Pesak: R. Chananel rules like R. Shimon regarding unknown property.

Support: Since it says "according to R. Shimon", this connotes all those who hold that a diversion document does not acquire hold like R. Shimon.

Suggestion: Perhaps the Gemara means that Rabanan enacted for the sake of a Mivrachas (one who wants to divert property), just like R. Shimon holds about unknown property;

Even Rabanan of R. Shimon agree to this. Really, the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon!

Rejection: If so, it should have said "that is not known to the husband, according to R. Shimon", without a Vov;

This would connote that just like property that is not known, the husband has no rights to it according to R. Shimon, the same applies to a Mivrachas, according to everyone;

Since it rather says "and according to R. Shimon", this connotes that it is only according to R. Shimon, because through the diversion, the property is unknown.

Pesak: A case of a diversion document came in front of R. Tam. A man wanted to borrow, and he did not want his creditor to have a lien on the property. In another case, a man wanted that there will be no lien on his property to pay his wife's Kesuvah;

R. Tam ruled that the document is valid, and [the recipient] collects with it.

Explanation: Only here it is Mivrachas so the husband will not acquire, for it is unknown property, we say that surely, she intended to divert property;

However, in these cases, if the recipient would not acquire, the creditor or woman would acquire. If so, the property is not diverted. Therefore, we should say that he intended for a full gift.

Explanation: R. Tam explained in Bava Basra (82a) that date trees last very long;

It is unlike Rashbam, who explained there that they do not last more than four or five years, regarding Rav Zevid's teaching that a date tree has no trunk.

Inference: Vines are worse than trees, and all the more so they are worse than date trees, which are better than [other] trees.

Question: We say in Bava Kama (92a) that Shmuel's sharecropper brought to him dates. [Shmuel] tasted in them the taste of wine. He said "they are weakening the vines so much. Tomorrow, bring to me their roots (uproot them)!

Inference: Vines are better than date trees!

Answer: Date trees are better in this respect, that one need not spend anything for them in order to fix them;

However, vines need great expenditures, to prune them and fix the vineyard. If not, they get ruined;

For one who can toil and work and guard them property, there is great profit.

R. Chananel's text: R. Chananel's text says "if the Geza regenerates, it is principal. If the Geza does not regenerate, it is Peros. (Usually, "Geza" is trunk. Here, we can explain that it refers to the source.)

Explanation: A matter in which one eats the Peros and the principal remains, this is principal. We do not sell it to buy land;

Something that is consumed, i.e. the Geza does not regenerate, it is as if Peros fell to her. He buys land with it.

Consequence: The opinion that says "it is Peros" taught this general rule, for a forest of trees (for lumber) and a pond of fish do not regenerate, like Rashi explained.

Question #1 (Rashba): The Gemara connotes that the opinion that says "it is principal" taught this general rule, since it did not teach last (just before the general rule) the opinion that it is Peros!

Question #2: Below, Rav Nachman said that if she brought a cloak to him, it is Peros. He wears it... He should have said that it is principal! (The principal endures, and he need not sell it.)

Question #3: R. Meir taught that a reserve of sulfur or alum is considered principal. Also this means that it is considered like lasting principal, and the husband eats the Peros;

If so, R. Meir contradicts himself, for in our Mishnah, R. Meir says that for attached Peros, we evaluate their worth, and he buys land for this amount and he eats the Peros!

Sulfur and alum are no worse than attached Peros.

Question #4: Now, Rav Nachman holds like R. Meir! (On Amud B, the Gemara connotes that he holds like Chachamim who argue with R. Meir.)

Conclusion and Explanation #2: Rashi's Perush is better. (Something that is consumed is considered principal.)

Explanation #3: R. Tam had R. Chananel's text, and explains that they do not argue about property that fell to her, whether or not we sell it, for we refer to this that was taught "obviously, land and houses, land";

This discusses money that fell to her. The argument [of principal or Peros] refers to this. [R. Tam] explains that if money fell to her, and the husband wants to buy a forest of trees and a pond of fish...

Support: R. Chananel's Perush connotes like this. He explains that if the Geza regenerates, it is principal. Therefore, when it was taught that we buy land, we buy only something in which the Geza regenerates.

