Question (R. Yitzchak): How does this help her? We say below that the one who judges Dina d'Garmi collects [from one who pardoned] the full value of the document;

Rav Nachman himself judges Dina d'Garmi in Bava Kama (116b), regarding the man who showed a pile of wheat [to extortionists. Rav Nachman obligated him to pay!]

Answer #1: Some say that she (the daughter) was a minor, like Pa'utos (mature minors). Their gift [and pardon] is valid, but they are not liable due to Dina d'Garmi.

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): We obligate due to Dina d'Garmi only the money that the buyer paid for the Kesuvah, but not the entire amount of the Kesuvah. Therefore, she profits greatly.

Proof - Citation (Kidushin 47b): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with this loan document', or he had a loan that others owed to him, and he authorized her [to collect it], R. Meir says that she is Mekudeshes, and Chachamim say that she is not Mekudeshes;

We conclude that they argue about Shmuel's teaching, that if one sold a loan document, and then pardoned the debt, it is pardoned;

[Chachamim] hold like Shmuel. Therefore, she is not Mekudeshes, for she does not rely [on being able to collect], because he can pardon it.

If one who pardons must pay everything written in the document, why does she not rely? He cannot pardon, for then he would have to pay her!

Question (Rashba): "He collects the full value of the document" connotes that [one who pardons] must pay everything written in the document!

Support (for Answer #2): Now it is not difficult how Rav Nachman gave a counsel to cause others to lose money, due to his kinship;

The buyers did not totally lose. She must return to them the money they paid. In any case, it is still somewhat difficult.

Explanation (R. Tam): There are three separate laws for a lender, a victim of damage, and a worker;

Regarding a creditor (lender), if [the borrower] has money, he cannot force the lender to accept land, like we say here;

A victim of damage, even if [the damager] has money, he can force the victim to accept land;

A worker, even if [the employer] has no money, we tell him "go toil and sell, and bring money."

Source (Bava Metzi'a 118a - Mishnah): If one was working with him, with straw and stubble, and he said "take what you did for your pay", we do not heed him;

It connotes there that even if [the employer] has no money [he must bring money].

Question: We said above (84a, regarding money owed to the father, or deposited with others, that R. Tarfon gives greater collection rights) for a Kesuvah [than for a creditor], due to Chen!

Even R. Binyamin argues [and favors the one with the worst proof, i.e. the latest document] only when the creditor is weaker, but if both are equal, he agrees that [R. Tarfon] gives [greater collection rights] for a Kesuvah!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here we give to a creditor because there is the reason of Ne'ilas Delet (discouraging loans, if creditors have difficulty collecting);

Ne'ilas Delet does not apply to a woman, like we say that more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married.

However, above, after death, there is no Ne'ilas Delet, because death is not common, like it says in Gitin (50a) that it does not cross the lender's mind that the borrower will die, and his property will fall to [his] orphans;

We give precedence to a Kesuvah, due to Chen.

Answer #2 (my Rebbi, R. Yechi'el, in the name of Ri): Even after death, we give to the creditor land, or even Metaltelim, after the Ge'onim's enactment that a woman [collecting a Kesuvah] and a creditor collect [even] from Metaltelim;

Above, we give for the Kesuvah, because since [it is Metaltelim, and] the creditor is not entitled to collect, if the Shomer would give to the orphans, the creditor could not take them to judgment, therefore a Kesuvah has precedence, due to Chen.

Even if the date on the Kesuvah is before the date on the loan document, since [Chachamim] did not enact that she can take from buyers, there is no lien of the Kesuvah on them at all. It is as if the dates [of the loan document and Kesuvah] are the same.

Support: It says in Bava Basra (157a) that [if a borrower put a lien on] "what I will acquire", and he acquired property and sold it, if you will say that there is no lien on it, there is no lien;

Citation (157a) Question: If you will say that there is a lien on it, if he borrowed from two lenders, acquired property and sold it, what is the law? Is the lien to the first [lender], or to the latter?

Inference: If there is no lien, there is no Safek at all who collects first, since there is no lien to collect from buyers.

Pesak: He (R. Yechi'el) wrote that people conduct like this [in practice], like the Ri, and also the Rif and Rambam [hold like this].

Riva favors R. Tam's opinion. In truth, R. Tam's opinion seems primary.

Suggestion: When he told him "you go sell", he claimed that his money belonged to a Nochri.

Rejection: If so, they did properly to him!

Explanation: Rather, initially when they demanded payment, he attributed his money [to a Nochri]. At the time of collection, he did not have money, and even so they forced him to sell.

Question: Obviously, we force him. [Rav Papa's] teaching was primarily in Erchin (22a), on this that we do not collect from minor orphans. He taught that it is because paying a creditor is a Mitzvah, and they (minors) are not obligated to do Mitzvos.

Inference: We collect from adult orphans!

Answer #1: Rather, the Gemara asks, if he does not want to do the Mitzvah, what is the law? Obviously, we force him! Why is it called a Mitzvah? Rav Papa answered that a Mishnah says that when there is a Mitzvah, we force. (I.e. even so, it is called a Mitzvah.)

Answer #2: He asked whether or not we force him. Even though it is obvious that we collect from adult orphans, perhaps this is when they did not say that they do not want to do the Mitzvah.

However, when they said so, what is the law? [Rav Papa] said that a Mishnah teaches this...

Answer #3: This refers to one who attributes his money to a Nochri;

Granted, according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who says that the reason we do not collect from minor orphans is due to Tzerari (perhaps their father set aside money for the lender to collect from)...

However, there is an obligation on the property. Since the law is that they should pay money, the Shibud is also on the money, even though there is land, and all the more so when there is not;

However, according to you, who say that it is a Mitzvah, and even if the orphans have property, we do not collect from it, for the Shibud is on them only in a case when there is a Mitzvah, do you also say that there is no Shibud on the money?

Distinction: This is unlike a thief, who has a Shibud on all his property, for it came to him through Isur. It is proper that there is a total Shibud on him, but not here.

Explanation: We discuss when there is Acharayus Nechasim (the orphans inherited land). Rav Papa's teaching was said in such a case in Erchin (22a). Even so, we do not collect from minor orphans, for they are not obligated to do Mitzvos.

However, we collect from adult orphans.

Distinction: However, when there is no Acharayus Nechasim, there is a Mitzvah on the orphans, but we do not force, like is proven below (91b), regarding the man who left a plot of land [worth 50, and he owed 100. The creditor took the land for partial payment. The orphans gave him 50 Zuz, and took the land back. The creditor took it again for final payment. Abaye ruled that it is a Mitzvah for orphans to pay the debt of their father. They gave 50 l'Shem Mitzvah. The creditor was entitled to take the land again.)

Explanation #1: This is because the Mitzvah of Kivud [Av v'Em], its reward is written adjacent to it [in the Torah], therefore Beis Din is not commanded [to force people to fulfill it].

Implied question: It says in Bava Kama (94b) that if their father left them a [stolen] cow, Talis or anything specific, they must return it for the honor of their father!

Answer: There, if they will not return it, there is disgrace to their father. Therefore, they are obligated to pay. However, for mere honor of their father, they need not.

Explanation #2: Below (91b), Rashi explained regarding the plot of land that since there is a Mitzvah only mid'Rabanan, we do not force them.

Rebuttal: We find that we force for Mitzvos mid'Rabanan, e.g. Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Mes (to fulfill the command after the Meshale'ach died). We force heirs to do so.

Question: How did [Rav Chisda] resolve [Rami bar Chama's question] from Rav and Shmuel, and he must say that Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim are like Reshus ha'Rabim?

Rami bar Chama himself asked about Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim. This connotes that if he left it in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is obvious to him that she is not divorced!

Answer: He inferred from the Seifa of their teaching, that in a Simta, Tefisah does not help;

Inference: In Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim, it helps.

Observation: However, the latter version compares Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim to a Simta.

Question: Above (31b), it says that one acquires in Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim! (Pnei Yehoshua - it says so according to one answer there. That answer holds like Version #2 here, that one does not acquire in Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim. Ramban, in Shitah Mekubetzes - in Version #1, Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim are like Reshus ha'Rabim, because there are no Chafufei (pegs to distance traffic from a wall) in between. In Version #1, they are not like Reshus ha'Rabim, because there are Chafufei in between.)

Inference: Since he did not say oppositely, that she is divorced based on Rav and Shmuel themselves, who say that Tefisah does not help in a Simta, this implies that it is obvious to him that a Simta is better for Kinyan than Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim;

However, he wants to equate a swamp and Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim. This implies that a Simta is better than a swamp.

Question (Rashba): Above (82a), R. Yochanan said that one who says to his friend "do Meshichah on this cow, but you do not acquire it until after 30 days", he acquired, even if [after 30 days] it is standing in the swamp;

If so, all the more so even if it is standing in a Simta [he acquires]. How could R. Yochanan say above that Tefisah helps in a Simta?!

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both said that [Tefisah helps] even in a Simta.

Explanation: We discuss when he said to him "from now", like we establish above (82a).

Assertion: Also regarding Get, about which Rami bar Chama asked, we discuss when he said 'from now.'

Proof: If he did not say 'from now', since the divorce is only after 30 days, it would have to be in her Chatzer then.

Question: How did [Rav Chisda] resolve from Rav and Shmuel? There, there is no 'from now'!

Answer: He resolved that just like there, even though according to letter of the law, from when the father died, the property is in the Reshus of the orphans, whenever it is...

Even so, if it is in Reshus ha'Rabim, the orphans do not acquire;

Also here, when he said "this is your Get from now, and you are not divorced until after 30 days", letter of the law she should acquire the Get immediately [to take effect] after 30 days, wherever it is;

Even so, in Reshus ha'Rabim she is not divorced.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The first Tana holds that we are not Megalgel on a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan.

Rejection: In Shevuos (48b), we conclude that we are Megalgel on a [Shevu'ah] mid'Rabanan. No one disagrees!

Explanation #2: Rather, the first Tana holds that she says "since you are so exacting, I cannot live with you."

Citation (Yerushalmi): What is Rabanan's reason? If you say so (he can make her swear about her dough and thread), there is never peace in the house.

Citation (cont.) Question: If she broke Kelim, what is her law? Is she like a Shomer Chinam, or a Shomer Sachar?

Citation (cont.) Answer: Presumably, she is not even like a Shomer Chinam. If you would not say so, there is never peace in the house.

Explanation (Yerushalmi): The case is, he authorized her to make her heirs overseers;

We must say that "those who come in your Reshus" refers to others, i.e. strangers, whom she made overseers, because he gave Reshus to her.

Question: Why does it mention Neder? Neder applies only to a widow, like is proven in Gitin (34b). R. Gamliel enacted that she vows... (because widows were dying due to Shevu'os)."... And I [do not have] against you" applies only to a divorcee!

Answer: Since we mentioned below a vow regarding heirs, we mentioned it also in the Reisha.

Question: We cannot give this answer in the Gemara, for the Beraisa (before this Mishnah) says "Neder and Shevu'ah", and there we do not discuss heirs at all! (Tosfos Yom Tov, citing Nimukei Yosef - had he exempted her only from a Shevu'ah, he could say that she must vow.)