ONE WITNESS IS BELIEVED (cont.)
Support (Seifa): If two witnesses say 'You ate Chelev', and he says 'I did not eat', he is exempt;
R. Meir says, he must bring a Korban.
R. Meir: If two witnesses can sentence him to death, which is stringent, all the more so they can obligate him to bring a Korban, which is lenient!
Chachamim: (He is believed, for) if he wanted (to lie), he could say that he intentionally ate (to exempt himself)!
Question: Why do Chachamim obligate a Korban in the Reisha (when there is one witness)?
Suggestion: The witness is believed.
Rejection: Normally two witnesses are believed against one who contradicts them, yet Chachamim exempt in this case!
Answer: We must say that his silence is like an admission.
Answer #2 (to Question 4:e, 87b): Reasoning teaches that one witness is believed. If we were in doubt about a piece of meat, whether it is Chelev or Shumen (permitted fat), and one witness comes and says that it is permitted, he is believed. The same applies here.
Objection: Our case is different! The meat was never Muchzak (established) to be forbidden. Here, she was Muchzekes to be married, and two witnesses are needed (to change the Chazakah) regarding a matter pertaining to Arayos!
Our case resembles a piece of meat known to be Chelev, and one witness says that he is sure that it is Shumen. He is not believed.
Rebuttal: That is unlike our case! There, even if 100 witnesses say that it is Shumen, they are not believed. Here, if two witnesses say that he died, they are believed!
Answer #3: One witness is believed, just like he is believed (to permit an established Isur) regarding Tevel, Hekdesh, and Konamos (vows to forbid objects).
Objection (part 1) Question: What is the case of Tevel?
If the Tevel belongs to the witness, he is believed because it is b'Yado (even if it was Tevel he could permit it by separating Terumah and Ma'aseros. Here, if her husband is alive the witness cannot permit her!)
Answer: Rather, the Tevel belongs to someone else.
Conclusion - Objection: If the Tana holds that Reuven can take Terumah to exempt Shimon's produce without Shimon's knowledge, the witness is believed because it is b'Yado;
If he holds that one cannot exempt Shimon's produce without his consent, what is his source that the witness is believed?! (Our question about the source that one witness is believed applies to this case, too!)
Objection (part 2) Question: What is the case of Hekdesh?
If its Kedushah is monetary, he is believed because it is b'Yado to redeem it!
If it is Kedushas ha'Guf (e.g. a Korban) that he made Hekdesh, he is believed because it is b'Yado to regret and annul his Hekdesh!
Answer: Rather, someone else was Makdish Kedushas ha'Guf. The witness says that the owner annulled his Hekdesh.
Conclusion - Objection: What is the Tana's source that the witness is believed?!
Objection (part 3) Question: How does he learn from Konamos?
If he holds that Me'ilah applies to Konamos and they have monetary Kedushah, the witness is believed because it is b'Yado to redeem it!
Answer: He holds that Me'ilah does not apply to Konamos. A mere Isur rests on them.
Conclusion - Objection: If the witness made the vow he is believed because it is b'Yado to annul the vow;
If someone else vowed and the witness says that the person annulled his vow, what is the Tana's source that the witness is believed?!
Answer #4 (R. Zeira): Because we are so stringent with her in the end (our Mishnah puts 13 fines on her if her husband returns after she married), we are lenient on her in the beginning (surely she will not marry until she is sure that he died. Our Gemara found no source to believe one witness in other cases, e.g. to obligate a Korban or to say that a person annulled his Hekdesh.)
Objection: We should be not be stringent at the end, nor lenient at the beginning!
Answer: We were lenient to enable her to remarry.
IF TWO WITNESSES SAID THAT HER HUSBAND DIED
(Mishnah): She may not remain with either husband ...
(Rav): This applies only if she married based on the testimony of one witness. If two witnesses testified, she does not leave (the second husband).
Objection (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): If the husband returned, how can she remain married to another man?!
Answer: The case is, we do not recognize that the man who returned is her husband.
Question: If so, when she married based on one witness why can't she stay married?!
Answer: The case is, two witnesses say 'he is her original husband. We were with him from when he left until now. You do not recognize him!'
(Rav Chisda): "Yosef recognized his brothers, and they did not recognize him" - this teaches that he left before his beard was complete, and now it was complete.
Question: Two witnesses say that he died and two witnesses contradict them. One who has Bi'ah with her must bring an Asham Taluy (she is a Safek Eshes Ish. Why may she stay married?)!
Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): She married one of the witnesses who say that he died. (He is sure that she is permitted, so he may remain with her.)
Question: She must bring an Asham Taluy (for she is unsure. Why may she remain married?)!
Answer: She says that she is sure that he died.
Question: If so, obviously she may stay married! (Why did Rav have to teach this?)
Even R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi requires him to divorce her only when she married after witnesses said that her husband was alive. If she married before the witnesses came, she may stay married!
(Beraisa): If two witnesses say that the husband died and two say that he did not die, or two say that she was divorced and two say that she was not divorced, she may not remarry. If she married, she may stay married;
R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi says, if the witnesses came before she remarried, she must leave. If they came after she remarried, she may stay married.
Answer #1: Rav discusses when witnesses came before she married. He teaches that the Halachah does not follow R. Menachem.
Answer #2: Rav teaches that she may stay married only because she married before the witnesses came. Had she married after they came, she would have to leave. This is like R. Menachem.
Question (Rava - Beraisa): "V'Kidashto (make a Kohen virtuous)" - against his will. This teaches that if he did not want to leave a woman forbidden to him, Dafno (force him).
Question: What is the case? (Surely, the verse teaches about a case that is not clear, i.e. when two pairs of witnesses argue about whether or not her husband died.)
If she did not marry a witness who says that he died, or if she is unsure, surely we force (even a Yisrael)!
Answer: Rather, she married one of her witnesses and she is sure that her husband died, and the Beraisa teaches that we make him divorce her!
Answer #1: Isurim of Kehunah (if her husband is alive she is a Zonah) are more stringent (than Eshes Ish).
Answer #2: 'Dafno' means that we strive to find witnesses (that the husband is alive) before he marries her, so he will not marry her.
Answer #3: The case is, the witnesses came before she married. This is like R. Menachem.
Answer #2 (to Question (g) - Rav Ashi): Rav said that she does not leave, i.e. the first man to whom she was permitted.
Objection: Rav already taught that!
(Mishnah - R. Shimon): If she was married without permission (of Beis Din), she may return to her first husband.
(Rav): This is the Halachah.
Answer: Rav taught only one of these two teachings. The other was inferred from the one that he taught, and was said in his name.
WHEN SHE CONTRADICTS THE WITNESS
(Shmuel): She must leave only if she does not contradict the witness. If she contradicts him, she may stay married.
Question: What is the case?
If two witnesses say that he is alive, her dissent means nothing!
Answer #1: One witness says that he is alive.
Inference: Had she not contradicted him, she would have had to leave!
Question: Ula taught that wherever the Torah believes one witness (e.g. the witness who says that he died), he is like two, and one witness (who says that he did not die) cannot discredit the testimony of two!
Answer #2: Shmuel discusses Pasul witnesses (who say he did not die), like R. Nechemyah taught:
(Beraisa - R. Nechemyah): Wherever the Torah believes one witness, we follow the majority opinion. Two women against a man are like two men against a man.
Answer #3: Really, the law is, if one Kosher witness originally said that he died, even 100 women who contradict him are like just one man (the first man's testimony stands). The case is, she married based on the testimony of a woman;
We explain R. Nechemyah to say that wherever the Torah believes one witness, we follow the majority opinion. Two women against one woman are like two men against a man, but two women against a man is an even doubt.
WHEN IS A GET NEEDED
(Mishnah): She needs a Get from both men.
Question: Granted, she needs a Get from her first husband (she was truly married to him).
Why does she need a Get from the second man? It was mere Bi'as Zenus!
Answer (Rav Huna): This is a decree, lest people say that the first husband divorced her and she married the second man, and now she leaves him without a Get.
Question (Seifa (92a)): If they told her that her husband David died and she became Mekudeshes to Levi and later David returned, she may return to him.
We should also decree there, lest people say that the David divorced her, Levi was Mekadesh her, and she leaves Levi without a Get!
Answer #1: She needs a Get from Levi (to return to David).
Objection: If so, (it appears as if) David is Machazir Gerushaso after she became Mekudeshes to someone else!
Answer: The Mishnah is like R. Yosi ben Kipar, who forbids Machazir Gerushaso after she married someone else, but permits if she only became Mekudeshes to someone else.
Objection (Seifa): Even if Levi gives her a Get, it does not disqualify her from Kehunah.
This implies that a Get is not required. If a Get was required, it would disqualify her!