Here in Bava Basra in Chazakat HaBatim בדף ל\"ב עמוד א', Tosafot brings that the case of תרי ותרי, quotes the Gemara, where the Gemara says that תרי ותרי is a ספיקא דרבנן. Which means like this: in the Gemara in Yevamot, there is this discussion. When you have תרי ותרי means you have two עדים against two עדים. Let's say, two עדים come and say that this lady's husband died, and therefore she's allowed to remarry. Then come other two עדים and say that, \"We know her husband didn't die, we saw him!\" So it's two against two. Yeah, they saw him, see? But the others say that we saw him dead. So it's two against two. So, obviously, the עדים cancel each other out. So one sevara is that because of that, we put her on the chazakah. Okay. If there's an established chazakah that she's אשת איש, this woman was married, that's what we know for sure. The question is, did it change or not? Did now she become פנויה because her husband died, or didn't? Here we don't know. So you put ניין, ס'איז דא עדות ער איז געשטארבן, ס'איז דא עדות ער איז נישט געשטארבן. So one sevara in Gemara is that we accept the chazakah, and therefore she remains an אשת איש 100%. And the fact that sometimes we're machmir even more, let's say with with the chazakah the opposite, a chazakah which would be meikel, the Chachamim said that we still consider it a safek. So one sevara in Gemara is that תרי ותרי, when you have two against two, it's only a ספק מדרבנן. The רבנן said that if we could be machmir because it's a safek, we consider it a safek. And another sevara is that תרי ותרי is ספיקא דאורייתא. That means מדאורייתא, you do not put this person on chazakah, and it remains a safek. But Tosafot brings that in the maskana, we say תרי ותרי is a ספיקא דרבנן. So let's say an example, I'll tell you where it's נוגע. I won't get the whole thing, but it pashut makes it clearer. There was a story with Yanai Hamelech. Yanai Hamelech was a good king. And not only was he a king, he was a Kohen, and he wanted to be Kohen Gadol. And לפועל the Chachamim said, \"You can't be.\" Why? \"Because we heard that your mother was once captured. And since she was a captive, she's forbidden to marry a Kohen. And since she married your father, you are a חלל, you are not a Kohen.\" And the Gemara says that they looked into it and it wasn't so. So the Gemara said, \"What happened? Why did they found out that it's not so?\" It was תרי ותרי. Two people came and said that she was captured, two people say that she's not captured. And ממילא, the Gemara said that there was no problem with him being a Kohen. And the Gemara asks, \"Why? Why is it no problem? It's תרי ותרי, since it's two against two, there is a problem!\" And Tosafos asks, \"Why? לכאורה, we should go on the chazakah! Since there's two that say that she's kasher, two say that she was not captured and she's kasher, two say that she was captured and she's pasul. She already originally had a חזקת כשרות, so she should remain kasher! So why does the Gemara claim it's not so?\" And Tosafos answers, \"You're right. Mid'oraita, she would be kasher. Mid'oraita, there is no more safek. When you have two against two, we have a chazakah, so there's no more safek, no more doubt. The Rabbanan were machmir, and they said there is a safek, and therefore, what there when the Gemara meant that he was not kasher, is mid'rabbanan only, not kasher.\" Okay. That's what Tosafos says. But then Tosafos asks a she'eilah: if so, going back to the case I said before, what about the case the other one, where the Gemara brings שנים אומרים מת, שנים אומרים לא מת? If two people say husband died, two people say he didn't die. So there, the Gemara says that if she married before the second group of witnesses came and said that he did not die, two came and said he died, Beis Din said, \"Go ahead, you can marry,\" and she got married to one of the eidim, and then two more eidim come and say that she Yeah, that her husband didn't die, we don't tell her to get divorced. She stays. That's what the Gemara says there. הא? Nisht chasunah gehat, farkert, niv'alah... Niv'alah. She got married to one of the עדות, who says, \"I know he died.\" And the reason the Gemara says why it has to be to one of the עדות, because otherwise, it's a safek, it's a ספיקא דאורייתא, the Gemara says. But the Gemara says if you're married to one of the eidim. But anyway, so

