Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Both Rav Nachman and Rabah themselves hold that whether [orphans] collected land or coins, [the Bechor] does not have [a double portion];

Implied question: Rav Nachman taught that [if they collected land], a creditor [of their father] collects it from them! (This shows that it is considered Muchzak!)

Answer: This is like Rava answered, due to R. Nasan's law (a creditor has a lien to collect directly from one who owes the one who owes him. The father's creditor already had a lien on the land that the orphans collected.)

Consequence: According to this, this that Rav Nachman ruled above (124b) like Rebbi, this is only regarding Shevach, but not regarding a loan.

Question #1: According to Rav Nachman, the primary answer that [Rabah] answers for him is not written in the Gemara! He does not answer at all about when orphans collected land for a debt owed to their father.

Question #2: In Bava Kama (43a), [the Gemara] should have asked and established both according to Rabah and Rav Nachman, [R. Akiva holds that a husband does not inherit damages due to his wife] whether they collected coins or land!

Answer (to Question #2): It would have needed to elaborate, for Rabah and Rav Nachman did not explicitly say that whether they collected land or coins [the Bechor] does not get [a double portion];

Rather, below (175b) it is proven from Rabah's opinion that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa. It says that Rabah himself holds that whether they collected land or coins, [the Bechor] does not have [a double portion];

(The Sugya in Bava Kama did not want to elaborate to explain all this.) Therefore, it asked briefly and simply from what Rabah and Rav Nachman explicitly said.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): [Rabah said] "we said the reason for Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, but we do not hold like this." Rather, [Rabah] himself holds that whether they collected coins or land, [the Bechor] does not have [a double portion], like he said regarding the grandmother [below]. Even if they collected land, [the husband] does not have, and all the more so if they collected coins.

Support: Also the Gemara below (175b) proves that according to Rabah, whether they collected coins or land, [the Bechor] does not have [a double portion], since Shibud is not mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: [Rabah] said that if they collected land, [the Bechor] has [a double portion]!

Answer: He said so according to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who say that a Bechor gets a double portion in a loan, and he holds that it is more reasonable to establish this regarding [when they collected] land, and not coins.

Implied question: Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael say regarding the grandmother that it is Ra'uy, even though it is land!

Answer: This is because the husband was never Muchzak. The grandmother never owed any debt to him and his wife, that would give to him a lien on the land. Therefore, it is Ra'uy;

However, regarding a loan, [the lender] is Muchzak;

Even if he cannot take land [from the buyer] if [the borrower] sold [land], e.g. if the loan document was without Achrayus (rights to collect from buyers), in any case when he did not sell, [the lender] is Muchzak, since he has a lien for his debt.

Implied question: Why did Rabah say that the reason is because if the grandmother sold it before [she died], it is a valid sale? (Even without this, the husband is not Muchzak, for he never had a lien!)

Answer #1: He did not say so according to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael. According to them, it does not depend on this, like I explained;

Possibility #1: Rather, he said so according to his own opinion. He holds that even a loan [without Achrayus] is Ra'uy, for if [the borrower] sold, it is a valid sale.

Possibility #2: Further, we can say that according to Rabah, even if [the lender has Achrayus, and] if [the borrower] sold it, it is not a sale, it is Ra'uy;

Only regarding the grandmother he needs this reason (if she sold, it is a valid sale), for Rabah holds that anyone who says "after you [the property will go to Ploni]" is like one who says "from now", and it is as if [the husband] was Muchzak from the beginning;

Rather, because if she sold before [she died], it is a valid sale, therefore it is Ra'uy.

However, Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael do not hold that it is as if he said says "after you [the property will go to Ploni]" is like one who says "from now", for the reason "if he sold, it is a valid sale", would not make it considered Ra'uy, like they say about a loan;

Rather, they hold that [one who says "after you"] is not like one who says "from now", and [the husband] was never Muchzak.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rav Nachman holds that whether they collected land or coins, [the Bechor] has [a double portion], like the case that Abaye brought of orphans who collected land for their father's debt;

[Rabah] said to Abaye according to Abaye's words (that Rav Nachman holds that a lender is Muchzak, even if he collected coins), and not according to what Rava answered, due to [Shibud d']R. Nasan, [rather like Abaye's words,] that Rav Nachman himself surely holds that even if they collected land, [the Bechor] has [a double portion];

Rav Nachman said that if they collected land, he does not have [a double portion] according to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who said regarding the grandmother that land is Ra'uy.

Question: What is Rav Nachman's source that according to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, if they collected land, he does not have? Perhaps Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael also hold that if they collected land, he has, like Rav Nachman [himself] holds;

Regarding the grandmother, the reason is because the husband had no lien on the land, and he was never Muchzak in it!

Answer: Rav Nachman holds that Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael distinguish between collecting land and collecting coins, since they did not say that the Bechor gets a double portion in a loan, whether they collected land or coins, Rav Nachman holds that presumably he is more Muchzak in coins than in land.