Inference: We discuss buying. Therefore, there is no difficulty for R. Chananel from Rav Nachman's teaching [that a cloak] is Peros, and not a contradiction in R. Meir, for there we discuss when she entered a cloak to him;

A reserve of sulfur or alum is called Peros, since the husband eats the Peros of Nichsei Melug;

However, here, what they buy with money that fell to her is called principal, and what they do not buy is called Peros, for it has the law of Peros, just like they sell Peros and buy land with the money.

Question: It is difficult for Rashi, who explained that if the Geza does not regenerate, we sell it. Below we say that even though a cloak does not regenerate, he wears it [until it gets worn out]!

Similarly, a reserve of sulfur or alum, Rabanan say that it belongs to her husband, even though it does not regenerate!

Observation: This is fine for R. Tam. Even though l'Chatchilah, we buy with money only something that the Geza regenerates, when she inherits, we do not force him to sell it;

Rather, he eats the Peros as it is, until the principal is consumed, since there is a small remnant, like the case of a shirt, and everything similar.

Explanation: Now, it connotes that R. Yanai holds that the child of an animal of Nichsei Melug belongs to the woman.

Question: If so, he should say that the child of a Melug animal belongs to the woman!

Answer: He teaches a bigger Chidush, that even though the Kefel (double payment of a thief) belongs to the woman.

Explanation: This refers only to something that comes from elsewhere, such as Kefel for the child of a Melug animal;

Obviously, Rabanan enacted for [a husband] also Peros of Peros, like the Mishnah (below, 83a) says "he always eats Peros of Peros, unless he writes..."

Implied question: Why does he pay Kefel (i.e. double) to the woman? (Her husband should get the payment of principal!)

Answer: She gets only the Kefel (extra payment). Her husband gets the principal.

Question: If one stole an animal of Nichsei Melug itself, which belongs to her, the Kefel belongs to her husband, for it is not Peros of Peros;

If one stole the child of a Melug animal, which belongs to the husband, the Kefel belongs to the woman!

Answer (Rivan): All the more so, an animal of Melug itself, the Kefel belongs to the woman;

The Gemara means as follows. Peros, since they do not come from elsewhere, Rabanan enacted for him (her husband). The same applies to Peros of Peros;

Distinction: Peros of Peros that come from elsewhere, they did not enact for him, and all the more so Peros that come from elsewhere.

Question (Rashba): Why is the skin considered a remnant? If he wanted to slaughter it [for its skin], he may not! (Tosfos holds that "remnant" connotes something that he had the right to benefit from it. Tosfos ha'Rosh - in any case, if it died, the skin is principal.)

Inference: Old olive trees and vines produce sparse fruits, since we challenged this from [old] male and female slaves;

Male and female slaves do a little Melachah. If they cannot do anything, a sale does not apply to them! (No one would buy them.)

Support: Also, we conclude that they argue about when they fell to her in another's field. If they totally dried up, why does one opinion forbid selling them?

There is no praise of her father's house. Since they totally dried up, the owner of the field will not permit to keep them there!

Conclusion: Rather, surely we discuss when they produce sparse fruits.

Question (Ri): It says in Bava Metzi'a (109b) that a man mortgaged an orchard for ten years (they deducted its rental value for each year from the loan). After five years, the trees stopped producing (they were old);

We challenged the opinion there that [the wood] is like Peros (the lender gets it) from the Mishnah here "if she inherited old vines or date trees, we sell them and buy land..."

Inference: It is principal. If it were Peros, the husband would consume the wood!

Question: What was the question? We discuss when they produce fruits. Therefore, the tree itself is considered principal, and not Peros!

The same applies to the mortgaged orchard. If [the trees] did not grow old, and they still produce, the creditor may not take the trees, for they are considered principal as long as they produce other fruits.

Answer: We ask as follows. Since Rabanan said that we buy land with the money for the husband's benefit, since R. Yehudah argues and says that she need not sell it, due to praise of her father's house...

If so, also when they totally dried up, it is principal, and he buys land;

If it were Peros, why would Rabanan say that he sells them? Just the contrary, it is good for the husband to eat the Peros, whatever they are (even if they are small) and wait a little until they totally dry, and then everything is his!

Conclusion: Rather, surely it is principal.