Tosafot has a kashya: Yeah. What? Why isn't he considered a נוגע? No, he's עדות, and then they got married. Ah, you say maybe he said it because he wants to marry her, but there are two eidim, the other guy also said. But the woman... Yeah. Anyway, Tosafot asks a kashya: How could it be? Why is the דין that she doesn't have to get divorced? It's two against two. We just finished saying whenever you have two against two, mid'Oraita, you put her on the chazakah. The fact that we say it's a ספק, מדרבנן they made if it's a chumra. But normally you have to put on the chazakah. In this case, the chazakah works against her. The chazakah means she's an אשת איש. So who cares that she married one of her eidim? But לפועל, as far as we, Beis Din, are concerned, it's two against two. So two against two, we should have a חזקת אשת איש, and she should be אסור, and she should have to get divorced after the second eidim come. און ענטפערט Rabbeinu Tam, דער Rabbeinu Tam answers, דעדיפא חזקה דדייקא ומנסבא ומכרעא חזקת אשת איש. We're saying there's a chazakah that she's a married woman. There's an opposite chazakah which gives her the right to get married, and that's the chazakah that a woman will not get married unless she investigates and look into, because the Gemara says like this: Why is the דין that if a woman comes and herself testifies, \"My husband died,\" Beis Din will believe her and we allow her to get married? And the Gemara says, because חזקה דאשה דדייקא ומנסבא, דדייקא ומנסבא. And a woman knows, the Gemara says a woman knows the consequences that will be if she's lying. If the husband ever comes, תצא מזה ומזה, she'll have to get divorced from this husband to the second one, obviously because she's a married woman and she can't go back to her first husband. So because she knows what kind of risk she's taking, there's a chazakah that if she says that \"I know he died,\" whatever reason, you could trust her. So that's the terutz that Tosafos says, that why is it that in the case where two say he died and two say he didn't die, so you don't have to get, if she married one of the עדים, she doesn't have to get divorced? And the kushya is, why not? Now that we have two against two, it should be a chazakah of an אשת איש, means mid'Oraita, she's a married woman. So we say no, you're right, that chazakah is one, but there's an opposite chazakah which shows that she investigated, דדייקא ומנסבא. That's Tosafos.

Now, from this Tosafos, we have a kushya on something that the Shev Shmaitsa says, and the Rabbi Akiva Eiger says the same thing. Listen to what they say. Very interesting vort. They try to explain, both say the same thing, what is the reason, excuse me, behind the argument in the Gemara in Yevamos on the two sides whether when you have two against two, do you put her on the chazakah or not? We said before, one sevara is we put her on the chazakah, so there's no more safek. Mid'rabbanan said there's still a safek. So one opinion is that we put her on the chazakah, and one opinion is we don't put her on the chazakah. How about תרי ותרי? Is this a חזקה דאורייתא and now this is a חזקה דרבנן? What's a חזקה דרבנן? Mid'rabbanan, mid'rabbanan did not, could rely on the chazakah if, if it's a chumra. But what's the reason whether we we rely on a chazakah or not by תרי ותרי? So they both explain it like this: It depends on what the concept of chazakah is. Is it a birur, or is it a din? There are two ways to look. When we say we don't know what she is, safek, she was married before, so as long as there is no change, we don't know for sure there was a change, she sticks to her original status. Is it a halachah, a din, not because we verify and we found out that really she still has that, she's still an אשת איש, the Torah gave us a din that you follow חזקה? Or no, חזקה is a בירור. The fact that she was a married woman, and now we don't know if she changed status or not, we assume, the logical thing to say is that she didn't change status. It's a בירור, means it's a verification, it's a logical verification. So he says like this: If we say it's a logical verification, it's a בירור, then we cannot