Explanation (Ri): We ask as follows. What is the source that "Beis Aviha" is extra to exclude when the father handed her over to the husband's Sheluchim? Perhaps we need both of them for when she entered Chupah and did not have Bi'ah!

Had the Torah written only one, one might have thought that this is when she did not return to her father's house, but if she returned to her father's house, she returns to her initial status;

Therefore, we need another verse, so still [we can ask] what is the source for Masar?

Implied question: When she had Bi'ah, we know that she does not return [to her initial status. Presumably, the same applies to Chupah without Bi'ah!]

Answer: That is because her body changed. However, when she did not have Bi'ah, she is still a Besulah. Perhaps she returns [to her initial status]!

Explanation (cont.): Rava answered that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael already taught that she does not return. At least this is when she had Chupah without Bi'ah;

The Torah revealed about Nedarim, and the same applies to everywhere.

If so, one of the other verses is extra for when the father handed her over to the husband's Sheluchim to exempt her from Skilah;

Since we find that she does not return from [the Drashah of] Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, it is reasonable that she does not return in all cases that she is excluded from Skilah, e.g. he was Moser;

This is why it mentioned Masar in Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael's teaching.

Question: According to this, how do we learn from Nedarim that she does not return to her initial status?

Granted, regarding Nedarim she does not return, because the Torah revealed that since she left her father's Reshus for a moment, he has no more rights in her;

In any case, regarding Skilah, how can we say that she does not return?

Even though she entered Chupah, since she did not have Bi'ah, and she was widowed or divorced and became Mekudeshes again, why shouldn't Skilah apply to her? She is a Na'arah Besulah Me'orasah!

Suggestion: Since she left her father's Reshus [Skilah no longer applies to her].

Rejection: She should be like an orphan, who has no father. She is stoned, like we find regarding a convert in our Mishnah!

Answer: It is obvious to him that a Nesu'ah who is not Be'ulah is considered like a Be'ulah. There is no distinction at all. Nisu'in makes her like a Be'ulah for everything;

Just like a Be'ulah, obviously she does not return to her initial status for everything, the same applies to [a Nesu'ah] who is not Be'ulah;

We need the Drashah of Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael only to teach that we do not say that since she did not have Bi'ah, and she was widowed or divorced, she loses the title "Nesu'ah", and it is as if she never had Nisu'in.

Since the Torah revealed regarding Hafaras Nedarim that being widowed or divorced is not Mevatel the Nisu'in, as if it never occurred, the same applies to Skilah.

Since the Nisu'in is not Batel, obviously she does not return to her initial status, for she is truly considered like a Be'ulah.

Rashi's opinion: The text does not say "Hani Mili (this applies only)", for this is not a difficulty. Also, he explained that we ask about our Mishnah.

Objection #1: If we ask about our Mishnah, why did he wait so long [to ask]?

Objection #2: There was no need to erase Hani Mili from the text. We can explain it to be a Ba'i (question what is the law), like Eima (I could say...)

Inference: Rashi connotes that we need this to teach whether or not she is in her father's Reshus when she is on the way.

Question (Ri): We learn from "Liznos Beis Aviha", and we learn Nedarim from there.

Answer: We need to learn from here regarding returning when she was widowed or divorced.

Question: We need this like we expound in Nedarim (88b, if a single girl vowed to be a Nezirah after 30 days, even if she married within the 30 days, her husband cannot annul the vow! Shitah Mekubetzes - some say that there, we cite "v'Neder Almanah u'Gerushah" from the Mishnah. We do not expound the verse. Alternatively, there we learn about a vow that took affect after Nisu'in. Here, we expound "Kol Asher Asrah Al Nafshah" to teach about a vow that took effect immediately.)

Implied question: Below (108b), regarding Admon, we ask "should one who engages in Torah inherits, and one who does not engage in Torah will not inherit?!"

Answer: Regarding Torah inheritance, surely we can ask that we should not steal [from one who does not engage in Torah] what the Torah awarded to him;

Here, we say that we are not stringent about one who engages in Torah. We finance him, so he can engage in Torah.

Distinction: However, all agree that he must feed very small children, like it says below (65b).

Explanation: There are two kinds of ravens. One is black and one is is white, like is proven in Chulin (63a) regarding Simanim of birds. We include Orev ha'Amaki [among the Tamei species];

It explains that Amki is like the appearance of the sun, which is Amok (deeper) then the shade, i.e. white.

Question: How could he force him to give Tzedakah? The reward for Tzedakah is written next to it, for it says "Biglal ha'Davar ha'Zeh Yevarechecha";

We say in Chulin (110b) that any Mitzvas Aseh for which its reward is written next to it, the earthly Beis Din is not commanded about [forcing people to fulfill] it!

Answer #1: He verbally coerced him.

