Implied question: These are matters acquired through words! (How could he retract?)

Answer #1: This is when they were Mekadesh right after [agreeing how much they will give]. Here, when he wanted to retract, they did not yet make Kidushin.

Answer #2: Here, they already made Kidushin beforehand, and afterwards wrote [how much each will give];

We say that these matters are acquired through words only when they were Mekadesh afterwards.

Explanation (Ri): He asks "you should have asked your question about one who pardons, which is more common [than selling]", like Rashi explained;

He concludes "regarding one who sells, even though we could say that [need for] money coerced her, I lean to say that since she sold, she lost [Kesuvas Benin Dichrin];

Do you ask about one who pardons? Obviously, she does not have Kesuvas Benin Dichrin!

Support: R. Chananel explained like this in Shabbos (95b) regarding a hole in a Kli big enough to be Metaher it.

Implied question: A Beraisa above (47b) says that burial corresponds to her Kesuvah!

Answer: That refers to the dowry of her Kesuvah. This is only for a Nesu'ah, of whom he inherits her dowry.

Support: We find that the dowry is called Kesuvah, like it says above (48b) "if she entered [her courtyard] with her husband to lodge... even if her Kesuvah is in her husband's house (if she died, her father inherits her. This must refer to Metaltelim designated for her dowry.)

Question #1: Only Beis Shamai expound Midrash Kesuvah (learn Halachos from the text of the Kesuvah), like it says in Yevamos (116b)!

Citation (116b - Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If a woman said "my husband died", she may marry and receive her Kesuvah. Beis Hillel say, she may marry, but does not receive her Kesuvah...

Citation (cont.) Beis Shamai: We learn from the Kesuvah! He writes to her "when you will [be permitted to] marry another...

Answer #1: It says there that Beis Hillel retracted to rule like Beis Shamai!

Rejection: They did not retract to hold that we expound Midrash Kesuvah, rather, due to a Kal va'Chomer that Beis Shamai said to them, i.e. "you permitted Ervah, which is severe. Will we not permit Mamon, which is lenient?!"

It says below (81a) "who holds [that we expound] Midrash Kesuvah? It is Beis Shamai."

Inference: Beis Hillel did not retract due to Midrash Kesuvah, rather, due to the Kal va'Chomer, like I explained.

Reiteration of Question #1: How can we say that the Sugya here is like Beis Shamai?!

Question #2: Abaye and Rava expound above (51a) "I will return you to your land and return you to be [my] wife"!

Question #3: Also Shmuel expounds the wording of documents, in Bava Metzi'a (15a) regarding Shmuel's teaching "a creditor collects Shevach (improvements on the land that he collects)", we support this, for [a seller] writes to him 'I will silence any claims against this sale... [and Shevach].'

Will we say that all of these are like Beis Shamai?! Beis Shamai against Beis Hillel is not a Mishnah (surely, the Halachah does not follow Beis Shamai)!

Answer: It seems that here the Halachah follows Beis Shamai, for we find several Tana'im who hold like them in Bava Metzi'a (104a)

The following expound the words of commoners - R. Meir, R. Yehudah, Hillel ha'Zaken, R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, and R. Yosi.

Since they expound the words that commoners accustomed themselves to write in documents, even though Chachamim did not enact them, all the more so [they expound] Tenai Kesuvah, which Chachamim enacted!

It is clear in Bava Metzi'a that this is the Halachah.

Question: Beis Hillel are unlike Hillel ha'Zaken!

Answer #1: Perhaps even though Beis Hillel are the Talmidim of Hillel ha'Zaken, they argue with him.

Answer #2: Beis Hillel do not expound Midrash Kesuvah, i.e. to weaken her rights. They expound it to strengthen her rights;

Regarding this, Beis Hillel retract to hold like Beis Shamai in Yevamos, for there it is to strengthen her rights, and not due to the Kal va'Chomer there, like is proven from the Mishnah there.

Also the case [of Hillel] in Bava Metzi'a strengthens her rights. (People of Alexandria would be Mekadesh women, and others would take the women at the time of the Nisu'in. Chachamim thought that the children from the second man were Mamzerim.) Because it was written in their mothers' Kesuvos 'when you enter the Chupah, you will be my wife', [Hillel] did not make the children Mamzerim.

