Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (42a) that a man cannot make a Chazakah in his wife's property;

Citation (42a) Question: This is obvious! Since he has a lien on it for Peros, he was eating the Peros! (We cannot infer that he owns the land itself.)

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, he wrote to her "I have no claims to your property." (Here we say that if he wrote this, he still eats the Peros!)

Answer: Those were not his precise words, for if so, he still has a lien on it for Peros!

Rather, the Gemara there was not concerned to elaborate. The case is, he wrote to her "I have no claims to your property and its Peros."

The text: In most Seforim, the text says uv'Perei Peroseihen. We must say that the Stam [Seifa] is like R. Yehudah.

Question: We should resolve from here [the Gemara's question, and conclude] that "Ad Olam (without end)" is not precise, since it was not taught! (Since the Seifa elaborated to teach Perei Peroseihen, if he must write Ad Olam, also this would have been taught!

Answer: Perhaps the Tana was particular to elaborate only to teach Stam like R. Yehudah. (He did not need to elaborate to teach Ad Olam, since no one argues about this.)

Question: We say in Gitin (43b) regarding one who sells his slave to a Nochri, he goes free, and he needs a Get Shichrur (document of freedom). "If he wrote for him Ono (this will be explained), this is his Get Shichrur";

Citation (43b): What is Ono? Rav Sheshes said, he wrote to him "when you flee from him, Ein Li Esek Becha" (I have no dealings with you).

Inference: Ein Li Esek Becha is a good expression (to give away what one owns)!

Answer (Rashba): Ein Li Esek Becha is like saying to him "you are to yourself";

Therefore, regarding a slave, who can acquire himself, he acquires. However, how can a field acquire itself?!

Question: How do we bring a proof that the expression "Din u'Devarim", which is an inferior expression, helps? Perhaps all these cases that we bring [in which his words take effect] are when he used a good expression!

"Iy Efshi Bah", which we bring, is a good expression, like is proven in Kerisus (24a).

Answer #1: Since he said precisely "an inheritance that comes to a man", and not that it already came, this connotes that we discuss an inferior expression;

With a good expression, even if it already came, he can stipulate about it.

Answer #2 (Ri): We need not bring a proof that the expression "Din u'Devarim" helps. Presumably it helps if it did not yet come to him, just like normally (when it already came) a good expression [helps]!

Rather, we bring a proof so you will not ask, based on how we establish it when he wrote to her when she was still an Arusah, how he can be Makneh to her;

We hold that Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Implied question: (Why would we ask this?) R. Yanai, who establishes it when he wrote to her when she was still an Arusah, holds in Yevamos (93a) that Adam Makneh [Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam]!

Answer: In any case, he brings a proof for us, who hold that Ein Adam Makneh, from Rav Kahana, that he can be Makneh in such a case.

At the end, we bring Rava's proof to give a reason why he can stipulate, even though it is not Ba l'Olam;

Since it was enacted for his benefit, he can say "I do not want that benefit."

Explanation: Rava's teaching alone does not suffice without Rav Kahana's teaching, for from Rava's teaching we do not learn that one can stipulate about Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Implied question: (Why don't we learn this from Rava's teaching alone?) He refers to Rav Huna's teaching, which discusses food, which is Lo Ba l'Olam!

Answer: There, it is no Chidush that she has no food. Must she take food against her will?! When she wants, she can retract;

Rav Huna's Chidush is only that she can uproot her earnings from her husband.

Question: Even without Rav Kahana, why can't he remove himself [from her property] when he wrote to her when she was still an Arusah, just like She'er, Kesus v'Onah (food, clothing and the proper frequency of marital relations - above, 56a)?

According to R. Yehudah, a stipulation about a monetary matter is valid;

Also R. Meir argues only because he holds that a stipulation against Torah law is invalid [and this is a mid'Rabanan law]!

Answer #1: Here we discuss one who said to her not in the way of a Tenai. Rather, he said to her "I have no claims to your property."

Answer #2: The woman should have stipulated, and the man stipulated. These are vain words of flattery (they have no effect);

We bring from Rav Kahana that granted, they do not help like a Tenai, but they help because he removed himself [from her property].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to the Beraisa (one who says about a field "Ein Li Esek Bah").

Question (Ri): Why should a Kinyan help? To whom is he Makneh? He makes it Hefker to everyone! (Tosfos ha'Rosh - Rashi can say that since he says so to his partner, it is clear that he is Makneh to him [even though his words connote Hefker].)

Explanation #2 (Ri): This refers to a Nesu'ah. We say that his Yad (power of acquisition) is like her Yad. We ask whether or not a Kinyan helps for her.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Both of these are kinds of Dela'as (pumpkins).

Rejection: The Targum (Arame'ic translation of) Kishu'in is Botzina, and Kara is Dela'as, like is proven from Nedarim 51a.

Explanation #2: Kishu'in and Dela'as are two species, like a Mishnah (Kil'ayim 3:5) teaches that one may plant Kishus and Dela'as in [two sides of] one cavity, as long as he leans the branches of one row in one direction, and the branches of the next row in the other direction. (Kil'ayim depends on what looks like they grow together.)

Dela'as is bigger and more important than Kishu'in, but it delays ripening. Kishus ripens quickly;

The commoners' parable is that a person likes Kishus, for he benefits from it quickly, more than he likes Dela'as, for which he must wait, even though it is better (R. Tam).

Explanation: Perhaps this is because usually, she is in danger during birth.

Explanation: She is reluctant to sell, due to [loss of] praise of her father's house.

Question: Since Rav Ashi does not hold that the bearer of the document has the lower hand, why does it say that if she sold or gave, it is valid, i.e. b'Di'eved? She should be allowed to sell l'Chatchilah!

Explanation: Even if he did not write Ad Olam, he is removed, as if he wrote Ad Olam.

Suggestion: If Perei Peros is precise, Ad Olam does not help.

Rejection: We conclude "if you will say that Perei Peros is precise, why do we need Ad Olam? This teaches that since he wrote Perei Peros, it is as if he wrote Ad Olam."

Inference: It is more obvious that Ad Olam helps, even when we say that Perei Peros is precise.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Ad Olam would mean not in the first year, and not in the second...

Question #1 (Ri): Why would we think that there is any difference between the first year and the second?!

Question #2: Even R. Yehudah agrees that he never eats the Peros themselves, even if he did not write Ad Olam, rather, just Din u'Devarim Ein Li bi'Nechasayich uv'Peroseihen;

Source: He argues only about Perei Peros.

Explanation #2: One might have thought that Ad Olam refers to Peros. In her lifetime and after her death, he will not eat Peros;

Therefore, we need Perei Peros to teach that he never eats, not Peros and not Perei Peros.

Question: Regarding Peros, why is his Tenai valid according to everyone?

Answer: Regarding Peros, which are not common, Chachamim did not strengthen [their enactment], like we say above (56b);

However, the husband inheriting is common, for Nichsei Tzon Barzel are more common than Nichsei Melug, for even a poor orphan, we do not give to her less than 50 Zuz [from Tzedakah, for clothing. Surely she enters clothing to be Nichsei Tzon Barzel, for it depreciates in value.]