Explanation: He wrote in the second Kesuvah a larger amount than in the first Kesuvah.

Suggestion: Perhaps he wrote "I wanted, and added this amount."

Rejection: If so, she would collect both of them, like we said above.

Explanation: He will hide the sale document, for if both of them are seen, Dina d'Var Metzra (a neighbor has the right to buy land before anyone else) applies;

Even a gift, if the document mentions Acharayus (compensation if a creditor will take it), Dina d'Var Metzra applies [for it seems that it is really a sale, and all the more so if we know that there is also a sale document].

Explanation #1: If the buyer himself is a neighbor, so Dina d'Var Metzra does not apply, the latter document negates the first.

Explanation #2: Some say that Dina d'Var Metzra is not precise. Even if Dina d'Var Metzra does not apply, the latter document does not negate the first;

[The gift document] is relevant for a path. Even according to the opinion that one who sells, sells stingily (if he did not explicitly give to a path to the sold property), one who gives, gives generously.

Question: How does pardon of a lien apply to a gift?!

Answer #1 (Ri): The case is, in between the date of the first document and the date of the second, the giver bought a field (call it Field 2) near the field he gave;

Now, the gift recipient pardoned his lien, and he cannot claim Dina d'Var Metzra (that he has rights to buy Field 2, for if we follow the latter document, he was not a neighbor when the giver bought Field 2).

Answer #2 (Rashba): It matters in a case that the giver borrowed in between the first date and the second date. The lender can collect from the field (if we follow the latter document, the giver still owned it when he borrowed).

Answer #3: It affects if the giver eats the Peros between the first date and the second date.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Acceptance of the latter document] disqualifies the witnesses [on the first document].

Objection: [This is astounding!] He cannot disqualify the witnesses in this way!

Explanation #2 (Ri): If the gift recipient has another document on which signed the same witnesses who signed on the first document, we discredit the latter document, since the bearer himself admits that they are Pesulim.

Explanation #3: We discuss disqualifying their signatures. We say that it is forged, since he himself admits that it was forged. (He may not use other documents with their signatures, lest he forged also them. However, the witnesses themselves may testify for him. He did not say (like we said in Explanation #2) that they are Pesulim.)

Question (Ri): Now we conclude that both are collected from Nisu'in, even though he added;

He argues with Rav Nachman, who said above "if he added a date tree, he wrote it for the addition." The latter does not negate the first. (R. Akiva Eiger points out that Rav Papa said that Rav Nachman says so. Perhaps the Halachah does not follow Rav Papa!)

This is astounding, for the Halachah follows Rav Nachman in monetary laws!

Strengthening of question: Rafram and Rav Acha argue according to him. Also below (89b) we infer like [Rav Nachman]!

Answer (Ri): Here, even though there is an addition, the latter negates the first;

This is because there is no Kesuvah document during Eirusin. Rather, it is a Tenai Beis Din. Therefore, the first Tenai was Batel through the document;

However, above there were two documents. When he added in the latter, he did not negate the first, since it is still in his (the recipient's) hand.

Question: Since Rav Huna and Rav Asi discuss when he did not write to her [a Kesuvah during Eirusin], we should resolve from here the question in Bava Metzi'a (17b) whether or not an Arusah has a Kesuvah, when he did not write one for her!

Answer: [There, the Gemara] wanted to resolve only from a Mishnah of Beraisa.

Implied question: We could resolve it from the rulings of R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rabanan!

Answer: Also this is a teaching [of Amora'im]. Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel said it in their names. It is not a Beraisa.

Implied question: We could resolve it from our Mishnah of one who was Mekadesh his daughter!

Answer: We cannot prove [from there], for we could establish it to be when he wrote to her.

Question: We could resolve it from the Beraisa above! R. Yehudah agrees about one who was Mekadesh his daughter, and she became a Bogeres and had Nisu'in. Her father has no Reshus over her.

You are forced to say that say that he did not write to her. If he wrote it her, it is his (her father's), since it was written [while she was] in his Reshus, like we said above. (R. Akiva Eiger asks that we could have said that he wrote, and the second Kesuvah negates the first, if not for Rav Papa's teaching. If so, this is not a proof from the Beraisa, for it depends on an Amora!)

If an Arusah has no Kesuvah, obviously [her father] gets nothing!

Answer (Rashba): Really, we can establish it when he wrote to her. The case is, he added at the time of Nisu'in;

One might have thought that since [the primary Kesuvah of] 100 or 200, is his, also the addition! [The Beraisa teaches that] this is not so.

Implied question: Why didn't it teach Stam a female convert who converted?

Answer #1: We discuss one who converted before three years old. It is normal to convert [so young] only with her mother.

Answer #2: It is unreasonable that they would immerse her based on the will of Beis Din. We immerse a minor based on the will of Beis Din only if he asserts desire to convert;

A girl less than three lacks Da'as (understanding) for this. Therefore, we discuss one whose daughter converted with her, and they immersed her based on her mother's will.

