Inference: However, if she was [only] secluded, R. Yehoshua agrees that she is believed to say that she had Bi'ah with a Kosher, Migo she could say that she did not have Bi'ah.

Question: R. Yehoshua does not hold [that she is believed due to] Migo regarding "I was raped after Eirusin"!

Answer: There, it is not a full Migo, for even if she said "I am a Mukas Etz", she is not believed according to R. Yehoshua, like the Mishnah says;

It is called a Migo only because it is a better claim.

Explanation: Both of these are needed. One teaches the extremity of R. Gamliel (he is Machshir the daughter, even though she has no Chazakah), and one teaches the extremity of R. Yehoshua (he disqualifies her, in spite of her Chazakah).

Explanation: It mentions "pregnant" for a nicer expression. (It enables discussing the Bo'el without explicitly mentioning Bi'ah. If not for this, it would have been better to teach "she had Bi'ah", which does not connote that R. Gamliel is Machshir the baby.)

Question (Rashba): According to Ze'iri, who says that she was secluded, we discuss when she admits that she had Bi'ah;

If she says that she did not have Bi'ah, it is a Sefek-Sefeka (perhaps there was no Bi'ah. Even if there was Bi'ah, perhaps he was Kosher), which R. Yehoshua is Machshir, like it says below "there, it is a Sefek-Sefeka"!

Answer: Really, she says that she did not have Bi'ah. It is considered a single Safek because there is no chaperone for Arayos [to guard against Bi'ah].

Question: Below (16a), it connotes that we discuss when she [admits that she] had Bi'ah, for it says "this is fine for Ze'iri, who says that "speaking" means seclusion, Migo she could have said that she did not have Bi'ah, she should be believed...

Note: I.e. since this is called a Migo even according to R. Yehoshua, we must say that all agree that she is believed to deny the Bi'ah. In our Mishnah, R. Yehoshua says that she is not believed, so it must discuss only when she admits to Bi'ah. Above, Tosfos said that a better claim is a Migo, even if it would not have been believed! Hafla'ah - since there is no chaperone for Arayos, "I did not have Bi'ah" is considered a better claim only if she is believed to say so.

Answer: It seems that we ask according to Ze'iri, who holds that we forbid due to a single Safek (if we know that there was Bi'ah, and she has no Migo), behold seclusion with a married woman, which is a single Safek, and we do not forbid due to seclusion!

Question: It seems that we ask a contradiction about seclusion, since we ask against Ze'iri, and not against Rav Asi!

Question: This implies that "we do not forbid due to seclusion" refers to a married woman, but not to a Penuyah;

In Kidushin (81a), we establish "we lash for seclusion" to discuss only a Penuyah, but not a married woman, lest this cause La'az (scandalous talk) about her children!

Even Mar Zutra, who says that we lash and announce about a married woman [to avoid La'az], agrees that ["we lash for seclusion"] discusses also a Penuyah!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Even though "we lash for seclusion" discusses a Penuyah, "we do not forbid due to seclusion" refers only to a married woman.

Question: Nedarim (91b) brings an episode in which an adulterer entered a woman's house. (Her husband came, and the adulterer hid. The husband was about to eat some cress.) The adulterer warned him "don't eat from them. A snake tasted them!"

Citation (91b) Rava: She is permitted. Had he sinned with her, he would want her husband to die!

Inference: If not for this reason, she would be forbidden due to seclusion!

Answer: An adulterer is different.

Answer #2 (R. Yosef of Shlitan): "We do not forbid due to seclusion" refers to a Penuyah, just like "we lash for seclusion";

It does not discuss Kehunah. We do not forbid her to his son, if she was secluded with his father according to R. Yehudah, who forbids Anusas Aviv (a woman that his father raped, or enticed) (Yevamos 97a).

Explanation #1: For us it is fine, for a woman who is Mezanah checks [the lineage of the man] before being Mezanah with him;

However, one who was speaking, even according to your words, there is a difference. This one has witnesses (pregnancy is like witnesses of Bi'ah), and this one (who was speaking) has no witnesses, so she has a Migo!

R. Yehoshua answered them "speaking is just like a captive. Just like a captive is not believed to say "I did not have Bi'ah", also one who was speaking, like we conclude, for there is no chaperone for Arayos.

Question: This explanation cannot be according to what I explained above that according to R. Yehoshua she is believed to say "I did not have Bi'ah."

Explanation #2 (Ri): With difficulty, we can explain "speaking is just like a captive", i.e. just like a captive is b'Chezkas Be'ulah, also one who was speaking has Chezkas Be'ulah, i.e. she is not believed to say "I had Bi'ah with a Kosher";

She is not believed through a Migo, for she fears to say "I did not have Bi'ah" (since it is known that there is no chaperone for Arayos).

Therefore, "there is no chaperone for Arayos" causes that we do not consider this to be a Migo.

Question (R. Tam): Still, we can say that [they are different] because there, for a captive, all [the captors are Nochrim, who] are Pasul to her. Here, regarding a ruin in the Midbar, [only the] majority are Pasul!

