did).

2. ... by a woman, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it in the case of the father because we would otherwise have thought that it is specifically the woman who means to negate the Shali'ach's Kidushin with her own, because she is more particular about the Yichus of the man that she is marrying than a man is regarding the man his daughter is marrying.

(b)If a man betroths his daughter who is a Na'arah outside town, and on the same day she accepted Kidushin from another man in town, and we discover later in the day that she is a Bogeres, Rav rules that her Kidushin is valid because we assume that since is she a Bogeres now, we assume that that is what she was earlier in the day.

(c)According to Shmuel, it is a Safek to which of the two men she is betrothed.

(d)We cannot establish their Machlokes ...

1. ... within the first six months after she became a Na'arah (in which case, her Bagrus would manifest itself in her breasts, as we learn in Nidah), because throughout the six-month period, a girl has a Chezkas Na'arah, and Rav would not declare her a Bogeres retroactively from day-break.

2. ... after the six months had terminated because then, a girl has a Chezkas Bagrus, and Shmuel would not declare her a Safek.

2)

(a)So we establish the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel on the actual day when the six-month period terminates. We have discussed Rav's reasoning. Shmuel holds that perhaps the girl retained her Chezkas Na'arus until the last moment.

(b)The Mishnah in Mikva'os declares that in a case where a Mikvah was known to contain forty Sa'ah, but which is measured and found to be lacking all Taharos that were performed relying on that Mikvah, are Tamei, irrespective of whether they were performed in the Reshus ha'Yachid or the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(c)The difference between a Reshus ha'Yachid and a Reshus ha'Rabim with regard to Safek Tum'ah is based on the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei, bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'.

(d)And the reason that the Tana in Mikva'os does not declare all Taharos that were dealt with in the Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor, is because the Mikvah (which now has a Chezkas Psul) is not Safek Pasul, but Vadai Pasul.

3)

(a)Despite the fact that in the case of Safek Bogeres (just like in the case of Mikvah) the Chazakah is now broken in front of us, Shmuel does not take his cue from the case of Mikvah (to consider the girl a Bogeres retroactively) like Rav does because in the case of Mikvah, in addition to the Chazakah of the Mikvah, there is also the Chazakah of the one who Toveled in it.

(b)The Beraisa discusses a barrel of wine that was regularly examined to make sure that it had not turned sour, and from which one separated Terumos on other barrels of wine (two Lugin for each barrel of a hundred Lugin. The Tana rules there that if one discovered the wine to have turned sour then going back three days retroactively, it is Vadai, but further back than that, it is a Safek, which means that whatever one gave during that period is Terumah, but one remains obligated to separate Terumah again.

(c)When the Tana says 'three days', he means either that all the wine from the three days immediately following the previous Bedikah was definitely wine, or that all the wine during the three-day period prior to the discovery, was definitely vinegar (though this Machlokes does not affect our Sugya).

(d)This Beraisa clashes with the Mishnah in Mikva'os according to which the wine ought to have been considered vinegar retroactively, just as it was found (like he rules in the case of Mikvah).

4)

(a)Rebbi Chanina from Syria establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, who says elsewhere 'bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tehoros; bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tolin'.

(b)According to Shmuel, we do not place the wine on a Safek Chazakah that it only turned sour now, like we do by the Safek Bogeres because here too (like by Mikvah), there are two detrimental factors which must be taken into account: the Chazakah of the wine (which is now vinegar) and that of the Tevel, which the wine is coming to rectify.

5)

(a)If someone writes all his property to a friend and then recovers, assuming that, at the time of writing, he was ...

1. ... a Shechiv-Mera (on his death-bed) his gift is invalid and he is permitted to retain the money.

2. ... in good health his gift is valid.

(b)Rebbi Yakov in the Mishnah in Bava Basra rules that in the case of a Safek, the donor retains the money. Rebbi Nasan says that we go after whatever he is when he comes to retract (like in the case of the Mikvah). If he is healthy, then the onus is on him to prove that he was a Shechiv-Mera when he donated it; whereas if he is a Shechiv-Mera, then the onus lies on the recipient to prove that he was healthy.

