Clarification (Part 1): Tis Sugya goes like Rav Sheishes, who says, in the first Perek of Kidushin, that according to the Rabbanan, a condition is valid.

Clarification (Part 2): But according to Rebbi Elazar, even in such a case, an Eved cannot acquire without it going to his master, or woman without it going to her husband.

Implied Question: Nevertheless, there is no Kashya on him from the Mishnah ...

Answer #1: Since we could answer that it is speaking about money that is specifically designated for the purpose of purchasing a meal for his father and mother (as the Gemara explained in the first answer).

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, Rebbi Elazar would establish it where her husband gave it to her.

Answer #2 (Part 2): Seeing as Rebbi Elazar is the one who says in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' that 'in both cases (whether it is a sale or a gift), the woman acquires and her husband does not eat the Peiros'.

Question #1 (Part 1): Rebbi Chanina's ruling seems to be a Machlokes Tana'im ...

Question #1 (Part 2): Who argue in 'ha'Choletz' (where the Tana Kama explains that) Geirim suffer nowadays is because they did not observe the seven Mitzvos (which they accepted upon themseleves; whilst Rebbi Yossi holds there that seeing as Ger who converted is like a new-born baby, and is therefore not punishable

Question #1 (Part 2): Moreover, our Sugya does not appear to concur with either of the two opinions, seeing as the Gemara says that if he transgressed and became a Yisrael, he is Chayav, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, he is like a newborn baby and is therefore Patur.

Answer: It appears however, that our Sugya is speaking exclusively about Dinei Adam (punishment at the hand of Beis-Din) whereas the Sugya in 'ha'Choletz' is speaking be'Dinei Shamayim.

Explanation #1: The Chenek that he is Chayav now, he was Chayav before (when he was a Nochri, plus more [since Hereg is more strict than Chenek]).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks later why, a Na'arah Me'urasah who committed adultery and then became a Bogeres is not Chayav Sekilah, and answers 'Since she changed, she changed ...

Answer: It does not mean that her punishment has changed, but that her body has changed.

Implied Question: Then why did Rebbi Yochanan say to the Tana 'Learn in the Beraisa 'She is sentenced to Sekilah (the original Misah)', whereas here (in the case of a Ger, he does not receive the original Misah?

Answer: Because there (in the case of the Na'arah) her basic Din has not changed, like it has here (See Maharam).

Question (Part 1): The Gemara's answer (regarding Na'arah Me'rasah she'Bagrah) 'since she changed, she changed' does not seem to be referring to the change in her body ...

Question (Part 2): Since the Gemara (at the end of the Sugya) says 'How much more so here (regarding a ben No'ach who blessed Hash-m's Name) that he changed completely', implying that the first case (of Na'arah) changed in the same way (i.e. by way of the Misah).

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach Shaycha' does not mean that his form of Misah has not changed, seeing as in any event, it has ...

Clarification (Part 1): What it does mean is that Beis-Din need to sentence him at least to the lighter punishment, since initially, he was Chayav even a more stringent death.

Clarification (Part 2): And it is not comparable to a ben No'ach who 'blessed Hashem', where we do not punish him with the current punishment, which is more stringent ...

Clarification (Part 3): because initially, he was not Chayav that death initially; nor can we give him the initial death, since now he has no connection with it.