Question: A Mishnah below (84a) says that if one died and left a wife, a creditor and heirs, and he had a deposit or loan with others, R. Tarfon says that they give it to the weakest of them;

The Gemara explains that this is Kesuvas Ishah, due to Chen (to encourage marriage).

Also according to the opinion that they give it to the one who has the weakest proof, if Kesuvas Ishah was weakest, he would admit [that she gets it].

Or, if there would not be a creditor at all, they would give it to the woman.

Answer #1: It is merely a Mitzvah [mid'Rabanan] to give it to the one who has the weakest proof. It is not according to letter of the law.

Answer #2: Even if it is according to letter of the law, we can say that there is different, for the heirs are not Muchzakim in the deposit or loan. Therefore, we do not need R. Noson [to explain why she has a claim to collect it].

Proof: Surely they are not considered Muchzakim. If they were considered Muchzakim, there would be no lien on their Metaltelim for the Kesuvah or creditor.

Distinction: Here, the Yavam is Muchzak in the loan, for he owed it;

Even if others owed, the Yavam would be considered Muchzak, since he is in place of his brother. Therefore, we need to say that it is like R. Noson.

Question #1: What was the trickery? Rav Yosef said that it is not a sale!

Question #2: How did it help to say "divide from now"? (Also from now, it is not a sale!)

Answer (R. Yitzchak): Above, the man from Pumbedisa retracted, and did not want to give after he did Yibum. (Here, he offered to divide now, so he cannot retract.)

Implied question: If so, why did Rav Yosef say [above] that it is not a sale?

Answer: He did not say so to rule about the case, rather, because the law applies to the case [when the Yavam wants to fulfill his word].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Therefore, also when he said to him "when I will do Yibum, acquire from now", this means nothing, for we hold like Rav Yosef. Below, we rule like him.

Even if we would hold that if he did Yibum and afterwards divided the property, it takes effect, now it is not b'Yado.

Question (Rashba): Why is this different than what Rav taught in Bava Metzi'a (16b) "this field, when I will but it from you, it is acquired to you from now." He acquires, even though it is not b'Yado!

Answer: Rav holds that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, but we do not hold like this;

We ruled above (59a) like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

Implied question: Why is this different than one who says to a woman "you are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days", and no one else was Mekadesh her within 30 days. She is Mekudeshes, even if the [Kidushin] money was consumed.

This is even if he did not say 'from now', like we say in Kidushin (59a) that regarding money, surely we do not require 'from now';

This is because if she would not be Mekudeshes to him, she would be obligated to pay [return the money], so it is as if the money is intact after 30 days.

Answer: Here, regarding Meshichah, if he did not say 'from now', he does not acquire after 30 days, for at the time of Kinyan, the Meshichah already lapsed.

Implied question: Why did Rav teach in Bava Metzi'a (16b) "this field, when I will buy it from you, it is acquired to you from now", he acquires?

Answer: Stam Kinyan of a field is through a document. Therefore, he must say 'from now', lest the document be lost or torn, and it will not be in the world at the time of the Kinyan.

Implied question: Rav was unsure about one who says 'from now and after 30 days', whether [30 days] is a Tenai (on condition that I not retract in this time), or a retraction [from 'from now']!

Answer #1: When he says 'from now, when I will buy it' acquires (surely he does not retract). He said "when I will buy it" because now it is not his, and he can be Makneh it only after he buys it.

Answer #2: Since he said 'from now' at the end, there is no Safek at all.

Question: What is R. Yochanan's opinion here?

If it is a retraction, why does he acquire? Since he retracted, 'from now' is Batel!

If it is a Tenai, why must it be in the swamp at the end of 30 days? Below (86b), it connotes that he acquires only if it is in the swamp at the end of 30 days!

Even if it is standing in the Makneh's Reshus [he should acquire], for he acquired from now, since it is a Tenai, and he did not retract within 30 days!

Answer: R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere. He holds that it is not a Tenai, and not a retraction. Rather, the Kinyan begins now, and finishes only after 30 days.

Support: He holds like this in Kidushin (60a). Therefore, he requires that at the end of 30 days it is in the swamp (or some other place) where Meshichah can be done. I elaborated in Yevamos (93a).

Question: Granted, when he took them first he acquired, for [the Tana] holds that there is no lien on Metaltelim for the Kesuvah, like Rashi explained;

However, when she took them first, why did she acquire, according to R. Akiva, who says below (84a) "we have no mercy in judgment. Rather, they go to the heirs"?

He holds that even if she was first, she did not acquire, like it is clear from the Gemara there!

Answer: There, to collect, even if she was first, she did not acquire;

Here, she merely has a lien. Chachamim were not concerned [if she acquires]. Below (84b DH ul'R. Akiva), I elaborated.

