Explanation #1 (Rashi): He did not say Ta'anas Damim, e.g. the cloth was lost, or she is from a Dorteki family, which have no blood.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): He discusses a Bogeres or a Mukas Etz. They have no blood, but the Pesach is not Pas'uach, and he can claim Pesach Pas'uach (i.e. this shows that she was a Be'ulah).

Question (against R. Chananel): It says below (36a) that a Bogeres has no Ta'anas Besulim. We question this, for Rav taught that we give a Bogeres the first night (we attribute any blood she sees that night to Dam Besulim);

Citation (36a) Answer: Indeed, if he claimed Ta'anas Damim (he has Ta'anas Besulim. The Beraisa does not discuss this. Rather,) the case is, he claimed Pesach Pas'uach.

Inference: [If a Bogeres is a Besulah, it is possible that], her Pesach is Pas'uach (so his claim is not a claim), and she has blood! (I.e. he has a proper claim if she has no blood. This is opposite to R. Chananel's Perush!)

Answer: R. Chananel had the original text that was in Seforim "indeed, if he claimed Pesach Pas'uach (he has Ta'anas Besulim. The Beraisa does not discuss this. Rather,) the case is, he claimed Ta'anas Damim.

Explanation: We ask that Rav taught that we give a Bogeres the first night...

Inference: Since we attribute [any blood she sees] the entire night to Dam Besulim, i.e. there is a Bogeres who has much Dam Besulim. If so, there cannot be any Bogeres whose opening is not closed, even if she has no blood;

If so, there is Ta'anas Besulim of Pesach Pas'uach!

The Gemara answers that indeed, if he claimed Pesach Pas'uach (he has Ta'anas Besulim). What is the case in which he has no Ta'anas Besulim? When he makes Ta'anas Damim, for there is a Bogeres whose Dam [Besulim] finished [without Bi'ah].

Question: However, the Yerushalmi connotes unlike R. Chananel. R. Yonah said there in the name of R. Krispa that a Bogeres is like an open barrel of wine (i.e. her Pesach is Pas'uach).

Answer: We can say that this is regarding blood, for a Stam sealed barrel has wine in it. It is not normal to seal an empty barrel;

However, an open barrel, sometimes it has wine in it, and sometimes it has no wine. Also a Bogeres, sometimes she has no blood, and sometimes she has. Therefore, there is no Ta'anas Damim, like R. Chananel explained.

This is like it says in Yevamos (59a), "this excludes a Bogeres, whose Besulim were finished."

Question: Why don't we leave her on her Chazakah that she is Kosher to Kehunah, and say that the Zenus was before Eirusin?

Answer: Just the contrary, we should say that [close to] now she had Bi'ah, and leave her body in its Chazakah, that she was a Besulah.

Question: There is still a Sefek-Sefeka! It is a Safek that she was forced, and a Safek that she consented;

And even if you will say that she consented, perhaps it was when she was a minor, and enticement of a minor is considered Ones, like it says in Yevamos (61b)!

Answer: (These are just two possible ways of Ones.) Ones is one name (Safek).

Question: Why don't we leave her on her Chazakah that she is permitted to her husband?

Answer: There is publicity about Ones, like it says in the Yerushalmi, that rape has publicity;

Now that there was no publicity, consent is the majority (most likely case), and rape is the Mi'ut. When a majority opposes a Chazakah, the majority is preferable (we follow it).

Question: If so, also regarding a Sefek-Sefeka, she should be forbidden, for it is as if there is no Safek of rape (because there was no publicity, so it is like the minority). Only one Safek remains, whether the Zenus was before Eirusin. Regarding this, it is not relevant to leave her on her Chazakah, like I explained (that the majority is stronger than Chazakah)!

Answer (Ri): The majority of consent is not a proper majority. Rather, it is mid'Rabanan. Therefore, in a situation of Sefek-Sefeka, it is permitted. In a situation of one Safek, Rabanan considered consent to be the majority over Ones.

