* = This is the case of the REISHA of the Mishnah
** = This is the case of the SEIFA of the Mishnah

==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) This explains the RASHBA. (See also what the Rashba cites from the RIF, for another explanation of our Sugya.)

(2) This is what Abaye holds, and it is identical to the logic of Ula (38b, and RASHI DH Oseh Safek). Rava challenges Abaye's view the same way Rabah challenged Ula's view earlier. (See also Rashba, citing the Rif, for another explanation of our Sugya [as noted above, #1].)

(3) Since she has the upper hand, she may sell the property even l'Chatchilah. (See #8, below, and Insights to 39:1.)

(4) Both Abaye and Rava hold that even after her death, she has the upper hand (and her father's family inherits the property), because of the Chazakah that this property had been in her family's possession until now. For this reason, Abaye and Rava reject Rabah's explanation of the Mishnah (on 38b), in which he rules that after death the Yevamah's family has no more Chazakah than the Yavam does. However, Rava rules that according to Beis Shamai, after Ma'amar, the ownership of the property (i.e. who has the upper hand) is in doubt and it is split after her death (just as Raba had ruled without Ma'amar).

(5) Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel according to Abaye's explanation, and Beis Hillel according to Rava's explanation, hold that Ma'amar is inconsequential to this Halachah. Therefore, case 6) is identical to case 4), and case 7) is identical to case 5).

(6) Beis Shamai follows his own opinion elsewhere, for he holds that Ma'amar makes a complete Kinyan. By doing Ma'amar, the Yevamah gets a status of a Safek Nesu'ah and the Yavam's control over the property is strengthened, making his hand in it as strong as hers.

(7) According to Rava, the reason that the Yevamah has control over the property and may sell it as she pleases is because her ownership of the Guf is not in doubt. Even though there is a doubt over her ownership of the Peros, the principle of "Ein Safek Motzi Midei Vadai" entitles her to keep the Peros. Nevertheless, according to Rava, Beis Hillel holds that the woman is not permitted to sell the property l'Chatchilah, and it is like the property of a normal Arusah (see Chart #12, 1:B) since Ma'amar was done with her (and it is likely that the Yavam will eventually do Yibum with her). (TOSFOS DH Af Al Gav and other Rishonim; see Insights)

(8) This is the case with which the Gemara has difficulty according to Abaye's explanation -- the Mishnah should have expressed the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in this case, where the woman is alive, and with regard to the Peros -- since according to Abaye, Beis Shamai holds that they have equal control (Yado k'Yadah), and should split the property, even when she it still alive.