(Mishnah): In Yehudah, one who eats by his father-in-law (during Eirusin) without witnesses (that he was not secluded with the Kalah) has no Ta'anas Besulim, since he is secluded (and perhaps had Bi'ah) with her.

The same law applies to a widow of (i.e. her father is a) Yisrael, and a widow of Kohanim - her Kesuvah is 100;

Beis Din of Kohanim used to collect 400 Zuz for a Besulah Kohenes, and Chachamim did not protest against them.

(Gemara): Initially, [Romi] decreed destruction against Yehudah, for they have a tradition from their ancestors that Yehudah killed Esav, for it says [in the Brachah to Yehudah] "Yadecha b'Oref Oyvecha." (BIRKEI YOSEF OC 131:4 - Chushim ben Dan hit him first, but he did not die until Yehudah hit him.)

They were subjugating them and raping their daughters, and decreed that the local ruler have Bi'ah with [a Kalah] first;

[Chachamim] decreed that her husband had Bi'ah with her in her father's house. Since she knows that fear of her husband is upon her, she fences herself (from making herself Hefker).

Question: Still (even after Chachamim's decree), in the end she will have Bi'ah with the local ruler!

Answer: She is forced, and she is permitted to her husband.

Question: What would Kohanos (wives of Kohanim) do? (Even if she is forced, she is forbidden to her husband!)

Answer: They would conceal (that they will have Nisu'in).

Question: [If it was possible to conceal,] they should hide also Benos (really, wives of) Yisrael!

Answer: Word would get out and the kingdom would hear, and then these and these will be mixed (all will be raped).

Question: What sign did they have (that there will be a Nisu'in)?

Answer: The sound of [grinding] grits in the city [shows that] there is a Nisu'in in the city. A lamp in [a place called] Barur Chayil [shows that] there is a Shavu'a ha'Ben (Bris Milah).

Even though the decree [against Mitzvos] is Batel, the custom (the sound of grinding grits before a Nisu'in, and a lamp at a Bris Milah - MEICHAL HA'MAYIM) is not Batel.

The daughter-in-law of R. Hoshayah she entered [her Chupah] when she was pregnant (from her Arus, in her father's house).

(Beraisa): For a widow of Kohanim (i.e. a Bas Kohen, they would collect) 200.

(Beraisa): The same law applies to a widow of Yisrael, and a widow of Kohanim - like this order (her Kesuvah is 100 - PNEI MOSHE).

(R. Yosi): Presumably, a Bas Kohen [Besulah] married to a Yisrael collects (400), for her Shevet (Kohanim) collects. A Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen does not collect (400). Is it not enough that she ascended to Kehunah, rather, you should say that she [also] collects?!

Rebuttal (R. Mana): It is not reasonable to say oppositely?! A Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen collects (400), for she ascends to Kehunah [with him]. A Bas Kohen [married to a Yisrael] does not collect, for she descended from Kehunah.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Both of these are the same (they collect 400). It is a fine that Chachamim made, in order that a person cling to his Shevet and family. (If he marries outside his caste, he must pay a bigger Kesuvah. We explained this like ALEI TAMAR.)

(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer): A Chasan found that she is not a Besulah. She says that she was raped after Kidushin, and it is his bad fortune. He says that (perhaps) she had Bi'ah before the Kidushin, and it is a Mekach Ta'os (a mistaken Kidushin, because he was deceived). She is believed;

R. Yehoshua says, we do not trust her words. Rather, she is not believed unless she brings proof.

(Gemara) Question (R. Yirmeyah): According to this, there is no Ta'anas Besulim according to R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer (for she is believed to say that she was raped), rather, only according to R. Yehoshua! (SEFER NIR - this refers to making her lose her Kesuvah. Sometimes, even when he is not believed about the Kesuvah, he forbids her to himself (in Halachah 1).

Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): There is Ta'anas Besulim [even] according to R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer, when she is silent (she does not say that she was raped).

Answer #2: We can even say that she speaks. She says that he found [blood], and got rid of it.

Question: She should be believed (even to remain married)!

Answer: This cannot be, for R. Ila taught in the name of R. Elazar, if he found the opening open, it is forbidden to keep her, for she is a Safek Sotah.

Question: [Why] here (in our Mishnah, according to R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer) she is believed, and here (when she says that he found, and got rid of it - PNEI MOSHE) she is not believed?

Answer: There (she is believed) when both agree that her opening was open (just she has a Vadai claim that she was raped, and he is unsure. When they argue about whether or not she had Besulim, both of them are Vadai; she is not believed more than him.)

(Mishnah): If she had Mumim (blemishes) in her father's house, the father must bring a proof (to collect a Kesuvah) that they came after Kidushin. If she entered the husband's Reshus [and Mumim were found, the husband must bring proof that they came before Kidushin].

Question (R. Lazar, to R. Yochanan): Is this Mishnah like R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer [who say that she is believed], and unlike R. Yehoshua?

Answer (R. Yochanan): It is like everyone. It is normal for Mumim to arise [therefore it is reasonable to say that they arose where they were found, in her husband's Reshus. Normally there is a Kol to rape. Since there was no Kol, she must bring a proof.]

(R. Yosi): We see that Rabanan compare Mumim to Besulim - they learn this from this, and this from this;

[They learn] Besulim from Mumim - if (the Arus) had Bi'ah with her in her father's house [and did not find Besulim], the father must bring a proof [that she was raped, just like he must bring a proof about Mumim that arose in his house];

[They learn] Mumim from Besulim - if Mumim arose in her, and it is a Safek if this was after she entered his Reshus or before she entered his Reshus, her husband must bring a proof [just like when she was found to be Be'ulah after entering her husband's Reshus, R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer hold that she is believed unless he brings a proof, since the problem was found in his Reshus]. They learn from Besulim;

Were not Besulim lost in her father's house, and [even so] you say that the husband must bring a proof (because the problem was found in his Reshus? Also) here (regarding Mumim) the husband must bring a proof (when they were found in his Reshus. We explained this Sugya like SEFER NIR.)