Explanation: This connotes like Acharei Achlah with a Mapik Hei (when a word ends with Hei, and there is a dot inside, this denotes feminine possessive, in this case "her eating").

Implied question: She did not eat, like it says "va'Tivkeh v'Lo Sochal"!

Answer: In any case, we should expound as follows. Chanah rose after the time of her eating that she should have eaten, and after the drinking of Elkanah and his household except for her, for she should not have drunk;

This is why Eli considered her to be drunk. (Shitah Mekubetzes brings from an early edition of Rashi that her lengthy prayer suggested only a mild influence of wine, but since women do not normally drink, he considered her to be drunk. Maharsha explains that it is because she prayed after the time for eating and drinking. Normally, we do not pray then, due to concern for intoxication!)

Explanation: [We infer] from the fact that it did not say "v'Acharei Shasosah", similar to eating, which was attributed to her.

Alternatively, it could have said "Acharei Achol v'Acharei Shaso", like it says "Echol v'Shesei Yomru Lecha";

Since the verse changed [from feminine to masculine] we expound so, like it explains below.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. Will you similarly expound that we do not allot food for a man?!

Explanation: Chanah is written in the verse, and it says also "Achlah". If so, it should say also "Shasosah";

Or, the verse should not discuss her, and it should [rather] say "Achal v'Shasah."

Question: What proof do we need for this? The Beraisa itself teaches one who is accustomed [to drinking]. This implies that it is only for one who is accustomed!

Answer: Also R. Elazar discusses one who is accustomed. If she is not accustomed at all in front of her husband, obviously we do not allot!

Should we give to her what her husband did not give to her when she was with him?!

Therefore, we need to bring from R. Chinena that there is a woman who is accustomed, to whom we give, e.g. she was used to drinking two cups.

Explanation: This explains Shmuel's words. If she is accustomed, we give to her one cup, i.e. if she was used to drinking two cups.

This that he said that "if she is not accustomed, we give to her two cups, i.e. she was not used to drinking two cups, rather, one cup, we do not give to her at all not in front of her husband.

Explanation: This refers to the Beraisa. I.e. do not ask from the Beraisa [for we can say that the wine is for cooking];

However, Shmuel's teaching can be explained only like we explained it [based on how much she used to drink].

Implied question: Regarding Sidur (what we leave with a debtor, and do not allow a creditor to collect from it), we say in Bava Metzi'a (113b) that we leave him with two beds and a reed mattress! (One bed is to eat on, and one is to sleep on, for if one does not walk four Amos after eating before he sleeps, it is dangerous.)

Answer: Perhaps Chachamim did not exert a man so much regarding his wife, for she can walk four Amos after eating [before she sleeps, even if she sleeps on the same bed that she ate on].

The text: R. Tam says that the text does not say "Mapatz and Machtzeles" (types of mattresses), rather, "why does she need a Machtzeles?"

Mapatz is soft, and it is proper also for Semichah (to lean on it). Granted, she does not need it for lying, for she has a bed, but she needs it for Semichah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): You will take mine, i.e. my mattress.

Question: If so, it should to have two mattresses! (Even if he takes one, she will have the other. Why does she need a pillow and blanket?)

Answer: Perhaps because he is pampered, i.e. until now he was used to lie on a blanket, he will take both mattresses for himself.

Explanation #2 (Rivam): The text does not say "you will take mine." She does not complain. Rather, she wants to rise [in status] with him and lie on a blanket [whenever they are together], even though he does not have one for himself now.

Support: The Gemara connotes that she comes to refute her husband's claim, according to Rabanan.

Explanation: Even [if her husband is a camel-driver or sailor (whose Onah is not every week, he must fulfill Onah every Shabbos) because he feeds her through a third party.

Explanation: We force him [to feed them].

Implied question: Above (49b, Rav Chisda) commanded to invert a barrel [and make the man stand on it and publicly declare that he is worse than a raven, but he did not force him to feed his children]!

