1)

(a)The Beraisa rules that, even though witnesses testify that a woman who is marrying for the second time, had not yet been secluded with her first husband (before he died) - her second husband does not have a Ta'anas Besulim.

(b)The second case in the Beraisa, which speaks even if they were - refers to when they were not secluded together long enough to have been intimate.

(c)Rabah extrapolates from the Beraisa - that if someone marries a woman assuming her to be a Besulah, and she turns out to be a Be'ulah, she receives a Kesuvah of one Manah.

(d)

1. ... Rabah takes for granted that the Tana is speaking where the man married the woman b'Chezkas Besulah - because it stands to reason that he relied on the witnesses' testimony.

2. ... Rav Ashi refutes Rabah's proof - based on the fact that the case in the Beraisa is different, inasmuch as she was already married. Otherwise, she would not receive anything.

2)

(a)The question why we do we not suspect that she may have committed adultery during the period of their betrothal is prompted - by the fact that he has no Ta'anas Besulim, in which case, he does not go to Beis-Din, and will have no reason not to continue living with her, despite the possibility that she may be forbidden.

(b)Rav Sheravyah refutes the Kashya - by establishing the Beraisa when the man betrothed the woman and married her immediately.

(c)Others cite the entire Sugya (Rabah, Rav Ashi and Rav Sheravyah) on our Mishnah, 'Besulah ... min ha'Nisu'in Kesubasan Manah, v'Ein Lahem Ta'anas Besulim'. The basic difference between the case in our Mishnah and the case in the Beraisa is - that in the latter case, there are witnesses who testify that the Chasan and Kalah had not yet secluded before the Chasan died, whereas in the former case, there are not.

(d)Consequently, if our Sugya pertained to the Mishnah, since there are witnesses who testify that she is a Besulah, even Rav Ashi would concede to Rabah that this falls under the category of Kansah b'Chezkas Besulah (even if our Mishnah does not).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah states that someone who eats by his father-in-law (to be) in Yehudah, does not have a Ta'anas Besulim - because in Yehudah, it was customary for the Chasan and Kalah to seclude themselves before the wedding, in which case they may well have been intimate, too.

(b)We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'ha'Ochel bi'Yehudah ... ' - that the Minhag to eat by one's future father-in-law was not absolute.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa presents three Minhagim that were practiced in Yehudah, but not in Galil. Firstly they used to seclude the Chasan and Kalah (just before the wedding) - in order to break the ice and become familiar with each other.

(b)Secondly, they used to designate two 'Shushbinim' during the night of the wedding - to make sure that the Chasan and Kalah did not exploit each other: one to see that the Chasan should not hide the blood-stained cloth, and the other, to see that the Kalah should not bring a blood-stained cloth into the room.

(c)We now know that the Minhag to seclude the Chasan and Kalah before the wedding was not absolute - because if it was, what was the point of the Shushbinim, seeing as he did not have a Ta'anas Besulim anyway! In other words, the two Minhagim do not go hand in hand. It is either the one, or the other.

(d)The third Minhag was - (an extension of the second one) that the Shushbinim would sleep in the same room as the Chasan and Kalah.

5)

(a)The Beraisa concludes 'Kol she'Lo Nahag k'Minhag ha'Zeh, Eino Yachol Lit'on Ta'anas Besulim'. This cannot refer to the first of the three Minhagim - because the Tana should then have said 'Kol she'Nahag ... ' (rather than Kol she'Lo Nahag ... ').

(b)On the other hand, had it referred to the second Minhag, the Tana ought to have said 'Kol she'Lo Mushmash ... ' (seeing as this pertains to the Shushbin appointed by the Kalah's father, whose job it was to ensure that the Chasan did not lose the cloth).

(c)Abaye therefore establishes it in connection with the first Minhag, and he amends the Beraisa to read 'Kol she'Nahag ... '. Rava does not like that amendment - in that one cannot simply erase the word 'Lo' (a key word in any statement) from a text.

(d)Rav Ashi finally accepts the wording of 'Kol she'Lo Mushmash ... ', like we stated earlier the Tana ought to have said. Rava amends the Beraisa to read 'Kol she'Lo Nahag Minhag Galil b'Galil, Ela Minhag Yehudah b'Galil, Eino Yachol li'T'on Ta'anas Besulim'.

6)

(a)There is no difference between the Kesubah of an Almanah who is a Yisraelis and one who is a Kohenes - both are entitled to a Manah.

(b)The Beis-Din of Kohanim used to claim four hundred Zuz for a Besulah who was a Kohenes - even if she married a Kohen, and certainly, if she married a Yisrael.

