(Gemara): (In the Reisha) she is believed only because there are witnesses. If there were no witnesses, he would be believed.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Gamliel, who says (12b and 13a) that she is believed (to say that she was raped after Kidushin or is a Mukas Etz).

Rejection: It is even like R. Gamliel. R. Gamliel said that she is believed only when her claim is Vadai and his claim is doubtful. Here, both make Vadai claims!

Question: The rejection is obvious! Why didn't the one who made the suggestion realize that here, both are Vadai!

Answer: Since most women are virgins when they marry, her claim is more Vadai than his.

Support (Seifa): And R. Yehoshua admits...

If R. Gamliel admits in the Reisha, it is proper to say 'and R. Yehoshua (who argued with R. Gamliel on 12b and 13a) admits...' But if R. Gamliel does not admit, to whom does R. Yehoshua admit?!

Rejection: R. Yehoshua's admission does not refer to what was taught in our Mishnah. Rather, it refers to the Migo taught in the first chapter.

Question: To which Mishnah does he refer?

Answer #1 - (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If a single girl is pregnant and she claims that the father has proper lineage, she is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her.

Objection: There, she has no Migo (better possible claim). We see that she is pregnant!

Answer #2 - (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If we saw a woman talking with a man and she says that he has proper lineage, she is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her.

Question: What Migo does she have?

This is not difficult for Ze'iri, who said that 'talking' means seclusion. She could have said there was no Bi'ah;

But according to Rav Asi, who said that 'talking' means Bi'ah, she has no Migo!

Answer #3 (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If she says that she is a Mukas Etz and he says that (perhaps) she had Bi'ah with a man, she is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed.

Question: What Migo does she have?

This is not difficult for R. Elazar. He says that she claims a Kesuvah of 100, and he claims she has no Kesuvah. She could have said that she became a Mukas Etz after Kidushin, and her Kesuvah is 200.

But R. Yochanan says that she claims a Kesuvah of 200, and he claims that her Kesuvah is 100. If so, she has no Migo!

Answer #4 (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): A Chasan found that his Kalah was not a virgin. She says that she was raped after Kidushin, and it is his bad luck. He says that (perhaps) she had Bi'ah before the Kidushin, and it is a Mekach Ta'us. She is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed.

She has a Migo. The claim she made forbade her to Kohanim. She could have said that she is a Mukas Etz and remained permitted to Kohanim.

R. Yehoshua does not believe her with that Migo, but does believe the Migo in our Mishnah.

Question: Why is the Migo of our Mishnah better?

Answer: Here, the ox is not slaughtered in front of you; there, it is. (Rashi - here, Shimon had no claim until Reuven said that the field used to belong to Shimon's father. There, the Chasan saw that she was not a virgin and had a claim before she spoke up. Tosfos - there she has no Besulim, so she cannot claim that she is a Besulah. Here, he could have said that the field never belonged to Shimon's father.)

Question: The Mishnah implies that if she cannot prove that she was married as a virgin, her Kesuvah is only 100. What is the reason?

Most girls are virgins when they marry. Why don't we assume that she is from the majority?

Answer (Ravina): Most girls are virgins when they marry, and a minority are widows. Every time a virgin is married, there is a Kol (talk);

Since this girl had no Kol, this suggests that she is not from the majority.

Objection: If every virgin has a Kol, how can we believe witnesses who say that she was married as a virgin, even though there is no Kol? We should say that the witnesses are lying!

Correction: Ravina said that most virgins have a Kol. Since this girl had no Kol, we do not say that she probably was a virgin.

Version #1 (Mishnah): If witnesses say that she had a Hinuma... (her Kesuvah is 200).

Question: We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses and collect in Beis Din, and later show her Kesuvah and collect again in another Beis Din!

Answer #1 (R. Avahu): This shows that we write a receipt (when a creditor says that he lost his document. He collects, and the debtor keeps the receipt to prove that he paid.)

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): Our Mishnah discusses a place where they do not write Kesuvos.

Version #2 (Beraisa): If a woman lost, hid or burned her Kesuvah, and witnesses say that at the wedding, in front of her people danced, frolicked, passed a cup of tidings (this will be explained) or a cloth (for Dam Besulim), she collects 200.

Question: We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses and collect in Beis Din, and show her Kesuvah and collect again in another Beis Din!

Answer #1 (R. Avahu): This shows that we write a receipt.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The Beraisa discusses a place where they do not write Kesuvos.

Question: The Beraisa says that the Kesuvah was lost!

Answer: This man happened to write it.

Question: Why may she collect? Perhaps later she will collect again with the Kesuvah!

Answer #1: 'Lost' in the Beraisa means that it was burned.

Objection #1: The Beraisa lists 'burned' separately!

Objection #2: This answer does not help for the case when she hid it!

Question #3: Why must we teach the case of being lost? (If it was burned, the Halachah is obvious!)

Answer #2: The Beraisa means: If she lost the Kesuvah, it is as if we saw her hide it. She does not collect unless witnesses saw that it was burned.

Version #2 says that R. Avahu and Rav Papa explained the Beraisa. All the more so their answers apply to the Mishnah;

Version #1 says that they explained the Mishnah. It holds that Rav Papa would not say so about the Beraisa, due to Question (i) (the answer given is weak).

(Mishnah): If witnesses say (that she had a Hinuma...her Kesuvah is 200).

Question: We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses and collect in Beis Din, and bring witnesses and collect again in another Beis Din!

Answer: Certainly, where there is no alternative, we write a receipt.

(Beraisa): ...Or they passed in front of her a cup of tidings...

Question: What is a cup of tidings?

Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): It is a cup of Terumah wine. This symbolizes that she was fitting to marry a Kohen and eat Terumah.

Question (Rav Papa): Also a widow may marry a Kohen and eat Terumah!

Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, it symbolizes 'Reishis' (she will have her first Bi'ah), just like Terumah is called "Reishis Deganecha".

Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): We pass a barrel of wine in front of her.

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We pass a closed barrel in front of a virgin, and an open barrel in front of a non-virgin.

Question: It should suffice to pass a barrel in front of a virgin, and nothing in front of a non-virgin!

Answer: If so, she might seize 200 and claim that she was a virgin, just they were unable to pass a barrel in front of her. (Since she cannot be disproved, she would keep the money.)