The text: It seems that here the text says Rabah, for above Rava said that "Mekach Ta'os" connotes totally;

If the text said Rava, the Reisha of the Mishnah would contradict the Seifa, for we can infer "Zos Omeres" also from our Mishnah, like we say below!

Conclusion: Rather, surely here the text says Rabah;

Rava, who said above that "Mekach Ta'os" connotes totally, will explain like Rav Ashi.

Explanation (Rivam): It says "for the first one entered her [to Chupah]." This means that the second has no Ta'anas Besulim to reduce her Kesuvah;

This is because the first entered her, and caused that her Kesuvah is 100. He (the second) cannot reduce her Kesuvah from 100. Ta'anas Besulim helps only [to be Mevatel] the [extra] 100 for Besulim.

Explanation: He married her understanding that she is a Be'ulah.

Implied question: Witnesses testify that she did not have Bi'ah!

Answer: He does not rely on this, since there was Nisu'in. He assumes that they say so merely to praise her.

Suggestion: We ask why he can't claim Ta'anas Besulim to forbid her to him. Regarding a Kohen's wife, we should be concerned lest she was Mezanah after Eirusin;

There is only one Safek, i.e. if the Bi'ah was after Eirusin or before Eirusin.

Rejection: We could answer that [he can claim Ta'anas Besulim to forbid her to him, just] he can't claim Ta'anas Besulim to make her lose her Kesuvah, for it is a Sefek-Sefeka. Even if it was after Eirusin, perhaps it was Ones!

Support: This would not be a poor answer, for also above (9b), we explain "he cannot claim Ta'anas Besulim" like this;

Citation (9b): For what [does he have Ta'anas Besulim in Galil, but not in Yehudah]? If it is to forbid her to him, why doesn't he have this in Yehudah?!... (Rather, it is to make her lose her Kesuvah.)

Conclusion: Rather, we ask [here] about the Kesuvah, why he can't make her lose her Kesuvah.

Assertion (Ri): We ask according to Rav Ashi. Since he holds that normally, she has nothing (if she entered Chupah b'Chezkas Besulah, and was found to be Be'ulah), and here she has (100), because the first husband did Nisu'in, if so, he (her new husband) will come to Isur!

This man thinks "since she has (100), even though normally she does not, if so, they (Chachamim) establish her to be Vadai Be'ulah from her first husband, and they want to say that I married her with this understanding;

It is pointless to toil to go to Beis Din. Surely they will not forbid her to me!"

Therefore, we should make her lose her Kesuvah, so he will come to Beis Din, and not err to say that she is permitted to him.

We should make her lose her Kesuvah even for a Yisrael's wife. This is a decree, lest a Kohen see that she does not lose her Kesuvah, and he will think that the same applies to his wife, and he will not go to Beis Din.

Distinction: According to Rabah, there is no question at all. Since also normally she has [100], there is no reason why he would err.

Explanation: We must say that also the first husband made Chupah immediately after Kidushin and died immediately, or witnesses testify that she was not Mezanah while married to him;

If she had Bi'ah (Zenus) while married to the first, this was Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her, and she is forbidden to Kehunah!

Note: The previous Tosfos proved that if there is concern lest a Kohen think that there is no reason to go to Beis Din, and really his wife is forbidden to him, we should enact that even a Yisrael has Ta'anas Besulim. This answer (Nisu'in was right after Kidushin) must show why there is no concern.

Suggestion: Perhaps it was one enactment. Our Mishnah was before the enactment, and the Beraisa was after the enactment, that they enacted 200 for a widow!

Rejection: We see that nowadays they do not have 200.

Suggestion: Perhaps initially, when they enacted 400 for a Besulah [Kohenes], they also enacted 200 for a widow.

Rejection: There is no reason to enact 200 for a widow, unless they saw a need, that people were belittling them;

Therefore, initially they did not want to distinguish her (a Kohenes) from other widows. When they saw that people were belittling them, they saw that there is a need, and enacted 200 for them;

When they saw that people were refraining from them, they returned them to their [normal] law.

Conclusion: This is why we needed to say that there were two enactments.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It was light in their eyes to divorce them, for their Kesuvah was small.

Objection: Also initially they knew that it was light in their eyes to divorce them, since 100 is considered a small amount!

Explanation #2 (Ri): They belittled them, i.e. some men refrained from marrying them because they were light in their eyes, for their Kesuvah was only a quarter of what a Besulah [Kohenes] gets. Therefore, they enacted 200;

When they saw that men totally refrained from them, and they were eager to marry Besulos Yisrael, and no one was eager to marry them, they returned the matter like initially.

Support: This is why at first it says "they belittled", for they refrained, but not totally, and afterwards it says that they [totally] separated.

Explanation: They did not write an expression of Tosefes (more than is obligatory), rather, they wrote "400 that are proper for you." One might have thought that she should not collect [400], for it is not proper for her, and he did not write an expression of Tosefes;

The Mishnah teaches unlike this. It is a very good custom, and proper for Kehunah and families of good lineage. It is appropriate to say "that are proper for you";

Even if he did not write a Kesuvah for her, she collects 400 due to the Tenai (stipulation of) Beis Din, just like Bnos Yisrael collect 200. It is an absolute enactment.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (35b) we infer from that it taught "Lo Ki (rather)" that we discuss when he (the one who said this) is Bari (has a Vadai claim)!

