Correction: The text does not say here "Kidushin', for below we establish it to discuss Sivlonos.

Implied question: Perhaps R. Yehudah holds that she can say [give to me my husband... Since you cannot, I need not return the Kidushin]!

Answer: The latter Tana comes to add. (Both Tana'im said that we follow the custom. Presumably, the latter Tana says so in more cases, i.e. she cannot say "give to me my husband..." against the custom.)

Remark: They used to make calculations based on half-Sela'im.

Support: It says below (166b) "if it says Sefel above and Kefel below...", and R. Tam explains that Sefel (Samech Pei Lamed) refers to Samech (60) Palgei (half-Sela'im), and Kefel refers to Kuf (100) Palgei.

Question: Why do they divide? He should say ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, like every Safek about money, like Rabanan who argue with Sumchus!

Answer: I explained this above (62b. In some places, Chachamim saw proper to divide.)

Explanation #1: We do not apply "Lo Yigos."

Inference: R. Tam brought a proof from here that we hold like the latter version in Makos (3b), that Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that if one lent to his friend for 10 years, Shemitah does not cancel it;

Even though Lo Yigos will apply in the end, now it does not apply.

Support: It connotes like this here. Since it does not apply to Shushbinus\xpl, it is not applicable to say that Shemitah is Meshamet.

Consequence: Due to this, R. Tam corrected the Piyut of R. Eliyahu ha'Zaken "Zman Eser Kesef Ki Yalvenu b'Chetzi Yamav Ya'azvenu."

Reference: In the first version in Makos (3b), [Shmuel] holds that if one lent to his friend for 10 years, Shemitah cancels it.

Pesak: R. Tam does not rule like this version, rather, like the latter version, which holds that Shemitah does not cancel it. He corrected the Piyut to say "Zman Eser Kesef Ki Yalvenu v'Lo b'Mishpat b'Chetzi Yamav Ya'azvenu."

Rebuttal (Ri): There is no proof from here. Shushbinus is not a loan at all. There are several differences between them, like it connotes here;

Explanation #2: Here it means as follows. Shemitah is not Meshamet, and we do not apply [now] "Lo Yigos", and perhaps it will never come to Lo Yigos, for he can say [to the one who brought to him] "I will do (return) to you when you marry a Besulah", or perhaps [the latter] will never marry;

However, a loan, which in the end will come to Lo Yigos, Shemitah is Meshamet it.

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that says above (124b) that a loan is not called Ra'uy, Shushbinus is Ra'uy, for perhaps he will never pay to him.

Explanation #1: He [wants his friend] to pay to him [at Nisu'in] of two women, half with each, for he wants to marry one after the other. [The friend] can say "I will do with you with one, like you did with me. I will not toil with two."

Explanation #2 (Rivam): The text says oppositely. If he did Shushbinus with him with two women, and he wants [the friend] to do with [return to] him with one, [the friend] can say "when you marry another woman, I will do with you with two." I.e. I will not return to you everything with this woman.

Defense (of Explanation #1): The text of Seforim is fine, like I explained.