Implied question: Why didn't he send twice as much, like Mar Ukva did above (when he realized that the Oni was very finicky)?

Answer: No one is finicky about these matters (eating on linen or silk cloths). Surely, he was rich.

Explanation: This is a cloth dyed red with worms. It is like gold. This is like [dying red] in Bava Metzi'a (78b).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He collected Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah, and it became known that he was rich, and Beis Din comes to collect what he took.

Implied question: This is Mamon she'Ein Lo Tov'in (no one can claim compensation)!

Answer: It is a fine that we collect from him [what he took];

Even if you will say that normally, in such a case of a borrower, we are Mesader and do not obligate him to sell [gold or silver Kelim, and force him to use cheaper ones], here, for a fine, we obligate him to sell.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Before he comes to Givuy (collection) is before he takes from the Tzedakah box, rather, from Hefker matters, e.g. Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah;

After Givuy, when he takes from the Tzedakah box, we obligate him to sell.

Question: The Mishnah "we do not obligate him to sell" discusses Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah!

The Beraisa that obligates him to sell connotes that also it discusses Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah.

Question (Rashba): If so (Parnasah is a dowry), "we estimate the property" is not the same for food and Parnasah (even though they are taught together)!

Regarding Parnasah, we estimate the property to give to her a 10th;

Regarding food, we estimate the property. If [the father] was poor, we give to her like it says above (64b) about one who feeds his wife through a third party;

If there is much property, everything is according to the level of honor!

Explanation: We do not estimate it based on the father, since she is fed b'Al Korcho (against his will) due to a stipulation of Beis Din;

However, Parnasah for a dowry depends only on his will, like we say below (68b), if one said "do not give dowries to my daughters from my property", we heed him. Therefore, we estimate it based on the father.

Explanation: Now, Shmuel can hold like Rabanan. Also Rabanan hold that we estimate based on the father;

They mean that sometimes a man was rich when he gave to his first daughter, and now he became poor in property, and he would not give to this [daughter] like he gave to the first;

We should not say to give to the second like he gave to the first. Rather, we estimate the property;

I.e. we give based on what the father would have given from this sparse property. This is the meaning of "we estimate based on the father."

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks "this implies that the first Tana holds [that even if he was rich and became poor, we give to the second like he gave to the first]. He does not have!"

I.e. he does not have like he had at first. Surely he would not give now like he gave at first!

In such a case R. Yehudah would not say that we give to the second [like he gave to the first]. Rather, "poor" means stingy.

Now, we cannot explain "we estimate the property" to means that we estimate the father [since his wealth did not change, only his generosity changed].

Question: Why does she get more because she married earlier? Why don't we calculate based on how many daughters remain, as if all are marrying at once?

Answer: We give a 10th of the property because Stam men give so to their daughters. If the father were alive, he would give a 10th to the first. He would not give less due to the remaining daughters.

Explanation: He holds unlike Rav, who said above (53b) that "Havayah" refers to Eirusin;

If he held [like Rav], he should have said "if they became Mekudeshes before Bagrus" (they are no longer fed), which would be a bigger Chidush.

Suggestion: Perhaps he discusses Nisu'in, to teach that even so, they did not lose Parnasah.

Rejection: If so (he comes to teach a Chidush of not losing Parnasah), he should have taught that even if they had Nisu'in and became Bogros, they did not lose Parnasah!

It is difficult to say that due to R. Shimon ben Elazar, who says that they lost even Parnasah, he mentioned Nisu'in.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer [that she did not pardon Parnasah] when she is fed from [her brothers], like we answer below?

Answer: "They lost their food" connotes that they do not want to feed them any more.

Question (Rashba): Why don't we ask from the fact that above, Rava ruled like Rebbi, who says that a daughter fed from the brothers receives a 10th of the property?

Inference: This is only if she is fed from them, but not if she is not fed! (Pnei Yehoshua - perhaps Rava rules like Rebbi's Halachah, but not necessarily like the inference.)

Question: Perhaps we do so every day because Rebbi said this!

Answer: Rav Huna said this in the Beis Midrash for some Chidush in the name of Rebbi. (This implies that the law was not known to everyone.)

Support: We find like this in Shabbos (52a).

Implied question: Rav was unsure about this. He asked "if the brothers mortgaged property, what is the law?" Also R. Yochanan disagrees below (69a! If so, this was a Chidush!)

Answer: In the days of Rav, this ruling had not yet spread.

Explanation: This refers to what the brothers mortgaged, but not what the father mortgaged;

Tanai Kesuvah are not taken from mortgaged property, even if the brothers mortgaged it, like the Mishnah (Gitin 48b) says "we do not take..."

Suggestion: Perhaps we can say oppositely, that Parnasah is unlike food. Rebbi holds that food is collected from Metaltelim, but Parnasah is not!

Answer: Since he holds that food is collected from Metaltelim, all the more so Parnasah is!

Above (68a), Rava ruled like R. Yehudah, that we estimate Parnasah based on the father, and [if so, since surely he would give from Metaltelim,] it is collected from Metaltelim;

Regarding food, he rules below (69b) that it is collected from land, but not from Metaltelim.

Question #1: Why didn't he say also that Parnasah is unlike Tanai Kesuvah regarding if they married or became Bogeros, they lost food, but not Parnasah, like Rebbi himself said above?

Question #2: [Why didn't he say that] we estimate Parnasah based on the father according to Rebbi, if we know his temperament, and above we say that for food, we do not estimate if the father [were alive, he would give so much...] Rather, we appraise the property, and give to them!

Answer #1: These were obvious to him, and we can ask "cases occur every day..." like we asked above.

Answer #2 (to Question #1 - R. Tam): We do not want to establish it to teach that if they married or became Bogeres, they lost food, but not Parnasah, for if so, why did Rav Huna need to teach this twice?

Above, Rav Nachman said "Huna told me that the Halachah follows Rebbi."

Suggestion: Perhaps this teaching (Parnasah is unlike Tanai Kesuvah) is what Rav Huna taught to Rav Nachman!

Rejection: He did not say it in these words.

Reiteration of Question #2: Why didn't we establish it to teach that we estimate for Parnasah, but not for food?

Answer #2: This is essentially the answer we gave "like the Beraisa said, if one said 'do not give Parnasah...'", for these (estimating based on the father, and heeding a command not to give them) depend on each other, like I explained above;

Since the father cannot uproot food, it is not applicable to estimate him (his temperament), for it does not depend on his will;

However, Parnasah depends on his will. We estimate him for it.