Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): He asked him many questions, and the letters were sewn to each other, and amidst the stitches he wrote this question.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): He wrote this question between the lines [of a friendly letter].

Support: It says so in the Yerushalmi in Gitin. He hung it between the lines.

Question: It is not clear what is the law when there are 10 daughters, and she did not profit [through death of the son].

Inference: Due to this, when R. Tam sat in judgment, and one of the litigants intimidated and said to another "you will be liable to me so and so in judgment", R. Tam would say "you lie! He will not be liable";

If it were improper for a judge to say so, how could Rav Minyomi bring a proof from Ameimar's silence?

Question: What is the case?

If it discusses rental that will come from the houses, obviously she takes it, for it is land!

If it discusses rental that was already collected, it is truly Metaltelim!

Answer: The case is, they rented out a house for a year, and the tenant [already] lived there half a year;

Even though he was already liable for the time he lived in the house, she collects from it. It is not considered Metaltelim, because rental is due only at the end.

Implied question: Even though Rav Sheshes did say [what Rav Huna commanded him], he should still need to permit the Niduy, like we say in Makos (11b) that conditional Niduy must be permitted!

We learn from Yehudah. It says "if I will not bring [Binyamin] to you (Yakov)..." Even though he fulfilled the Tenai, his bones were rolling in his coffin [until Moshe prayed for him]!

Answer: That is only for a matter Isur the one put in Niduy is unsure at the time of the Niduy whether or not the Tenai will be fulfilled, like there;

Danger through lions and thieves is b'Yedei Shamayim. Yehudah could not guard him from them. It is as if there is no Tenai at all;

However, here it is in his hands to fulfill it. Therefore, it need not be permitted (R. Tam).

Implied question: We pronounce this "Yenachem"!

Answer: Even so, we expound [it as if it says "Yinachem"] because it did not write "Menachem", about which one could not err, and rather wrote "Yenachem", which could be pronounced "Yinachem", even though we do not pronounce it this way.

Support: The Midrash says so. We seat at the head the one being consoled.

Rashi's Perush (we pronounce with a Pasach only if the letter is followed by an Aleph or Hei) is difficult.

Reference: Above (51a) we explained that nowadays, all are collected from Metaltelim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): After she married, she says "I believe my husband."

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2): The Gemara concludes that R. Meir and R. Yosi argue only about an adult during Eirusin!

Explanation: R. Meir holds that she cannot sell it.

Explanation: They argue even about a minor from Nisu'in, but surely they argue also about an adult from Eirusin;

R. Meir holds that the third party fulfills what he was instructed to do, and R. Yosi holds that she may [authorize him to give it to her husband], like our Mishnah teaches:

Suggestion: We need the Seifa for a minor from Nisu'in. Even from Nisu'in she may not sell.

Rejection: If so, he should have taught explicitly "but a minor, even from Nisu'in, may not sell"!

However, according to R. Meir, like whom we establish our Mishnah, through saying that it is abbreviated, this is fine. He addresses "what is the case?..." which explicitly discusses Nisu'in.

Distinction: However, R. Yosi does not hold [that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the Mes].

Question: If he does not hold [that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the Mes], why does he say "even if it would be a field", and attribute the reason to this [that even if we fulfill his words, she can sell it]? He holds that there is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the Mes!

Answer: Perhaps he addresses R. Meir according to R. Meir's reasoning: