- מנין לאב שנאמן לאסור את בתו מן התורה
Rav Assi said: מנין להפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר מן התורה – From where in the Torah do we derive the principle that, “the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits”? It is stated in the passuk, "את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה לאשה" – My daughter I have given to this man as a wife. As soon as the father says, "לאיש" – to the man, he forbids her to all men, but when he says, "הזה" - this, identifying the husband, he permits her to him. When the Gemara asks why a source is needed, when it is a sevarah, הוא אסרה והוא שרי לה – He forbade her and he permits her, it successfully demonstrates that the passuk is not necessary. Rather, the passuk is needed for what Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, מנין לאב שנאמן לאסור את בתו מן התורה – From where in the Torah is it derived that a father is believed to forbid his daughter to all men, by declaring she is a married woman? The passuk states, "את בתי נתתי לאיש" – My daughter I have given to this man as a wife.
- האשה שאמרה אשת איש אני וחזרה ואמרה פנויה אני נאמנת וכגון שנתנה אמתלא לדבריה
It was taught in a Baraisa: האשה שאמרה אשת איש אני וחזרה ואמרה פנויה אני נאמנת – If a woman said: “I am married,” and then went back and said, “I am unmarried,” she is believed that she is unmarried, even though her second statement contradicts her first one. When the Gemara asks that when she says she is married, והא שוויה לנפשה חתיכה דאיסורא – she has rendered herself as a forbidden object, Rav bar Rav Huna answered, כגון שנתנה אמתלא לדבריה – The Baraisa is discussing a case where she gave a reasonable explanation for her first words. An incident is related in a Baraisa: באשה אחת גדולה שהיתה גדולה בנוי וקפצה עליה בני אדם לקדשה – with a prominent woman who was very beautiful, and many men jumped to try to be mekadesh her, and she would say to them, “I am mekudeshes.” Later she became mekudeshes and when the Rabbanon asked her how she could become mekudeshes to a different man, she explained that she would say she was mekudeshes to men who were not appropriate for her so they would not bother her.
- The difference when there is contradictory testimony that a man died, or a woman was divorced
Rebbe Yochanan said: שנים אומרים מת ושנים אומרים לא מת – If two witnesses said that a man died and two other witnesses said he did not die, his wife may not marry another man, but if she did, she does not have to leave him. If two witnesses say a woman is divorced and another two say that she is not divorced, she may not marry another man, and if she did, she must leave him. The Gemara asks why Rebbe Yochanan allows her to stay married when the issue is her husband’s death yet requires her to leave when the issue is divorce and brings three explanations. Abaye said that Rebbe Yochanan is referring to when one witness testified, and another one witness contradicted him. In the case of testifying regarding the husband’s death, הימנוהו רבנן כבי תרי – the Rabbanon believe him as if he were two witnesses, and Ulla said: כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים – Whenever the Torah believes one witness, it is as though there are two witnesses. But the second witness is only treated as one witness, and therefore he is not significant. But in the divorce case, תרוייהו באשת איש קמסהדי – both witnesses are testifying about a married woman, meaning, she was presumed single until they testified that she was previously married, and this witness who says she was divorced is only one witness, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים – and the words of one witness are not significant next to the words of two witnesses.