Implied question: R. Meir and Rabanan argue in Shevuos (43a) about grapes ready to be harvested;

R. Meir considers them as if they were harvested, and Rabanan say that they are not as if they were harvested. (What is difficult if Rav Yosef holds like Chachamim?!)

Answer: He asks because simply, they are considered as if they were harvested, like R. Chananel explained, that due to the Gemara in Bava Kama (59b), we hold like this;

There, R. Shimon says that if [one's animal] ate finished Peros, he pays finished Peros, a Se'ah if it ate a Se'ah, and Sa'atayim if it ate Sa'atayim, for we consider them to be detached. We rule there like R. Shimon.

Suggestion: If Peros would get worse if they stayed [attached], all agree that they are considered as if they were harvested.

Rejection: In Gitin (39a) and Sanhedrin (15a) it connotes that they argue also about these.

Question: Rava contradicts himself! Below (68a), Rava rules like R. Yehudah, who says that we give to the second like he gave to the first. We say there that Shmuel holds like R. Yehudah;

Inference: Rava holds that we estimate based on the father. If so, he collects from Metaltelim, like we say in our Sugya!

Suggestion: There, Rava said so in the name of Rav Chisda, but he himself does not hold like this.

Rejection: In that Sugya we ask from that (Rava saying that Rav Chisda rules like R. Yehudah) against another teaching of Rava, and we do not answer this (that Rava himself does not rule like R. Yehudah)!

Answer: Rava says here that from land and not from Metaltelim, i.e. without Amidnei (an estimation that he wants to give from Metaltelim);

There, Rava holds like R. Yehudah and Shmuel when Amidnei (we assess) that he intends that she collect from Metaltelim. The Gemara distinguishes like this there.

Pesak: Nowadays that all of them collect from Metaltelim, Kesuvah and food, due to the Ge'onim's enactment...

Also Parnasah, Anan Sahadei (it is so certain that we can testify) that all men marry off daughters from Metaltelim. This is considered like Amidnei, in which case Rava rules like R. Yehudah.

Inference: Below (56b), we infer that anyone who diminishes, even through a Tenai [the Bi'as is Zenus]. This shows that he holds that the Tenai is Batel, and she has [a Kesuvah];

[Even so], since he told her (that her Kesuvah is less than 100 or 200), she does not rely [on getting the proper amount], and the Bi'ah is Bi'as Zenus.

Explanation #1 (Rivan): Whenever she has a Kesuvah, but she is not confident of it, and does not rely on it, Chachamim enacted that the Bi'ah is Bi'as Zenus.

However, if the stipulation was valid, since she has no [Kesuvah] the Bi'ah is not Bi'as Zenus.

Implied question: [The Kesuvah of] a widow is mid'Rabanan. A stipulation about [mid'Rabanan laws] is valid!

Answer: Here, the Tenai is Batel, for everything Chachamim enacted, they enacted like Torah law.

Question (Ri): In Bava Kama (89a), it connotes that even when she has no [Kesuvah], according to R. Meir, the Bi'ah is Bi'as Zenus, lest it be light in his eyes to divorce her!

The Gemara asks there, regarding a woman who wounded her husband, [and we say that] she did not lose her Kesuvah, "why is this? She should sell her Kesuvah to her husband for Tovas Hana'ah [to pay for the wound]!"

We answer that the Mishnah is R. Meir, who says that one may not keep his wife for a moment without a Kesuvah. What is the reason? She should not be light in his eyes to divorce her.

Answer and Explanation #2: It seems that R. Meir teaches a bigger Chidush. Not only when she has no [Kesuvah], the Bi'ah is Bi'as Zenus, for it is light in his eyes to divorce her;

Rather, even when she has a Kesuvah, since she does not rely [that she will get it], it is Bi'as Zenus.

Source: [Below, on 56b,] we infer from the fact that [R. Meir] did not teach "any Besulah who does not have 200, or a widow who does not have 100, it is Bi'as Zenus";

Rather, he taught "anyone who diminishes." This connotes that he comes to teach that even though his Tenai is Batel, and she has [a full Kesuvah], it is Bi'as Zenus.

Question (Ri): What is the source that "anyone who diminishes" is even with a Tenai?

