Answer: Rather, the Beraisa is erroneous because we do not find a Tana who agrees with two stringencies (favoring collection) of a Kesuvah:

We find only R. Meir (who allows collecting it from Metaltelim) or R. Nasan (who allows collecting it from one who owes the husband).

Rava: Now I understand why I heard Abaye say 'This Beraisa is erroneous.'

A woman fell to Yibum. Moshe planned to give to her a Get, to prevent his older brother Aharon from doing Yibum.

Aharon: Do you seek to prevent me from inheriting our brother's property myself? I will split it with you!

Moshe: I fear that you will do like the trickster of Pumbedisa (81b, who later retracted)!

Aharon: If you want, I will divide the property with you now!

(Mar bar Rav Ashi): Here, the division is void. This case is unlike R. Yochanan's law:

(Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven told Shimon 'do Meshichah (take it to your premises) on this cow, but it is not yours until 30 days from now', 30 days later he acquires it, even if it is in a swamp. (It is not in the buyer's Reshus, but Meshichah works there.)

There, Reuven could give the cow now. Here, the Yavam cannot give the property (until he does Yibum and inherits it).

Contradiction (Ravin citing R. Yochanan): The cow is not acquired 30 days later.

Answer: Rav Dimi discusses when he said 'acquire from now.' In Ravin's case, he did not say this.

Question #1: If he did Yibum and then divided the property, is the division valid?

Answer (Ula): No. (This is like Rav Yosef above.)

Question #2: If he divided the property and then did Yibum, is the division valid?

Answer (Ula): No.

Question: If it is invalid after Yibum, we need not ask about before Yibum!

Answer: These questions were asked in cases that arose. (The second questioner had not heard the first answer.)

(Ravin): Whether he divided the property before or after doing Yibum, the division is void.

This is the Halachah.

(Mishnah - Chachamim): Attached produce is his.

Question: Why is this? There is a lien on all (attached) property of the Mes to pay the Kesuvah!

Correction (Reish Lakish): The Mishnah should say 'it is hers'.

(Mishnah): If he does Yibum, she is like his wife.

Question: What does this teach?

Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): It teaches that he may divorce her with a Get and remarry her.

Objection: Obviously he may divorce her with a Get!

Answer: One might have thought that "V'Yibmah" teaches that she is still like a Yevamah, and a Get does not suffice to divorce her, rather Chalitzah is needed!

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Objection: Obviously he may remarry her!

Answer: One might have thought that he did the Mitzvah the Torah imposed upon him, and now she is forbidden due to Eishes Ach;

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why don't we say this?

Answer: "He will take her for a wife" - once he takes her, she is like his wife.

(Mishnah): However, her Kesuvah is paid from the property of the deceased.

Question: Why is this?

Answer: Shamayim caused him to acquire her (so he should not have to pay her Kesuvah from his own property).

If she cannot collect a Kesuvah from the property of the deceased, she gets it from the Yavam, so it should not be light in his eyes to divorce her.

(Mishnah): He should not say 'your Kesuvah (is on the table...)'

Question: Why does the Mishnah continue 'Similarly, a man should not tell his wife...?'

Answer: One might have thought that regarding a Yevamah one should not designate money, for he did not write 'There is a lien on all property I acquired and will acquire to pay your Kesuvah.' But since one writes this to a regular wife, he may designate, since she is confident of collecting!

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If he divorces her, she collects only her Kesuvah (and he may sell the rest of the property).

This is only after he divorces her. Before this, he may not sell any property (lest it be needed to pay her Kesuvah), like R. Aba taught (81a).

(Mishnah): If he remarries her, she is like any woman, and collects only her (original) Kesuvah.

Question: Why is this needed? Another Mishnah (89b) teaches this!

(Mishnah): If one divorced his wife and remarried her, it is understood that he remarries her on condition that she has only her original Kesuvah.

Answer: One might have thought that this is only regarding a regular wife, since he wrote the original Kesuvah, but a Yavam, who did not write the original Kesuvah, must now write an additional Kesuvah (it had no lien against his own property), must now write a Kesuvah against his own property;

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Yehudah): Initially, there was no lien on property to pay a Kesuvah. Men did not find women to marry, until Shimon ben Shetach enacted a lien on all a man's property to pay the Kesuvah.

Support (Beraisa): Initially, there was no lien on property to pay a Kesuvah. Men did not find women to marry;

They enacted that he leave the Kesuvah (100 or 200 Zuz) in her father's house.

This caused that when a man got angry at his wife, he would divorce her (since the money was out of his hands anyway).

They enacted that he leave the Kesuvah in his father's house. The Kesuvah would be a silver or gold basket for rich wives, or a copper basket for poor wives.

Still, when he got angry at his wife, he would divorce her (since he could not use the Kli anyway).

Shimon ben Shetach enacted a lien on all a man's property to pay the Kesuvah.