Answer #2: People of the city fixed among themselves how much Tzedakah to give every month. Therefore, he forced him;

This is like we say in Bava Basra (8b), that people of the city can force people to fulfill allocations that they established.

Answer #3: There are two Lavim regarding Tzedakah - Lo Se'ametz and Lo Sikpotz. (He forced him due to the Lavim, but not due to the Mitzvas Aseh.)

Inference: Had he given a gift to someone else, he and his wife are not fed from them, like the law of a sale, like Rashi explained;

Had [the recipient] not been very pleasing to the giver, [the giver] would not have given a gift [so it is like a sale. However, we do not say so about one who gives to his son.]

We do not take from Meshubadim (sold property) in order to feed the wife and daughters, either because it has no limit, or because it is not explicitly written in a document, like it says in Gitin (50b).

Rejection #1: We can say that it mentioned [giving to] his son because we discuss being fed even from Metaltelim. Had he given to someone else, they would not be fed from Metaltelim, just like a widow is not fed from the heirs' Metaltelim.

Rejection #2: [It mentioned his son because] had he written to someone else, he himself would not be fed, but I can say that in any case she (his wife) is fed from a gift, even though she does not take from buyers.

Rebuttal (of rejections): In Bava Basra (133a), it connotes that she does not take from one who received a gift;

Citation (133a): Regarding Torah inheritance, we say that a widow is fed from his property. A ll the more so she is fed from Matanas Shechiv me'Ra!

Inference: If a healthy person gave a gift, she is not fed from it, even though she is fed from heirs.

Suggestion: Perhaps regarding a Torah gift, even though there is no Kal va'Chomer [from a Torah inheritance, that she is fed from it], the same applies (she is fed from it, just like from a Torah inheritance). Recipients of a gift are no stronger than heirs [to stop her from receiving food]

Rejection: You are forced to say that one who receives a gift is stronger than heirs!

We conclude in Bava Metzi'a (13a) that [if one found] a document with Acharayus, he does not return it, even if the borrower agrees (that it was not paid). We are concerned that it was paid, and they scheme [to take improperly from buyers];

[If one found] a document without Acharayus, he returns it, for one cannot use it to collect from Meshubadim.

If [a creditor] can collect from one who received a gift, why do we return it?! Rather, surely he does not collect. However, he collects from heirs.

Proof: In Bava Basra (176a), we rule that the Halachah is that a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document) is collected from heirs.

Conclusion: There is no distinction between a gift and a sale regarding this.

Implied question: There are places where it is logical to distinguish between a gift and a sale!

If one made his ox an Apotiki (he stipulated that the loan will be paid from it), and sold it (Bava Basra 44b), it seems that only if he sold it (the lender does not collect from it), but if he gave a gift, his creditor collects from it.

In Gitin (50b), regarding we do not collect from Meshubadim when there is Bnei Chorin (property that the borrower still owns), even if it (the Bnei Chorin) is Ziburis (lowest quality land), the Gemara asks about a gift.

Answer: We ask only about this, but here (collecting for food), there is no distinction.

Implied question: We say below (69a) that if he sold or gave land for collateral, we take from it for Parnasah (an orphaned girl gets a 10th of her father's estate for a dowry when she marries), but not for food!

Answer: The same applies if he gave a gift. We mentioned a sale to teach that even if he sold it, we take from it for Parnasah;

R. Chiya asked "[did Rav ask about] if he sold it, or if he gave it for collateral?", i.e. regarding Parnasah. It was obvious to him that we do not take for food, even from a gift;

A Mishnah in Gitin (48b) teaches that we do not take from Meshubadim in order to feed the wife and daughters.

Pesak: Now that the Ge'onim enacted that a woman collects her Kesuvah and food from Metaltelim of orphans, even though inheritance is mid'Oraisa, all the more so she collects from Matanas Shechiv me'Ra mid'Rabanan.

The Gemara says similar to this in Bava Basra (133a).

Distinction: However, Metaltelim of a healthy person's gift, which is mid'Oraisa, she does not collect her Kesuvah from it;

She does not collect food even from land [that her husband gave to others], just like she does not collect from buyers, like we explained.

This is not only if he (her husband) gave the gift. Rather, it is even if the heirs gave it, even though once he died there was a lien on the property.

Implied question: These are different! There, they (Ploni's daughter, and after she dies, her husband) can inherit only what he (Ploni) bequeaths, and he was obligated food for his widow before [he died]!

Answer: In any case, we bring a proof as follows:

Since Rabanan strengthened [his widow's] lien, that even from the [daughter's] husband, who is not like an heir, rather, like a buyer, she collects, even though she would not collect from another buyer...

Also here, we should enact about one who wrote [his property] to his son, that he and his wife are fed from it.