Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since her father is not obligated to feed her, if you will say that she keeps her Metzi'ah, there is enmity, and he will not feed her.

Explanation #2 (Ri): The enmity we are concerned for regarding a Metzi'ah is lest he be Mekadesh her to a disgusting man or a leper.

Implied question (against the Ri): We say in Bava Metzi'a (12b) regarding "[a man receives] the Metzi'ah of his Ketanim (small) sons and daughter", that this does not literally refer to minors;

Rather, an adult who is fed on his father's table is called Katan. A minor who is not fed on his father's table is called Gadol. (This shows that Metzi'ah is due to feeding her, like Rashi said!)

Answer #1: The Gemara says so only about a male Katan. For a Ketanah, even if she is not fed on her father's table, her father gets her Metzi'ah due to enmity, lest he be Mekadesh her to a disgusting man or a leper.

Implied question (against Rashi): Shmuel says there that Katan literally refer to a minor, even if he is not fed on his father's table, because when he finds a Metzi'ah, he brings it to his father (he intends to acquire for his father)!

Answer: Rashi must explain that the Mishnah teaches together matters with different laws;

The father gets the Metzi'ah of a Ketanah even if he does not feed her, and of a Na'arah if he feeds her, and a Gadol (adult male) fed on his father's table keeps his Metzi'ah, according to Shmuel;

There is not so much concern for enmity regarding sons like there is regarding daughters, for it is disgraceful for daughters to go knocking on doors (beg for food).

Question (against Rashi): Above, it was obvious that after her father dies, she keeps her Metzi'ah, even though she is fed from the brothers!

Answer #1: Above, Rashi explained that this was obvious that she keeps it, for enmity does not apply, since she is fed b'Al Korcham (against their will).

Objection (Rashba): Enmity applies even when she is fed b'Al Korcham, lest they burden her to constantly go to Beis Din [to collect from them money for food].

Proof: Below (95b), we say that a widow's earnings go to the orphans, even though she is fed b'Al Korcham;

Her earnings belonged to her husband only due to enmity, like it says below (58b) that food is primary [the main reason Chachamim enacted that a man feeds his wife,] and her earnings are [his] due to enmity.

Answer #2: This is fine for the Ri. (Enmity does not apply to the brothers, since they can be Mekadesh her [mid'Rabanan, when she is an orphaned minor] only with her consent.)

Implied question: A wife's Metzi'ah goes to her husband only due to enmity, and it says below (96a) that regarding orphans, we are not concerned for enmity!

Answer: That enmity is not due to food. [Metzi'ah] is unlike her earnings. Rather, it is enmity of quarrels;

We are not concerned for quarrels between a widow and orphans, or between a daughter and her brothers, since there is no enmity of food.

Answer #2 (to Question (c) - Ri): Her Metzi'ah is like her Kidushin money, even if she is not fed from him;

Also her earnings, even if she is not fed from him, the excess [above what she eats] belongs to her father.

Explanation (Rashi): It says "Es Biti Nasati."

Implied question: The verse says [that he gave her to him] when she was a minor, like I explained above!

Answer #1: Even without asking this, the Gemara properly challenged [the proof from here].

Answer #2: Above, the Gemara asked "perhaps [the father is Mekadesh her and keeps the money] only regarding a minor", because we still did not know that the father has any rights in a Na'arah;

However, now we already learned that he can be Mekadesh her, so we should not establish the verse to discuss only a minor.

Observation: Above (45a), Rashi explained that if she was Mezanah after Chupah, she is not stoned. He is forced to say that the Chupah was during Na'arus, since she is stoned for Zenus in her father's house. (If Chupah was before Na'arus, from when she was Bas Onshim, her Misah was choking!)

Question: [If so,] why don't we learn Kidushin from Chupah?

Implied question: In Mo'ed Katan (8b) we learn from "v'Samachta b'Chagecha", and not in your wife, that we do not marry during Chol ha'Mo'ed, because we do not mix one Simchah with another;

This is a real Drashah, like it says in Chagigah (8b) that it is mid'Oraisa. (Rav Ashi does not need "b'Chagecha" to teach about Basar Simchah. We asked what he learns from b'Chagecha, and answered like the Drashah in Mo'ed Katan.)

Answer #1: We can say that here we discuss shortly before Yom Tov. It is like Yom Tov regarding Melachah, for Tosefes [Yom Tov] is mid'Oraisa, and [even if her father was not Moser her to Chupah] she would not work then.

Answer #2: The father was Moser her to the husband's Sheluchim, or they had Nisu'in without a Seudah. (These are permitted during the Mo'ed.)

Implied question: We say in Yevamos (43b) that Nisu'in even without a Seudah is Simchah!

Answer: It is not such a great Simchah to forbid Nisu'in on Yom Tov due to this (mixing Simchos).

Question (Ri of Orlins): In Erchin (29b), why do we need to learn from a Kal va'Chomer that one cannot sell his daughter when she is a Na'arah?

Citation (29b): A girl who was already sold, goes free [when she becomes a Na'arah]. All the more so, she cannot be sold now!

Even without this Kal va'Chomer, we know from here that he cannot sell her, since we need "l'Amah" [to teach that a father owns his Na'arah's earnings];

If he could sell her, why do we need a verse? Since he can sell her, obviously her earnings [are his]!

Answer #1: I heard from my Rebbi, Maharam, that also here, we know only due to the Kal va'Chomer [that l'Amah does not teach about a minor]. Since he can sell her...

Answer #2: I say that if not for the Kal va'Chomer there (one who was already sold, goes free...), one might have thought that he can sell her, and we would expound from "l'Amah" that a father owns earnings even of a Bogeres.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This Beraisa discusses [one who died] during Eirusin.

Consequence: This that was taught below (48b) "if the father's Sheluchim went with the husband's Sheluchim... if she died, her father inherits her" is like Rabanan.

However, [if she died during] Nisu'in, all agree [that her husband inherits her], like the Seifa of that Beraisa teaches.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): If it is during Eirusin, why was it taught in the discussion on our Mishnah here, which discusses Nisu'in?

Objection #2: Why did he acquire, according to R. Noson? The Beraisa says that he wrote that they will go with her from her father's house to her husband's house. They did not come!

Objection #3: We conclude "here, it is due to Ichtunei." If we discuss Eirusin, this is not called Chitun, rather, the feeling of closeness, like below (56a).

Implied question: Below (102a) we say about "how much will you give to your daughter? This amount...", which discusses Eirusin, that through the Hana'ah that Ichtani together, they resolve and are Makneh (transfer ownership) through [mere] speech!

Answer: It means that through the Hana'ah that in the end, they will come to Chitun Nisu'in, they resolve and are Makneh to each other even at the time of Eirusin.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This Beraisa discusses Nisu'in;

The first Tana holds that he did not acquire, because Anan Sahadei (it is so certain that we can testify) that the father wanted to give this dowry only if his daughter will benefit from it, just like the husband;

R. Noson does not have such an assessment [of the father's intent], so the husband acquires.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara suggests that they argue like R. Elazar and Rabanan argue. The one who says that he did not acquire, he holds like R. Elazar;

Implied question: R. Elazar discusses Eirusin, and here we discuss Nisu'in!

Answer: Even so, we compare them. Just like R. Elazar follows assessment, that he wrote [to give to her Tosefes] only on condition that he enters her [to Chupah]...

... Also here, we follow assessment. He wrote [the dowry] only on condition that his daughter benefit from it.

Explanation (cont.): Afterwards, we say that the one who holds that he acquired [could hold like R. Elazar]. R. Elazar said [that we follow assessment] only regarding what he (the husband) wrote to her. He wrote only on condition that he enters her, due to dearness of Chupah;

However, what she (really, her father) wrote to him, even R. Elazar agrees that it suffices the assessment that it is due to [pleasure of approaching] Chitun Nisu'in;

Even though there is another assessment (perhaps he wrote only on condition that his daughter will benefit from it), this assessment suffices, since it is from her to him.

It is unlike R. Elazar's case, which is from him to her. If another assessment applied there, we would say [that the Tosefes depends on] it.

Pesak: R. Tam and R. Chananel rule like Rabanan of R. Noson, because we establish them like R. Elazar ben Azaryah, whom we rule like below (56b).

Implied question: The Gemara rejects this, and says that all could hold like R. Elazar!

Answer: That is a mere Dichuy (rejection). We do not rely on it.

Pesak: A case occurred, and R. Tam ruled about a Chasan whose wife died, and her father was Muchzak in the dowry. He ruled that he did not acquire, due to our Sugya here.

