Suggestion: She borrowed and ate before Beis Din ruled [that she may borrow, and her husband must pay].

Rejection: If so, her husband would not be obligated to pay even if she borrowed in Beis Din, like R. Tam explained in Kesuvos (107a) regarding "if Beis Din prematurely allotted food for her, what they allotted they allotted (it stands)!

Explanation: Here, we discuss whether Beis Din should allot food for her when her husband went overseas. May she borrow and eat like other women, or not?

Explanation #1: According to Abaye, who says in Kesuvos (51b) that if a widow to a Kohen Gadol was captured, he must redeem her, for regarding a Kohen's wife (she becomes forbidden to him, unless she can prove that she was not defiled) we apply "I will return you to your land"...

He explains "Peros" simply, the law of Peros, i.e. redemption. It was enacted (that one must redeem his wife) in exchange for Peros (the right to the yield of her property).

Regarding a Sheniyah, it was taught that she has no Peros. Also this refers to the law of Peros. If she was captured, he need not redeem her, even though he eats her Peros;

Support: This is like below (89a). A Beraisa says that she (one who remarried based on a false report that her husband died) has no Peros or food... and the Yerushalmi says that she cannot force him (her new husband) to return Peros that he ate.

R. Chanina says there that this is only what he ate before her first husband returned...

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to Rava, who says there that if a widow married to a Kohen Gadol was captured, he need not redeem her, it seems that the Ri that "she has Peros" means that if she was captured, he must pay the amount of her Peros that he consumed to redeem her.

He need not pay the excess of her redemption price above this;

Regarding a Sheniyah, even the amount of her Peros that he consumed he need not give.

Explanation #2: Rashi connotes that regarding a widow [to a Kohen Gadol], her husband receives no Peros at all. Even if she was not captured, he must return all the Peros he ate;

He explained "she has Peros" to mean that even if he ate Peros, since he was not allowed to eat them, he must pay. He explained so according to Rava in Kesuvos.

The Ri explains like I wrote. Her husband pays only for needs of redemption when she is captured. Also the Rivan explained like this.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): In our Mishnah, Rashi explained regarding a Sheniyah, who has no Bala'os, that if there are remnants of the garments she brought to him [when she married him], she does not take then when she leaves. Chachamim fined her.

Rebuttal and Explanation #2 (Ri): In Kesuvos (101a), it explicitly connotes that this is only what wore out and is not intact (she gets no compensation for it), but what is intact, she takes;

When the Gemara discusses what is still intact, it normally specifies "Bala'os Kayamin", like it says there "if she was Mezanah, she lost Bala'os Kayamin." We say the same (Kesuvos 63b) about Moredes (one who rebels against her husband).

Question: Since it was taught that a widow has Peros, this is Bala'os, since we discuss Bala'os that are not intact, like it says there (Kesuvos 79b, 101a) "if she entered a cloak, this is Peros, and he wears it until it wears out"!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is Pasul, because he transgressed and married her, like it says in Bechoros (45b);

We do not require both (that both are Pasul, for her to receive a Kesuvah). Rather, if he or she is Pasul, they fined him, for she does not entice him, since one of them becomes Pasul through this;

This is like we say below, that [the two versions about when she has a Kesuvah] argue about a Mamzeres and Nesinah. (It is an Isur Torah, but she is already Pesulah, and she does not disqualify him.)

The Gemara asks "according to R. Elazar, who says that [there is no way for a Mamzer to permit his descendants, for even if he fathers a child from a Shifchah,] he (the child) is a Mamzer slave (and after he is freed, he is a Mamzer, so) she does not entice him!"

There, her husband does not become Pasul, for we cannot say that a Yisrael is disqualified through her. Also she is not disqualified through this, for she was Pesulah from the beginning!

Rather, due to [Pesul of] children alone, she refrains and does not entice him. She fears to entice him, since his seed is disqualified through her.

Question: We say [below] that [the versions] argue about a Be'ulah to a Kohen Gadol... Why does she entice him? He is disqualified through her, for he marries a forbidden woman. She fears to entice him!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "He is Pasul" refers to the child. When she alone is disqualified, even when the child is Kosher, she does not entice him;

This is like we say "according to R. Masya ben Charash, who says that even if he was going [with his wife to make her drink Sotah water, and he had Bi'ah with her], he makes her a Zonah, she does not entice him."

Alternate text: Some texts say [that she has a Kesuvah when] "he is Kosher and she is Pesulah."

Explanation: He can permit his sons through a Shifchah (they will marry Shifchos, and free their children from her).

Implied question: He cannot permit his daughters, like it says in Kidushin (69a) "how can you permit females?"

Answer: She thinks that he will not mind, since he can permit the males.

Implied question: The Gemara connotes that a widow to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot, she does not entice him because her children are disqualified. They become Chalalim;

Bnei Yisrael purify Chalalos (their children are regular Yisre'elim), and according to R. Dostai b'Ribi Yanai, Bnos Yisrael purify Chalalim (in both cases, their children are regular Yisre'elim)!

Answer: In any case, the father is upset that his children are not Kohanim, so she fears to entice him.

Observation: The Gemara could have said that R. Akiva holds like R. Tarfon, who says that a Mamzer may marry a Shifchah (and the children are Kosher when he frees them), and they argue about a Mamzeres and Nesinah, like above.

Question: What was difficult according to R. Akiva? Since Kidushin does not take effect on her, she is not his wife. It is not relevant to fine him to give a Kesuvah;

She does not even need a Get from him, like it says above (49a)!

Note: The Ritva explains that the Gemara wanted to show that we can explain the argument of R. Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi according to every Tana. Perhaps Tosfos asks why we asked according to R. Akiva. Surely we cannot explain their argument if Chayavei Lavin have no Kesuvah!

Answer: We do not ask due to Kesuvah and food, rather, regarding Peros and Bala'os. She should not lose them, for she does not entice him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She would like to drink first [before having Bi'ah with him], and not become Pasul to Kehunah.

Question #1: ["One who returns his Safek Sotah" connotes that] he divorced her, so she cannot drink. This is clear from below (95a);

We say "why must we discuss when he had Bi'ah with her? Even if he gave her a Get, or said 'I will not cause her to drink'", i.e. afterwards she cannot drink!

Question #2: According to Rashi, why do we ask according to R. Masya ben Charash? It is difficult also for Rabanan, for she does not entice him, for she wants to drink first, to be permitted to Kehunah;

If he has Bi'ah with her, he cannot give her to drink, for he is not clean from sin, so the water would not test her!

Explanation #2: It is fine for Rabanan. [In any case] she cannot drink, because he divorced her. (She entices him, for she does not lose through this.)

However, according to R. Masya ben Charash, who says that she becomes a Zonah, she does not entice him.

Implied question: Even without this (becoming a Zonah through relations with him), she is forbidden to Kehunah due to "v'Nitme'ah". Also, she is [forbidden to Kehunah because] she is divorced, and she is already forbidden to Terumah because she is a Zarah!

Answer #1: In any case, the Pesul due to Zenus is disgraceful for her, so she does not entice him.

Support: Also in Kidushin (77b), we say that the [Tana holds that] Pesul of Zenus is more stringent than other Isurei Kehunah, since the Isur of "Zenus" disqualifies even for Yisre'elim.

Answer #2: She does not entice him, for now [if she becomes a Zonah] there are two Lavim.