Explanation: If the adults would have said "see what our father left us", friends of the minors or their relatives would have hired for them workers from their father's [property]. Since [the adults] did not inform them, they pardoned [to the minors].

Implied question: In the episode with Mari bar Isak (Bava Metzi'a 39b), his brother said "divide with me also in the orchards and vineyards that [Mari] planted", and Rav Chisda said that he is correct, for the Mishnah says that if he left adults and minors, they share the Shevach!

Answer: [Mari] did not plant by himself. Rather, he hired workers from money of the inheritance, and that brother could have found relatives who would have planted for him;

Also Rav Safra's brothers could have profited through the money, for it is no toil to sell and buy. [They would have shared the profit], if not that it is as if he said to them "see";

The Gemara asks from Odaini (a guard post), which is [revenue] due to himself, for they could not have found someone who will do that guarding for them, since one must stand there a long time;

The Gemara answers that minors themselves can guard. Had [the adults] informed them, they would have done so.

Remark: There are also Perushim of R. Tam and Rivam. The Ri did not deem them proper.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This is a pit and its cover.

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2 - R. Tam): It is a tall Kli on which stand people who guard fields and vineyards, to see afar from on it. Also, it is proper to sleep on it, like we say in Mo'ed Katan (27a) "if one slept on a bed, bench or Odaini."

Alternative text: Some texts say "Idavni". This is like "he looked this way and that way" (Tamid 26b, Shabbos 35a).

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): E.g. Reuven married the daughter of his brother Shimon, and their father Yakov died, and afterwards Reuven and Shimon died. Then, Bnei Reuven and Shimon's daughter inherit from their fathers.

Question: The words "see what my husband left me" connote that she inherited from her husband, and not from Yakov!

Explanation #2 (Rivam): The case of a wife who inherits is that Reuven married the daughter of his brother Shimon, and [Reuven] died, and Reuven had minor brothers or nephews, and they were orphans. She inherits her husband with the minors, for she is in place of her father.

Question: We say below that she toiled for the orphans. This connotes the children of her husband!

Defense of Explanation #1 (Ri): Since her husband eats the Peros of her inheritance his entire lifetime, "see what my husband left me" is appropriate.

Explanation #3 (Rashbam): The husband said that she should receive like one of the sons.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Since she said so, she does not receive food.

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2 - Rashba): Only if she sold her Kesuvah or received her Kesuvah in Beis Din, she does not receive food;

However, this woman did not take anything from her Kesuvah, only her Nichsei Melug, or what she inherited, or what her husband gave to her like one of the sons. She did not lose food!

Even if she sold part of her Kesuvah, we say in Kesuvos (98a) that no one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion that part of the money is like all of the money, and she did not lose food, and all the more so [if she took only] Nichsei Melug, which do not pertain at all to her Kesuvah!

Explanation #1 ((cont.) - Rashbam): If Beis Din was lazy and did not make her swear, what she improved is for her.

Question (Rashba): What is his source? It is always in the Chazakah of the heirs, until Beis Din makes her swear, for her right to collect the Kesuvah is only in Beis Din, and here we discuss specifically a wife who inherits! (Therefore, we cannot learn to a wife who only receives her Kesuvah.)

Explanation: Granted, he does not acquire an Aliyah. [However,] an Achsadra (a hall in front of a house) pertains to a house more [than an Aliyah. Perhaps he acquires it!]

And if you will say that he does not acquire an Aliyah, because it is not used like a house, what is the law of two houses, one within the other? These are like one house!

Question: According to the Rashbam's Perush (if he acquires an Achsadra, we can ask about a house), he should have asked about two houses before asking about a house and an Achsadra (just like we began asking about an Aliyah, which is less reasonable to be acquired than the next matter asked about, i.e. an Achsadra)!

Remark: There is some reason. Since he emptied the house, the son relies [on receiving it], and also, the son has no place to live. It is reasonable that [his father] gave it to him.

Similarly [there is some reason] for one who wrote all his property to his wife, or son. Presumably, he did not intend to give to her, rather, [just] to honor her, for he would not leave his sons without anything! (Here we discuss only writing everything to one's wife. On 131b, we said similarly about writing everything to one son.)

Regarding Ma'amad Sheloshtan, Chachamim did not want to burden [one who wants to give a loan to someone else; some say that it helps also for a deposit] to bring witnesses and make a Kinyan. Presumably, since he said to him in the presence of all three (the giver, recipient and borrower or Shomer), he was totally Makneh to him.

Assertion (Ri): In Ma'amad Sheloshtan, if [the lender] later retracted and pardoned the loan, it is not pardoned (for he is no longer the creditor). This is explained in several places.

Remark: All the Tosfos from the Mishnah\ of one who left sons (143b) until [here, i.e. Ma'amad Sheloshtan acquires] are according to R. Eliezer [mi'Tuch].

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): A lamp for one helps for 100. (It is more economical when people live together.)

Explanation #2: Two people have a better Mazal [than one].

Question: Below, it asks that they should give to him according to Birkas ha'Bayis. Do we know how much the house was blessed due to him?!

Answer (R. Tam): Indeed, we can know how much they spent in the first year, and how much they spent in this year.

Rebuttal (Ri): All years do not have the same Mazal! (We cannot attribute the difference to the improved Mazal due to two people.)

Implied question (Tosefta 10\): What is the case? It discusses a cure with a limited cost. If the cure has no limit, it is included in food, and he is healed from the estate.

Also in Kesuvos (52b), regarding a widow, it says that a cure with a limit is included in [payment of] the Kesuvah, and a cure without a limit is like food.

Answer (Ri): [This distinction applies only to] Ones. Here (Ravin establishes that he became ill through negligence), there is no distinction between whether or not there is a limit. (In every case he is cured from his own portion. This is like Sema CM 177:3. Shach CM 177:3 explains differently.)

Implied question: Why is this unlike above (139a) - minors are not fed from property of adults?

Answer: Here it is a chance occurrence. There, it is always the case that minors waste more food.

Explanation: If a lion or bandits come upon a person, everything was decreed from Shamayim. However, cold and heat were not decreed on him. I.e. he can guard himself;

However, surely if one wants to kill himself in fire or a river, he can kill himself, even though nothing was decreed.

Implied question: Why is this unlike "everything is in the hands of Shamayim, except for fear of Shamayim"?

Answer: That discusses a person's traits - will he be strong or weak, rich or poor, tall or short, wise or foolish, like it says in Nidah (16a);

However, here we discuss occurrences that come upon a person.

Explanation: These are cold and heat, like it connotes in Avodah Zarah (3b).

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (107b) "Hash-m will remove from you all illness" - this is Tzinah. (Here we say that cold is not decreed from Shamayim!)

Answer: It means that He will give to you understanding to guard yourself from cold, and He will give to you a garment to wear.

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi): Antoninus needed to travel. He asked Rebbi "pray for me!" Rebbi said "it should be His will to save you from cold." Antoninus said "is that a [necessary] Tefilah?! One puts on another garment, and the cold departs!"

Citation (cont.): Rebbi said "it should be His will to save you from heat." Antoninus said 'surely, that is a proper Tefilah, for it says "v'Ein Nistar me'Chamaso"!' (Tosfos (Kesuvos 30a) says that one who need not go outside can guard himself from heat. He stays in a stone house, or in the cellar.)

Explanation: This was the custom. When the father makes a Nisu'in for his son, Shushbinim bring gifts for the honor of the Chupah, and they give to the son;

The father is obligated to pay back when [the Shushbinim] marry. Therefore, it returns from the estate, for the father was obligated to pay back.