(c)We attempt to connect the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with this Machlokes Tana'im. We establish ...

1. ... Rav like Rebbi Nasan (who considers the donor to have been retroactively, whatever he is now).

2. ... Shmuel like Rebbi Yakov (who does not go after what he is now, but considers with the possibility of his having been a Shechiv-Mera, even if now he is healthy).

(d)We refute this proposal however, in that ...

1. ... Rav might even hold like Rebbi Yakov whose reasoning is based on the Chezkas Mamon which stands against any other Safek; whereas the Chezkas ha'Guf (that she was and still is a Na'arah), cannot override the Safek, seeing as it stands to change (every Na'arah becomes a Bogeres).

2. ... Shmuel might even hold like Rebbi Nasan who considers with the possibility that he was healthy, like most people are; whereas in the case of the Safek Bogeres, many a girl remains a Na'arah on the day that she is due to become a Bogeres.

6)

(a)If a man betroths his daughter who is a Na'arah outside town, whilst on the same day, she accepted Kidushin from another man in town, and we then discover that she is a Bogeres, one Beraisa rules that her Kidushin is valid ('Harei Hi Bogeres Lefaneinu'). A second Beraisa says that we must consider with the Kidushin of both men ('Chayshinan l'Kidushei Sheneihem').

(b)We refute the proposal that Rav and Shmuel follow the respective opinions of these two Beraisos by establishing both Beraisos like Shmuel.

(c)It is possible to establish the first Beraisa like Shmuel by establishing it when the girl contradicts her father, claiming that she turned a Bogeres the day before.

(d)This causes us to cause us to query the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel on the grounds that, if the Beraisos don't argue, perhaps Rav and Shmuel don't argue either (and Rav is speaking when the girl contradicts her father, whereas Shmuel is speaking when she does not).

7)

(a)When Rav Yosef Brei d'Rav Menashiya from Davil ruled in practice like Rav Shmuel was angry with him, because he said, everyone else measures in small quantities (they are hesitant to permit a Safek Eshes Ish), whereas he measures in large measurements (by ruling outright that she is betrothed to the second man).

(b)We prove from this incident that Rav and Shmuel do in fact argue because if they don't, Rav would be speaking in a case where the girl contradicted her father (of which Shmuel does not speak), and that would have been the case in which Rav Yosef Brei d'Rav Menashiya issued his ruling, so why was Shmuel angry?

(c)Mar Zutra told Rav Ashi that Ameimar ruled like Rav. Rav Ashi himself holds like Shmuel.

(d)The final ruling is like Rav.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a man goes overseas with his wife, and returns ...

1. ... with her, claiming that she and the children that returned with them are his wife and her children does not need to prove either that the woman is Meyuchas (because he already proved it when he married her), or that the children are hers (as we shall see shortly).

2. ... without her, claiming that she died and that the children are hers he is believed with regard to the woman, but not with regard to the children.

(b)In the event that he returns from overseas ...

1. ... with an unknown woman and children in tow, claiming that he married the woman overseas and that these are her children he will need to prove that the woman is Meyuchas, but is believed with regard to the children.

2. ... with a woman but no children, claiming that he married a woman overseas, who died and these are her children he will need to prove both that his wife was Meyuchas and that the children are hers.

9)

(a)To explain why it is that whenever he returns with his wife, he does not need to prove that the children are hers, Rabah bar Rav Huna explains that the Tana is speaking when the children cling to the woman like only small children cling to their mother.

(b)When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'u'Meivi Re'ayah Al ha'Gedolim, v'Ein Tzarich Lehavi Re'ayah Al ha'Ketanim' he means simply that it is only big children who require evidence that are his wife's children, but not small ones who cling to her (as we just explained).

(c)And the Tana finally rules that in a case where he returns with one woman, and claims that he married two, one of whom died, and that the children belong to the wife who returned with him he is not believed on the children either, even if they are clinging to the woman ...

(d)... due to likelihood that they are really the children of the deceased woman, and that the woman who returned with him is their step-mother, who brought them up, and whom they consider to be their mother.