Question: Why do Rav and Shmuel argue over such a case? Why do they not rather argue simply where the father alone betrothed his daughter, in the same way that they argue where the father betrothed her and she then betrothed herself?

Answer: They do not argue in a case where the father alone betrothed her; in such a case Shmuel will concede that she is not Mekudeshes ...

Reason: Because then we will say 'Place the woman on a Chezkas Penuyah' - just as she was before he was Mekadesh her ...

Reason (cont.): Since now she is a Bogeres before our eyes, and the father's Kidushin is invalid (See also Tosfos ha'Rosh) ...

Answer (cont.): But in our case, where also she betrothed herself, there is no Chezkas Penuyah, seeing as Mah Nafshach, she is an Eishes Ish - either on account of her father's Kidushin or on account of her own ...

Answer (concl.): And the above S'vara will not apply here - and that is why Shmuel argues.

Explanation #1: Rashi's explanation implies that they examined her during the six-month period and found that she was a Bogeres, which is why the Gemara asks 'be'Ha Leima ... ?'

Refutation: This is not correct however, since a girl will never become a Bogeres within the six months.

Explanation #2: It must therefore be speaking where she came before us after the six months, and we do not have the text 'She only became a Bogeres now!'

Question: Why does the Gemara not also query Rav ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as he only says that 'In the morning too, she was a Bogeres' because there is no Chezkas Na'arus, as Rashi explains - but if there was a Chezkas Na'arus, he would concede that we would place her on her Chazakah ...

Question (concl.): And in the case of the Mikveh too, there is a Chazakah that it was complete?

Answer: Indeed the Kashya is Rav too, and it only mentions Shmuel, because the Kashya on him is more explicit.

Clarifying Text: We do not have the text 'ha'Rishonim' ...

Reason: Since the Amora'im argue over that (in Bava Basra, Daf 96a) ...

Opinion #1: One holds that the first three days it was definitely wine, and from then on it is a Safek ...

Opinion #2: Another, that the last three days it was definitely vinegar, and before that, a Safek ...

Opinion #3: And others again, that the first three days it was definitely wine, the last three days, vinegar, and the days in between are a Safek.

Question #1: The Lashon 'Ad'raba' (on the contrary) is difficult to understand, since one should rather go le'Chumra?

Answer: Here however, one can explain the Kashya as 'How can one burn Kodshim?'

Question #2: But in the case of wine, cited later, this answer is not applicable.

Question: Having said that 'He takes it away from them', even though they are holding the property, is it not obvious that they cannot take it away from him?

Answer: It teaches us that if they bring a proof, they can ...

Answer: Because we would otherwise have thought that since he did failed to write 'when I was walking on my feet' (See Bava Basra, Daf 154a), they cannot - even with a proof. Tosfos Yeshanim].

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'that she should be a Na'arah on the last day of the six months', bearing in mind that today she is destined to change, in which case neither does she have a Chazakah of Na'arus nor of Bagrus.

Explanation #2: The Ri however, explains that the Chazakah of Na'arus is not applicable because Bagrus tends to come in the morning (See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: If we are in doubt that she may be a Na'arah, today there is no Chazakah either way - not for Na'arus and not for Bagrus ...

Reason: Since today she is destined to change.

Clarification: Rashi explains that she contradicts her father and claims that she became a Bogeres yesterday.

Refutation: He was not careful however, since it is speaking on the day last day of the six-month period (See Maharsha).

Explanation #1: Rav Yosef issued the ruling there where the girl contradicted her father, in which case Shmuel also concedes that she is not Mekudeshes.

Explanation #1 (cont.): We can therefore learn from there that they argue there where she does not contradict him, because also Rav, who says that she is not Mekudeshes, speaks in such a case, and that is where Rav Yosef issued his ruling like him.

Explanation (Text) #2: There are some Sefarim that have the text 'Perhaps Rav Yosef issued his ruling there where she did not contradict him?' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And Shmuel was angry because even Rav concedes ther to him that we suspect ... , and she therefore requires a Get mi'Safek, and Rav Yosef's ruling did not conform to either of them.

Refutation: But this is not correct however, because the Lashon of the Gemara 'He issued a ruling like Rav' implies that his ruling at least followed the opinion of Rav.

Implied Question: Even though throughout Shas we Pasken like Rav in cases of Isur, based on the ruling in Bechoros (Daf 49b) ...

Answer: The Gemara sees fit to rule like him here because there are Amora'im who Pasken like Shmuel.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the woman was already examined for four mothers before he took her overseas.

Question #1: Why does the Mishnah find it necessary to teach us that he does not need to verify the Kashrus of the woman? Is it not obvious that since she has already been examined, it is not necessary to examine her again?

Question #2: Moreover, why does it need to repeat it, having already taught it to us in the Reisha?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that 'He does not need to prove that the children are his' - because we do not assume that he married another woman overseas; 'and not that the children are from her' - seeing as they follow her around ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): If she died, he must bring a proof regarding the childre' - i.e. that they belong to the deceased woman ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): 'But not that they are from the woman (who accompanied him overseas)' ...

Reason: Whom we know is Meyucheses, since he already examined her ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only since he brings proof that the children are from the wife overseas, it is no longer necessary to prove that she was Meyucheses ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Since we do not suspect that he married another woman there, who bore him these children ...

Reason: Because we can assume that she is the same woman who accompanied him overseas, since we heard nothing about him marrying another woman there ...

Reason (cont): And he already examined the woman who accompanied him from here before he left for overseas (See Tosfos Yom-Tov).