He also enacted, not based on the Halachah, that even if the husband is Muchzak, he must return [the dowry] if she died within a year. R. Tam retracted from this enactment at the end of his life.

Implied question: We say below (66a) that if Ploni stipulated to give money to his son-in-law and the son-in-law died (and she fell to his brother for Yibum), Ploni can say "I wanted to give to your brother. I do not want to give to you";

The Yerushalmi asks that these matters are acquired through speech [so he cannot retract], and answers that the case is, he stipulated "on condition that he enters her."

Inference: Had he entered her, his brother [the Yavam] would acquire!

Answer: This is not difficult for R. Tam. There, his daughter is alive, and the Yavam wants to do Yibum with her (so she will benefit from the dowry).

Implied question: We say in Toras Kohanim "v'Sam la'Rik Kochachem" refers to one who stipulated to give much money to his daughter, and she died during the seven days of Mishteh. He lost his daughter and his money.

Answer #1: That is like R. Noson.

Answer #2: It is like Rabanan. The case is, the Chasan is Muchzak in the property.

Question #1 (against R. Tam): Below (56a) it is clear that also Rabanan follow assessment of Chitun! (Maharsha - The words "of Chitun" are not precise. Really, it is feeling of closeness, just Rashi equates them. Some texts omit "of Chitun." Rashi distinguishes between from him to her and from her to him. Tana'im argue about whether this assessment suffices from him to her. R. Tam does not distinguish. The only difference is that there are two assessments for the father, and only one for the husband (dearness of Nisu'in). Tosfos shows from 56a that also for the husband, there are two!)

Question #2: Why did the Gemara mention from him to her and from her to him?

It should have said "until now, R. Elazar said [that she does not collect Tosefes] only because she did not have Nisu'in. However, here she had Nisu'in, so he would not say so!"

Question #3: It connotes that all the Amora'im below hold that the husband inherits her from when the father handed her over to the husband's Sheluchim!

Answer (to Question #3): Perhaps this is when the Kesuvah is in the husband's hand, and the Beraisa that teaches there below even though her Kesuvah is in her father's house, her husband inherits her, is like R. Noson.

Observation: Do not be astounded at this reasoning. We find so several places in the Gemara.

Question: If so, anyone who buys a cow, and it became Tereifah or died, Anan Sahadei that he did not buy it on condition that this would happen!

Answer: There, Anan Sahadei that he wanted to enter that Safek. Even if one would tell him "if it will become Tereifah, you will suffer the loss", he would buy it;

However, here he wrote only on condition that he enter her. He has no intent to get into a Safek.

The same applies to the case of one who sold and did not need the money.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (110b) we ask that a Yevamah who fell to Yibum to a leper should be permitted without Chalitzah, for she did not become Mekudeshes [to his brother] on this condition (that she fall to Yibum to such a man);

Presumably, she would have entered such a Safek at the time of Kidushin!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): There, we ask only because it is similar to what we said there that if one gave [Gezel ha'Ger] to Kohanim of the Mishmar [serving at the time] and he died [before offering the Asham], they keep the money;

We infer there that paying the money atones partially. If it did not, we should say that he did not give with intent for this! (He gave only so he could offer the Asham and get Kaparah.)

Since it depends only on the giver, we should follow his intent. Since it depends on him, surely he does not want to enter any Safek;

He is unlike one who buys something, and Ones occurs. We do not say that he did not buy with this intent, and the sale is Batel, for it does not depend only on the buyer's Da'as;

There is also the seller's Da'as. He would not be Makneh to him on [the buyer's] intent if he does not specify.

Therefore, it was a proper question from a Yevamah who fell to a leper, for the Kidushin depends on her;

It is clear to us that [the man who was Mekadesh her] would not refrain due to anything that will occur after his death, for he does not care what happens afterwards. (Some say that this is only if she fell from Eirusin. If she fell from Nisu'in, he would not want that retroactively, he had Bi'as Zenus (Mishneh l'Melech, Hilchos Zechiyah 6:1).

Therefore, we did not ask from a woman whose husband became a Ba'al Mum that she should leave without a Get, for she did not become Mekudeshes with intent that this occur, for [there] it depends also on the intent of the Mekadesh.

Similarly, all the cases brought there depend only on his (i.e. one person's) intent.

Citation (below, 58b - Rav Huna): A woman can tell her husband "do not feed me, and I will not work for you."