Answer (R. Tam): The majority is like all.

Question: Regarding [a ruin in] the Midbar, only the majority are Pasul. We can join the minority to the Chazakah (she was initially permitted), and the majority is weakened!

Answer: Even if R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua hold that we join a minority to a Chazakah, it is only like an even Safek. It is proper that she is forbidden, for we are stringent about Safek Isur.

Implied question: Why is this unlike a child found next to a dough, in Kidushin (80a)? We (R. Meir) are Metaher the dough, for we join the minority [of children who do not touch] to the Chazakah (Chezkas Taharah of the dough)!

Answer: We are Metaher Safek Tum'ah [in a case of Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol (we cannot ask someone, for no one involved has understanding), even in Reshus ha'Yachid]. Will we say that we permit Safek Isur?! We distinguish like this in Chulin (86a).

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (74a) that Aba Sha'ul used to call a Shetuki (one who does not know who is his father) "Beduki";

Citation (74a) Explanation: This is because we check his mother, and [she is believed if] she says that she had Bi'ah with a Kosher.

Citation (cont.) Question: Whom is this like? It is like R. Gamliel. He already taught this! If she was pregnant...

Explanation: The Mishnah should have taught "and so said Aba Sha'ul." Also Rashi explained so there.

Citation (cont.) Answer: Aba Sha'ul said a bigger Chidush than R. Gamliel. If we only had R. Gamliel's teaching, I would have thought that this is only when most men are Kosher to her...

Summation of Tosfos' question: Here we say that R. Gamliel is Machshir even when most are Pasul to her! (We need not learn from Aba Sha'ul.)

Answer: Aba Sha'ul refers to the Mishnah. There is no connotation at all that the Mishnah discusses when most are Pesulim. (Therefore, it would not suffice to say "and so said Aba Sha'ul." We infer that R. Gamliel is Machshir when most are Pesulim from the Beraisa.)

Implied question: It asks there above, against the Hava Amina that Aba Sha'ul comes to be Machshir the daughter...

Citation (cont.) Question: This is fine for the opinion that [even] the one who is Machshir her, disqualifies the daughter. However, according to the opinion that he is Machshir the daughter, how can we answer? (Also regarding this, it would not suffice to say "and so said Aba Sha'ul"!)

Answer: That was a proper question. Even according to R. Elazar, the wording of the Mishnah "what is the status of this fetus?" implies that it comes to be Machshir her daughter.

Implied question: Why didn't we answer here "we need to teach this for a case in which he seized", like we answer in Kidushin (75a), regarding an Arusah who became pregnant?

Answer: There, there are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence) that she is pregnant from the Arus. We should attribute [the child] to him more than to other men.

Implied question: It says in Yevamos (37a, that if one who did Yibum within three months, and it is) a Safek if the child was born after nine months [of pregnancy] from her first husband [or in the seventh month from the Yavam], the first child is proper to be Kohen Gadol.

In Yevamos (100b), the Gemara asks [why he may serve, since he does not know who is his father], and answers that the requirement for lineage is only mid'Rabanan. The verse is a mere Asmachta;

Chachamim decreed only in any case of Zenus. They did not decree about [cases that come through] marriage.

Citation (Kidushin 75a): If an Arus has Bi'ah with his Arusah in his father-in-law's house, Rav says that the child is a Mamzer, and Shmuel says that the child is a Shetuki.

Assertion: This is when they did not check his mother. If it is when they checked her, Shmuel would contradict himself!

Here, Shmuel says that she is believed, for the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, that she is believed. There, we say that we must switch the opinions, and Shmuel says that the child is a Mamzer!

Support: In the conclusion there, we answer that really, we do not switch the opinions... we explain that Shetuki means that we check his mother, and [she is believed if] she says that she had Bi'ah with a Kosher.

Question: Still, there Shmuel connotes that this checking helps only when he had Bi'ah with his Arusah in his father-in-law's house;

Here it connotes that even when he does not admit [that the child is from him], Shmuel says that she is believed, like R. Gamliel!

Answer #1: It mentions Bi'ah [in his father-in-law's house] to teach the extremity of Rav, Even in such a case, Rav says that the child is a Mamzer.

Answer #2: There, we require Bi'ah because we discuss when she is suspected of [Bi'ah with] other men, like Rava says in Yevamos (69b) "presumably, Rav's law is when she is suspected of other men";

Here, we discuss when she is not suspected of other men.

Answer #3: The text of all Seforim in Kidushin says "an Arusah who became pregnant." Only in that case he said that we check;

However, if [he admits that] he had Bi'ah [with her], we need not check.

Question: In the first version in Yevamos (69b), Rav and Shmuel argue about one who had Bi'ah (with her Arus), and Abaye concludes there that they argue even if she was not suspected of other men;

Perhaps since she was Mafkir herself to her Arus (let him have Bi'ah with her), she was Mafkir herself to others!

We say here "firstly, he (the Arus) admits." This implies that [the child is] Kosher even according to R. Yehoshua. Having Bi'ah with her is like admission;