Explanation (Rashbam): R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that also food is mid'Oraisa.

Proof (Seifa): What is the source for food? A Kal va'Chomer teaches this. If he is obligated in things not needed essential to life (clothing), all the more so [he is obligated in] things essential to life!

(Continuation of Seifa): What is the source for intimacy? A Kal va'Chomer teaches this. Things she did not marry l'Chatchilah for their sake (clothing), he may not withhold from her. Things that she married l'Chatchilah for their sake, all the more so he may not withhold from her!

Question: Based on this, like whom is the Beraisa above, which taught that they enacted food corresponding to her earnings, which implies that food is mid'Rabanan?

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is the way of girls of her family, but it is not the way of girls of his family.

Question: Why does it say "two flutists and a Mekonenes (a woman to arouse wailing at the funeral)"? It should say "he may not diminish from his custom!"

Answer and Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "His way" means that even if he is the poorest Yisrael, we do not have less than two flutists and a Mekonenes. However, for women, some have less than this;

R. Yehudah says that he may not have less than two flutists;

Even though had she not married, perhaps they would have had less for her than this, since she married, he may not have less for her, just like they would not have less for him.

Question: The wording is difficult. "The case is, it is his way" connotes that not every [man's] way is like this.

Citation: Below (107a) we establish the case of one who went overseas to be when he was feeding his wife through a third party, but not his sons and daughters;

Inference: Before he left he was not feeding them [through a third party], but if he was feeding them, also we feed them, since he is pleased with this.

Explanation #1: Based on this, we must say that the case of one who went insane, that we feed his sons and daughters, is even if he was not feeding them through a third party beforehand.

Rejection (Ri): If initially he was not feeding them through a third party, and did not feed them [himself], why do we feed them?

Explanation #2: Rather, surely we discuss when he was feeding them beforehand;

Also the case of one who went overseas [was feeding them beforehand], since we ask from it to the case of one who went insane.

Below (107a), we establish it when he was feeding his wife through a third party, but not his sons and daughters, i.e. at the time he left, he left money with a third party to feed his wife, but he did not leave money to feed his children;

However, before he left, all of them were fed from his property.

The text: The text says "what is 'not another matter'?" It says also "the one who says [that we do not give for] Tzedakah, however [he holds that] we give cosmetics, for he does not want her to become repulsive."

They argue explicitly below (107a) about one who went away. (There, we say that we do not give another matter. If they argued about one who went insane, for whom we do give another matter, the text would say "what is 'another matter'?", and "the one who says [that we give] cosmetics, but we do not give for Tzedakah...")

Implied question: It says below (71b) that we allot cosmetics for a woman!

Answer: That is as long as he is with her, lest she become repulsive to him.

Alternate text: Some texts say "we bury her according to her honor." [We ask] "according to her honor, but not according to his honor?!", [and answer] rather, teach "even according to her honor."

Objection #1: Why does it discuss one who went overseas? Just the contrary, it is a bigger Chidush when he is with her that she does not descend with him, and all the more so when he is not with her!

Objection #2: Why does it say "even after death"? Just the contrary, it is a bigger Chidush in her lifetime than after death!

Objection #3: It says "rather, say even according to her honor." Just the contrary, the bigger Chidush is according to his honor, which is only according to R. Yehudah;

According to her honor, i.e. she does not descend with him, is not such a Chidush. Above, we ask "if it is her way, what is the reason for the first Tana?!"

Inference: It is obvious (that she does not descend with him).

R. Tam's text: The text says "we bury her according to his honor." [We ask] "according to his honor, but not according to her honor?!", [and answer] rather, teach "even according to his honor."

Question (Rashba): Why did the Gemara ask in astonishment "according to his honor, but not according to her honor?!"

Why did the Gemara think that it means according to his honor only, and not [also] according to her honor?

Assertion: The text does not say "until she enters the husband's Reshus."

Proof: This would connote until the father hands her over to the husband's Sheluchim [but then she is considered Nesu'ah], like is clear from the Gemara;

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (49a) said "we learned a Mishnah that teaches like this (that entering her husband's Reshus makes Nisu'in)! If one has Bi'ah with an Eshes Ish... if she merely entered her husband's Reshus [even without Chupah, the Misah is choking, i.e. she is Nesu'ah]."

In the Gemara we establish our Mishnah here to discuss Terumah, to teach unlike Mishnah Rishonah;

If so, this refutes Rav, who said in the Gemara that her Mesirah is for everything, except for Terumah! (According to the text that Tosfos rejects, our Mishnah permits once she entered her husband's Reshus. Even though the Beraisa refutes Rav, if the Mishnah refuted him, the Gemara would have asked this. We cannot say that Rav did not know the Mishnah!)

Rejection (of proof, and defense of the other text): We can say that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's inference in the Gemara is from the fact that it taught "once she entered..." Therefore, it connotes to him even if he was Moser [without Chupah];

However, here that it taught "she is always in the father's Reshus until she enters her husband's Reshus", this properly connotes until she enters Chupah.