say it by תרי ותרי. We cannot say that when you have two עדים against two עדים, we will put her on the חזקה. Why? If חזקה is a בירור, there is nothing that could help the בירור of עדות. עדות are the greatest verification in the world. So what are we going to say? Two עדים say her husband died, and two עדים say her husband is alive. So we're going to say the חזקה helps those two עדים say that the husband is alive? We're מברר, we verified that the husband is takeh alive? How did you verify? Through the חזקה? We have a verification, the best verification that's there is עדים. עדים said that the husband is alive! And nevertheless, it's not enough because the other עדים said no. What can the חזקה help you? חזקה doesn't do anything. So therefore, in a case like this, the חזקה doesn't count. You have two against two. And what's the דין? We don't go on the חזקה. It's a ספק מדאורייתא, we don't go on the חזקה. Does בירור mean here it's not really an investigation for it to verify? בירור doesn't always have to be investigation. All kinds of ways of בירורים. The Torah said that the חזקה is also another בירור. And then there's another way, if you learn that the חזקה is a הלכה, then there's no problem. Two against two, we have a ספק, and the Torah said when you have a ספק, you have to go according to the חזקה. So, when you have two against two, you follow the חזקה. And only the רבנן were מחמיר to say that it's still, it remains a ספק if it's a חומרא. That's how he says, that's what they say. Now, according to this pshat, the halacha, as we said Tosafot says, is that by two against two, it's a ספיקא דרבנן, which means we do follow the chazaka. If we do follow the chazaka, obviously, we are assuming that the whole concept of chazaka is a din, not a birur. Therefore, they say, what would be in a case where there is a chazaka which is certainly a birur? Not every chazaka could we say is a din. Certain chazakot are certainly birur. For instance, the Gemara that חזקה אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו, that if I have a question if a person a person claims, \"I I owe you money for for 30 years, and I claim I paid you before the time was up,\" the chazaka is that he didn't pay. Now that's not a din, there's no din of you can't That's a birur, that's a logical thing. So, if you have a chazaka that's certainly a birur, by תרי ותרי, that chazaka won't work, cuz he said, \"Why do we say that by two against two, we do accept the chazaka? Because chazaka is a din.\" So, by two עדים against two עדים, you could go according to this din. But wherever chazaka is a birur, the chazaka will not work in a case of תרי ותרי. So, if you have two against two, that chazaka is disregarded because chazaka can help one of the עדים? Chazaka says like one of the two, how could that help them? No birur could help עדים. This Tosafot seems to be saying the opposite. Tosafot here said that when we have the two against two, two say he died, two say he didn't die. And Tosafot says, what is the reason that we allow them to stay married, if she married one of the עדים, we allow them to stay married, because there is a chazaka. The kashya was, there's a חזקה דאשת איש. So if it's the opposite chazakah, there's חזקה אשה דייקא ומינסבא, that a woman, when she marries, she definitely makes sure that that she has the right to marry, she's a person she doesn't take a risk. That's not a din! אשה דייקא ומינסבא, a logical thing because we assume a woman In that case, if we follow what the Rabbi' Akiva Eiger says, in the case where you have two against two, that chazakah should mean nothing. We just said that when does a chazakah mean? If a chazakah is a din, then we say two against two, the halachah is you follow this din. But where chazakah is a birur, chazakah is a verification, it won't work if you are by two against two. And Tosafot says it does! Tosafot here says that you have the two say he died, two say he didn't die, and the reason she could stay married, because we have a chazakah which is a birur. We have a verification, a logical verification that she probably is saying the truth that her husband died and she married. So kushya on this Shaar Mishpat and Rabbi' Akiva Eiger. And this kushya is davka because of Tosafot.

