Explanation: Now, they argue about two matters, i.e. when he stood in judgment, and when he did not stand in judgment.

Question #1: Even so, since we must say that he is exempt from a Korban, even though if he admitted he would be liable, if so there was no need to distinguish this fine from other fines;

He should have said that Rabah said that it is Mamon regarding admission!

Question #2: According to Abaye, why does R. Shimon say that Korban Shevu'ah depends on admission? Just the contrary, admission depends on Korban Shevu'ah!

Question #3: How did he want to learn admission from Korban? One is exempt from a Korban for [denial of] land, even though if he admits, he is liable!

Question #4: We said [above] "if he stood in judgment, in which case he pays [through his admission, he should be liable also Korban Shevu'ah]!"

It connotes that this refers to Ones and Mefateh, which we were discussing. If he stood in judgment, he is obligated a Korban, even though she did not became a Bogeres and die!

Answer (Ri): Abaye asked, since one does not bequeath [the fine] to his sons even if he stand in judgment, according to R. Shimon in our Mishnah, because one does not bequeath to his son his rights in his daughter, as long as it does not come to his hand...

The same applies to a Shevu'ah. It is proper to exclude it from v'Chichesh, even though it is total Mamon regarding admission, when he admits that he stood in judgment;

Even so, it is called a fine, since if he admitted that he raped or enticed, but did not admit that he stood in judgment, he is exempt.

Disclaimer: In any case, the end of the Sugya is not resolved [according to this].

Explanation: Mid'Oraisa, it is obvious to him that she keeps her earnings, like we expound below from "v'Hisnachaltem";

Rather, we ask mid'Rabanan, since we attribute the reason to food, and bring [an attempted proof] from a widow;

He asks, since she is fed from their [inheritance], did Rabanan enact that [they receive] her earnings corresponding to food, or not? The entire Sugya connotes like this.

Implied question: Below, we ask what is Rav's reason. [If we ask mid'Rabanan,] we could have asked also what is Rav Sheshes' reason, since mid'Oraisa he admits that they are hers!

Answer: We mentioned Rav, for he explicitly said that her earnings are hers even mid'Rabanan.

Question (Rashba): Here it connotes that there is more reason to say that her earnings are hers because she is fed b'Al Korcham (against their will) through Tenai Beis Din, than if they willingly fed her;

Below (95b), regarding a widow, it connotes oppositely. Just the contrary, since she is fed through Tenai Beis Din, there is more reason to say that her earnings are hers than if they willingly fed her! This requires investigation.

Poor answer: It is difficult to distinguish between a widow and daughter, for he wants prosperity of his daughter, for in any case the reasoning is opposite!

Question: Regarding a widow with respect to a daughter [who inherited], what is considered a case of sparse property?

Granted, regarding a daughter with respect to brothers, the Gemara in Bava Basra (139b) explains that [much property] is so both of them will be fed until [the girls] become Bogros;

However, here that amount does not apply, for a widow is fed forever!

Answer (Ri): Only when there are a widow, sons and daughter, they enacted for a widow the [same] amount that should have been taken for the daughter, i.e. until the daughter becomes a Bogeres;

However, when there is only a widow and sons, or [only] a widow and a daughter, in which case the daughter inherits, they did not enact for a widow;

For a widow, they wanted to uproot the power of inheritance only when it was already uprooted for the daughter. (Ritva - if we would uproot Torah inheritance for the sake of a widow alone, since she is fed forever, we would uproot even when the estate was tremendous!)

For a daughter, they uprooted more, because she inherits when there are no sons.

Support: The Yerushalmi in Bava Basra connotes like this. It says there that a widow does not override daughters, and daughters do not override a widow, but sometimes a widow overrides daughters through sons, and [she overrides] sons through daughters.

Explanation: She is not fed from the brothers, but she was fed from the father. Therefore, we ask "if she is not fed, what is the Chidush? Obviously, [what she earned] after death of the father, [her earnings] are hers!"

[Because she was fed from the father,] also the law itself, that after her father died, [what she earned in his lifetime] is her brothers', need not be taught;

Since she was fed [from the father, her earnings] belonged to him. Obviously they inherit him!

Alternate text: Some texts do not say "what is the Chidush?", rather, "if she is not fed, even according to the opinion [that one can force his slave to work for him without feeding him, says so only about a Kena'ani slave!...]"

Explanation: This is primary. The case is, she is not fed, not from the father, and not from the brothers;

After death we should infer that it is similar to in the father's lifetime (she is not fed at all).

We question ask on the law itself. After the father died, why do her brothers get [her earnings]? Even her father himself did not get them, since she was not fed from him!

Explanation: [The text does not say this,] for the Sifri, we do not learn from this verse. Rather, we expound it from "k'Sachir k'Soshav Yihyeh Imach";

"Imach" is extra, for it could have said "k'Sachir k'Soshav Yihyeh Ad Shenas ha'Yovel";

However, "Ki Tov Lo Imach" is merely Sipur Devarim (telling what happened).

Question: Why do we need a verse for this? She herself, we know that her earnings go to her father only from "l'Amah";

Just like an Amah (Yisraelis slave), her earnings go to her master, so a daughter, her earnings go to her father.