(c)The Chachamim reacted to that - with silence (i.e. they offered no objection).

7)

(a)We reconcile our Mishnah (which specifically places an Almanah who is a Kohenes on a par with a Yisraelis) with the Beraisa, which specifies the Kesuvah of a Kohenes as two hundred Zuz - by describing a sequence of Takanos. Initially, they instituted one Manah for a Kohenes. They then decided that their husbands were taking advantage of the small amount involved and divorcing them too easily, so they changed the sum to two hundred Zuz. Then, when they realized that people preferred to marry a Bas Yisrael who was a Besulah (for the same price), they reverted to the sum of a Manah (one hundred Zuz).

(b)They changed her Kesuvah from one hundred to two hundred Zuz, despite the fact that an Almanas Yisrael also receives a hundred Zuz - because, due to the status of a Kohenes, the stigma attached to a widowed bas Kohen greater than that of a widowed Yisraelis (so, unless they boosted the financial status of a bas Kohen, people would prefer to marry a widowed Yisraelis).

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel states - that even the elite families of Yisrael were entitled to add to the Kesuvah, should they so wish.

(b)When the Beraisa includes only a bas Yisrael to a Kohen, or vice-versa, in the list of those who are permitted to adopt the Takanah, but not a bas Yisrael to a Yisrael, it does so (not to o preclude her from this concession, but) - because it is obvious that if in the case of a bas Yisrael to a Kohen, where her status is being raised, they permit raising her Kesubah, then how much more so a bas Yisrael to a Yisrael.

9)

(a)We have already cited the Mishnah, where Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer rule that if the woman claims that she was raped after the betrothal and the man claimed that the rape preceded the betrothal, she is believed. Initially - we attribute this ruling to the principle 'Bari v'Shema, Bari Adif' (a definite claim overrides that of a Safek).

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua says - that 'we do not live by her mouth', and that in fact, she is considered as having been a Be'ulah already from before the betrothal, and as having tricked him into believing that she was not, unless she can prove otherwise.

(c)If Reuven claims that Shimon owes him a Manah, and Shimon cannot remember whether he does or doesn't, Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna obligate him to pay - because of the principle 'Bari v'Shema, Bari Adif'.

(d)Rav Nachman and Rebbi Yochanan exempt Shimon from paying - because we place the money in the Chazakah of the original owner (until the claimant proves his claim).

(e)However, in case he claims that he doesn't know in order to escape having to pay - we make him swear a Shevu'as Hesses (a light Shevu'ah d'Rabanan that every defendant who completely denies a claim is obligated to swear).

10)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah later - who rule that a pregnant woman who claims that she is pregnant from so-and-so, and that he is a Kohen - is believed.

(b)When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah remarked to Rav Yehudah 'Halachah k'Raban Gamliel af ba'Rishonah' - he was referring to our Mishnah, where she claims that she was raped after the betrothal, and he claims that the rape took place before (and where we believe her in spite of the Chezkas Mamon of the husband).

11)

(a)In light of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's statement - Abaye tries to establish Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna (who hold 'Bari v'Shema Bari Adif') like Raban Gamliel, and Rav Nachman and Rebbi Yochanan (who place the money in the Chazakah of the owner), like Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b)Rav Yosef refutes Abaye's proof however, to reconcile Rav Nachman, with Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah on the basis of a 'Migo' - since she could have claimed to be a Mukas Etz (in which case she would not be Pasul to a Kohen).

(c)By the same token, the girl's claim of Mukas Etz now (after the betrothal) would be better than Mukas Etz before the betrothal - inasmuch as she will not lose her full Kesubah of two hundred Zuz.

12)

(a)Rav Nachman concedes that the Halachah is like Raban Gamliel, even though in the case of 'Manah Li b'Yadcha, he holds Chayav - because he considers a 'Migo' stronger than a Chazakah.

(b)Alternatively, he might do so - because the girl has a Chezlas ha'Guf (that she was, and still is, a Besulah), which the claimant in his case does not (therefore we go after the Chezkas Mamon).

(c)There is no alternative way to explain to Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna, other than 'Bari v'Shema Bari Adif' (against a 'Migo' and against a Chezkas Mamon) - like Rebbi Yehoshua.

13)

(a)We finally substantiate the two ways of reconciling Rav Nachman with Raban Gamliel on the grounds that otherwise, we would have a clash of Halachos, inasmuch as - we always rule like Rav Nachman in money matters.

(b)On the other hand - Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel has issued an unopposed ruling like Raban Gamliel, which would have clashed with the previous ruling if Rav Yosef had not reconciled Rav Nachman with Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah.