(Mishnah): A woman's husband and their only son went overseas. They told her that her husband died and then her son died. She remarried. Later, they told her that her son died first (so she was Zekukah l'Yibum). She must leave her husband. Her children from him, both the first and last, are Mamzerim.

(Gemara) Question: How do you consider [these contradictory witnesses] - like [contradictory] witnesses about death, or like witnesses about divorce?

If you consider them like witnesses about death, [our Mishnah] argues both with Rabanan here (in Eretz Yisrael, i.e. R. Yochanan's version of the coming Beraisa) and with Rabanan there (in Bavel). If you consider them like witnesses about divorce, this argues with Rabanan there!

(R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If two [witnesses] say that he died, and two say that he did not die, she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she need not leave;

If two say that she was divorced, and two say that she was not divorced, she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she leaves.

There (in Bavel), they say that there is no difference. [In their text of the Beraisa,] death and divorce are the same. She may not remarry, and if she remarried, she need not leave.

Question: According to Rabanan there, it is fine. Death and divorce are the same. According to Rabanan here, what is the difference between death and divorce?

Answer (R. Ze'ira himself, and R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): Reasoning dictates that witnesses of death, since if he would return, he [clearly] refutes them (she fears to rely on them, and checks well before remarrying. Witnesses of divorce cannot be clearly refuted, so she does not check so well.)

Note: In Kesuvos 2:2, it says that if Reuven ate the Peros of a field in the Chazakah that it is his, and Shimon brought witnesses that his father died in it (he owned it before Reuven ate), we take it from Reuven and return it to Shimon. If Reuven later brought witnesses that Shimon's father did not die in it (it is a Safek which witnesses tell the truth), Rabanan here say, we took it from Reuven, and we return it to him. Rabanan there say, when it left [Reuven's Reshus], it left through clear testimony. Now there is a Safek; we leave it with Shimon.

(R. Chizkiyah): Rabanan there hold like they taught [elsewhere]. Just like Rabanan there say that when it left, it left through clear testimony, so Rabanan there say here about divorce, that when he married her, he married her through clear testimony. (We do not change our ruling now that there is a Safek.)

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): This is unreasonable! Rather, Rabanan there reversed their opinion!

Do Rabanan there not agree that that if initially, two said that his father died in it, and two said that his father did not die in it, the field is in Reuven's Chazakah?

Had the Beraisa said that if two say that she was divorced, and she remarried, and two [came and] say that she was not divorced, she need not leave, properly (we would say that Rabanan hold like they taught elsewhere).

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If two say that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not become Mekudeshes, she may not marry [someone else]. If she married, she need not leave.

Answer (R. Hoshayah): R. Yochanan can answer that two say that she became Mekudeshes and was divorced, and two say that she was [not Mekudeshes and] not divorced. She may not marry [someone else]. If she married, she need not leave.

Question: What is the difference between this and the first [Beraisa, in which if two say that she was divorced, and two say that she was not divorced, she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she leaves]?

Answer: There, all established her to be an Eshes Ish. However, here only two established her to be an Eshes Ish [and they say that she was divorced]!

Note: In Kidushin (3:7), regarding one who is unsure to whom he was Mekadesh his daughter, the Gemara said both 'there, all established her...' and 'when two will come...' It seems that due to this, the latter phrase was mistakenly copied here; it is not relevant at all here.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If two say that she was captured and she is Tehorah, and two say that she was captured and she is Temei'ah, she may not marry [a Kohen]. If she married, she need not leave.

Answer (R. Yosi): Since these say Tehorah, and these say Temei'ah, it is as if these say that she was captured, and these say that she was not captured, we rely on her (she is believed to say that she is Tehorah).

If two say that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not become Mekudeshes, R. Yonah compares this to Chelev;

If two say that Ploni ate Chelev, and two say that he did not eat Chelev, does he not bring Asham Taluy amidst Safek?! And [similarly] here, he gives a Get amidst Safek.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): Do not compare this to Chelev, for [it is different -] even if he says 'I am unsure' [and there are no witnesses] he brings Asham Taluy!

Question (against R. Yosi - Beraisa): If two say that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not become Mekudeshes, she may not marry [someone else. According to R. Yosi, we should rely on her!]

Question (against R. Yonah - Seifa): If she married, she need not leave. (If this is like a case for which one brings Asham Taluy, surely she must leave!)

Answer (R. Mana): R. Yonah does not say if she married, she must leave, just that we can compare it to Chelev. And R. Yosi does not say that she may marry. He said only not to compare it to Chelev, for even if he says 'I am unsure', he brings Asham Taluy! (Both agree that mid'Rabanan, she may not marry l'Chatchilah, and b'Di'eved, she need not leave.)