Answer #3: [We discuss conversion with her mother] because we need to teach [afterwards] if she was conceived not in Kedushah (before her parents converted) and born in Kedushah (after her mother converted).

Question: From here, we should challenge the opinion in Sanhedrin (45b) that if the witnesses' hand was cut off, [the transgressor] is exempt, for we require [fulfilling] the verse as written!

Answer: Here is different, for the Torah wrote "va'Mesah" to include one conceived not in Kedushah. She has no father.

Question: We can challenge him from the Beraisa of a city that is mostly Nochrim. We stone her at the gate of Beis Din. We expound (below, 45b) "She'arecha", and not the gates of Nochrim;

Why don't we totally exempt her (since we cannot fulfill the verse as written)?

Answer: When the majority are Nochrim, "your gates" are the gates of Beis Din, and not the gates of the city.

Explanation: We ask because it says "b'Yisrael".

Question: Regarding Chalitzah we expound (Yevamos 102a) from "v'Nikra Shmo b'Yisrael" that one can be a judge for Chalitzah only if his father and mother are from Yisrael;

Inference: We exclude from "b'Yisrael" even one conceived and born in Kedushah!

Suggestion: There, it is because we do not need [the verse] to exclude one not conceived in Kedushah (even if he was born in Kedushah), for we know from "mi'Kerev Achecha" that every judgment requires [that the judge was] conceived and born in Kedushah;

Regarding Chalitzah, "b'Yisrael" is extra to teach that the father and mother must be from Yisrael.

Rejection: Still, we can ask that we should say that "b'Yisrael" comes to exclude one conceived not in Kedushah even for Chalitzah of children of converts!

We expound from "mi'Kerev Achecha" only to disqualify judging Yisre'elim, but a convert may judge a fellow convert;

We expound there "Alecha" (on you, i.e. Yisre'elim) we require "mi'Kerev Achecha" [but not to judge converts].

Answer (Ri): Since one conceived and born in Kedushah is a full Yisrael, like we say here, if so, also regarding sons of converts, since they were conceived and born in Kedushah, they are full Yisre'elim, and we apply to them "Alecha";

Therefore, without "v'Nikra Shmo b'Yisrael", we know that a convert is Pasul for Chalitzah of sons of converts, for we require "mi'Kerev Achecha" - his mother must be from Yisrael; (Chalitzah cannot apply to converts themselves, since they are not considered brothers. It can apply only to their sons.)

Therefore, b'Yisrael is extra to obligate that his father must be from Yisrael.

Question: Just the contrary, we should establish the [inclusion in the] verse for what is more similar [to the verse itself, which discusses a Bas Yisrael]!

Answer: Since we include one conceived not in Kedushah, if so the Torah revealed that "b'Yisrael" is not precise;

If so, we should include even if she was not born in Kedushah.

Question (Rashba): We should say that it helps so that he (her husband) is not lashed and does not pay 100 Shekalim [for being Motzi Shem Ra on her]!

Answer #1 (Ri): It is logical that it should help for everything in the Parshah.

Answer #2 (Ri): Regarding lashes and 100 Shekalim, we need not exclude it from "b'Yisrael", for we exclude it from "Besulas Yisrael", and not Besulas Gerim.

Support: Now it is fine. One cannot ask 'why do we need "Besulas Yisrael", to exclude Besulas Gerim? We should know this from b'Yisrael!'

Implied question: (What is the Hava Amina to learn lashes and a fine from "b'Yisrael"?) This is written regarding death!

Answer: In any case, we learn Kenas from it, like it connotes below;

[The Gemara] says "this is because the Torah says Na'arah. If not for this, one might have thought that [it applies] even to a minor. (How could we think so?) It says "v'Im Emes..." (and we stone her)!

Inference: We learn Kenas from Misah!

Conclusion of Support: Rather, surely had it not written "Besulas Yisrael", one might have thought that we include even if she was conceived and born not in Kedushah, from "va'Mesah";

"B'Yisrael" would help [to teach] that he is not lashed and does not pay 100 Shekalim.

However, now that we learn this [exclusion from lashes and Kenas] from "Besulas Yisrael", you are forced to say that "b'Yisrael" comes to exclude if she was conceived and born not in Kedushah.

Question #1: We can challenge him from our Mishnah, which teaches that if she was conceived not in Kedushah and born in Kedushah, she is stoned. Pesach Beis Av and 100 Shekalim does not apply;

Inference: A total Yisraelis like her, who has no father, she gets 100 Shekalim!

Question #2: Also above, a Mishnah teaches that a girl who converted before three years has a fine!

Answer: He establishes our Mishnah like R. Akiva, who says above that a Na'arah who was divorced from Eirusin receives her fine;

He expounds "Asher Lo Ursah", [the fine] is to her father. If she was [once] Mekudeshes, it is hers;

Likewise, he expounds "l'Avi ha'Na'arah" - if she has no father, it is hers.

