Inference: Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan.

Support: Also in Yevamos (89a) regarding [a woman who heard that her husband died and remarried, and her husband returned] "she has no Kesuvah", we say that this is because Chachamim enacted Kesuvah lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her [and here, he must divorce her]!

Inference: The Stam Gemara holds that Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan.

Question: The custom is to write in the Kesuvah "200 Zuz that are proper for you mid'Oraisa"!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): We rely on R. Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah (below 110b), which is brought below, who says that he pays with the [bigger] coins of Kaputkiya, for he holds that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa.

We [always] hold like R. Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah [with only three exceptions, and this is not one of them].

Answer #2 (Ri): We do not hold like Rav Nachman, for we find that Rav Ashi, who is Basra, argues with him;

[Rav Ashi] resolves a Beraisa below (12a) to say "anyone who was attended (did not ask Shushbinim to guard the cloth on which they had Bi'ah) cannot make Ta'anas Besulim."

Inference: He is concerned lest he lie. We do not say that there is a Chazakah that a man does not make a party and ruin it.

Support: Also Rivam says that Rav Ashi argues with Rav Nachman.

Implied question: It says in Yevamos (89a) "why did Chachamim enact Kesuvah?"

Answer: This means "why did Chachamim enact Kesuvah where they enacted it, e.g. for a widow? It is lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her";

Likewise, here (when she remarried, and her husband returned) they enacted that she has no [Kesuvah], so it will be easy in his eyes to divorce her!

Question: Granted, for a Kohen's wife or one who became Mekudeshes before three years, she becomes forbidden to him [through his claim of Pesach Pas'uach]. Therefore, since [due to his claim he must divorce her, and] he ruins [the party], he is believed;

Also according to the opinion below that if he made Nisu'in b'Chezkas (she told him that she is a) Besulah, and she was found to be Be'ulah, she has no Kesuvah at all, this is fine;

Also now, he ruins [the party], for [this opinion holds that] it (the Kidushin) was a Mekach Ta'os.

However, according to the opinion that she has a Kesuvah of 100, he does not lose anything. He merely seeks to make her lose 100 from her Kesuvah, but he does not lose the party. Why is he believed?

Answer: It seems that [according to that opinion] he is not believed.

Question #1: R. Meir holds below (56b) that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa, and in Gitin (48b) we say that R. Meir holds that a Kesuvah is collected from Beinonis, due to Chen (to encourage marriage);

Since it is mid'Oraisa, it is collected from Idis, like we derive in Bava Kama (5a) "all of them (the 24 damages) are [called] Avos to pay from Idis"! (If Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa, we learn it from enticement of a Besulah, which is one of the 24);

We learn from "Tachas Nesinah Yeshalem Kesef." (This is an extended Gezeirah Shavah. Regarding all 24 damages, one of these words is written.)

Summation of question: Why did Chachamim uproot her law [to collect from Idis]?

Question #2: We never find any Tana other than R. Meir who holds that a Kesuvah [has a lien to collect] from Metaltelim. We say everywhere (e.g. Yevamos 99a) "who is this? It is R. Meir, who holds that there is a lien on Metaltelim for the Kesuvah."

According to the opinion that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa, why isn't [there a lien] to collect from Metaltelim, just like damages, since we learn from there?

Answer: The reason is lest men refrain from [marrying] women, if they would need to sell Idis or Metaltelim. Chachamim were concerned that men be eager to marry women.

Question (Ri): How does it help her to give to her from those coins? In any case, he gives to her only the value of 50 Shekalim!

Answer: If we say that really, he must give to her 50 Shekalim of where they stand [when he accepted the obligations of the Kesuvah, i.e. if it was] in Kaputkiya, 50 Shekalim of Kaputkiya, and in Eretz Yisrael, 50 Shekalim of Eretz Yisrael, this would answer the question.

This is like we say regarding five Shekalim of Pidyon [ha'Ben] of a firstborn in Bechoros (50a) "the master should send another three [Zuz], for they increased [the coins]", and he sent to them.

Objection: It seems that this is not true. There (in Bechoros), they increased everywhere. However, when they increase in one place, it does not seem that a Torah measure changes.