The Gemara says that he holds that Rabanan primarily enacted that she is fed. We ask from here ("food corresponds to her earnings" connotes that the primary enactment was her earnings), and answer that it should say "her earnings correspond to food."

Observation: Reish Lakish argues there with Rav Huna, and says that her earnings are primary. He does not change the text of our Beraisa. Rather, he teaches that they enacted food corresponding to her earnings.

Suggestion: Seemingly, he holds that a husband can tell his wife "use your earnings to feed yourself" even if it does not suffice, since he holds that her earnings are primary!

Rejection: This cannot be. It is clear from below (70b) and Gitin (12a) that if her earnings do not suffice, he is obligated to feed her!

We must say that Reish Lakish said that her earnings are primary only to teach that she cannot say "do not feed me, and I will not work for you."

Explanation: This means corresponding to her dowry.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is in place of the 100 or 200 (the Ikar Kesuvah, that he was destined to pay to a Be'ulah or Besulah, had she not died)!

Rejection: We say below (53a) that there is no obligation [on an Arus] to bury his Arusah [even though he was obligated 100 or 200, and was exempted].

Explanation: We should leave them until he has no other source of sustenance, and then he will take them.

Suggestion: Perhaps it means that that we should leave them permanently!

Rejection: If so, why do we say that [redemption] is in place of Peros? He never receives Peros!

Assertion: Even though the primary enactment was for her, like it connotes here...

Also above, it says "granted, we enacted that her husband gets Peros, lest she be captured and he will refrain from redeeming her"...

Even so, she cannot say "you need not redeem me, and I will not give to you Peros."

Proof #1: The Beraisa teaches that redemption corresponds to Peros. This implies that she cannot say [so, because the primary enactment was that he gets Peros];

This is just like we infer below, that she cannot say "you need not feed me, [and I will not work for you" from the Beraisa above that teaches that food corresponds to her earnings.

Inference: She cannot [say so, because the Beraisa implies that the primary enactment was that he gets her earnings]. This is why we needed to change the text of the Beraisa [to say that that food corresponds to her earnings].

Proof #2: In Bava Basra (49a) and Gitin (77a) we cannot find a case in which a wife has a Chatzer in which her husband does not have [rights to the Peros];

The Gemara asks "what a woman acquired, her husband acquired!", and we establish it when he wrote to her "I have no claims to your property."

Citation (77a) Question: When he wrote that, it does not help! A Beraisa says...

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, he wrote this during Eirusin.

Question: What forced the Gemara to establish the case like this? Let us say that she said "you need not redeem me, and I will not give to you Peros"! (Rather, this shows that she cannot say so.)

Implied question: (How can we infer this?) We could have established it [differently], e.g. others gave to her a Chatzer on condition that her husband has no rights in it, but we did not say so. (Likewise, we could have established it when she said "you need not redeem me..."!)

Answer: [We did not establish it when others gave... on condition...] because we did not think of this;

However, we already thought about when the husband removes himself from her property. If so, we should have said [a similar case, when] she said "you need not redeem me..."]!

Rather, surely [we did not say so, because] she cannot [say so].

Implied question: What is the reason [that she can't say so] according to Rav Huna, who says that she can say "you need not feed me..."?

Answer #1: There, she does not totally uproot herself from the enactment. If she said today "you need not feed me, and I will not work for you", tomorrow [or at any time in the future] she can work [for him], and he must feed her;

However, if she said "you need not redeem me, and I will not give to you Peros", she totally uproots the enactment of Peros, for Peros of [her property] for all her days [of the marriage] correspond to redemption.

Answer #2: Even if you will say that she can say "you need not feed me, and I will never work for you", still, we can say that she cannot say "you need not redeem me", lest [she remain in captivity and] assimilate among Nochrim.

Answer #3: Peros are different, for his Yad (power of acquisition) is like her Yad, and he acquires the land itself [for its Peros];

However, her earnings are not [yet] tangible, and we cannot say that he acquires [rights] in her hands themselves.

Question: Just the contrary! This verse connotes that "Onasah" is not the normal frequency of intimacy (Bi'ah), for in Yoma (77a) it connotes that "Im Te'aneh Es Benosai" means to withhold from them intimacy!

We learn from this verse that withholding intimacy is called Inuy (affliction).

Answer: This is what the verse means "Onasah Lo Yigra" (do not diminish her Onah, i.e.) something that is like affliction when you withhold it, i.e. intimacy.