Question: He should have asked about an Anusah herself (whether she is fed)! (Pores Yosef - while married, surely she is fed according to the Tana'im who hold that the Torah obligates a man to feed his wife. After she is widowed, surely she is not fed according to Anshei Yehudah, who say that the orphans can pay her Kesuvah and stop feeding her (here she has no Kesuvah), and surely the same applies to Anshei Galil.

Explanation: When they have only a shack, she loses. All agree that they can expel her;

When they have good houses, she gains through the expression "my house." She uses the dwelling like she used in her husband' lifetime, like we say below (103a);

They cannot switch her to an inferior dwelling, or perhaps even to an equal one.

Explanation: This refers to all of them, except for "if they asked her to marry [and she refused because the suitor was not fitting]", which is better [more of a reason to lose food];

If [the Halachah does not follow] all of these [teachings] referred also to "if they asked her to marry", Shmuel contradicts himself according to Rav Anan, who said "Shmuel explained to me [if she refused because...]" (Pirchei Kehunah - Tosfos understands that Shmuel himself said "the Halachah does not follow... He is unsure what forced Tosfos to say so.)

Support: We find like this in Shabbos (140a) "the Halachah does not follow all of these teachings", and this is not precise.

Pesak (R. Chananel): Where there is a custom, we follow the custom. Where there is no custom, we follow Shmuel, for the Halachah follows him.

Implied question: Below, the Gemara asks "how far does Neharde'a extend?" (This implies that past there, the Halachah does not follow Shmuel!)

Answer: This is not because the Halachah does not follow Shmuel. Rather, in the rest of Bavel the custom is like Rav.

Reference: What is difficult from [the Sugya at the beginning of Perek] Almanah (below, 95b), I will explain there with Hash-m's help (DH Nizones).

Question: In Gitin (65b), when Geneiva was going in a noose [to his execution], he said "give 400 Zuz to R. Avina from [my] wine of Harpanya';

It says there (66a) that R. Avina does not acquire, for Geneiva did not say to give wine, nor money [from sale] of his wine. He said 'from my wine' (and this is meaningless)!

It is unreasonable to distinguish between "mi'Chamra" and "Min Chamra" (both of these mean "from wine.")

Answer: Also there, we conclude that he said "from wine" to give [R. Avina] better rights (to collect from wine or money, in case one of them was lost).

Implied question: Above (52b), R. Yochanan regretted giving a counsel [to exempt his relatives from an obligation to their father's widow]!

Answer: Here, it is not disgraceful, since it depends on her consent, if she wants to accept it.

Question: In Bava Metzi'a (104b) we conclude that there is no difference whether he said "li'Kesuvasah" (towards her Kesuvah) or "bi'Kesuvasah" (for her Kesuvah)!

In a place where they write double the true amount,) 400 Zuz are really 200, regarding one who said "give 400 Zuz to my daughter."

Answer #1: Here, only because she is Muchzekes (established) to receive food, we say that if he said 'l'Mezonos", he added to her food. There, the daughter is not Muchzekes.

Answer #2: There, he should have said only "give to her 400 Zuz." Since he said "li'Kesuvasah", this implies that with [the 200 from] the husband, so it is 400 Zuz in all;

However, here, that he needed to specify "for food", we can distinguish [between li'Mezonos and bi'Mezonos].

Question: Nowadays, the custom is that the Chasan writes to the Kalah 100 Litrin (a weight of silver), even though he does not have a Shavah Perutah!

Granted, when he has, he is Meshabed (puts a lien on) his property for this debt. Since he was obligated, even if this property was lost and he acquired other property, there is a lien on it (the new property).

Implied question: Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (one cannot transfer ownership of something not yet in the world)!

Answer: Even so, one can be Meshabed something not yet in the world, since he wrote "and what I will acquire", like we say in Bava Basra (157a).

However, one who has no property, how is he Meshabed property that he will acquire afterwards? Since he was not obligated to her, this is Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam! The Ri asked this to R. Eliyahu.

Answer #1 (R. Eliyahu): We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (94a). A Beraisa says that a Shomer Chinam can stipulate to be liable like a borrower;

The Gemara asked "how does he obligate himself? Through words?!", and answered that he made a Kinyan;

Inference: In every case, even though he is not Makneh to him any property, just he is Meshabed his body to this debt from now, when he will have property, the Shibud takes effect from now.

Implied question: This is Kinyan Devarim (he is not Makneh anything tangible)!

Answer: Kinyan Devarim is only like the case in Bava Basra (3a), when they did a Kinyan to divide a Chatzer that has no law to be divided. (After division, each share is not considered a proper Chatzer, for it is too small, therefore one partner cannot force the other to divide);

However, when one is Meshabed his body to be obligated, he becomes Meshubad for this. This is not mere Kinyan Devarim.

Answer #2: Some say that since he writes Stam that all his property has Acharayus [for the Kesuvah], why shouldn't he be obligated? He admitted that he has property!

Even though we know that he has no property, a litigant's admission is like 100 witnesses!

Support: For this reason, R. Tam says that we write in a Harsha'ah (power of attorney) "I was Makneh to him four Amos of land in my Chatzer, even though we know that he has no land;

Since he admits, a litigant's admission is like 100 witnesses.

Explanation: According to R. Yosi, we do not need [this]. Even if Tenai Kesuvah were unlike the Kesuvah, we reduce her [Kesuvah];

He says below in our Mishnah (63a) "he keeps reducing, so if an inheritance will fall to her from elsewhere, he collects from it."

Rather, it is needed according to Rabanan. He diminishes only [the amount of] the Kesuvah. Also Tosefes is like the Kesuvah.

Explanation: This is needed for if she was paid part of her Kesuvah, also the Tosefes she collects only through a Shevu'ah;

This is even if the Kesuvah was in one document, and the Tosefes was in another document.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If she demanded payment of the Tosefes, she is not fed.

Objection: This cannot be according to Rabanan, who say below (97b) that if she gave part of her Kesuvah for collateral or sold part of it, she is fed!

Explanation #2: Rather, "one who demands payment" means that if she demanded payment of 100 or 200, but left over the Tosefes, she is fed;

Since Tenai Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah, it is as if she demands payment of only part of the Kesuvah.

Explanation: Since she lost her [Ikar] Kesuvah, she lost also Tosefes.

Implied question: Mema'enes, Sheniyah and Ailonis have no [Ikar], but they have Tosefes (101a)!

Answer: That is because initially, when he wrote Tosefes to her, it was not with intent to be [part of the] Kesuvah, for he knows that a Mema'enes and Sheniyah do not have a Kesuvah;

Therefore, the Tosefes he wrote was a mere gift that he wrote to her. It does not pertain to the Kesuvah at all;

Also [if she was found to be] an Ailonis, the Tosefes he wrote was a mere gift for the dearness of the first night, and even if he she will be found to be an Ailonis, since he did not specify;

However, the Kesuvah itself, since it does not depend on his writing, he intends to write it only like Chachamim obligated, i.e. if she is not an Ailonis.

Distinction: However, Overes Al Das, from the beginning he wrote Tosefes with intent that it be [part of the] Kesuvah. When Chachamim fined her to lose her Kesuvah, they fined her also to lose Tosefes.