Explanation (R. Chananel): We discuss gold Kelim, e.g. nose-rings and rings.

Question: The Gemara says "no, they are like gold Kelim, which do not depreciate." We discuss gold Kelim!

Answer: The Gemara [had asked] "aren't they like silver Kelim, which depreciate?"

Since she wears the gold constantly, e.g. nose-rings and rings, even though they do not depreciate, a woman wants to adorn herself with them, and to deduct a Chomesh.

It answers "no, they are like gold Kelim, which do not depreciate", e.g. gold cups and bowls;

Even though when people use them, they depreciate, like silver Kelim, since they are so expensive, people do not use them constantly.

These, obviously these are like their value. They are not used so much to depreciate.

Likewise, nose-rings and rings, [merely] due to adorning with them, she does not want to deduct.

[The Gemara asked] "it should say that they are like its Kelim!" I.e. it stands b'Kalosav (this is like Kulaso, its total value - Maharshal, second Perush) and in its importance, and he does not deduct a fifth.

We conclude that it discusses Pricha gold. I.e. the Beraisa discusses [pieces of] broken gold;

It teaches that broken gold is like Kelim, i.e. gold Kelim, like R. Yochanan said. Even though it is broken, since it does not depreciate, it is considered like Kelim.

Explanation: This is gold taken from the ground, from its source.

Explanation: We ask from Rabanan. (If R. Shimon ben Gamliel refers to the Reisha, Rabanan must say that gold is like silver Kelim.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She gets a profit of a third, for they are like money. The husband adds a third [to the amount she entered].

Question (R. Tam): It should have said "they are like money!", like R. Yanai said!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We discuss the Kesuvah. She may collect the Kesuvah from them, for she relies on them, like Rashi himself explained regarding wallets of Mechuza.

Pesak: This is the source to rule that our Metaltelim are Meshubad to pay the Kesuvah, for they are like camels of Araviya and ropes of Kimchoniya, which women rely on.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): If [our Metaltelim] are like land, like these matters in our Sugya, if the husband sold them, she should take them from buyers after her husband dies!

If so, according to them (who gave the above Pesak), Takanas ha'Shuk is Batel! (Chachamim enacted that there is no lien on Metaltelim, lest people be afraid to buy them, lest a creditor collect them.)

Rather, the Ge'onim enacted that she collects [her Kesuvah] from Metaltelim of orphans, like Rav Shrirah Gaon wrote.

Question: Why does he need to learn from our Mishnah? He can learn from Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav, who taught in Kidushin (11b) that [any sum of money taught] regarding a law mid'Rabanan is standard money (it is only an eighth silver)!

Answer: Rav Yehudah's rule applies only to Sela'im, but not to Zuzim or a Maneh (100 Zuz).

Source #1: In Bava Kama (90a), we say that one who was Toke'a someone (hit him near, or he blew a Shofar in) the ear, he pays one Sela. R. Yosi ha'Glili obligates a Maneh;

The Gemara asks if the Maneh is Tzuri (pure silver), or common, and concludes that it is Tzuri, and does not ask from Rav Yehudah's teaching.

Source #2: Also a Kesuvah, even according to the opinion that Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan, the 200 Zuz are Tzuri, just like according to the opinion that it is mid'Oraisa;

They argue (below, 110b) only about one who married a wife in Kaputkiya and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, whether he gives to her coins of Eretz Yisrael or Kaputkiya.

Similarly, the Maneh of [the Kesuvah of] a widow, which all agree is mid'Rabanan, is Tzuri, like it connotes above (12b) regarding "Beis Din of Kohanim used to collect [for a Bas Kohen...], for a widow's Kesuvah is half of a Torah Kesuvah.

Note: First they enacted 400 for a Besulah Bas Kohen, and 100 for a widow. Kohanos widows were disgraced (Tosfos - because they had only a quarter of a Besulah's Kesuvah), so they enacted 200 for them. This was the same as for a Besulah Yisraelis. Later, they returned to the previous status. The Gemara said that there were two enactments [for a Bas Kohen widow]. This connotes that the first enactment did not affect a Bas Kohen widow; do not say that they enacted 100 Tzuri Zuz for her, more than the 100 common Zuz of a Yisraelis widow. Hafla'ah (Kuntres Acharon) brings from the Yerushalmi that Shmuel says that a widow's Kesuvah is half of a Torah Kesuvah, and Shmuel (10a) holds that the Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: These Chachamim are R. Shimon above.

Question #1: R. Shimon does not hold that the Torah speaks like people speak, in Rosh Hashanah (8a)!

Question #2: We expound in Bava Metzi'a (31b) "Hakem Takim" and "Hashev Tashiv" (that one must help another load his animal or return his Aveidah) even 100 times [and many other Drashos from doubled words]. Will we say that all are unlike R. Shimon?!

Answer (Ri): Wherever we can expound, we expound, and we do not say that the Torah speaks like people speak;

However, here it is unreasonable to him to expound like Rabanan, for the verse connotes that it discusses one who does not have, like it is written "Dai Machsoro" (enough for what he lacks).

R. Chananel's text: R. Chananel's text says "Mutzes" without an Aleph. This is from the same root as "va'Yatzes Esh b'Tziyon" (an expression of burning).