(Mishnah): [If witnesses say that she had] a Hinuma.

There (in Bavel) they call it Nimnumah (an expression of sleeping; it is a veil over the Kalah. It covers her eyes, so she can sleep and no one will know.) Rabanan here (in Eretz Yisrael) call it Piryuma (a canopy of myrtle).

(Mishnah): If she went out and her head was uncovered. (MAHARIL, Hilchos Nisu'in 11 - her hair was unbraided, for she must clean it well before immersing. ALEI TAMAR - she went like this to the Chupah, and there she braided her hair.)

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): It is like these [girls] who go out on Yom Kipur [and dance in the vineyards with their heads uncovered].

There (above, 1:4), R. Chiyah said in the name of R. Yochanan, what is a Besulah from Nisu'in? She entered Chupah, and witnesses testify that she did not have Bi'ah. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Question: (Why does she collect 200 due to an uncovered head?) We should be concerned lest she is a Besulah from Nisu'in (her Kesuvah is only 100! SEFER NIR - we did not ask so about Hinuma, for it was known that a Besulah from Nisu'in does not have Hinuma.)

Answer: This teaches that a Besulah from Nisu'in does not go out with her head uncovered.

Question: Perhaps she was a Mukas Etz! (Why does she collect 200?)

Answer #1: This is like R. Meir, who says that a Mukas Etz, her Kesuvah is 200.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): (It is even like Rabanan.) Chachamim were not concerned for something not common (Mukas Etz).

(Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Berokah): Even if they distributed parched grain (at the Chupah), this proves [that she was a Besulah].

Question: (Why does she collect 200 due to this?) We should be concerned lest she is a Besulah from Nisu'in!

Answer: This teaches that a Besulah from Nisu'in, they do not distribute parched grain (at her Chupah).

(Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): Even one that they brought in front of her a barrel of Terumah.

Question: We should be concerned lest [she is a Besulah] from Nisu'in!

Answer: This teaches that a Besulah from Nisu'in does not have [brought in front of her] a barrel of Terumah.

(Mishnah): R. Yehoshua agrees that if Reuven says to Shimon 'this field belonged to your father and I bought it from him', Reuven is believed. The one who forbids is believed to permit (without his admission, Shimon had no claim);

If there are witnesses that the field belonged to Shimon's father, and Reuven says 'I bought it from him', he is not believed.

(Gemara) Question: Why does it say 'R. Yehoshua agrees'? He did not argue [in the Reisha]!

Answer: In the first [Perek, Mishnah 6, He argues. She says that she was raped after Kidushin, and he says that she had Bi'ah before Eirusin. R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed. R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer say that she is believed.]

Limitation: He is not believed [in the Seifa] when he did not eat the [three years] of Chazakah, but if he ate the years of Chazakah, he is believed;

Limitation: [If he ate the years of Chazakah, he is believed - this is] when [Shimon's] father did not die [when he was Muchzak] in the field, but if he died in the field, even if [Reuven] ate the years of Chazakah, he is not believed.

This is like the following. If Reuven ate [the Peros of] a field in-the Chazakah that it is his, and Shimon brought witnesses that his father died in the field, we take it from Reuven and return it to Shimon;

If Reuven later brought witnesses that Shimon's father did not die in it (it is a Safek which witnesses tell the truth), Rav Nachman bar Yakov says, I (Beis Din) took it from Reuven, and I return it to Reuven. Rabanan here say so;

Rabanan there say, when it left [Reuven's Reshus], it left through clear testimony. (Now there is a Safek; we leave it with Shimon.)

(R. Yosi): Rabanan there agree that that if initially, two said that his father died in it, and two said that he did not die in it, the field is in Reuven's Chazakah.

Support (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If two [witnesses] say that [her husband] died, and two say that he did not die, she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she need not leave. If two say that she was divorced, and two say that she was not divorced, she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she leaves.

R. Menachem bar Yosi says, she leaves. R. Menachem bar Yosi says, when do I say that she leaves? It is when [the latter] witnesses came and afterwards she remarried, but if she remarried and afterwards [the latter] witnesses came, she does not leave!

There (in Bavel), they say that death and divorce are the same. [Their text of the Beraisa says that in both cases] she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she need not leave.

Question: According to Rabanan there, it is fine. Death and divorce are the same. According to Rabanan here (R. Yochanan's version of the Beraisa), what is the difference between death and divorce?

Answer (R. Ze'ira himself, and R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): Reasoning dictates that witnesses of death, since if he would return, he [clearly] refutes them (she fears to rely on them, and checks well before remarrying. Witnesses of divorce cannot be clearly refuted, so she does not check so well.)

(R. Chizkiyah): Rabanan there hold like they taught [elsewhere]. Just like Rabanan there say that when [the field] left, it left through clear testimony, so Rabanan there say here [about divorce], that when he married her, he married her through clear testimony. (We do not change our ruling now that there is a Safek.)

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): This is unreasonable! Rather, Rabanan there reversed their opinion!

Do Rabanan there not agree that that if initially, two said that his father died in it, and two said that his father did not die in it, the field is in Reuven's Chazakah?

Had the Beraisa said that if two say that she was divorced, and she remarried, and two [came and] say that she was not divorced, she need not leave, properly (we would say that Rabanan hold like they taught elsewhere. However, the Beraisa discusses when she remarried after all the witnesses came!)

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If two say that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not become Mekudeshes, she may not marry [someone else]. If she married, she need not leave.

Answer (R. Hoshayah): R. Yochanan can answer that two say that she became Mekudeshes and was divorced, and two say that she was [not Mekudeshes and] not divorced. She may not marry [someone else]. If she married, she need not leave.

Question: What is the difference between this and the first [Beraisa, in which if two say that she was divorced, and two say that she was not divorced, she may not remarry, and if she remarried, she leaves]?

Answer: There, all established her to be an Eshes Ish. However, here only two established her to be an Eshes Ish [and they say that she was divorced]!

Note: In Kidushin (3:7), regarding one who is unsure to whom he was Mekadesh his daughter, the Gemara said both 'there, all established her...' and 'when two will come...' It seems that due to this, the latter phrase was mistakenly copied here; it is not relevant here at all.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If two say that she was captured and she is Tehorah, and two say that she was captured and she is Temei'ah, she may not marry [a Kohen]. If she married, she need not leave.

Answer (R. Yosi): Since these say Tehorah, and these say Temei'ah, it is as if these say that she was captured, and these say that she was not captured, we rely on her (she is believed to say that she is Tehorah).

If two say that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not become Mekudeshes, R. Yonah compares this to Chelev;

If two say that Ploni ate Chelev, and two say that he did not eat Chelev, does he not bring Asham Taluy amidst Safek?! And [similarly] here, he gives a Get amidst Safek.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): Do not compare this to Chelev, for [it is different -] even if he says 'I am unsure' [and there are no witnesses] he brings Asham Taluy!

Question (against R. Yosi - Beraisa): If two say that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not become Mekudeshes, she may not marry [someone else. According to R. Yosi, we should rely on her!]

Question (against R. Yonah - Seifa): If she married, she need not leave. (If this is like a case for which one brings Asham Taluy, surely she must leave!)

Answer (R. Mana): R. Yonah does not say if she married, she must leave, (just that we can compare it to Chelev). And R. Yosi does not say that she may marry. He said only not to compare it to Chelev, for even if he says 'I am unsure', he brings Asham Taluy! (Both agree that mid'Rabanan, she may not marry l'Chatchilah, and b'Di'eved, she need not leave.)