The Rashba in Kiddushin has the same kushya, and gives a different terutz. If Tosafot have had that terutz, everyone would be fine. Tosafot The Rashba over there answers that why over here don't we follow the chazakah by two against two, if she married one of the edim, she could stay married, and we don't say she has a חזקה דאשת איש, because she married one of the edim, and this ed says, \"I know he died.\" So he says, \"I know he died,\" then we don't follow the chazakah. In other words, when The Pnei Yehoshua is מסביר, when do we follow the chazakah? If we have a safek. But after all, we do say, whenever we say follow the chazakah, we have a safek, we don't know, follow the chazakah. This guy doesn't have a safek. If he doesn't have a safek, to him there's no chazakah. If to him there's no chazakah, he could stay married. So, if we would answer that terutz here, nothing to do with with the Rabbi' Akiva Eiger. Tosafos didn't answer that terutz. Tosafos gave a different terutz. Tosafos' terutz was why can she stay married? Because אשה דייקא ומינסבא, because of a chazakah that helps to say that husband did die, because a woman is דייקא, and that's definitely a בירור, and Rabbi' Akiva Eiger says that a בירור does not help when you have two against two, that chazakah you can't count. So, how come Tosafos says this? How does her chazakah disappear because of him? Huh? How does her chazakah disappear? No, the Gemara says she also says ברי לי. She says ברי לי because No, no, not No, no, no, are we saying she says ברי לי? The Gemara says the case is where she married one of the עדים. She married one of the עדים, then The Gemara asks, לכאורה, איהי ספק, what about the עדים? The Gemara says then, what about her? How come by her it's not a ספק? The Gemara says it's a case where she says ברי לי. Well, what does it make a difference between if she married one of the עדים or if she didn't marry one of the עדים? Because he'd be עובר on an איסור. Fine, how is he עובר on an אשת איש? Because אשת איש, yeah. Because he doesn't know. So, he might be עובר, and not to say he knows, and she doesn't, she's עובר. But the case is where they both know. He says he's an עד, and she's not an עד, but she says, \"I know.\" Whatever, \"I have my ways.\" He doesn't need that to say, \"I have\" She have ברי לי because of the eid? There are other eidim against. So So, but according to Tosafos, we got this problem. What can you say according to Tosafos's shita? Huh? אשה דייקא ומינסבא is a din? How can that be a din? It's a din of אפוקי חזקה, אלא שעיגונא איז אשת איש, it's חלות צדקה, you follow whatever she was. But it's a din that אשה דייקא ומינסבא? That's a logical thing that we have a klal that a woman is is דייקא ומינסבא. The same thing אין אדם פורע. There are certain chazakot which are definitely birur, they can't be din. The whole chakirah of din is in chazakot like a חזקה דמעיקרא. If you have a mikveh, that you measured a mikveh, and the mikveh was had enough of the measurement, a week later you measured, it's missing, and you don't know when it started missing, and you tovel so many things in the middle. So we have a chazakah that since it was good till now, we assume that it was good. From now on, it's no good. Letaharah? Letaharah, yeah. That's a That could be a birur, or you could say logically, if it was, we assume it stayed that way, or it's not a birur, it's a din. It's a din that you follow. You just call me back tonight. I know, I know. But we're In an hour, it's it's hospital. Sorry, kid. Okay. So, certain chazakot, there's a she'eilah if the din is a birur. Certain chazakot are definitely a birur. Like I said, like חזקה אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו, that's a din? That's an logical birur. Chazakah of אשה דייקא ומינסבא, that's a logical birur. So the she'eilah is how does the Rabbi Akiva Eiger fit with this Tosafot? How does the Shev Shema'tata fit with this Tosafot? So, like I said, just to make it bekitzur, I want to say a different pshat in Tosafot. Not a different pshat. I want to say that really Tosafot relies on the teirutz of the Rashba. That's what Tosafot means. The real teirutz, why in this case when the eid married her we say she could stay married, is the vort because of what the Rashba says, because since he's the eid and by him there is no safek, so by him we don't go after the chazakah. That's the reason. I Tosafot gives a different reason? Tosafot gives the reason because chazakah that אשה דייקא ומינסבא, that's the reason because she's medayek. That's only to answer a certain prat, because you could ask a she'eilah: He or she claim, \"We know.