Implied question: We should say that indeed, this is true [she is still considered a Yevamah, and a Get does not permit her, rather, Chalitzah]!

Answer: We need v'Yibmah for several matters. (Therefore, it is not free to teach also this.)

Distinction: Obviously, when he does Yibum, he may have many Bi'os with her, like he desires.

Question: Why don't we say that he fulfilled the Mitzvah that the Torah imposed on him through the first Bi'ah [and now she is forbidden due to Eshes Ach]?

Answer: It is reasonable that the Torah did not say to do Yibum in order to divorce her immediately;

However, regarding another marriage (after he divorced her, one might have thought that) we should say that now the Isur of Eshes Ach applies to her!

Inference: Rashi connotes that regarding one's wife, since he wrote to her, if [the money] is lost, he must pay, one might have thought that he can designate;

[The Seifa] teaches that this is not so. Even so, he cannot designate;

Since she thinks that she does not have (ability to collect if she will be divorced), even though she has, Bi'ah with her is Bi'as Zenus, like is proven above (56b).

Question #1 (Rashba): It connotes above (56b) that when one designates Metaltelim Stam for his wife, he has no Acharayus for them, even though he wrote to her "what I acquired [and will acquire, has a lien for your Kesuvah...]", regarding "we do not make a Kesuvah Metaltelim when he did not accept Acharayus"! (Tosfos ha'Rosh - since he designated, and she accepted this, she pardoned her lien on other property, unless he explicitly accepted Acharayus.)

Question #2 (Rashba): How does his Yevamah lose when he designates for her? Just like we say that when one designates Stam for his wife, and they are lost, he must pay...

Similarly for his Yevamah, when he designates Stam for her, and they are lost, she goes [to collect] from property of her first husband, since Acharayus of the Kesuvah is on them!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The Gemara says "there, he did not write for her", i.e. had it taught only the Reisha, one might have thought that the reason one may not designate for a Yevamah in order to sell other property [of his brother], for [without designation] he cannot sell it, like we will say below, is because he did not write "what I acquired [and will acquire]..."

However, regarding one's wife, it is not applicable to say that he cannot sell it for this reason, for he wrote "what I acquired [and will...]"!

Explanation: He cannot sell his brother's property at all (even if he will write "what I acquired and will acquire").

Question: We learn this from the Reisha! It says "if his brother left money, we buy land with it..."

Inference: Since he must buy (we are adamant that she have land to collect from, rather than money), if so he may not sell!

Answer: If we had only the Reisha, one might have thought that this refers to corresponding to the Kesuvah, but not all the property (he may sell the excess above the Kesuvah). The extra clause in the Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question: We should teach our Mishnah here (about remarrying one's Yevamah), and not the Mishnah below (about remarrying one's wife). We learn about one's wife from a Kal va'Chomer from one's Yevamah!

Answer: [If not for the Mishnah below,] one might have thought that the reasoning is opposite. (Tosfos ha'Rosh - one might have thought that since he previously wrote to his wife a lien on all his property, now he gives to her another Kesuvah.)

Explanation: They used to designate for her a Kesuvah, and there was not Acharayus for it against all of his property if these coins will be lost;

Men got old without marrying, because women did not want to marry, for they feared lest the heirs hide the money designated for her Kesuvah.

They enacted to leave it (the money designated) in her father's house, so the heirs would not be able to hide it.

Implied question: Why didn't they initially enact to give the money to her, like they enacted below, when they made baskets?

Answer #1: It is not normal to give coins to her to guard. It is normal for her to guard Kelim.

Answer #2: He literally gave coins to her. However, the coins are not in her Reshus as much as the baskets, in which she puts her possessions;

The baskets were by her constantly. The heirs could not hide them, the way they could hide coins.

And even if they could hide the baskets just like coins, they are not allowed to. When people see them, it is evident to all that they are hers.

Support: Also R. Chananel explained that they would give to her.

Explanation: Still, when he got angry, he would say "go to your Kesuvah" (in your father's house, and keep the Kesuvah money, for I am divorcing you). Initially he would not say so to her, for sometimes when he needed money, he would appease her, and she would lend to him, and he would pay her.

However, now [the coins] were not in her Reshus, and he did not benefit from them at all (so he was prone to say "go to your Kesuvah");

Explanation (cont.): They enacted to leave them in her father-in-law's house, and she would make from them baskets. When he needed money badly, she would lend to him for a security [to help him to get a loan];

Still, since it was a small benefit, when he got very angry, he would say "take your Kesuvah and leave", until Shimon ben Shetach came and enacted a lien on all his property;

He would not designate anything. She relies on all his property, and now it is difficult in his eyes to [divorce her, for then he must] spend money and give to her.

Explanation: They would put grapes in it, and take it to the winepress.

Support: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (72b) "and on the Avit (tub) of grapes. R. Tam says so.