Explanation: We derive from the extra words in the Mishnah ["who inherit her Kesuvah"]. Primarily, the Mishnah does not discuss a Yevamah, rather, a regular widow.

Proof: It says "from the orphans' property." A Shomeres Yavam does not have orphans!

Explanation #1: According to Rashi, it is a proper question. [He says] "I inherit my brother. I do not inherit her property at all, only the 100 or 200 of my brother. Therefore, I need not bury his wife."

Question: According to R. Tam, all agree that her dowry is in his Chazakah. This question is not so understood. The property was the woman's! (How can he say that he does not inherit her?)

Also according to Rashi, according to the opinion that [the dowry] is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, we must resolve this!

Answer: We must say that we ask as follows. He should say "I inherit my brother", i.e. the rights of my brother, just like he would do if he were alive. However, I do not inherit his debts";

This is like it says above (34b) "if their father left to them a borrowed cow, they use it for as long as he borrowed it for. If it died, they are not liable for Ones.

Explanation: If you come to say that he does not inherit anything from her, only 100 or 200, if so he wants to say that it is as if his brother is alive, therefore she did not come to collect;

[If so,] he should bury his wife, i.e. consider it totally that he is alive, and bury his wife, just like [his brother] would have buried her.

Consequence: Based on this, this is only from Nisu'in.

Explanation (cont.): If he does not [want to] bury her, for it is not considered as if his brother is alive, if so it came to collection, and he gives her Kesuvah to her.

Explanation: According to Beis Hillel, who do not expound Midrash Kesuvah, the Kesuvah can be collected in his lifetime, even though she does not collect until Chalitzah...

Regarding this it can be collected [in his lifetime], that she merits burial corresponding to her Kesuvah.

Question: Also Beis Hillel expound the Kesuvah! They retracted to rule like Beis Shamai, like it says in Yevamos (117a)!

Answer: Above (53a) I explained this. (Beis Hillel retracted due to a Kal va'Chomer that Beis Shamai said to them, but not due to Midrash Kesuvah. Also, Beis Hillel do not expound Midrash Kesuvah to weaken her rights, but they expound it to strengthen her rights.) According to the conclusion here, Beis Hillel can expound Midrash Kesuvah.

Implied question: Abaye holds that it is not considered as if it was collected, like it connotes in Yevamos (38b)!

He challenged Rava from the case of a house that fell on Reuven and his father Yakov. (Beis Shamai say that Reuven's creditor's divide Yakov's property with Yakov's heirs, even though they are Safek (they collect only if Yakov died first), and the heirs are Vadai. Rava answered that Beis Shamai consider a document as if it were already collected.)

Answer #1: Abaye agrees about a Kesuvah, that it is considered as if it were collected, to encourage marriage, like it says there.

Answer #2: After Abaye heard from Rava [that Beis Shamai consider a document as if it were already collected], he agreed.

Inference: In the Mishnah, it says "or they drink", unlike it is written in Seforim "they do not drink."

Question: This is astounding! There [in Sotah] is the primary place of the Mishnah, and we do not ask at all [that she cannot drink after he died]!

Explanation #1: We can say that we ask against Beis Shamai. Granted, they hold that a document destined to be collected, it is as if it was collected;

However, regarding this, Midrash Kesuvah helps. "When you will [be permitted to] marry another" teaches that [the Yavam] need not bury her;

This is just like an Arusah. Even though it is as if it was collected, she has no Kesuvah.

The Gemara answers that the Yavam is considered [that she was permitted to marry] another.

Alternate text: If the text said "Ela", this would be fine. He retracts from the previous answer, and this reason applies also for Beis Hillel;

They can properly expound Midrash Kesuvah. Since the Yavam is considered another, it is considered as if she collected [her Kesuvah] and returned it to him, since she is somewhat entitled to collect.

Explanation #2: We ask against Beis Hillel, who do not hold that it is as if it was collected.

Implied question: We are thinking that they do not expound Midrash Kesuvah!

Answer: Even so, it is a proper question. There in Yevamos, Beis Hillel do not want to expound the Kesuvah so she will collect. Rather, she loses her Kesuvah;

All the more so here, that she would lose her Kesuvah through expounding it, Beis Hillel should say that she loses!

Implied question: In Kidushin (13b), regarding [the Heter for a widow to remarry, from "perhaps he will die in war,] and another man will take her", we say that [this cannot refer to the Yavam, for] a Yavam is not called "another"!

Answer: That refers to the way the Torah speaks. The way Chachamim speak, a Yavam is called "another".

Explanation: This is because he cannot sell. His sale is Batel immediately, even before she comes to collect [her Kesuvah];

Chachamim were stringent about a Yevamah, since he did not write to her "all my property is Achara'i (has a lien on it) for your Kesuvah. Therefore, they enacted that he cannot sell at all, so she will not need to toil to take from buyers.

Even if he leaves (does not sell) land worth as much as her Kesuvah, he may not sell the rest. We are concerned lest what he leaves be lost or flooded.

Question: What would she lose [if he sells]? We say below that if she does not have a Kesuvah from her first husband, they enacted one from the second!

Answer: The loss is that she will need to take from buyers.

Assertion: Even if the only property she has [to collect] from the first was sold, they did not enact for her from the second;

If not, how does it help [the Yavam] that her Kesuvah is on the property of her first husband?

Question: Since the reason [he may not sell] is because he did not write to her "what I will acquire [is Achara'i for your Kesuvah], he should write this, and he will not need to divorce her!

Answer: She does not want this. She prefers that [her lien] is on the first's property, since it is always intact, since he cannot sell it. We should not force her to pardon her law.

