103a middle
Rashi d"h Mai
Rashi explains the 2 tzdoddim of abayes shaale: either she gets kicked out the house when it would have collapsed before it was reinforced, or she has no right to reinforce the house in the 1st place.
Why doesn't Rashi explains the simple pshat in the sofek, either she is totally allowed to reinforce the house before it collapses, or she is not, and we kick her out the house when it would have collapsed?
Cos the gemoro only said that she can't rebuild it, it never said that she can't reinforce it.
Avrumi hersh, London england
If we learn the Sugya with the Rishonim and Mefarshim on the Shulchan Aruch, it seems that the premise of your question is a Machlokes Rashi against Tosfos and Rambam.
Rashi holds that reinforcement is like building the house from new. The only question to ask is, if the fact that the house would hold without the reinforcement is enough for her to stay in the house as long as the house would stay standing without the reinforcement. There is no Havah Amina that an Almanah can do anything to make the house stand longer. The question is whether we are to consider reinforcement as a totally new house.
On the other hand, Tosfos explains (in a few words) that if she actually reinforced the house, we do not consider the house as a new house in any way, but rather as the old one, and she can still live in the house until it actually collapses. The only question is, is she permitted to perform this reinforcement in the first place, and stay in the house longer amd longer; is she allowed to l'Chatchilah reinforce it or not?
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner