Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (51b), Rav establishes his teaching to be even like R. Yehudah, who says that a monetary Tenai is valid;

R. Yehudah said so only [in a case like Kidushin on condition that he is exempt from She'er, Kesus v'Onah], for she knew, and pardoned. Here, he does not know [that he is being overcharged] so that he would pardon!

Answer: We cannot answer like this here [that Rav holds that a Tenai not to inherit her is valid, because he knows, and pardons], for also here he does not know, that we should say that he pardons;

It is not clear that she will die in his lifetime. Perhaps he will die in her lifetime! Therefore, it is a proper question.

Explanation (Rashi): This refers to Peros.

Question (Ri): If so, Rav is not like any [Tana], for in our Mishnah, even R. Yehudah agrees that a Tana helps for Peros, because they are not common, like we said above (56b)!

Explanation #2 (Ri): "Bid'Rabanan" means that elsewhere, in some matter that is mid'Rabanan.

Question (Rashba): If so, why does it say [that he returns only] in Yovel? Even without Yovel, also [he must return]!

You are forced to say that we discuss [returning] in Yovel, for if it were even without Yovel, why did Rav need to say that [R. Yochanan ben Brokah] holds that inheritance of the husband is mid'Oraisa? He should have said that it is mid'Rabanan [like Rav holds]!

Also, it was taught regarding Yovel!

Answer: We must say that there is no reproach to the family until Yovel, for then all inheritances return, and this one does not return. It is evident that they are buried in others' property.

Question: The Mishnah in Bechoros (52a) says that a woman does not collect [her Kesuvah] from Ra'uy (what was destined to come), and a loan [to be collected] Rabanan consider to be Ra'uy, in Bava Basra (125b)!

Answer: We must distinguish that only regarding [the double portion of] a Bechor, a loan is considered Ra'uy, but not regarding a Kesuvah.

Explanation (R. Chananel): It is so women will find grace in the eyes of men, and men will be eager to marry them.

Support #1: The Aruch and Yerushalmi connote like this.

Support #2: Also below (97b) connotes like this. (It says that just like a widow may sell outside of Beis Din, also her heirs who inherit her Kesuvah.) It asks, according to the opinion that it is due to grace, what grace is there regarding heirs?

It answers that her daughter or sister inherited her. I.e. also she needs that men will be eager to marry her.

Rebuttal (of Support #2): (Rashi explained that grace is so women will be eager to marry men.) Also Rashi can explain that since her daughter or sister sees that it is easy to collect the Kesuvah, they will be more willing to marry men.

Question: Here, a woman has greater rights than a creditor, due to grace;

Regarding Ziburis (low quality land), a Mishnah (Gitin 49b) teaches that a creditor collects Beinonis (middle quality land), and Kesuvas Ishah is collected from Ziburis;

Chachamim made her weaker than a creditor, because more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married. Chachamim were not concerned for grace, to make her law to collect from Beinonis, like a creditor!

Answer: We do not compare enactments of Chachamim one to another.

Support: We find that liquids of Beis Mitbechaya (where they rinse Korbanos) are Tahor. Chachamim were lenient, to avoid increasing Tum'ah in the Mikdash;

Regarding several matters, Chachamim were more stringent [about Tum'ah regarding Kodshim], like we say in Pesachim (16a).

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): The Gemara asks a difficulty, for a Mishnah above (80b) regarding a Shomeres Yavam says that if she [seized] first, she acquired...;

Even though there is no lien on Metaltelim for the Kesuvah, even so, Tefisah (seizure) helps;

Will we say that the Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva?!

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman that this is when she seized in his lifetime;

I.e. Tefisah helps in the husband's lifetime, even according to R. Akiva, for at that time, Shevu'ah does not apply, so we do not apply "one collects from orphans only through a Shevu'ah."

Since they do not need a Shevu'ah, they merit what is in their hands.

The Mishnah above (80b), regarding a Yavam, is like Tefisah in the husband's lifetime, for [the Yavam] is in place of his brother. Therefore, if she [seized] first, she acquired.

Question: Below (96a) it connotes that Tefisah does not help for the Kesuvah, even in the husband's lifetime, like I will explain below.

Answer: We can resolve R. Tam's Perush. Granted, Tefisah in the husband's lifetime does not help, because the Kesuvah is not proper for collection in his lifetime...

Even so, since Tefisah in his lifetime helps for a creditor, even according to R. Akiva, Tefisah helps also in the life of the Yavam.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): The Gemara asks a question (does R. Akiva hold...? It is not a difficulty.) We could not have asked from our Mishnah above, like I explained there (82a DH Lo. Here, mid'Rabanan we give it to the one with the weakest proof. This is not based on letter of the law. Alternatively, here is different, for the heirs are not Muchzakim in the deposit or loan.)