Implied question: (Why must our Mishnah teach unlike Mishnah Rishonah?) A Mishnah (below, 57a) explicitly says "this is Mishnah Rishonah. A latter Beis Din said..."!

Answer: The Tana'im are wont to teach briefly, even though it is taught elsewhere;

We find like this in Berachos (2a. The Tana teaches that the time for Keri'as Shema at night is when Kohanim [who immersed from Tum'ah during the day] may eat Terumah, to teach also that a Mechusar Kipurim may eat Terumah even before he brings his Korban the next day, even though this was taught elsewhere.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rav Asi holds that the reason an Arusah Bas Yisrael may not eat Terumah [until Chupah] is like Ula taught, lest they mix a cup [of Terumah wine for her, and she give it to her siblings];

Once [her father] was Moser her, there is no concern.

Question (Ri): Even according to Ula, who explains that the reason for Mishnah Rishonah is lest they mix a cup for her, he agrees that the reason for Mishnah Acharonah is due to Simpon (lest she has a blemish that invalidates Kidushin due to Mekach Ta'os)!

You are forced to say that Rav Asi discusses according to Mishnah Acharonah, for he discusses our Mishnah, and our Mishnah teaches unlike Mishnah Rishonah, for it says "always"!

Also, the Beraisa below refutes him, and we do not say that it is like Mishnah Acharonah [and Rav Asi teaches according to Mishnah Rishonah]!

Answer #2 (Ri): Rav Asi's reason is due to Simpon. Once he was Moser her, there is no more concern. Presumably, [before Mesirah] he checks her [for blemishes through his female relatives, in the bathhouse].

Question: Rav Asi is concerned for Simpon when the time [for Nisu'in arrived] more than when he was Moser to the husband's Sheluchim;

Below (58a), we say oppositely!

Citation (58a): What is the difference between the opinion that it is due to Simpon, and the opinion that it is lest she give to drink? They argue about if he accepted, was Moser and went.

Explanation: The father was Moser her to the husband's Sheluchim;

According to the opinion that it is due to Simpon, there is [concern], even though when the time arrived, we are not concerned for Simpon according to Mishnah Rishonah!

Answer #1 (Ri): Surely, it is logical that according to Mishnah Acharonah we are concerned for Simpon when the time arrived, and all the more so when he was Moser, like we say there;

However, here Rav Asi found the Mishnah difficult. It teaches "she is in her husband's Reshus", which connotes totally, even for Terumah.

Answer #2 (Ri): We can say that this is the difference. The one who says that we are concerned for Simpon, there is no concern, for when he was Moser, we are not concerned for Simpon;

The one who says that we are concerned lest they mix, there is concern. We are concerned lest she give [Terumah] to drink to the husband's Sheluchim.

Rashi did not explain like this there.

Assertion: He does not come to exclude Hafaras Nedarim, for Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael below says that she is in her husband's Reshus for Hafaras Nedarim, and she left her father's Reshus;

It seems that the same applies to becoming Tamei for her [if she dies]. Since the Torah removed her from Skilah to choking [like a Nesu'ah], we learn from there to everything.

Explanation #1: Rather, he comes to exclude Terumah. He mentioned inheritance for a bigger Chidush;

Not only for becoming Tamei for her, and Hafaras Nedarim, we say that Mesirah is like Chupah. Rather, it is even for inheritance;

One might have thought that since inheritance of the husband is an enactment mid'Rabanan, here that he was Moser, they did not enact.

Explanation #2: Alternatively one might have thought that the father is not Mezakeh [the dowry] to his daughter until she enters for Chupah. [Shmuel teaches that] even so, [her husband] inherits her [dowry].

Explanation #3: Alternatively, he comes to exclude even Kesuvah of Reish Lakish. (Rather, if she was widowed before Chupah, and marries someone else, her Kesuvah is 100);

Reish Lakish teaches a bigger Chidush (it is Nisu'in not only for inheritance, rather, even for Kesuvah from her next husband). He comes to exclude only Terumah (she is forbidden until Chupah).

Alternatively, Reish Lakish excludes also inheritance, for the reason I gave. (A husband inherits only mid'Rabanan. They did not enact for one who was Moser.)

Explanation: It is not truly a refutation of all of them, rather, only of those who say even for Terumah.

Support: We find like this in Bava Basra (129b) regarding one who verbally divides his property;

The Gemara says that all are refuted, even though only one of them is refuted.

Question: We should say "and not a Nesu'ah who entered Chupah and had Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah!

She is still a Besulah, like we say in Kidushin (9b), that if 10 men had Bi'ah with her and she is still a Besulah, all of them are stoned!

Answer: We say there that her husband makes her a Be'ulah even [if he has Bi'ah with her] Lo k'Darkah.