\" And if they know, there's no there's no she'eilah, so there's no question of the chazakah of אשת איש because there's no safek. Ha gufa, this itself is a she'eilah. Maybe how do we know to believe him that she when she says, \"ברי לי,\" when she says, \"I know for sure he died,\" how why do we believe her that she's not lying? See, there's two things. You could have she thinks that he died, she's making a mistake. Then you could say she thinks that she that she knows he didn't die and she's lying. We, to allow her to stay married, there are two things: there is she and there is us. She has what she says. But then, in order for us us to allow her to stay married, we have to trust her that what she's saying she's not lying. Then we don't know, even if she's saying it, if that's true. In our eyes, we don't know. Let's say we know for sure she's not lying when she says, \"I know he died.\" We're still not sure he died. Why not? Because there are other eidim say that she didn't die he didn't die. So her saying are two things. Her saying a question: Do we do we say that that's what happened? But then there's another she'eilah: In her mind, she says he died, how do you know she's not lying? That's the she'eilah here. She wants to get married. Right. Push that to say klal? Sheker. You find a klal? No, it's sheker. You follow what I'm saying? So there are two points here. So the real answer will be why we say that in the case where there were two against two and she's married to one of her eidim, she stays married and doesn't have to get divorced even though there is a chazakah of אשת איש, the answer is like the Rashba says, because to them there's no chazakah. The she'eilah is over. To them, there is there's no safek, there's no chazakah. Good, that's for them, but how do we allow, but how do we know that they're not lying? Zogt Tosafot: אשה דייקא ומינסבא. So אשה דייקא ומינסבא is enough for us that, yeah, it's not helping the What did he say? A chazakah which is a birur cannot work when you have two eidim. It cannot help eidim. In this case, this is not the reason why we trust we trust her. This is just a reason why what will make us believe that she's not lying. Now that we know that she's not lying, she really means what she's saying, now we say that for her, there is no safek. Now for us, it's still safek. If a stranger from the street will come and ask, \"Can I marry this lady?\" we say, \"Clearly not,\" because we posken to you that it's a safek. To them, there's no safek. But the only time But still we need to know that what makes us understand and and rely that they're not lying? That's אשה דייקא ומינסבא. What's the meaning of אשה דייקא ומינסבא? That she's medayek, she investigates before before she gets married, and she gets married only after she's medayek. If the if the eid didn't marry her yet... No, that's a case you can't. That's, that's miderabbanan, we're machmir. The din is that two saying he died, and before she married, even the eid, two come and say he didn't die, she's not allowed to marry the eid. If she married before the second group of eidim, then she could stay married. But if it's not the eid, she can't. But the sheilah was, even with the eid, why could she stay married when two against two, there was a chazakah, a חזקת אשת איש? I'm repeating it for you. And and here we have two tei-rutzim: the tei-rutz of the Rashba and the tei-rutz of Tosafot. The Rashba's tei-rutz was because we're talking about the eid, we're talking, she says ברי, there there is no safek, there's no chazakah. Tosafot give a different reason, that there's another chazakah, there is a chazakah of אשה דייקא ומינסבא. And that is why we trust that chazakah against the two against against the two against two, even against the חזקת חזקת אשת איש. Then we had a problem, how does a chazakah of a birur help when you have eidim? So, so I'm saying that that's not the tei-rutz of the kushya. Tosafos really relies on the simple terutz that the reason why there is no problem of חזקת אשת איש, because they're talking by the עד. Tosafos is just telling that how do we believe that the people are not lying? The best re'aya that this could be the peshat is like this: The Rashba's terutz, the Rashba says it on the kushya in Kiddushin. The Rashba has the same kushya here in Bava Basra, and here he gives Tosafos's terutz, and over there he gives the other terutz. And also the Rashba contradicts himself, which terutz is it? The Rashba says, what's worse, the two עדים came, the two עדים came, then she didn't get married yet, and then another two עדים come to... Then she then can, that's even for the, even then, because the רבנן were מחמיר. אהבתי, מדאורייתא not, but the רבנן said don't, that's for sure. But still, the Rashba contradicts himself. Here he answers this terutz, in Kiddushin, the terutz we said before, because if the עד, he could stay married, so there's no chazaka, and in and in Bava Basra he has the same kushya, he gives the other terutz. Which