Answer: That refers to children above six years.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): Perek ha'Madir (in our Gemaros, this is the seventh Perek) is after Perek Af Al Pi. Since it was taught in [the last Mishnah of] Af Al Pi (64b) "one who feeds his wife through a third party", we teach [after this] "one who forbids his wife through a vow, for 30 days he appoints a Parnes (someone to finance her in place of him), who is like a third party.

After teaching ha'Madir, the Tana returns to the previous matter (monetary laws between a man and his wife).

Opinion #2: In the Perush of R. Chananel, the Yerushalmi, Tosefta and most Seforim, Perek Metzi'as ha'Ishah follows Af Al Pi, since Af Al Pi ended with "if she was nursing, we reduce her workload" (and the first Mishnah of Metzi'as ha'Ishah says that her husband gets her earnings);

Since the last Mishnah of this Perek (69b) discusses one who leaves money for his daughter through a third party, ha'Madir was taught afterwards, in which the first Mishnah says "he appoints a Parnes", who is like a third party.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): Rashi's first Perush is primary. If an inheritance fell to her from elsewhere, he eats the Peros in her lifetime.

Explanation #2 (in Rashi): He inherits her after death.

Objection: If so, why did the Gemara need to say that we need to teach about her Boshes and Pegam? It should have said that the Chidush is that he inherits her after death!

Implied question: We already know this from the Mishnah "a husband has more [rights in his wife than a father has in his daughter]! A father inherits [his daughter], and it says that a husband has more rights!

Answer: That is when she has no children. We cannot learn from there [that a husband inherits a wife] when she has children [because a father does not inherit his daughter if she left children].

Defense (of Explanation #2): However, we can say that we could not have said that we needed to teach that he inherits her, for we learn this from the Mishnah below (83a) and in Bava Basra (108a)!

Correction: R. Tam changed the text in his Sefer to say "Shelo" (his).

Implied question: In Bava Kama (32a), the Gemara asked the law of one who damaged his wife through relations!

Answer: It asked about pain. Obviously, he is exempt from Boshes and Pegam, for even if others damaged her, he receives [Boshes and Pegam]!

Rebuttal: If so, this should have been taught above (46b) that a father does not receive Boshes and Pegam of his daughter through wounding, only what is through Ones u'Mefateh!

This is like we say in Bava Kama (87b) "the Torah awarded to the father only Shevach Ne'urim (i.e. due to the Besulim).

Also above (43a), the Gemara asked that she should receive money for wounding!

Rebuttal (cont.): [Above (46b), it should have taught that a father does not receive Boshes and Pegam...] a husband has more rights. He acquires Boshes and Pegam!

Conclusion: Rather, surely the text says that her Boshes and Pegam is "Shelah" (hers). R. Tam himself retracted. And this is the text in the Yerushalmi.

Support: The Gemara connotes like this. It says "it needs to teach about Boshes and Pegam, the argument of R. Yehudah ben Beseirah and Rabanan;

[If the text says "his",] it did not need to say more than "it needs to teach about Boshes and Pegam." Since it needs to teach that they are his, it taught also that her Metzi'os and earnings are his;

However, if the text says "hers", this is fine. Due to Rabanan, there was no need at all to teach her Metzi'os and earnings. What connection is there between them? He gets these (her Metzi'os and earnings), and she gets these (Boshes and Pegam)!

The Mishnah taught them only due to R. Yehudah ben Beseirah. According to him, they (Boshes and Pegam) pertain (go) to the husband.

Observation: According to the opinion in Bava Kama (86a) that if one cuts the hand of another's Eved Ivri, he gives everything to the slave, and he buys land and he (the master) eats the Peros, this is fine;

Also here, everything goes to the woman, and [her husband] eats the Peros.

However, according to the opinion that he pays Nezek to the slave, and Sheves to the master, we must distinguish between a slave and a wife.

Explanation: Pegam in private is in a place where people do not see. Exposed is when he bruised her face, in a place that everyone sees. He (her husband) himself is blemished with her;

Boshes in private is when he embarrassed her with no one else around. Exposed is when he embarrassed her in front of everyone.