Support: We find like this regarding a child found next to a dough (Kidushin 80a. Chachamim say that the majority of children, who touch, overpowers Chezkas Taharah of the dough, and we are Metamei). The majority is only mid'Rabanan;

This is why R. Yochanan says there that we do not burn Terumah due to this.

Question: Still, for a Kohen's wife, or if a man accepted Kidushin for his daughter before she was three, it is a Sefek-Sefeka. It is a Safek if she is a Mukas Etz or Be'ulah;

For a Kohen's wife, we can say that even if you will say that she is not a Mukas Etz, it is a Safek whether the Bi'ah was Tachtav (while married to him, i.e. after Eirusin), or before it;

For a Yisrael's wife, even if you will say that she is not a Mukas Etz, it is a Safek if the Bi'ah was b'Ones, or willingly.

Suggestion: Mukas Etz is not common (therefore it is not considered another Safek).

Rejection: We say below (36b) regarding a blind girl, who has no Ta'anas Besulim, because she [falls and] is banged on the ground, the Gemara asks "all girls get banged"! This shows that it is common.

Answer #1: This is fine for R. Chananel, who says that the Pesach of a Mukas Etz is closed. (When he claims Pesach Pas'uach, there is no concern for Mukas Etz.)

Answer #2: If she were truly Mukas Etz, she would have claimed this, for it is not disgraceful like rape is. Since she did not claim, we have no Safek about this.

Question: Here we wanted to say that he is not believed even to make her [forbidden] to himself like a piece of Isur [due to his admission];

If so, the Mishnah of "one who says to a woman 'I was Mekadesh you' is forbidden to her relatives" is difficult!

Answer: The Makshan holds that Ein Devar sheb'Ervah Pachos mi'Shnayim, and even if a man saw that his wife was Mezanah, but there were not witnesses there, she is not forbidden to him;

Therefore, the Mishnah is not difficult for him. He means 'I was Mekadesh you with witnesses', for one who was Mekadesh even with one witness, we are not concerned for his Kidushin.

However, we ask properly against R. Elazar's teaching that he is believed without witnesses to say that he found Pesach Pas'uach.

Explanation: We do not come to exclude through himself (i.e. to say that he cannot forbid her to himself);

His claim is like witnesses, since he knows [what is Pesach Pas'uach].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): There were witnesses about the episode.

Objection: Granted, it was known to many that he took her into his house. In any case, they did not see [the act of Bi'ah explicitly] like a mascara stick entering the tube. [David] did not have Bi'ah in front of other people!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The Gemara means that if you will say that Pesach Pas'uach is like two witnesses, why didn't they forbid [Bas Sheva] to David? David knew for sure that she had Bi'ah [with him];

Even though David did Teshuvah, he kept her. If she was forbidden to him, that Tzadik would not have taken her for a wife.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he will die in war, it will be a Get from when he wrote it.

Note: Surely he means when it is given (normally, one writes a Get on the day he will give it - Gitin 18a). Obviously, it cannot take effect before it is given!

Question #1 (R. Tam): If so, why does it say "everyone who goes to war", if it helps only for one who has no children and she has a Yavam [to prevent her from falling to Yibum]?

Question #2 - Citation (Gitin 73a - Mishnah): What is her status during those days? R. Yehudah says, she is like an Eshes Ish in every way.

He refers to what was taught above, "this is your Get from today if I die [from this illness]. Also the Tosefta connotes like this.

Inference: Even though he said "from today", she is a full Eshes Ish.

Citation (73a): This is when he said "from the time that I am in the world."

Explanation: This that he said "from today" does not mean that it takes effect immediately. Rather, his intent is that it will take effect a short time before he dies, i.e. from the time that he is in the world;

He said "from today" only to exclude after death. I.e. from that day that I am in the world, it will be a Get.

