Kesuvos 2:1 - 2:2

האשה שנתארמלה או נתגרשה – and she claims her Ketubah.

הוא אומר – it refers to [her stating] “when I was divorced,” for if [it was] “when I was a widow,” the heirs would say, ‘our father married you when you were a widow,” and you have only a Maneh [as the payment for the Ketubah for a non-virgin].

הינומא – there are those who say that it is a canopy of myrtles that they make for virgins and there are those who say that it is a veil that they place on the eyes and she is drowsy in it (see Talmud Ketubot 17b).

וראשה פרוע – her hair is on her shoulder; such was how they would practice to remove the virgins from the home of their fathers to the wedding chamber.

אף חלוק קליות – in the place of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka they had the practice to distribute parched corn at the nuptials of virgins and if there weren’t witnesses that they did so at her wedding according to the custom of the nuptials of virgins and the Ketubah/marriage contract was lost, the husband is believed and she doesn’t collect anything other than a Maneh.

ומודה רבי יהושע – even though that above in the first chapter (Mishnah 6), regarding what she says: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states, “we do not believe the woman.” In what she said: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” and she disqualifies herself from [being able to marry into] the priesthood through “Miggo”-the legal rule according to which the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he (or she) had intended to tell a lie, he/she might have invented one more advantageous to his/her case (see Talmud Ketubot 16a), for if she had wanted, she could have stated, “I was one who lost my hymen through an accidental lesion and was fit [to being able to marry into] the priesthood. These words [apply] where there is [a case] of prohibition or permission to prohibit [her to marry into] the priesthood or to validate it – in this Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states that we don’t believe her through “Miggo,” but where there isn’t a case of prohibition and permission other than money at stake/eventual loss (see Talmud Ketubot 23b) such as, for example, where a person says to his fellow: “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamaliel that in a case like this, we believe him through “Miggo,” for if he had wanted, he could have said, “it is mine,” and when he said, “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” he Is believed.

ואם יש עדים שהיא של אביו אינו נאמן – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 17b) it explains that this Mishnah comes to inform us as for example, that he did not consume other than two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, since he did not pay him three years of legal claim of undisturbed possession during a legally fixed period in the lifetime of the father, the year that he ate in the presence of the son does not count for him for the count of the years of presumptive ownership.