Kesubos 16a - 16b - Migu - Eidim against Chazaka

1. Rashi and Tosafos argue, according to r' yehoshua who does not consider a migu to strengthen her claim when she says she was raped after marriage, migu that she could of said she was a mukas eitz, would still consider a claim that i bought it from your father migu that i could of said it was always mine, to be a good migu. The gemara says somewhat vaguely that the distinction is whether the ox is dead in front of us or not. Rashi understands that r' yehoshua would not consider a migu to strengthen the claim, unless it is a migu that i could of remained quiet - meaning, there is no one claiming against him so he did not have to say anything. Tosafos argues since the case here is where reuven is claiming the field belongs to him because he inherited it from his father, and shimon is claiming back that he bought if from reuven's father and wand to be believed with a migu that reuven's father never even owned it. The reason why R' Yehoshua will agree that migu works here, is because the claim that could have been made is not just a better excuse for the bad predicament (i.e. i am not a besula, but it could have been explained in a better way such as mukas eitz), but rather migu that the entire predicament never even started since this field was always mine. Why does R' Yehoshua consider this to be a better type of migu? Perhaps, in a situation where there is a bad predicament such as not being a besula, she has to justify in some way, and she may just pick one of many claims, even if it is not the best. But, when there is a claim that would completely absolve shimon from ever being involved with reuven, shimon would of definitely thought to make that better claim - from the fact the he didn't shows that what he is saying is true.

2. The gemara says that if all besulas that got married had a "kol", the absence of a "kol" would be the equivalent of knowing without any doubt that she was not a besula, and even witnesses would not be believed. Although rashi uses the term "chazaka", it must be stronger than just a chazaka, and is in fact even stronger than witnesses testifying she was a beula, in that we would consider her to be a beula without any doubt to the point where we would pay no attention to her witnesses that she was a besula. WHY? It seems that the halacha regards the factual knowledge to her being a beula, that would be evident from the lack of "kol", would be stronger than even 100 witnesses, because witnesses is a gezeiras hakasuv to follow their testimony in a situation of doubt, but they don't have the ability to deny what is clear and obvious.