Answer #1 (to Question #2): However, we can distinguish between [one who said Stam] "today", and one who explicitly specified that it take effect from the time he wrote it. [Then,] you are forced to say that he said that it should be a Get from when he wrote it

Answer #2: Even if he said [only] "from today", we can resolve Rashi. He was not precise to explain that [it will take effect] if he dies in war. Rather, they stipulated if he will not return from the war;

Rashi hastily wrote "if he will die", for Stam, one who does not return from war, he does not return because he died. However, the same applies if he was captured.

Now, "from today" here cannot mean "from when I am in the world" like in Gitin 73a. Rather, "from today" means from the day he wrote it.

Question: Uriyah returned, so the Get was Batel!

Answer: He would stipulate if he will not return from the war." Uriyah did not return at the end.

Support: According to this, we understand (Bava Metzi'a 59a) "it is better to have Bi'ah with a Safek Eshes Ish than to [humiliate, and] whiten someone's face in public;

We learn this from the episode of Bas Sheva, who was a Safek Eshes Ish, for perhaps Uriyah would return from the war.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He used to write an absolute Get without any stipulation.

Question: Why is she called a Safek Eshes Ish? She is a total divorcee!

Answer (R. Tam): She is called a Safek Eshes Ish because they used to divorce covertly, so it will not become known, and people will rush to be Mekadesh the women.

Question: According to Rashi, how did David have Bi'ah with her? Why wasn't he afraid lest Uriyah return?

Inference: If he would come to Beis Din, he would be believed to make her lose her Kesuvah, even though he is not believed to forbid her to himself;

This is because we can say that perhaps he is not expert about Pesach Pas'uach. We establish her in Chezkas Heter. However, in any case she loses her Kesuvah.

Implied question: We should say that he errs about Pesach Pas'uach!

Answer: We should establish money in the Chazakah of its owner (him. Therefore, he need not pay a Kesuvah.)

Question: Why does she lose her Kesuvah? This is a Sefek-Sefeka. It is a Safek whether or not he is expert about Pesach Pas'uach;

And [even] if you will say that the Pesach was Pas'uach, it is a Safek if the Bi'ah was b'Ones or willingly! Even a Kohen's wife does not lose her Kesuvah if it was Ones.

Suggestion: She loses her Kesuvah even if there is a Sefek-Sefeka, for we leave the money in his Chazakah.

Rejection: Below (12b), regarding "I was raped after Eirusin", and he says "no, you were raped before Eirusin, and my Kidushin was Mekach Ta'os (mistaken)"...

There is an opinion (11b) that it is a Mekach Ta'os from [a Chiyuv to pay a Kesuvah of] 200 [Zuz], but she has 100.

Inference: Because the 100 is a Sefek-Sefeka, she does not lose it. It is a Safek whether the Bi'ah was before Eirusin or after Eirusin, and if you will say that it was after Eirusin, perhaps it was Ones.

If you would say that she loses even due to a Sefek-Sefeka, why does she get even 100?

Answer: Such a case is not considered Sefek-Sefeka, because the Safek perhaps it was Ones is not considered a full Safek to give to her a Kesuvah, for we can say that she was raped before Eirusin.

Note: According to the opinion that it is a Mekach Ta'os from 200, but she has 100, here she gets 100. She totally loses the Kesuvah only if Bi'ah was after Eirusin, and she consented. This is a proper Sefek-Sefeka. She gets at least 100 in any case of Ones, and in any case before Eirusin!

Support: This explains the Mishnah (below 13a). She says "I am Mukas Etz", and he says "no, you are Be'ulah", and R. Yehoshua says that she is not believed, and she loses her Kesuvah ;

According to R. Yehudah she gets 100. According to R. Elazar, she gets nothing.

Implied question: It is a Sefek-Sefeka! It is a Safek if she is a Mukas Etz, and she has a Kesuvah. Even if you will say that she is a Besulah, perhaps she was raped after Eirusin, and his field was ruined, and she has a Kesuvah.

Answer #1: Rather, surely the Safek of Ones is not considered a Safek, for perhaps she was raped before Eirusin.

