- האוכל אצל חמיו ביהודה שלא בעדים אינו יכול לטעון טענת בתולים
The next Mishnah states: האוכל אצל חמיו ביהודה שלא בעדים – If one eats in his father-in-law’s house in Yehudah after kiddushin without witnesses that he did not have yichud with his kallah, אינו יכול לטעון טענת בתולים מפני שמתייחד עמה – he cannot make a claim of taanas besulim because it was the minhag in Yehudah that he has yichud with her during these visits. The Gemara infers from the fact that the Mishnah stated: if one eats, מכלל דאיכא דוכתא ביהודה נמי דלא אכיל – it follows that there are places in Yehudah where one does not eat in his father-in-law’s house during the period of kiddushin. Abaye said we can learn from here: ביהודה נמי מקומות מקומות יש – that even in Yehudah that there are various places that have different minhagim. Rashi explains that in the places where the minhag was not to eat in one’s father-in-law’s house, one could bring a taanas besulim.
- The two takanos that were made regarding the kesubah amount for an almanah bas Kohen
The next Mishnah states: אחת אלמנת ישראל ואחת אלמנת כהנים כתובתה מנה – Both an almanah that is a bas Yisroel, and an almanah that is a bas Kohen, have a kesubah of a maneh. בית דין של כהנים היו גובין לבתולה ארבע מאות זוז ולא מיחו בידים חכמים – But the Beis Din of Kohanim would collect four hundred zuz for a besulah who was a bas Kohen, and the Chochomim did not protest. The Gemara brings a conflicting Baraisa that taught: ואלמנת כהנים כתובתה מאתים – the kesubah of an almanah who is a bas Kohen is two hundred zuz, and Rav Ashi explains שתי תקנות היו – there were two takanos concerning an almanah who was a bas Kohen. Originally, they enacted a four hundred zuz kesubah for a besulah and a maneh for an almanah. כיון דחזו דמזלזלי בהו – But when the Kohanim saw that people were treating the almanos lightly, which Rashi explains means that they were still divorcing them and the kesubah amount was not a deterrent, they enacted a two hundred zuz kesubah for an almanah. Then when they saw that people were refraining from marrying the widows, because people would say, “Instead of marrying an almanah who is a bas Kohen, let us go marry a besulah that is a bas Yisroel,” they went back to their original takanah of kesubah of only one hundred zuz.
- משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה שדהו
The next Mishnah states that in a case of one who marries a woman and does not find her besulim, she says, "משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה שדהו" – After you were mekadesh me, I was violated and this is a case of “the buyer’s field was flooded,” and he says, “It is not so. Rather it happened before I was mekadesh you והיה מקחי מקח טעות – and my acquisition was an acquisition made in error”. Rabban Gamliel and Rebbe Eliezer say, נאמנת – she is believed, whereas Rebbe Yehoshua says that we do not believe her. Rather, she has a chazakah of being a non-besulah before she had kiddushin, and had misled him, until she can bring proof to her claim. The Gemara suggests that this case is like the one where one said to the other, “You owe me a maneh,” and the other one says, “I do not know.” Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna say he is chayav, ברי ושמא ברי עדיף – where one claims, “certainly” and the other one claims “perhaps,” the claim of certainty is stronger. Rav Nachman and Rav Yochanan say he is patur, אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה – we let the money remain with its current owner. The Gemara answers that Rav Nachman could say that his view is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, for Rabban Gamliel only believed the wife because of a migo, for she could have claimed she was a מוכת עץ, but there is no migo in the loan case. Alternatively, Rabban Gamliel holds we keep the woman in her chazakah of being a besulah, whereas in the loan dispute, the plaintiff has no chazakah.