Defense: However, in the Yerushalmi in our Perek, the text says regarding the [coming] Mishnah [that teaches that] the Kesuvah is 200 "R. Muna in the name of Shmuel says that this is in Shekel ha'Kodesh. R. Aba bar Buna says that it is in coins that are accepted", and several Amora'im there conclude like this (R. Aba's opinion).

Explanation #1: Lash him, for he is Motzi Shem Ra (falsely accuses of Zenus) against a Bas Yisrael, for he lies. Do harlots lie in front of him, that he is expert [to know that Pesach Pas'uach]? Therefore, he is not believed;

[The Gemara asks that] Rav Nachman said that he is believed, and answers that he is believed, and we lash him with palm branches.

Rav Nachman said that we lash him, but not because he did not believe him. Rather, he believed him, and said to lash him because he is suspected of Zenus.

Rav Acha answered like we initially held, that he is not believed. He discusses a bachelor (he was not married before).

Explanation #2: "Harlots lie in front of him" was said b'Nichusa (not in astonishment). Even though he is believed, lash him, for he is suspected of Zenus.

[We ask that] Rav Nachman said that he is believed, and did not specify that we lash him!

We answer that he is believed, and we lash him. Rav Nachman did not discuss lashes.

Rav Acha says that really, Rav Nachman meant that he is believed, and he is not lashed. This refers to one who was [previously] married.

Explanation: It seems that it mentioned Chalutzah for a Chidush;

Since a Shomeres Yavam is not lacking entering Chupah, for her Yavam can have Bi'ah with her b'Al Korchah (against her will), one might have thought that she is like a Nesu'ah! The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Suggestion: We can resolve from here that a widow's Kesuvah is 100 [Zuz] mid'Oraisa.

Rejection: There was no Maneh in the days of Moshe. The Torah mentions only Kikar (60 Maneh, which equal 1500 Shekalim, but no other unit of currency above a Shekel).

Implied question: It says in Bechoros (5a) that Moshe Rabbeinu was trustworthy and expert in calculations. [He collected over 300,000 Shekalim, and almost all were used for the Adanim, which weighed 100 Kikarim in all, for] the Maneh of Kodesh was double! (This implies that there was a Maneh in his days.)

Answer: There was no Maneh in the days of Moshe. Rather, just like the Maneh of Kodesh in the days of Yechezkeil was double, also the Kikar of Kodesh in the days of Moshe was double.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Was there [such a city] when the world was created?!

Implied question: Even without Rav Yosef's teaching, we could have asked from Ashur and Kush!

Note: We do not find a city named Kush. It seems that Tosfos asks, like Tosfos ha'Rosh, that presumably, the region was named so later after Cham's son Kush.)

Answer: We could have said that Ashur and Kush were the names of the region, and [Ashur was] not the name of the city, and these were always their names.

Question: What [proof] do we bring from Ashur? Even though there was no [such city] when the world was created, since it was in the days of Moshe, it is proper that the Torah writes it;

However, the Torah should not have written [Almanah, which is based on the word] Maneh, since it was not yet [existent] in the days of Moshe!

Answer (Ri): We ask "was there Salika in the days of Moshe?!" [The Makshan] knew that it was not yet [existent] in the days of Moshe;

The Chidekel river goes around Salika, but not near Ashur that was in the days of Moshe. (This is a proper proof that the Torah writes based on the future.)

Question: In Kerisus (13b), Rav taught that the Halachah follows R. Elazar, that one is not liable [for Avodah when intoxicated] due to other intoxicants, only for wine!

Answer: Even though he is not liable for Bi'as Mikdash, it is forbidden to give rulings.

Note: Tosfos in Kerisus brings from Toras Kohanim that there is no Chiyuv for entering the Mikdash drunk, unless he served. Perhaps "Bi'as Mikdash" refers to Avodah. If our Tosfos holds like the Rambam, who says that a Kohen who enters the Heichal while drunk is lashed, we need not say so.

Support: Bechoros (45b) connotes like this. According to the opinion that is not Mechayev for other intoxicants, he is Pasul for Avodah, even though he does not profane the Avodah;

Likewise, he may not give rulings.