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): Mukas Etz is not common. We say below (36b) "all girls get banged" according to R. Gamliel, but we know that R. Yehoshua holds that they do not get banged [even regarding a lunatic];

He said there that a Chereshes, lunatic or child has Ta'anas Besulim. This is because it is not common that they get banged.

Explanation: It seems that the Hava Amina was that regarding Ta'anas Damim, there is no concern lest he calm down. Since there is no blood, his heart bothers him (he suspects that she is forbidden to him), and he does not calm down;

Regarding Pesach Pas'uach, there is concern lest he calm down.

Explanation (Ri): Shmuel agrees that he is believed to forbid her to himself. He needed to teach that he is believed to make her lose her Kesuvah, lest we say that he is not believed;

Even though he knows when the Pesach is Pas'uach, one might have thought that he lies intentionally to make her lose her Kesuvah.

Also R. Elazar can hold that he is believed to make her lose her Kesuvah. He mentioned [that he is believed] to forbid her to himself for a bigger Chidush, and all the more so he is believed to make her lose her Kesuvah. This is clear from the Sugya above.

However, the Yerushalmi connotes that R. Elazar holds that he is not believed to make her lose her Kesuvah.

Question: What is his source for this? Perhaps in Yehudah she is believed to say that he had Bi'ah with her during Eirusin, but not in Galil, but when she claims "I was a Besulah", she is believed also in Galil!

Answer: He understands that he has no Ta'anas Besulim in any case, whether she says that he had Bi'ah with her during Eirusin, or she says that he found a closed Pesach;

In Yehudah she is believed due to a Migo. If she wanted, she could have said that he had Bi'ah with her during Eirusin. She is not believed in Galil, for she has no Migo.

Question: Why did he bring an inference? He should have brought from the Reisha, which taught (below 10b) "a Besulah widow from Eirusin... they have Ta'anas Besulim"!

You are forced to say that it refers to Kesuvah, for to forbid her to him, even from Nisu'in there is Ta'anas Besulim, since he (her new husband) made Nisu'in b'Chezkas Besulah (she told him that she never had Bi'ah with her first husband)!

Source: Below (12a), the Gemara asks "we should be concerned lest she was Mezanah after Eirusin!"

Explanation #1: In Yehudah, even though there is a Chazakah [that a man does not make a party and ruin it, i.e. divorce her immediately], he is not believed, like Rashi explained. (Perhaps he forgot, or did only Ha'ara'ah and does not realize that he broke the Besulim.)

Explanation #2: Since he is secluded with her, surely he had Bi'ah with her, for a man cannot restrain himself.

Implied question: Regarding a Yevamah, we say Yevamos (111b) that a man can restrain himself for 30 days!

Answer: Most times, he cannot restrain himself even for a short time. This is why they are secluded. The Chazakah is weakened.

Explanation: This is a clear claim, since the sheets are not dirty with blood.

Assertion: The claim of Pesach Pas'uach and Ta'anas Damim in our Sugya is when she claims that he had Bi'ah with her during Eirusin, or she says "I was a Besulah."

Question: We should believe her through a Migo. If she wanted, she could say "I was raped after Eirusin." She is believed according to R. Gamliel, like whom we rule below (13a)!

Answer #1: She would not willingly say that she had Bi'ah with someone else.

Answer #2: This is not a Migo, for she disqualifies herself to Kehunah.

Question: We should believe her through a Migo. If she wanted, she could say "I am a Mukas Etz"!

Suggestion: According to Rabanan below (11b), who say that the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is 100, this is not a Migo, for she does not want to lose anything from her Kesuvah.

Rejection: In any case she [should be] believed, for if she wanted, she could say "I became a Mukas Etz after Eirusin, and his field was ruined"!

Answer: This is a Migo against a Chazakah that a man does not make a party and ruin it.

Implied question: This was a question in Bava Basra (5b), whether or not we say a Migo against a Chazakah!

Answer #1: Perhaps the Chazakah here is stronger [than the Chazakah we asked about there, that a man does not pay before he must].

Answer #2: If we do not say a Migo to be Motzi, this is fine.