Explanation #1: The Tana teaches that great Sivlonos, which she will bring from her father's house to her husband's house, these are collected. This is "not prone to be finished." Small Sivlonos are what are prone to be finished.

Explanation #2: With small [Sivlonos], we require that they are not prone to be finished, but for great Sivlonos, even if they were finished, they are collected.

Explanation: He refers to Rava's teaching, that only if he ate for a Dinar [he does not get back the Sivlonos that he sent], but not if he ate less than a Dinar's worth;

[The Sho'el says] if he ate for less than a Dinar, does she collect (keep) according to what he ate? I.e. if he ate half a Dinar, she collects half.

The expression "Teshalesh" is [to divide equally,] like "we are Meshalesh money, but we are not Meshalesh lashes." (If Edim Zomemin must pay, each pays part, so in all the defendant is paid what they wanted to make him lose. If they must be lashed, we do not divide lashes. Each gets the full number that they wanted to obligate the defendant.)

Opinion #1 (Rashbam): Likewise, he could have answered that this is when they wore out.

Rebuttal (and Opinion #2 - Ri): Granted, the Beraisa could discuss when they wore out, but our Mishnah, which does not discuss when they wore out (it discusses coins), we cannot establish it to be when they wore out. (Our text does not bring a Beraisa, rather, Rav Yehudah cites an episode... It seems that Tosfos calls it a Beraisa.)

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): She was an Arusah. He came to check whether or not she can smell. If she can smell, he will make Nisu'in with her. Chachamim said "since he entered after her only in order to test her, and he did not enter not for the sake of Nisu'in, therefore if she died, he does not inherit her;

However, had he not entered after her to test her, he would inherit her, e.g. if the ruin was his, like it says in Kesuvos (48b) "[an Arusah] is always in her father's Reshus [on the way to the Arus' Reshus]. If [the Arus] owned a Chatzer on the way, and she entered with him, he inherits her, for his Chatzer is for the sake of Nisu'in."

Consequence: According to this, she could smell. He had dates in his garment, like she said, or she knew that it was a radish, therefore she said 'who will give to us dates to eat with the radish!"

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): He already had Nisu'in with her, and it was found that she cannot smell. He intended to divorce her.

Question: It should not have said "since he entered after her only to test her. Rather, it should have said "since he entered after her to test her"!

Inference (Rashbam): We learn from here that if he intended to divorce her, he does not receive Peros [of her property].

Rebuttal: There no proof from here, for she was not Nesu'ah [according to Explanation #1].

Implied suggestion: There is proof from Gitin 18a!

Rebuttal: Also from there, there is no proof, for both R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish in Gitin (17b) do not hold like this. Rather, R. Yochanan holds that we take [from him and give to her] Peros from the time [the Get] was given, and according to Reish Lakish, from when it was written. (Neither says that he loses Peros from when he intended to divorce her, before he wrote the Get.)

According to the Ri's Perush there, Reish Lakish holds that [she gets] from the time it was signed, for R. Shimon and Rabanan argue about Peros] from the time it was written until the time it was signed.

Explanation: [Moharei return,] i.e. Sivlonos. They are two kinds (Moharei and Sivlonos). Moharei is like the Rashbam explained above (145a, i.e. gifts of money. Sivlonos are other gifts. Dikdukei Sofrim - Tosfos' text of the Gemara was slightly different.)

Question: This requires investigation, whether or not "matters in the heart are invalid" applies to this. I elaborated about this in Kidushin (49b DH Devarim. Some stipulations require a Tenai Kaful. Some require merely Giluy Da'as, and others do not require even Giluy Da'as, for it is clear that he does so only with intent for this.)

Implied question: Likewise, he could have said that it is like Rabanan who argue with him!

Answer #1: Rather, it means "R. Shimon Shezuri and the one who argues with him."

Answer #2: Because R. Shimon Shezuri holds that we follow estimation more than Rabanan do, it mentions R. Shimon Shezuri.