An Amah herself does not serve the son or daughter [of her master, if he died], like it says in Kidushin (17b. All the more so, a daughter's earnings do not go to her father's heirs!)

Answer #1 (Rashba): We need the verse only for a minor. We need the Hekesh [to an Amah] only for a Na'arah;

We do not need the Hekesh for a minor. The father can sell her to be a slave. We need no other source that her earnings are his!

Answer #2: If not for the verse, one might have thought we need "l'Amah" to teach about a minor, that her earnings do not go to the brothers, just like an Amah [does not serve the sons]. We would not know the law of a Na'arah.

Question: However, we learn from a Kal va'Chomer, from his ability to sell her. We should say Dayo (a Kal va'Chomer cannot teach a Chidush greater than the matter from which we learn. Therefore, her earnings do not go to the brothers. Why do we need "l'Amah" for this?!)

Question: If he cut off her hand, would her father not get the money? He loses her earnings!

We say in Bava Kama (87a) that if Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's Eved Ivri, Abaye says that he pays Nezek (the loss of his what one would pay to buy him for a slave, because now he has only one hand) to the slave, and Sheves Katan (compensation for inability to work at all until he recovers) to Shimon.

Rava says that he pays everything to the slave, and he buys land with the money, and he (Shimon) gets the produce [until the slave goes free].

Answer: It is obvious to him (the Makshan) that we discuss minor wounds that do not hinder ability to work;

If there is a loss of her earnings, why doesn't one bequeath [Nezek] to his sons, just like he bequeaths to them her earnings?!

Therefore, he asks that [Nezek] belongs to her.

Question: The Beraisa itself is difficult according to Rav and Reish Lakish, for it connotes in Bava Kama (87b) that they argue with R. Yochanan, who says that if he bruised her face, the father gets it!

Answer #1: Regarding the decreased value [of her labor] until Na'arus, all agree that it is of the father, for he loses the amount for which he could have sold her;

They argue about her decreased value from Na'arus and onwards. R. Yochanan holds that the father receives the entire decrease, since it happened to her when she was still in her father's Reshus;

Answer #2: Regarding the decreased sale value, all agree that it is of the father;

There, they argue about the decreased amount that one would pay to be Mekadesh her. Rav and Reish Lakish hold that the Torah awards him only actual Kidushin.

Answer #3 (Ritzva): Even though they argue about one who bruised her face, all agree that if he cut off her hand, it belongs to her father;

They [Rav and Reish Lakish] establish the Beraisa here to discuss great wounds.

They also hold that one does not bequeath her earnings to the brothers.

Explanation: Because he said that Mayan Gorem (Bi'ah with her causes her husband to die), he infers from the Seifa (Nisu'in).

Question: He should ask from the Reisha, which connotes that her Mazal is Gorem (causes him to die! Also from Eirusin, it avoids the case of being widowed twice!)

Answer #1: He can say that the Reisha (which does not mention being widowed twice) is Agav (for parallel structure with) the Seifa.

Answer #2 (Rivan): Our entire Mishnah discusses one woman. The reason (she was able to marry a fourth time) is because she was divorced from Nisu'in after being widowed from Eirusin;

Note: She was also divorced from Eirusin, but this is not relevant.

Inference: Had he married her off (Nisu'in) and she was widowed, we could not say that he married her off a second time.

Rebuttal (Ri): If so, there is a proof [that one who was widowed twice may not marry a third time] only according to the opinion that Mazal Gorem!

According to the opinion that Mayan Gorem, we could have taught that she married another time! If so, our Mishnah is difficult for him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Perhaps she collects from Eirusin, for from that time [her husband] is obligated through Rabanan's enactment;

Or, perhaps until it was written, for then it is [like] a loan with a document, she cannot take property that her husband sold. (I.e. she takes only from what he sold after it was written.)

Question #1 (Ri): Why is this question relevant here?

Question #2: Since it says "from when does she collect?" this connotes that we ask about a Nesu'ah, from when she takes [from buyers];

Why [do we ask only about a Nesu'ah?] We should ask whether or not all Arusos take from buyers!

Answer #1 (to both questions - Ri): We ask only about this case that R. Yehudah discusses, i.e. one who was Mekadesh his daughter and she became a Bogeres and had Nisu'in;

If the reason he admits is because it was not written [when she was] in his (her father's) Reshus, this is because at the time it was written, she pardoned the lien;

Rabanan enacted for the father only when she did not pardon. If so, also she does not collect anything;

Or, perhaps R. Yehudah's reason is not because she pardoned the first lien. Rabanan enacted rights for the father only when it was written in his Reshus.

Distinction: However, if it was not written at all, obviously it is of the father, e.g. he divorced her from Eirusin. If so, he collects from the first time.

Objection: It is difficult to establish our entire Sugya according to R. Yehudah!

Explanation #2 (Rashba): We ask according to Rabanan.

Answer #2 (to Question #1): We ask here, more than in a case when there is no father, for here, if she were widowed or divorced from Eirusin, the Kesuvah would be her father's;

Answer #2 (to Question #2): Just like the father loses his rights at the time of Nisu'in, [the questioner] is unsure whether also she loses.