Answer: Here, we cannot err (surely, her husband does not know for sure), so it taught "Lo Ki" even though he is unsure.

Explanation: He says "I do not know whether or not you ever lent to me."

Distinction: If he says "you lent to me, and I do not know whether I paid you", a Mishnah (Bava Kama 118a) explicitly teaches that he must pay.

Suggestion: It seems that they hold unlike R. Aba, who says "since he cannot swear, he must pay";

R. Aba expounds (Shevuos 47a) "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem", and not between the two heirs;

E.g. [Reuven] said [to Ploni] "your father owed 100 to my father", and [Ploni] said "I know about 50. I don't know about the other 50 [that you claim]. In such a case, since [Ploni] cannot swear, he must pay.

If when he says "you owe 100 to me", and he says "I don't know", he is liable, no Shevu'ah applies [to the heir], for even if he says that he does not know about any debt, he must pay!

Question: In Bava Basra (135a), regarding one who says "this is my brother", it connotes that Abaye holds that if one says "you owe 100 to me", and he says "I don't know", he is liable. (Rava derived that he is exempt, from the Mishnah, which says that if the other brothers are unsure, they need not give to him a share of their inheritance. Abaye rejected Rava's proof);

In Bava Basra (34a), it connotes that Abaye holds like R. Aba!

Answer: Even according to the opinion that he is liable, we can expound "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem", and not between the heirs, in a case when both of them do not know, but one witness testifies that he owes 100;

[In such a case] regarding his father, since he cannot swear, he pays.

Question: Rav Yehudah himself holds in Bava Kama (46a) that even if the victim of damage is Bari, and the damager is unsure, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to take money from another, one must bring proof)!

Suggestion: Rav Yehudah holds like Sumchus, who says that when there is a Safek about money, they divide it. He does not follow the Chazakah of money. Therefore, when there is Bari and Shema (one who is unsure), he receives everything.

Implied question: There, Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel "this is Sumchus' opinion, but Chachamim say, this (ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah) is a great general rule in monetary laws!

Answer: He said so according to Chachamim, but he disagrees.

Rejection #1: There (Bava Basra 92b), it connotes that he holds like Rabanan, regarding one who sold an ox to his friend, and it was found to be a gorer. (He is exempt. He can say that he sold it for Shechitah, even though most are bought for plowing.)

Rejection #2: A Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 97a) teaches that if the lender says "the borrowed animal died [so you are liable]", and the borrower says "I don't know" (perhaps the rented animal died, and I am exempt), he is liable;

The Gemara suggested that this refutes Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan (who say that if one says "you owe 100 to me", and he says "I don't know", he is exempt).

Question: What is difficult? You are forced to say that the Mishnah is like Sumchus, even according to Rav Yehudah, for Rav Yehudah agrees that Rabanan exempt!

You are forced to say that Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan hold like Rabanan, for according to Sumchus, at least they divide!

Answer: If they argue (Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan against Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna) according to Rabanan, but according to Sumchus, they always divide, even a case of Bari and Shema, it is a proper question from the Mishnah, which is like Rabanan, for according to Sumchus, they divide.

Answer: There, it is a poor Bari and a good Shema. Because the damager was not there, this (victim) claims Bari. The damager's Shema is good, for there was no reason why he should know.

However, regarding "you owe 100 to me", the Bari is good and the Shema is poor, for he should have known whether or not he is liable.

Question: Here, we want to say that Rav Yehudah holds like Shmuel, who rules like R. Gamliel;

There, it is a poor Bari and a good Shema, for the husband does not know when she had Bi'ah. If so, Shmuel contradicts what he said in Bava Kama (46a)!

Answer #1: We could have said "[this is difficult also] according to you"!

Answer #2: The Sugya here holds that "this is a great general rule in monetary laws" does not refer to when the victim is Bari and the damager is Shema, rather, like it says there "alternatively, like the case [of one who sold an ox, and it was found to be a gorer]."

Question: Even according to the other answer there, this is problematic, for in Bava Kama (35b) Rabanan explicitly hold (ha'Motzi mi'Chavero...) even if the victim is Bari....

Shmuel holds like Rabanan, like it is clear from one who sold an ox [and it was found to be a gorer]!

Observation: This answer is only like Rav Nachman. According to R. Yochanan, in the case of Mukas Etz there is no Migo, like is clear below.

Question (R. Yakov of Korvil): Still, you are forced to say that Rav Yehudah's teaching is like Shmuel!

If Shmuel exempts, we could challenge him from the Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 97a), in which the lender says "the borrowed animal died", and [the borrower] says "I don't know"; he is liable;

According to Shmuel, we cannot answer like Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan answer, e.g. that the borrower needed to swear, and since he cannot swear, he must pay;

Shmuel explicitly holds in Shevuos (47a) that the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai, and he does not pay! (Hash-m, who commanded at Sinai not to steal, will correct matters. Beis Din does not enforce a Shevu'ah or payment.)

Answer: Really, when one says "you owe 100 to me", and he says "I don't know", Shmuel exempts;

Shmuel establishes the Mishnah of the borrower when the borrower needed to swear, and since he cannot swear, he must pay;

He holds like the other Tana (that the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai). Tana'im argue about this in Shevuos there. (See more explanation in Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 97b.)