Distinction: However, R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina here, according to R. Yosi ha'Glili, says that he is exempt;

Just like above he expounds that if she was [once] Mekudeshes, she has no fine, also here he expounds "l'Avi ha'Na'arah", but if she has no father, she has no fine.

Rava argues with him. He holds that even according to R. Yosi ha'Glili, he is liable, due to Ami's Beraisa, which expounds from the verse [Besulas Yisrael]. It is reasonable that no Tana argues with that Drashah.

Explanation: Now, R. Yosi bar Avin asks, since R. Yosi ha'Glili taught "Im Ma'en Yima'en" to include an orphan for a fine.

The text of R. Chananel and the Mechilta says "R. Yosi ha'Glili." We ask a contradiction in R. Yosi ha'Glili, according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina.

Support: Also the Yerushalmi explicitly connotes that R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina taught according to R. Yosi ha'Glili. Our Mishnah is like R. Akiva.

[The Yerushalmi] asks also from "to include an orphan for Kenas. R. Yosi ha'Glili says so", and answers like we answer here (that this is when he had Bi'ah with her, and then her father died).

However, there he said so about Ones and Mefateh, and not about Motzi Shem Ra.

Question: Why do we need "Im Ma'en Yima'en" to include an orphan? We learn from Besulas Yisrael, since we exclude only a convert's daughter! (She has no Halachic father. We do not exclude a Bas Yisrael, even if her father died.)

Answer #1: Rashi explained that we do not learn an orphan due to an extra verse. (Rather, there is no source to exclude her. Avi ha'Na'arah teaches when she has a father, he receive the fine.) If so, this is not difficult.

Answer #2 (Rashba): If we did not include an orphan from "Ma'en Yima'en", we would not expound Besulas Yisrael to exclude a convert's daughter;

Rather, we would expound it for a different Drashah, since we do not need a verse for a convert's daughter, since we learn it from v'Nasan l'Avi ha'Na'arah.

It would not be reasonable to say that we need the verse only for the inference, that an orphan Bas Yisrael has a fine.

However, now that we include an orphan [from "Ma'en Yima'en"], we should not exclude a convert's daughter from l'Avi ha'Na'arah. We properly [need to] expound "Besulas Yisrael", and not Besulas Gerim.

Explanation (Ri): Rav Acha did not want to learn Kenas from Misah, that whenever one is not Chayav Misah, he is not obligated a fine;

Also, he did not want to say that since the verse discusses an adult, all laws in the Parshah apply only to an adult.

Rather, he asked [why Reish Lakish said that it applies only to an adult] only because the Torah wrote "Na'arah" with a Hei. If not for this, he would have said that it connotes even a minor;

Explanation: [Reish Lakish holds that] had it written "Na'arah" without a Hei, this would override the connotation of Na'arah, which is only an adult;

[Rav Acha challenged this, for] it says "v'Im Emes... ..." (and we stone her). A minor is not Bas Onshim (liable to be punished), and even so [in this Hava Amina], it wrote Na'arah lacking [the Hei].

Inference: Due the lack of the Hei, the connotation of Na'arah, i.e. an adult, is not negated.

Support #1: Based on this Perush, it is not difficult what is Rabanan's source to stone one who has Bi'ah with a minor (Arusah Besulah);

Implied question: The verse discusses a Bas Onshim!

Answer: [This is not difficult, for] here we do not come to exclude a minor from a fine, just because the verse discusses a Bas Onshim. Rather, it is like I explained. (Rav Acha asked only why Reish Lakish holds that had Na'arah been written without a Hei, it would have connoted even a minor.)

Support #2: Also, now it is not difficult why we need "Besulas Yisrael" (to exclude Besulas Gerim).

Implied question: We should know this from "b'Yisrael" written regarding Skilah!

Answer: We do not learn from (Kenas and Misah) from each other.

Explanation: Also R. Meir would have explained so, had he not expounded above (40b) "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" discusses one (an adult) who could be Mekadesh herself.

Question: Since it is reasonable to expound that wherever it says Na'ar (i.e. Na'arah is written without a Hei), it connotes even a minor, like Rabanan, we should say that R. Meir says only regarding Ones and Mefateh, for which the Torah revealed [that it means only an adult];

However, everywhere else we should expound that it connotes even a minor!

Answer (Ri): R. Meir holds that if "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" came to teach only about Ones and Mefateh, regarding them it should have Na'arah full (with a Hei), just like regarding Motzi Shem Ra;

We would have said that here (Motzi Shem Ra, Ones and Mefateh) it is a full Na'arah, but everywhere else...

Since it wrote "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah", i.e. one who could be Mekadesh herself, this teaches that wherever it says Na'ar (i.e. Na'arah without a Hei), it refers to one who could be Mekadesh herself.