one? The terutz of Tosafos, of אשה דייקא ומינסבא. Ela mai, what must be? They both go together, it's not a contradiction. Adraba, you have to come out to both. The terutz why we don't follow the chazaka is because that talking by the עד himself, and the עד himself has no ספק. But on top of that, we still have to know, why do we trust that the eid is not lying? So for that, we say אשה דייקא ומינסבא. So that has no kushya on the Rabbi Akiva Eiger. If the kushya of the Rabbi Akiva Eiger was, how could you rely on the chazakah to pasken against the eidim? You say you're paskening against the eidim, we say that he died, based on the chazakah of אשת איש. No, forget that, he didn't die based on on on אשה דייקא ומינסבא. When we say by eidim chazakah of a birur doesn't help, that's not that's not the reason we pasken. We pasken because it's the eid! This is just for us to know. This is not And this is why the Rashba says in one place this, in one place this, because if you put it together, you come up with one complete pshat! The re'ayah to this is, I'm just going to keep this, is that

באמת, Tosafot asks the she'eilah, the same din that we find in a שנים אומרים מת, two say he died, two say he died, he didn't die, the same din is if two say he got divorced she they got divorced, two say he lies, he didn't get divorced. And over there, the same din, that if she married before the second eidim came, she married one of the witnesses, she doesn't have to get divorced, she can stay married. Obvious, you never get if she has it, but two eidim come and say, we saw she lost her get, we saw her get divorced, and she marries one of the eidim, and then the other two eidim come and say it's not true, they they never got divorced, so they could stay married. And we have the same kushya, why stay married? Now there's two against two, so she's a חזקת אשת איש. Here, you can't say אשה דייקא ומינסבא. אשה דייקא ומינסבא, that a woman before, is only in a case of met, but in the case of נתגרשה we don't say אשה דייקא ומינסבא. So Tosafot continue asking the kushya, and Tosafot answers, that a a little bit of אשה דייקא ומינסבא we say afilu by נתגרשה also. If this would be the complete reason why she could get could stay married against the eidim is because of אשה דייקא ומינסבא, the there is no real אשה דייקא ומינסבא by גירושין. Must be that that's not it! The reason she could stay married is because she married the eid, and by him there is no safek, so there's no chazakah. What makes us believe that what he's saying is not lying is אשה דייקא ומינסבא, a שוואכע אשה דייקא ומינסבא also. This explains another thing: The Rambam brings this din, this whole din here, and he says if two against two come, and then they got married, and she got married, and they got married one of the eidim, so the Rambam says that she could stay married, and the Rambam says because they, they will not get married knowing there could be consequences, so they're definitely medayek before they get married. The Rambam is mechadesh here a new thing, which we don't find in the Gemara, That by the man we also say איש דייק ומנסיב. The Gemara never says that, the Gemara says אשה דייקא ומנסבא. And wait, and why does the Gemara say it? Because she's the one that's gonna suffer. And I'll explain it. When does the Gemara, I said it before, right? When does the Gemara use the klal of אשה דייקא ומנסבא? When a woman comes and says, \"My husband died.\" She's testifying, so the Rabbanan, so the din is we ask, could she get married? The question is, how could you trust her, because she's an eid echad, she's... And you know what the answer? Because she for sure wouldn't lie, because she'll be in trouble. Even if her hus- If it's a lie, the husband will come, she'll be in trouble, she'll have to get divorced from this guy and divorced from this guy. This rule only applies to a woman. By a man, there's no such thing, he doesn't get in trouble anything. A man could marry five women, could marry there's no there's no sheilos. So there's no such thing by a man to say איש דייק ומנסיב. The Rambam in this case over here by the two against two, \"Yeah, but if the if there's an אשת איש, then he could have mamzerim.\" Yeah. Yeah, the same is, but we don't say איש דייק ומנסיב. \"No, by her it does stick because of mamzer.