Assertion: We ask according to the opinion if one claims against [a debt due to] an act of Beis Din, his words have no effect;

According to the opinion that one can say "I paid", here even according to R. Gamliel the husband is believed to say "I married you when you were a widow", Migo he could say "I paid you" if he wanted.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Gemara says] indeed, presumably the Mishnah is like R. Gamliel, like we answer that he agrees when both claim Vadai, since it taught "and R. Yehoshua agrees..."

Question: Even if R. Gamliel does not agree, it is fine. R. Yehoshua agrees, i.e. "even though in the Reisha I argue with you, in the Seifa I agree with you"!

Implied question: The Reisha and Seifa do not discuss the same matter!

Answer: We similarly find that it is fine "and R. Yehoshua agrees" if [the Reisha teaches that] R. Gamliel admits, even though R. Gamliel's admission is not about the same matter as R. Yehoshua's admission.

Answer: Surely, if R. Gamliel admits, it is proper to teach and "and R. Yehoshua agrees" even though it is not about the same matter;

I.e. Agav (along with) teaching the matter about which R. Gamliel admits, [the Tana] taught also a matter in which R. Yehoshua agrees.

However, if it does not teach that R. Gamliel admits, it is not appropriate to teach "and R. Yehoshua agrees" to teach that even though he argues in the Reisha, he agrees in the Seifa, since the Reisha and Seifa do not discuss the same matter;

Question: The Gemara should not have said that he refers to the Migo, since according to Rashi, also until now he referred to the Migo!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The Gemara means that indeed, presumably it is like Bari and Shema. It does not come to say that R. Gamliel argues in the Reisha;

Rather, even though it is like Bari and Shema, R. Gamliel admits, because it is not truly Shema, since it says "and R. Yehoshua agrees";

Granted, if it teaches that R. Gamliel admits, i.e. even though it is like Bari and Shema, R. Gamliel admits that the husband is believed, this explains why it taught "and R. Yehoshua agrees", for he is believed about this Bari;

We are thinking that R. Yehoshua holds [that he is believed] because it is Bari and Shema, for the other does not claim from him, like Rashi explained;

Now, R. Gamliel's admission pertains to the same matter as R. Yehoshua's admission.

However, if the Reisha discusses true Bari and Bari, and it does not teach that R. Gamliel admits, for obviously, since it is Bari and Bari, R. Gamliel does not argue, why does it say "and [R. Yehoshua] admits"?

The Gemara answers "do you think that [and R. Yehoshua admits] refers to the Reisha, and R. Yehoshua's reason is due to Bari and Shema?

[Really,] it refers to Migo. R. Yehoshua's reason is due to Migo, and he is believed even when the other claims from him. He refers to the first Perek.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [There,] he claims "you were raped before I was Mekadesh you." Here, the ox is not slaughtered in front of you, for he does not claim from him.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Also here, he claims from him, like I explained;

The Gemara means that there, the ox is slaughtered in front of you, for she has no Besulim, and she cannot say "I am a Besulah", just like a slaughtered ox, you cannot say that it is alive.

Therefore, whether she says "I was raped after Eirusin" or "I became a Mukas Etz after Eirusin", she is not believed;

Here, the ox is not slaughtered in front of you, and he is believed through a Migo, for if he wanted, he could have said "it was never yours."

Explanation: We ask according to Rav, who holds that we do not follow the majority in monetary laws.

Question: A Mishnah below (28a) says "the following are believed to testify in adulthood about what they saw when they were minors: I remember that Plonis left with Hinuma and her hair was uncovered";

The Gemara says "what is the reason? Since most women marry when they are Besulos, this is a mere Giluy Milsa."

If she has a Kol (many remember that she left with Hinuma), according to Rav, why do we need any testimony? We should follow the majority, like we ask here!

If she has no Kol, her majority is weakened, and she should need two Kosher witnesses!

Suggestion: When he testifies that he saw when he was a minor, and another with him, this is considered a Kol.

Rejection: We ask here that the witnesses lie! (This shows that they are not considered a Kol.)

Answer: "Most women marry when they are Besulos" is preferable to "most Besulos who marry have a Kol";

When she has no Kol, the fact that most Besulos who marry [have a Kol] does not weaken her so much that it will not help testimony that one saw when he was a minor, and another with him.

Explanation: Even through witnesses of Hinuma she should not collect, until she returns the Kesuvah to him, since he could lose if the Kesuvah [document] remains with her;

This is not only like the opinion that one can claim against acts of Beis Din, he loses, for if she would not have a Kesuvah, he would be believed to say "I paid you";

Rather, even like the opinion that one cannot claim against acts of Beis Din, he loses through her keeping the Kesuvah;

If she would claim from him [without it], and she would not have witnesses of Hinuma, he would be believed to say "I paid you 100", Migo if he wanted to, he could have said "you were a widow when I married you."

Or, if he will be in a place where they do not recognize whether she was his wife, he will be believed to say "I paid everything", Migo if he wanted to, he could have said "you were not my wife."

Now that she has a Kesuvah document, she will collect 200. Since he can come to lose, he need not pay [until she returns it].

Implied question: Here it is impossible without a receipt! We must be concerned lest she burn her Kesuvah in front of witnesses, and collect [again] through witnesses of Hinuma;

This is like we say below, perhaps she will collect again through witnesses of Hinuma, according to the opinion that one cannot claim against acts of Beis Din! Therefore, he needs a receipt! (How may we learn from here that in general, we write a receipt?)

Answer: It is a proper inference that also in general, we write a receipt;

If in general, we do not write, why must he pay here, since he can come to a loss through her keeping the Kesuvah, like we explained?!

Implied question: In Bava Basra (171b) it explains the reason for the one who says that we write a Shover, because "Eved Loveh l'Ish Malveh" (the borrower is the lender's slave. This does not apply here!)

Answer: This is not only regarding a borrower. The same applies to any debt, like a Kesuvah here, and sale documents there, for which it says there that we write a receipt.

Question: If so, even in a place where they write, he should have established it! What forced him to establish it in a place where they do not write, and he happened to write?

Answer (R. Tam): In a place where they write and it was burned, we should be concerned lest he wrote her another Kesuvah, for he may not keep her without a Kesuvah.

Implied question: However, he could have established it in a place where they write, and it was burned after divorce. Then there is no concern lest he write another for her!

Answer: He held that this is a poor explanation.

Implied question: Seemingly this is the first question! We asked that this is the same as burned!

Answer: It means as follows. Further, even if you will say that "burned" is the Perush of "it was lost", in any case it is difficult why we need "it was lost"!

Assertion: It seems that this is when she has a Migo. If she wanted, she could say "I do not have anything." If not, why is she believed?

Question: Regarding giving out parched grain, it says below that they do not do so for a widow. Why aren't we concerned lest she seize [200, and say that they did not do so due to Ones], like it says here?

Answer (R. Tam): Only regarding a matter that entails toil, such as a barrel, she should say that there was Ones. [Giving out] parched grain and similar things, it is easy to do so.