A KALAH WHO WAS FOUND TO BE A NON-VIRGIN
Version #1 (Beraisa): If Leah had Chupah with Levi, and she has witnesses that they were not secluded long enough to have Bi'ah, her next husband has no Ta'anas Besulim, since she already had Chupah.
Inference (Rabah): (Even though witnesses say that she is a Besulah, even if she is not her Kesuvah is not reduced. It follows that) if the Kalah claimed to be a virgin at the time of Chupah and she was found to be a non-virgin, her Kesuvah is 100.
Rejection (Rav Ashi): Normally, she receives nothing. The Beraisa is different, for she already had Chupah.
Question: We should be concerned lest she was Mezanah (had Znus) after Kidushin! (We should say that there is Ta'anas Besulim so that if she was Mezanah witnesses will come to testify!)
Answer (Rav Sharbiya): The case is, the Chasan had Bi'ah with her (and found that she is not a virgin) right after Kidushin.
Version #2 (Mishnah): If a Besulah was widowed, divorced, or had Chalitzah after Nisu'in, her Kesuvah is 100. There is no Ta'anas Besulim.
Question: What is the case of a Besulah from Nisu'in?
Answer: She went to Chupah but there was no Bi'ah.
Inference (Rabah): This teaches that if the Kalah claimed to be a virgin at the time of Chupah and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives a Kesuvah of 100.
Rejection (Rav Ashi): We can say that in a normal case, she receives nothing. The case of the Mishnah is different, since she already had Chupah.
Question: We should be concerned lest she had Bi'ah after Kidushin!
Answer (Rav Sharbiya): The case is, the Chasan had Bi'ah with her right after Kidushin.
Version #1 holds that this discussion was concerning the Beraisa. All the more so it applies to the Mishnah (Rav Ashi's response, that the Chasan cannot claim that he married only her because he thought that she was a virgin).
Version #2 holds that this discussion was concerning the Mishnah. It holds that Rav Ashi's response would not apply to the Beraisa. The Chasan could claim that he relied on the witnesses (and married only her because he thought that she was a virgin).
TA'ANAS BESULIM IN YEHUDAH
(Mishnah): In Yehudah, one who eats by his father-in-law (during Eirusin) without witnesses (that he was not secluded with the Kalah) has no Ta'anas Besulim, since (we suspect) that he was secluded (and had Bi'ah) with her.
(Gemara): 'One who eats' suggests that in some places in Yehudah, the Chasan does not eat (by his father-in-law).
Inference (Abaye): Even in Yehudah the custom applies only in certain places.
Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): In Yehudah, at first they would isolate the Chasan with the Kalah for a short period before the Chupah in order that he should be intimate with her. They did not do so in Galil;
In Yehudah, at the time of Chupah they would prepare two Shushbinim (friends), one for (overseeing) him (lest there will be blood on the sheet and he dispose of it) and one for her (lest she bring blood and feign that it is her Dam Besulim). This was not done in Galil.
In Yehudah, Shushbinim used to sleep in the house with them, but not in Galil.
Anyone who did not do this has no Ta'anas Besulim.
Question: About which clause was this said?
If it refers to the Reisha, it should have said that anyone who did do this (has no claim)!
If it refers to the Seifa, it should say that anyone who was not overseen has no claim! (If he did not 'do this', i.e. appoint a friend to oversee her, but he was overseen by her father's friend, all the more so he has Ta'anas Besulim if there is no blood on the sheet!)
Answer #1 (Abaye): It refers to the Reisha. The Beraisa should say that anyone who did do this.
Objection (Rava): The Beraisa says 'anyone who did not do this'!
Answer #2 (Rava): It means that anyone in Galil who did not follow the Galil custom, rather the Yehudah custom (i.e. he was secluded with her during Eirusin) has no Ta'anas Besulim .
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): It refers to the Seifa. The Beraisa should say 'anyone who was not overseen'.
THE LARGER KESUVAH OF KOHANIM
(Mishnah): The Kesuvah of a widow is 100, whether her father is a Kohen or Yisrael;
Kohanim conducted that the Kesuvah of a virgin Kohenes is 400. Chachamim did not protest.
(Gemara - Beraisa): The Kesuvah of a Kohenes widow is 200.
Question: Our Mishnah says that it is 100!
Answer (Rav Ashi): There were two enactments (for Kohanos). First it was enacted to collect 400 for a virgin and 100 for a widow;
When Chachamim saw that this caused Kohanos widows to be disgraced, they enacted that their Kesuvah should be 200.
Men stopped marrying them, since for the same amount one can marry a virgin Yisraelis.
Chachamim returned to the initial law, that a Kohenes widow receives 100.
(Rav Yehudah): Also families of good lineage in Yisrael may enact that the Kesuvah of their daughters be larger.
Question (Beraisa): One who wants to do like the Kohanim, such as a Yisraelis to a Kohen or a Kohenes to a Yisrael, may do so.
Inference: This is only allowed when one of the parties is a Kohen!
Answer: No, the Beraisa teaches a Chidush. Not only when a Yisraelis marries a Yisrael, but even when a Yisraelis marries a Kohen, whose lineage is better than hers, the Kesuvah may be increased.
A DISPUTE OVER THE CAUSE OF NON-VIRGINITY
(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): A Chasan found that she is not a virgin. She says that she was raped after Kidushin, and it is his bad fortune. He says that (perhaps) she had Bi'ah before the Kidushin, and it is a Mekach Ta'us (a mistaken Kidushin, because he was deceived). She is believed;
R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed unless she brings proof.
(Gemara - Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna): If Reuven claims that Shimon owes to him 100 Zuz and Shimon says that he does not know, Shimon must pay. Reuven's Vadai (definite) claim is better than Shimon's doubtful claim.
Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan: Shimon is exempt. When in doubt, we leave money in its Chazakah (status quo; we do not force one to pay).
(Abaye): Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna hold like Shmuel;
(Mishnah (13a) - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If a single girl is pregnant and she claims that the father has proper lineage, she is believed;
(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Gamliel.
Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah (to Rav Yehudah): You said that Shmuel rules like R. Gamliel even in the Reisha (our Mishnah)!
Question: Why did he say even in the Reisha (why is this a bigger Chidush)?
Answer: Even though one might have thought that we leave the money in its Chazakah, R. Gamliel says that the Vadai claim wins.
Suggestion: Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna hold like R. Gamliel (like Abaye taught), and Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan hold like R. Yehoshua.
Rejection: Rav Nachman can hold like R. Gamliel;
Reason #1: R. Gamliel believes her only because she has a Migo (if she was lying, she would have made a better claim, that she became a Mukas Etz after Kidushin, and she would remain permitted to Kohanim. Since she did not claim this, we assume she is telling the truth.) In our case (you owe to me 100), there is no Migo.
Reason #2: R. Gamliel said his law only when we leave her in her Chazakah (she was born a virgin. We assume that she was still a virgin at the time of Kidushin). This does not apply in our case.
Support: Presumably this is correct, that Rav Nachman holds like R. Gamliel. If not, we are left with a contradiction!
The Halachah follows Rav Nachman in monetary matters.
The Halachah follows R. Gamliel in our Mishnah!
Conclusion: We must say like above, that Rav Nachman holds like R. Gamliel.