Answer: No, it discusses a document of committal (signed by witnesses. The Chidush is that no acquisition is needed), like Rav Gidal taught.

(Rav): If Yakov agreed to marry his son to Moshe's daughter, each father agreed to give a certain amount to his child, and the children became Mekudeshos right then, the verbal promises are binding.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven has a firstborn son to redeem and he wrote to a Kohen 'I owe you five Sela'im' he must pay him, and his son is not redeemed (This shows that the document obligates him!)

Answer: That case is different, since the Torah obligated him.

Question: If so, why did he bother writing a document?

Answer: It clarifies to which Kohen he will give the redemption money.

Question: If so, why isn't his son redeemed?

Answer: This is like Ula taught:

(Ula): Mid'Oraisa, his son is redeemed when he gives the money;

Chachamim said that he is not redeemed, lest people say that one can redeem with documents.

Suggestion (Rava): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue like the following Tana'im.

(Mishnah): If it is written 'Ploni is an Arev' below the signatures on a document (and Ploni agree to this), the lender may collect from Ploni's Bnei Chorin, but not from property he sold;

A case came in front of R. Yishmael. He authorized collection from Ploni's Bnei Chorin.

Ben Nanas: He cannot even collect from Bnei Chorin!

Question (R. Yishmael): What is the reason?

Answer (Ben Nanas): Ploni saw the lender choking the borrower. He told him 'leave him, and I will give you.' Ploni is exempt, since the money was not lent on expectation to collect from Ploni.

Suggestion: R. Yochanan holds like R. Yishmael, and Reish Lakish holds like Ben Nanas.

Rejection: Granted, R. Yochanan cannot hold like Ben Nanas;

However, Reish Lakish can hold like R. Yishmael;

R. Yishmael obligates a guarantor to pay, for the Torah obligates guarantors. He could agree that one who obligates himself through an unsigned document is exempt!

(Rav): If Yakov agreed to marry his son to Moshe's daughter, each father agreed to give a certain amount to his child, and the children became Mekudeshos right then, the verbal promises are binding.

(Rava): Logically, this is only when Moshe's daughter is a Na'arah, and Moshe benefits (he gets the Kidushin money), but not if she is a Bogeres.

However, I swear that Rav said this even regarding a Bogeres. This shows that Reuven's promise is binding, even though he gets no benefit.

We must say that through the happiness that they are marrying their children to each other, they decide absolutely to give like they promised, and this is binding.

Question (Ravina): Are these promises destined to be written in a document? (Rashi - if they are written, may the recipient collect from land sold afterwards? Tosfos (DH Nisnu) - must witnesses consult the parties before writing a document? Tosfos (DH Hacha) - are these promises binding even if a document is not written?)

Answer (Rav Ashi): They are not.

Question (Mishnah): Clever men would write 'I will feed your daughter for five years as long as you are with me'.

Answer: This was said. It was not written.

Question: Would the Tana say 'They write' if they only say it?

Answer: Yes! The following is an example.

(Mishnah): If one wrote to his wife 'I have no claim to your property...'

(R. Chiya's Beraisa): The case is, he said this.

Question (Mishnah): Documents of Kidushin and marriage may be written only if both parties agree.

Inference: If they agree, they may be written.

Suggestion: 'Documents of Kidushin' refers to documents of committal.

Answer: No. It literally means documents of Kidushin, like Rav Papa and Rav Sharbiya;

(Rava and Ravina): If a document of Kidushin was written in order to be Mekadesh Leah, without her consent, it is valid;

(Rav Papa and Rav Sharbiya): It is invalid.

Question (Mishnah): If the husbands die, their daughters are fed from Bnei Chorin, and Leah's daughter Dinah is fed even from sold property, since she is like a creditor.

Answer: The case is, the commitment was acquired through Chalipin.

Objection: If so, also their daughters should be fed from sold property!

Answer: The acquisition was made only for Dinah.

Question: If the Tana discusses such a case, why didn't he specify? Why should we assume that each man acquired only for Dinah?!

Answer #1: Since Dinah was alive when he commits himself, acquisition helps for her. His daughters (that he will have from Leah) were not yet born (when they married her), so acquisition would not help for them.

Objection: Doesn't the Mishnah include the case when his daughters were already born, i.e., he divorced Leah and now remarries her?

Answer #2: Rather, Dinah is not fed by an enactment of Beis Din, so an acquisition helps for her. His daughters are fed by an enactment of Beis Din, so an acquisition does not help for them.

Objection: This is illogical. Why should the enactment of Beis Din weaken his daughters?!

Answer #3: Rather, his daughters cannot collect from sold property because we are concerned lest he set aside money for their food, because they are fed by an enactment of Beis Din (and he wants to ensure that he fulfills it).

(Mishnah): The first husband cannot say... (he sends her food to where her mother is).

(Rav Chisda): This teaches that a daughter is raised by her mother.

Question: How do we know that the Mishnah discusses (even) an adult? Perhaps it discusses (only) a minor, and it is due to the incident that occurred!

(Beraisa): If a man died leaving a minor son and the father's heirs and the child's mother both want to raise him, we let her raise him.

A case occurred (in which he was left by the father's heirs) and they slaughtered him (so his inheritance will not reduce their shares. Here also, we are concerned lest the father's heirs kill a minor daughter lest her Parnasah reduce their inheritance!)

Answer: If so, the Mishnah should have said that he sends food to where she is.

Rather, it says 'to where her mother is' to teach that a daughter, minor or adult, is by her mother.