Explanation: The case is, he feeds her and gives to her a Ma'ah (a sixth of a Dinar every week for other needs). Therefore, he need not annul, for all the excess (earnings) is his. Also the excess through working extra hard, he holds that it is her husband's.

Suggestion: Perhaps he holds that he need not annul because he holds that one cannot be Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Rejection: If so, why does it say "what I do for you?" He should teach about one who is Makdish what he himself will earn!

Explanation: He holds that the excess through working extra hard belongs to her, like it says in Kesuvos (66a).

Question: How can he annul it? This is not a matter between them! (It does not affect their relationship.)

Answer #1: It is considered a matter between them, because he cannot be careful to take precisely what is proper for him.

Answer #2: [It is considered a matter between them, because] he has a lien also on her share. He buys land with it, and eats the Peros (but the vow forbids this to him).

Question: If so, how can she vow to forbid this to him, since he has a lien on her?

Answer: Only regarding earnings themselves, [Chachamim] strengthened the husband's lien, and they are entirely his;

Here (the excess through working extra hard), he has rights only to the Peros. They did not strengthen his lien.

Explanation: [They are Hekdesh] to Hash-m, who made them.

Question: Perhaps "l'Oseihen" means for their labors!

Rejection: If so, [the text] should have said "l'Ma'aseihen", like it says in Nedarim (13b) "Yadai l'Ma'aseihen."

Observation: Rav Huna holds oppositely to Rav Nachman regarding Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, like I explained in Kesuvos (7b) and Gitin (13b. Rav Huna holds that one can be Makneh (transfer ownership of) Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, but only to Davar she'Ba l'Olam (something in the world, but not to a baby). Rav Nachman holds that one can be Makneh to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, but [he may be Makneh] only a Davar she'Ba l'Olam.)

Question (Ri): Why must he say "from now"? Since he holds that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, it is as if it is in the world;

Regarding something in the world, one need not say "from now", like it says in Kidushin (59a)!

Citation (59a): If one said to a woman "you are Mekudeshes [to me] after 30 days", and someone else came and was Mekadesh her within 30 days, she is Mekudeshes to the latter;

Citation (cont.): If no one else was Mekadesh her within 30 days, what is the law? Rav and Shmuel both said that she is Mekudeshes, even if the money was consumed...

Also above (92b), regarding ["you are Mekudeshes to me] after you convert", he did not say 'from now', and also for Peros of a patch (after they reach one-third growth and are uprooted, they should be Terumah on these detached fruits, or vice-versa), below (93b).

Answer (R. Tam): Here, we need 'from now' because a Stam Kinyan of a field is through Chalipin, document or Chazakah;

Money does not acquire in a place where they write the document, unless he explicitly stipulated "if I want, I will acquire with money" (Kidushin 26a).

In Rav's place they used to write a document. In several places in the Gemara, we find that they did not acquire with money;

E.g. it says in Bava Basra (54b) "a Nochri, once he gets the money, removes himself (from the land). The Yisrael does not acquire until he gets the document.

In Bava Metzi'a (16a), it says "how did this man acquire? With this document. This document is like a [worthless] shard!"

Explanation: Therefore, he must say 'from now', for even regarding Davar she'Ba l'Olam, if he said "acquire with Chazakah or Chalipin after 30 days", and he did not say 'from now', he does not acquire;

This is because at the time the Kinyan should take effect, i.e. after 30 days, the Chazakah ceased, or the garment [used to make Chalipin] was returned.

This is like we say in Kesuvos (82a), that [if one said] "do Meshichah on (take to your Reshus) this cow, but it is not acquired to you until 30 days", he does not acquire, because he did not say 'from now';

This is because at the time of the Kinyan (when it should take effect, after 30 days), the Meshichah ceased.

Similarly, when one acquires through a document, he must say 'from now', so even if the document is torn or lost [before the time for the Kinyan to take effect], he acquires;

If he did not say 'from now', and the document was torn in the interim or lost, he did not acquire, for at the time of the Kinyan, there is no document here.

This is like it says according to the opinion (Gitin 74a) that [if one said 'you are Mekudeshes to me on condition that I give to you 200 Zuz', or 'this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 Zuz',] she is Mekudeshes or divorced when he [or she] gives. If the Get was torn or lost in between, she is not divorced.

Distinction: However, regarding ["you are Mekudeshes to me] after you convert", he need not say 'from now', for Stam Kidushin is with money. Even if the money was consumed, it is always considered as if it is intact with the Makneh (the seller. Regarding Kidushin, she is the Makneh.)

If the Kinyan does not occur, it is incumbent on him (the Makneh) to return the money, so it is considered that it is intact, l'Shem Kidushin;

The money is not like a loan, and not like a deposit, like it says in Kidushin (59a).

Also regarding Peros of a patch, we do not require 'from now', since saying to Hash-m [that they are Terumah] is like Mesirah (handing over) to a person;

It is as if he gave them to the buyer to be in his hand and acquire them when will come the time that he fixed.

Implied question: Rav was unsure (Kidushin 59a) about 'from now and after 30 days', if it is a Tenai (stipulation, on condition that he not retract within 30 days), or a retraction (he initially said 'from now', and retracted to say 'after 30 days.' Perhaps similarly, regarding a field, he initially said 'from now', and retracted to say 'when I buy it'!)

Answer #1: In any case, here regarding a field 'from now' helps, for here it is obvious that it is not a retraction;

Surely, regarding something b'Yado Lehaknos (he could give it) now, there is a doubt when he says "and after 30 days" that he retracts from his initial words 'from now';

However, something that he cannot be Makneh now, like here, when he says "when I buy it', this is not a retraction. Rather, he has no other way [to give it]!