Hillel ha'Zaken said so after [Beis Hillel] retracted.

Distinction: However, Beis Shamai expound Midrash Kesuvah even to weaken her rights;

We hold like them, for here in our Sugya it is to weaken her rights.

Implied question: Why can't we ask "if it is Havayah (matrimony) of Nisu'in, is this even if she is a Bogeres?!", like we asked above against Rav, who taught "until they are taken [to men]"?

Answer: There, we asked because he connotes that he comes to teach unlike Levi [who said until she becomes a Bogeres];

However, here Rav Yosef taught a Beraisa by itself. It teaches about one who had Nisu'in when she was a minor (she is not fed any more), and the same applies to one who became a Bogeres and did not marry.

Explanation #1: He did not hear the argument of Tana'im above. (Therefore, he asked.)

Explanation #2: He heard the argument, and asks whom the Halachah follows.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to from Eirusin. All agree that from Nisu'in, she is not fed. Once she was uprooted from food for a moment, she is not fed again;

However, from Eirusin she is not uprooted. He (the Tana) holds that an Arusah is fed.

Question: If so, why did he mention a widow, since even if she was not widowed, she is fed?

Answer #1: He teaches that from Nisu'in, even if she was widowed, she is not fed.

Answer #2: He teaches that only a widow from Eirusin is fed, but not a widow from Nisu'in. However, Mema'enes, even if she was widowed from Nisu'in, is fed.

Support: It says that they argue about Mema'enes.

Question: What is the Chidush regarding a Shomeres Yavam?

Suggestion: It teaches the inference, that only [if she was widowed] from Eirusin she is fed, but not from Nisu'in.

Rejection: If so, why does it mention a Shomeres Yavam? Also a widow who is not Zekukah l'Yibum is not fed!

Answer: It mentions a Shomeres Yavam for a Chidush. Not only an Arusah, who is still lacking Mesirah l'Chupah [is fed];

Rather, even a Shomeres Yavam, who is not lacking [Mesirah l'Chupah], for [the Yavam] can have Bi'ah with her b'Al Korchah (against her will), is fed.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): A widow in her father's house, and she was widowed or divorced in her father's lifetime, i.e. this is in her father's house, she is fed;

This is because when she was widowed or divorced, her father had not yet died, and the time for food had not yet come, and she does not lose anything.

The inference is from a Mema'enes, according to the first Tana. Since R. Yehudah comes to add, to require that she is still in her father's house, this implies that "Beis Aviha" that the first Tana mentioned is even if she left;

This is in such a case that she did Mi'un, and uprooted the initial Nisu'in. It is as if she never married.

Rebuttal: This is difficult. Once she married, she is not fed, for her father has no jurisdiction over her.

Conclusion: Rashi's Perush is primary.

Explanation #1: A Yevamah herself, obviously she is fed. Regarding her, we say that Tenai Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah. When she does not have from her first husband, she has from the second;

However, we ask about the daughter. Is she strong like her [mother] for Tenai Kesuvah to be like the Kesuvah, in a case when the first [husband] does not have [property];

If the first has [property], in any case she collects.

Support: The question about a Sheniyah's daughter is like this. Obviously, a Sheniyah is not fed. For her, Tenai Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah;

Regarding her daughter, we ask.

Explanation #2: We ask about even when the first has property. Even though obviously, she (her mother) is fed, whether or not he has, like I explained...

We ask about her daughter. Surely she does not have from the first, for he wrote to her only "daughters you will have from me, they will dwell [in my house and be fed from my property]", and this girl is not from him;

However, perhaps she is fed from the second, since if she does not have from her first husband, [Chachamim] enacted for her from the second, that all Tana'im will be imposed on the second;

Regarding feeding the daughter, even if the first has [property], since she (the daughter) is not fed from it, it is as if he has none, and Chachamim enacted for her from the second;

Or, perhaps also from the second she is not fed!

Question: This requires investigation, whether we could have asked about Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. Perhaps she does not have it, since he (the Yavam) inherited his brother;

Or, perhaps there is concern lest the father refrain and not give, for he is concerned lest she fall to a Yavam.

Distinction: It seems that we could not have asked about an Arusah regarding Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, for the father does not give anything to her as long as she is an Arusah.