\" It doesn't say because of mamzer. It said because, because תצא מזה ומזה. It doesn't say the Gemara doesn't say because of mamzer. It's תצא מזה ומזה, that she has to get divorced from both, so she'll be stuck without a husband. Why? Yeah, but she's quite she's doing an aveirah, she's going against the din. Here she's trying to go through beit din. She's trying to go through beit din, she's trying, so we see. But it's a klal for sure, אשה דייקא ומנסבא, but we don't say this by a man, because the the bottom line isn't there. And here the Rambam says in this case because they will not do something that they could get that could spoil it. And the answer is very pashut, the way I'm saying. If this would be the real, normal אשה דייקא ומנסבא, which is a reason why we takeh trust her against all the odds, by a man we don't say such a thing. I'm trying to say that our Tosafos doesn't mean this is a really אשה דייקא ומנסבא. This is just a small thing that in order for us to know that he's not lying, so here you have the attitude. You have that on the man also. The same question was on the lady. She says, \"I know for sure he died.\" So by her there's no safek, there's no chazakah. But we said, but still how do we know that she's not lying? איש דייק ומנסיב. The same she'eilah on him! How do we know that that that he's not lying? So we have to say the same vort on both. But this is not the classical אשה דייקא ומנסבא that we have in the whole Shas. And that's why it's no kashya, because this is not what we're using as a reason why we pasken that she's allowed to stay married. Just of a vort, but this only fits if we're going to say that in this case אשה דייקא ומנסבא really would not help. That's what we were just saying now. Because אשה דייקא, חזקה, אשה דייקא ומנסבא is a birur, and in a case where we have two eidim against two it wouldn't work. So it's not a really, it's like this:

The Lechem Mishneh in the Rambam brings the Mahari-bal, who says clearly that in this case the אשה דייקא ומנסבא is so strong, this is the reason why she's mutar. He says that we rely on the chazakah of אשה דייקא ומנסבא, which automatically contradicts everything I said. I try to say that this is not a reason, in this case we would not rely in the case of two against two. The only reason we rely on it is because the only reason why they can stay married is because it's the eid, and he says clearly not like that. He says אשה דייקא ומנסבא we rely. And then he asks himself, so how come she can't marry by somebody else? People shouldn't talk. It's a derabban'dike din. But be'emet another person will also be able to stay married, because we're sure that the husband died because אשה דייקא ומנסבא. So he's using that as a reason here! So we're back to the kashya. So then we have to hear another terutz, a much simpler terutz. We know that Tosafos says, and the Rambam says by and Rashi says and different all different places, that this whole din that when by עדות אשה, meaning to testify that a woman is allowed to be remarried because her husband died, we believe one eid, we believe a woman, we believe the the wife herself, so if it's derabbanan It's asu vah, they want to make a takanah. They want to make a takanah that even though a woman is a really, she's not even a safek, a woman who's married, and she comes one day to בית דין and says, \"My husband died.\" It's not תרי ותרי, nothing, just a woman. The בית דין will believe her. Why? אשה דייקא ומנסבא. So they said because of that they trust that אשה דייקא. It's תקנת חכמים that because of אשה דייקא ומנסבא we trust. Part of this תקנה you could say is that when you have two against two, we also say אשה דייקא ומנסבא. In other words, what are we saying? What was the kashya? If it's two against two, she has a חזקה דאשת איש, how does the אשה דייקא ומנסבא help? I'll ask you a better kashya! When a woman comes without a חזקה, what, more than a חזקה! There's no תרי ותרי, a woman comes, she's really married, and we say אשה דייקא ומנסבא. How does אשה דייקא ומנסבא work against knowing that she's married? תקנת חכמים! So the חכמים said when they made a תקנה that even when you have a חזקה דאשת איש, which normally which you have תרי ותרי, which is a חזקה דאשת איש, which Normally she would be asur, and the חזקה of אשה דדייקא ומנסבא על פי דין wouldn't work, but not על פי דין, it's a תקנת חכמים, which really would work back to the word din, but how that would fit, because a תקנת חכמים that אשה דדייקא ומנסבא could push away the whole concept of her being married. That's even when she, when we know she's married. So what by תרי ותרי? So how could אשה דדייקא ומנסבא help? The Ran says it means it helps, it's a בירור. Normally a בירור wouldn't help, but if the תקנת חכמים was that a case of a married woman אשה דדייקא ומנסבא works, so it works by תרי ותרי also, and that's what Rashi says that it works. Cancels each other out? No. Well, if she can by yourself, then it's a, then it would be the same thing. No, that's a machloket in this. Like the same thing, if she can do by yourself. The big she'eilah of תרי ותרי, two against two, is nothing or both. What I'm saying, that is a hava amina. And if you get a gas surcharge. Todah rabah. Lechatchilah, bekitzur.

Next week I have a simchah. I've been in Miami for a few weeks now, I missed the shiur. אז מסתמא. You want to hear