QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a "Mema'enes," a "Sheniyah," and an "Aylonis" do not have rights to receive their Kesuvah, Peros, or Mezonos. However, an Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol, and a Gerushah who marries a normal Kohen, do have rights to receive their Kesuvah, and they presumably have rights to receive Peros and Mezonos as well since the Chachamim did not penalize those women.
The Gemara earlier (52a) records a dispute between Rava and Abaye with regard to whether a Kohen married to a Gerushah, or a Kohen Gadol married to an Almanah, is obligated to redeem his wife from captivity. Abaye maintains that he is required to redeem her because the stipulation for redemption which the Kohen wrote in the Kesuvah states, "If you are captured, I will redeem you and bring you back to your [father's] house." It does not say, "If you are captured, I will redeem you and *take you back as my wife." Therefore, it makes no difference whether his wife is permitted to him or not. The Kohen must redeem his wife.
Rava disagrees and asserts that the Kohen does not need to redeem his wife. When he married her, he obligated himself to redeem her if she is captured, divorce her, and bring her to her father's house only if it was the captivity that made her forbidden to him, but not if she was already forbidden to him.
RASHI explains that when the Mishnah mentions the right to receive Peros, it refers to the husband's obligation to redeem his wife. When the Mishnah says that an Almanah who married a Kohen Gadol is entitled to Peros, it means that she is entitled to be redeemed. Accordingly, why does the Gemara not cite proof from the Mishnah for Abaye's opinion that a Kohen Gadol is obligated to redeem his wife who is an Almanah? If there is some principle that states that any man married to a woman who is prohibited to him is not obligated to redeem her, why does the Mishnah need to mention that a "Sheniyah" does not receive Peros (i.e. redemption) because of a special penalty imposed on her? The husband's exemption from redeeming her is unrelated to the penalty; he is exempt from redeeming her because of the conditions specified in the Kesuvah!
ANSWER: TOSFOS (52a, DH Mamzeres) answers that Rava and Abaye disagree about how to interpret the word "Peros" in the Mishnah. Their dispute is whether the Mishnah should be interpreted like Rashi's first explanation or like his second explanation.
Rava understands the Mishnah like Rashi's second explanation, that not only is the husband of a "Sheniyah" not obligated to redeem her (and he is not entitled to receive her Peros), but even if he takes the Peros unlawfully and eats them under the assumption that he is entitled to receive them because of the Tenai Kesuvah, b'Di'eved he does not have to compensate her. In the case of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol, the husband is required to repay her if he eats her Peros unjustly. However, the husband is exempt from the obligation to redeem her in all cases, according to Rava's understanding of the Mishnah.
Abaye explains the Mishnah like Rashi's first explanation, that the husband of a "Sheniyah" has no obligation to redeem her, while a Kohen Gadol married to an Almanah is obligated to redeem her. (Abaye agrees that the husband of a Mamzeres or Nesinah is not obligated to redeem her.)