Perhaps R. Meir agrees about a Tenai, that the Tenai is valid, for "anyone who diminishes" connotes even in a case that she has, e.g. at the end of Bi'ah [and afterwards]!

We say below (57a) that she does not pardon!

Answer #1: The words "anyone who diminishes" connote that he decreases [what is proper] for her, and at the end of Bi'ah, he cannot decrease for her. Rather, she decreases for herself;

The expression "diminishing" applies only through a Tenai.

Answer #2: We derive from the fact that he said Kol (anyone).

Question: Below (57a), we say that at the end of Bi'ah, all agree that she does not pardon;

In Bava Kama (89a) it connotes that she can sell and pardon!

Answer: We can answer like Rashi explained below, that only [if she pardoned] verbally, she does not [truly] pardon, for her words have no effect, since she already acquired, unless she wrote a receipt.

Question: Why does it say "who is our Mishnah? It is R. Meir"?

It connotes below (57a) that also according to R. Yehudah, she cannot pardon, for the Tenai is Batel. He said [that she can pardon] only when she wrote to him "I received"!

Answer: There is based on the conclusion here, which says 'alternatively, I can say that there R. Yehudah discusses when she wrote to him "I received."'

Question: What is the source that R. Meir holds that even when she wrote to him "I received", she cannot pardon, and therefore we say "who is our Mishnah? It is R. Meir"?

Perhaps R. Meir teaches that not only when [she wrote] "I received", that she can pardon, it is Bi'as Zenus;

Rather, even verbally, when his Tenai is Batel, it is Bi'as Zenus!

Answer: Now, he holds that it is unreasonable to distinguish between whether or not she wrote.

Explanation: Now, it connotes to him that our Mishnah is when he did not write to her, [and she does not have a proper Kesuvah] because he stipulated with her.

Implied question: From the Seifa, [even] without the Reisha, he could have asked like whom is the Mishnah!

It cannot be R. Meir, for he holds that Acharayus Lav Ta'os Sofer Hu;

It cannot be R. Yehudah, for when he wrote to her a field worth 100 in place of 200, why is he liable? According to R. Yehudah, she can pardon!

Answer: The Gemara is wont to infer from the Reisha as much as possible.

Support: We find like this in Shabbos (39b) regarding the episode that people of Teverya did, and in Eruvin (16a) regarding "we find that there are three laws of a Mechitzah."

Observation: Even though it taught the number (five), the Tana omitted the case in the Mishnah (Gitin 48b) "we do not take for food for the wife and daughters from Meshubadim."

Implied question: In Kidushin (16b), regarding four [Avadim Ivriyim] who receive gifts when they leave, three cases apply to a male [slave] and three to a female, the Gemara asks "the Tana said four. You cannot say that he omitted cases!" (Here, even though he taught the number, he omitted a case!)

Answer: That is because it was taught there "you cannot find a fourth case regarding either [a male or female slave]."

Question: This is difficult for Shmuel, who said in Bava Metzi'a (13a) that R. Meir used to say that a document without Acharayus, one may not collect with it, not from Meshubadim and not from Bnei Chorin;

Here, the Gemara explicitly connotes that one may collect with it from Bnei Chorin (according to R. Meir)!

Observation: Even without this, Shmuel was refuted there from a Beraisa. (However, why didn't we challenge Shmuel also from this Beraisa?)

Answer (Rashba): Here, he could [give a weak] answer that "a loan document without Acharayus" means that it explicitly says that one may not collect from Meshubadim. (It is like Rabanan.)

Support: We find like this in Bava Basra (168b) regarding one who comes and says "my loan document was lost."

Implied question: Why do we establish [this Beraisa] here like R. Meir?

Answer: It is because it seems that it is like him. However, had we challenged Shmuel from it, he could have answered like I explained (that the document explicitly says that one may not collect from Meshubadim).

Question: [According to Shmuel's father,] why was Esther permitted to Mordechai [until she willingly went to Achashverosh] (Megilah 13b)?

Answer: She was a total Tzadekes. (Shmuel's father would not be concerned lest at the end she desired the Bi'ah.)

Implied question: (What is difficult?) Shmuel's father said that we are concerned! (The Torah permits, and mid'Rabanan we are concerned.)

Answer: He understands that [Shmuel's father forbids] mid'Oraisa. If it were mid'Rabanan, we would not remove her from her husband.)