Explanation #1: We discuss a creditor. Tefisah does not help for a Kesuvah according to Rava here, even in his lifetime;

This is like Rav Yitzchak concludes in the name of Rava, like Ravina there (below, 96a), who says that it was taught that Tefisah of Metaltelim helps, i.e. only for food. If it was for a Kesuvah, we take it back [from her].

He discusses Tefisah in his lifetime. If the Tefisah was after death, how could Mar bar Rav Ashi want to say there that even if it was for a Kesuvah, we do not take it back?

Support: Bahag connotes like this, that we discuss [Tefisah] in his lifetime;

He explained that the reason Tefisah does not help for a Kesuvah, like it helps for a creditor, is because the Kesuvah cannot be collected in his lifetime.

Distinction: Rabanan enacted [that Tefisah helps] for food, just like they enacted that she can sell outside of Beis Din for the needs of food.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): What Rav Yakov said to Ravina "they say in the name of Rava like you" is not correct.

Proof: Rava himself said there (98a) "go give to the one who seized a silver cup for her Kesuvah!

Rebuttal (Ri): This is no proof. We can say that the silver cup was seized with the orphans' permission. Perhaps they thought to make her lose [rights to] food through this Tefisah!

Conclusion: Rather, we discuss a creditor (like Explanation #1).

Pesak: Below, R. Chananel says that we hold like Mar bar Rav Ashi, who said that Tefisah helps both for her Kesuvah and food.

Source: In the entire Gemara, we hold like Mar bar Rav Ashi, except for reversing a Shevu'ah (the Nitva says "I will not swear. If you want to collect, you swear!") and white (sinews. Mar bar Rav Ashi holds that if they are have the other Simanim of being the juncture of the sinews, if they are clear, even if they are not white they are the juncture of the sinews.)

Question: Based on what we answered above that [R. Yochanan] holds that we lean [to rule like R. Akiva against a colleague], this connotes that l'Chatchilah we do like R. Akiva! Why did he say "they properly seized"?

Answer: Perhaps this is considered like b'Di'eved, because they already seized.

The text: The text does not say "after death";

Rather, since [if the case was that] he has witnesses that he seized it from him, and stole it against his will, [the creditor] cannot claim "I have it because I bought it."

Inference: R. Aba holds that slaves are like Metaltelim.

Implied question: In Bava Basra (128a), R. Aba sent that the Halachah is, we collect from slaves!

Answer: There, we concluded that he said that we do not collect [from slaves].

Inference: This connotes even if [the creditor] made a Shali'ach, for [Chashu, the lender] told him to seize it, he does not acquire.

This is unlike Rashi explained in Bava Metzi'a (10a) that only if he did not make a Shali'ach, we say that he does not acquire.

Question: We say in Bava Metzi'a (10a) that Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda both say that one who picks up a Metzi'ah to acquire it for his friend, his friend did not acquire;

Citation (10a): What is the reason? He [is like one who] seizes for a creditor where this harms others, and one who seizes... did not acquire.

Inference: R. Yochanan, who says there that one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend, his friend acquires, holds that one who seizes for a creditor [where this harms others] acquires!

Answer: A Metzi'ah is different, for we can say Migo (since) he could acquire it for himself, he can acquire it for his friend. This does not apply here (to Tefisah for a creditor).

Observation: We discuss after Shevu'as Heses was enacted. Since the testimony affects the Shali'ach, it is a good Migo;

However, before Shevu'as Heses was enacted, the testimony did not affect the Shali'ach. Since he could say "I returned them", he can say also "I paid them to the lender", like we say in Kidushin (43b);

This is not a Migo, for people are not brazen to contradict the witness, since the testimony does not affect him.

Proof: Regarding the ingot of R. Aba (Bava Basra 34a), he is not believed to say "I grabbed my own" through a Migo that he could have said "I did not grab."

Explanation: This is only because he mentioned to him to take the document at the beginning or the end. It should cross his mind to take the document before [paying];

However, if he did not mention taking the document, and said no more than "give the money", [the Shali'ach] is exempt;

He can say "you trusted him, and did not tell me to take the document!", like we say about a grocer based on his ledger (Bava Metzi'a 3a. Ploni asked a grocer to pay Ploni's workers. The grocer says that he paid them, and they deny this.)

The grocer says to Ploni "I did your mission. What do I have to do with the worker (to be concerned for his false claim)? Even if he swears to me, he is not believed. You trusted him. You did not tell me to pay him in front of witnesses!