(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If she says 'I am a Mukas Etz' and he says 'no, rather, you had Bi'ah with a man', she is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, we do not trust her words. Rather, the Chazakah is that she had Bi'ah with a man, until she brings proof to her words.

(Gemara - R. Lazar): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, for R. Meir says that a Mukas Etz, her Kesuvah is 200. (According to Rabanan, whether she was Be'ulah or Mukas Etz, her Kesuvah is 100!)

(R. Yosi): [Before R. Lazar said so,] we thought that when do R. Meir and Chachamim argue? It is when he entered her b'Chezkas Mukas Etz, but if he entered her b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be a Mukas Etz, even R. Meir agrees (that her Kesuvah is 100).

(Now, we hold like R. Lazar.) We learn from our Mishnah. She says 'I am a Mukas Etz' and he says 'no, rather, you had Bi'ah with a man.' This teaches that even if he entered her b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be a Mukas Etz, they argue.

R. Yirmeyah citing R. Ze'ira did not say so. Rather, she says 'I am a Mukas Etz, and my Kesuvah is 100', and he says 'no, rather, you had Bi'ah with a man, and you have no claim against me.'

Question: What is the case?

If he entered her b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be a Mukas Etz, even R. Meir agrees [that her Kesuvah is 100]!

If he entered her b'Chezkas Mukas Etz, and she was found to be a Mukas Etz, is there a difference in how much the opening is open, between [if the Besulim were lost] through a piece of wood or through a man?! (What is her husband's basis to claim that she had Bi'ah with a man?! Rather, we must say that he entered her b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be a Mukas Etz. You must say that it is different when she was found to be a Be'ulah, i.e. then she gets nothing. If not, what do they argue about?!]

R. Huna citing R. Ze'ira did not say so. Rather, she says 'I am a Mukas Etz, and so I stipulated with you', and he says 'no, rather, you had Bi'ah with a man, and you did not stipulate with me at all.' (If so, we cannot bring a proof about one who entered her b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be a Be'ulah. We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): If they saw a woman talking with a man and she says that it was Ploni, a Kohen (i.e. one with proper lineage), she is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, we do not trust her words. Rather, the Chazakah is that she had Bi'ah with a Nasin or Mamzer (and she is forbidden to Kehunah) unless she brings proof to her words.

(Gemara): What does 'talking' mean? She had Bi'ah. Why does our Mishnah teach 'talking'? It uses a clean, (euphemistic) expression.

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yoshiyah): The Halachah follows R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer, for two [Chachamim] are the majority over one.

Question (R. Yosi): If [he had a tradition that this is the] Halachah, why [did he need to say that they are] two?

And if [he rules like them only because they are] two, why [did he say that the] Halachah [follows them? This is just like any other case of a majority against a minority!]

According to this, if R. Yochanan [ben Nuri] holds like R. Yehoshua, [perhaps] the Halachah does not follow R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer, rather, R. Yehoshua [for two argue with two - MEICHAL HA'MAYIM. Mishnah 11 discusses a girl who was raped. If most men of the city have proper lineage, R. Yochanan ben Nuri permits her to a Kohen.)

Question: Why [should we say that R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds like R. Yehoshua]?

Answer: It is due to testimony that a woman is Kosher for it (i.e. to say that the father of her fetus has proper lineage - Tosefta 1:6);

Assumption: When do R. Yehoshua and these Rabanan argue? It is in a place where the majority are Pasul, but in a place where the majority are Kosher, even R. Yehoshua agrees. (If so, R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds like R. Yehoshua. R. Yochanan is unlike R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer, for they are Machshir even when the majority of men are Pasul! We explained this based on SEFER NIR, CHASAM SOFER, MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Rebuttal (R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan, and R. Ila citing R. Lazar): Even in a place where the majority are Kosher, they argue.

R. Yehoshua holds that Zenus pursues Pesulim (we attribute Zenus to them, even if they are the minority).

(R. Ze'ira): A Mishnah teaches that even Kesherim have Zenus! It teaches that even the greatest Chasid, we do not appoint him to be a guardian over Arayos.