Question: In Bava Kama (43a), when [the Gemara] asked that Rabah should establish it when they collected coins, and Rav Nachman should establish it when they collected land;

We answer that [they said so about a Bechor] according to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, and [here they said that a husband does not inherit damages] regarding a divorcee according to Rebbi, who considers a loan Muchzak. Therefore, they established it to discuss a divorcee;

According to R. Tam, also according to Rabanan we must establish it to discuss a divorcee according to Rav Nachman, who holds that whether they collected land or coins, [a Bechor] has a double portion!

Answer: It mentioned Rebbi because Rabah himself holds that whether they collected land or coins, [a Bechor] does not have a double portion. He needs to establish it to discuss a divorcee only according to Rebbi.

Implied question: Rabah could have established it without a divorcee, according to Rabanan!

And according to the Rashbam, both Rabah and Rav Nachman could have established it without a divorcee, according to Rabanan!

Answer #1: He prefers to resolve it according to Rebbi.

Answer #2 (Ri of Orlins): According to the Rashbam, he could not establish it like Rabanan, for Rabah and Rav Nachman discuss according to Reish Lakish, who says that R. Akiva said that the husband does not inherit only regarding Kofer (what the owner of a Mu'ad ox pays to the heirs of someone that his ox killed), which is paid only after death;

However, other damage, the husband inherits;

According to [Reish Lakish], they needed to answer (Bava Kama 43a) that [the Beraisa] that teaches "if one hit a woman and she miscarried, the husband does not inherit (Demei Vlados, i.e. compensation for miscarriage) discusses a divorcee...

[Rabah, and also Rav Nachman,] cannot establish it like Rabanan, without a divorcee, for if so a husband would not inherit any damages, for whether or not they collected land (i.e. whether they collected land or coins), does not have, and Reish Lakish said that he inherits other damages! You are forced to say that this is like Rebbi.

Question: It says below (136b) "my property is to you, and after you to Ploni, and after the one after you (Ploni) to Almoni", if the first [the one to whom he spoke] died, the second (Ploni) acquires. If the second died in the first's lifetime, the property returns to the first's heirs;

According to Rav Anan, who says "not to the heirs of my heirs", why does it say "after the one after you to Almoni"? Even if there is not a third, rather, he said "my property is to you and after you to Ploni", and no more, if the second died in the first's lifetime, the property returns to the first!

Answer: He teaches that if the second died in the first's lifetime, the third does not receive it.

Distinction: However, [a husband] receives Shevach, like the Rashbam explained, since he acquires the property immediately, and the Shevach came in his Reshus;

This is why our Mishnah in Bechoros (52a) does not list him among those who do not receive Ra'uy like Muchzak, because a husband has Shevach;

Likewise, a husband does not receive his wife's loan, even what she lent from her Nichsei Melug, for also damage is like Nichsei Melug, like is proven in our Mishnah (Kesuvos 65b);

Even so, it connotes in Bava Kama (42b) that a husband does not inherit. Only according to Rebbi we needed to establish it to discuss a divorcee, for a loan is not considered Ra'uy regarding a Bechor, and the same applies to a husband.

Implied question: Why did it abandon a husband, which it was discussing, and mentioned a Bechor, that he does not have a double portion in a loan?

Answer: It is because regarding a Bechor, Amora'im argue in our Sugya, but the same applies to a Bechor, like I explained.

Question: Why didn't it teach them together, that a husband and a Bechor do not receive Ra'uy like Muchzak, and they receive a loan?

Answer: It is because a Mishnah explicitly teaches about a Bechor (Bechoros 51b) that he does not receive Ra'uy;

However, that a husband does not receive Ra'uy, we do not find a Mishnah or Beraisa, only a teaching of R. Avahu, and some say in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Korchah above (113a).

Explanation: All the more so [he does not get a double portion] in Shevach.

Implied question: Why didn't it mention Shevach?

Answer: This is because we would not learn from it that a loan is Ra'uy, for there is an opinion that even according to Rabanan, a loan is Muchzak, for it is as if was collected;

This is why Rav Papa discussed a loan, that the Bechor does not have a double portion in it. We learn from this, all the more so [he does not have a double portion in] Shevach.

Observation: Even though regarding a husband and a Bechor, we consider a loan to be Ra'uy, regarding a Kesuvah, it is considered Muchzak, and she collects her Kesuvah from a loan;

Even though she does not receive from Shevach or Ra'uy, like the Mishnah in Bechoros (52a), even so she collects from a loan;

Source: A Mishnah (Kesuvos 84a) says that if one died and left a wife, creditor and heirs, and he had a deposit or loan in others' hands, R. Tarfon says, they give it to the weakest of them. R. Akiva says, they give it to the heirs, for all of them need to swear [to collect], but heirs do not need to swear.

Inference: Even according to R. Akiva, if she did not need a Shevu'ah, she would collect. However, since she needs a Shevu'ah, the heirs collect, and then she does not collect from them, for [the coins collected] are Metaltelim of orphans, and there is no lien on them.

Possibility #1: If they collected land for their father's debt, she returns and collects it from them with a Shevu'ah, like the law of a creditor.