Kasha,
If I may point out something — and I don’t want you to think I’m bashing you here — because I’m not — but I’ve noticed that you’re pretty good at debating when you have actual sources at hand — but when you start going “off the cuff” (so to speak) you tend to get in trouble. You’ve made at least two bad mistakes in this thread that I can think of offhand when you went without your sources.
First — the Mishna is Kesuvos. In your zeal to prove that a woman has no jurisdiction over herself, you tried to go so far as to include it to mean even when she’s an unmarried adult and brought the Mishna in Kesuvos for your support. The problem is that you didn’t bother looking at the rest of the perek to determine the context of the Mishna. IOW, you went “off the cuff” and got burned by it.
Second — in your zeal to defend the “infallibility” (yes, I know we argued about that word — feel free to substitute it if you like) of Chazal, you went on to state that Chazal never argue about metzius without actually looking for a source that says that. IOW, you again “went off the cuff.” When I and other posters called you on it, you gave a weak explanation which I quickly showed cannot be applied to all the cases. You have yet to defend your statement.
I’m not trying to bash you here… I’m just making some (hopefully) constructive criticism.
The Wolf