Implied question (Rashi): A Mishnah (Gitin 55b) says that if one bought from a man, and later bought from his wife, the sale is Batel! (Here we say that if he appeases her, she can authorize him to sell!)

Answer #1 (Rashi): We established this to discuss three fields [with a special lien for her Kesuvah].

Question (R. Shmuel): All the more so, regarding other property (the sale is Batel), like we say in Bava Basra (50a)!

Citation (50a) Question: What does this (the three fields) exclude?

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: It excludes other property (to which she has no rights).

Citation (cont.) Rejection: All the more so [she can say 'I merely wanted to please my husband',] because there would be enmity [if she refused]. He would say "you anticipate being divorced or widowed!"

Explanation #2 (Ri): The sale is Batel from when she takes it away. "The three fields" does not exclude other property. Rather, even for the three fields, her sale is valid until she takes it.

Defense (of Rashi): "His sale is Batel" connotes that it is Batel immediately;

In Bava Basra (50a), it means "what does this exclude?", i.e. [for other property] she cannot say 'I merely wanted to please my husband'?

If you will say that it excludes other property, [she cannot say this, so] she cannot take it at all [to collect from it], all the more so [she can say 'I merely wanted to please him'], for there would be enmity [if she refused]!

Implied question: Why didn't we answer that it excludes other property, for which his sale is not Batel immediately?

Answer: It is obvious that the sale is Batel only for the three fields, for everyone sells land with a lien on it;

Automatically, we know that it was taught only for the three fields that his sale is Batel. We need not establish it to discuss the three fields to exclude other property.

Question (Rashba): How can we say that it is obvious that for other property, his sale is not Batel?

Before we established it to discuss the three fields, the Hava Amina was that it discusses other property, even though it says that his sale is Batel!

Explanation: [He should be able to do so] because you consider it as if she collected and returned to him.

Explanation: You did not think of the reason of enmity. If so, you should have asked from our Mishnah, which connotes that he may not say "your Kesuvah is resting on the table" in order to sell the rest.

Rather, all his property is Achara'i for her Kesuvah, and he cannot sell anything.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is good counsel, lest the Metaltelim be lost, and it turns out that she has no Kesuvah, and he will need to write another for her.

Observation: This is only according to R. Meir, who holds that it is forbidden to keep one's wife for a moment without a Kesuvah.

Explanation #2 (Ri): The good counsel is lest she be light in his eyes to divorce her.

Explanation #3 (Rashba): Regarding one's wife, it is good counsel, for if he designates Metaltelim, he cannot spend them. Therefore, it is good that all his property is Achara'i for her Kesuvah, and he can spend anything.

At the end, we conclude that R. Aba's reason is due to enmity. Also the Mishnah is due to enmity, both regarding his Yevamah and his wife.

Question: He should pardon to himself! We say that one who sold a loan document and later pardoned it, it is pardoned. Even an heir [of the lender can pardon!

Answer #1: Here is different. He inherits only due to her.

Answer #2: This is like R. Meir, who obligates due to Dina d'Garmi (semi-direct ways of causing damage), and makes [one who pardoned] pay the full value of the document. (Therefore, he would not gain through pardoning to himself.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [It is good for him, for] the principal remains, and he eats the Peros.

Question: Why was this taught only regarding his brother's property?!

Explanation #2: It is good for him, for there is more Shalom Bayis, so she will be more confident. [Without this, she is nervous,] because he did not write to her [a lien on] "what I acquired, and what I will acquire."

Explanation #3: [It is good for him, for] his property does not decline so much in value when she has much property from her first husband, that she will collect her Kesuvah from it, and buyers will not fear lest she take from them.

Question: We should say that [if he sold it], it is not a sale, for this reason, to help him!

Answer: We should not make buyers lose in order to help him.

Explanation (R. Tam): R. Meir did not says so to collect [Metaltelim] from orphans, rather, only from the husband himself. A Yavam is in place of his brother. It is like collecting from him himself.

Support: In several places, they argue about [collecting Metaltelim] from him.

Suggestion: According to R. Meir, there is a lien also on Metaltelim of orphans for the Kesuvah. They are like land!

Rejection #1: If so, even if we would not hold like R. Noson (that there is a lien on Ploni's property to pay the creditor of Ploni's creditor), it would be proper that she collect from it (the money owed to her husband), as if it were land.

Rejection #2: A lender has more rights [than one who collects a Kesuvah], for Rabanan agree that [a lender] collect from him (the borrower), even from the shirt on his back, [and still,] R. Meir says that he has no lien on Metaltelim of orphans;

A Kesuvah is weaker, for Rabanan hold that there is no lien even from his (the borrower's) Metaltelim. All the more so R. Meir holds that there is no lien for it on Metaltelim of orphans!

Question: In Yevamos (99a), a Beraisa says that one can sell his father (a slave) to enable his mother to collect her Kesuvah! What is the case?... (A Yisrael bought a slave couple with a son. The master freed the mother and married her, and gave all his property to her son. The son sells his father to enable his mother to collect her Kesuvah.)

Citation (99a): This is like R. Meir, who says that there is a lien on Metaltelim for the Kesuvah.

She does not collect even from Metaltelim of orphans, like I explained. All the more so she does not collect from Metaltelim of a gift recipient (the son), who has more rights, like it connotes in Bava Basra (133a);

Citation (133a): A widow is fed from a Torah inheritance. All the more so she is fed from Matanas Shechiv me'Ra, which is mid'Rabanan!

Inference: She is not fed from a healthy person's gift, which is mid'Oraisa. Inheritance is weaker than a healthy person's gift.

Answer: The case in Yevamos discusses Matanas Shechiv me'Ra, which is weaker than inheritance.