Answer #2: Here, when he says 'from now' at the end, there can be no doubt at all.

Question: Since 'from now and after 30 days' is a Tenai or retraction, how do we understand R. Yochanan's teaching in Kesuvos (82a)?

If he said "do Meshichah on this cow, but it is not acquired to you until after 30 days", he acquires. We establish it that he said 'from now', and even if [after 30 days] it is in the swamp (not the buyer's Reshus).

If it is a retraction, why did he acquire? If it was a Tenai, and the Kinyan finished now (when he said this), why do we discuss when the cow is in the swamp? We could even say that it is in Reshus ha'Rabim or the seller's Reshus (where the buyer cannot acquire at all)!

In Kesuvos (86a), it connotes that he mentioned specifically a swamp, in which it is possible to do Meshichah.

Answer (Ri): This is not difficult. R. Yochanan teaches like he holds in Kidushin (60a), that 'from now and after 30 days' is not a Tenai, and not a retraction;

1. Rather, he says "the Kinyan should begin now, and finish after 30 days." Therefore, we require that after 30 days it is in a place where Kinyan and Meshichah are possible, for then the Kinyan finishes.

Explanation: The Ri says that this is the law of a Kinyan after 30 days:

If it was with money, even if the money is not intact, or if it was with a document, and it is intact in the buyer's Reshus after 30 days, all agree that he acquires without 'from now';

However, Meshichah, Chazakah, Chalipin, and a document that was torn, all agree that it does not help.

Even if he said 'from now and after 30 days' this does not help according to everyone. (Maharsha - i.e. all agree that Meshichah... and a torn document require 'from now'; if he said 'from now and after 30 days', not all agree that it helps.)

A lost document, Chazakah and Chalipin do not help to acquire totally according to R. Yochanan, since when the Kinyan finishes there is no document, Chazakah or Chalipin.

However, Meshichah acquires with 'from now and after 30 days', since at the end of 30 days the cow stands in the swamp, which is a place proper for a Kinyan;

Through the initial Meshichah that began the Kinyan, the swamp became his Reshus. It is like a long Meshichah.

Even if it left the swamp within 30 days, or even if the Makneh took it to his Chatzer, and later within 30 days it returned to the swamp, he acquires.

According to Rav, who was unsure if it is a Tenai or a retraction, it does not help at all that it stands in the swamp.

According to Shmuel, who is sure that it is a Tenai, with all [Kinyanim] he acquires, since he did not retract within the time.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, why doesn't he acquire a cow even in Reshus ha'Rabim or the Makneh's Reshus, like he acquires land with 'from now and after death' which acquires the Guf (permanent rights to it) today, and the Peros after death [of the giver]?

Answer: Perhaps 'from now and after death' connotes more that he wants to acquire the Guf from today;

Presumably, since he said "after death", he wants to divert the property from other heirs and he is Makneh the Guf to him from now. The Ri said so.

Explanation (Ri): They belonged to the sharecropper. He used to give to R. Yanai;

If they were R. Yanai's Peros, it would not be considered Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, even if they were attached to the ground [when he wanted to tithe them], since it is b'Yado to detach them. This is clear from Kidushin (62a).

Suggestion: Here it is not considered b'Yado because the Peros were far away.

Rejection: It is unreasonable to distinguish between whether they are close or far.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rashi connotes that we need to learn from the verse due to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Objection (Ri): Why are Shabbos and Yom Tov different than other days?

Explanation #2 (Ri and R. Chananel): The verse comes to permit tithing Lo Min ha'Mukaf on Shabbos (the Terumah is not near the Tevel being exempted).

Question: Since the Torah permits to tithe on Shabbos, how can a verse come to teach that it is permitted Lo Min ha'Mukaf (for Kevod Shabbos)? He can wait until Shabbos and tithe Min ha'Mukaf!

Answer #1: The verse permits one who has Peros in another city, and he has here only enough for his Shabbos meal. If he will tithe from them (what he has here), he will not have enough;

For the sake of Oneg Shabbos, he may tithe (make Terumah and Ma'aser) the Peros in the other city, Lo Min ha'Mukaf.

Question: In the episode with R. Yanai, why was it permitted to tithe Lo Min ha'Mukaf, for the Torah permits to tithe tomorrow [on Shabbos] Min ha'Mukaf! (There is no reason to permit today Lo Min ha'Mukaf.)

Answer: Here, regarding Terumah of Peros, which is mid'Rabanan, they permitted Lo Min ha'Mukaf for the sake of Oneg Shabbos, since normally, when they are in another city and he cannot fix them [from what is here] the Torah permits.

Answer #2: One may tithe on Erev Shabbos Lo Min ha'Mukaf, so he will not need to toil and tithe on Shabbos. This is Oneg Shabbos!

Question: In Gitin (13b), we say that even R. Meir, who says that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, this is only to a Davar she'Ba l'Olam, but not to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Rhetorical question: What is the source [that he says that one can be Makneh] Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam? It is from "after you convert";

We learn also [from that Beraisa that one can be Makneh] to a Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, i.e. the case of "after I convert"!

Answer (Ri): "After I convert" is not considered so much Lo Ba l'Olam, since the body is here, just he is lacking conversion;

However, there [we say that one cannot be Makneh to] people who will be born. They are not in the world at all.

Support (Ri): R. Elazar of Shazna said similarly to answer the following question.

It says in Bava Metzi'a (33a) that we heard that R. Meir said [that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam] only in a case like fruits that will grow on a date tree, for they normally come;

Question: All the cases [of Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam in our Sugya] do not normally come!

Answer (R. Elazar of Shazna): We require that it normally comes only for something not in the world at all. The matters here are in the world, so we do not require that they normally come.

Question: If so, in Kesuvos (58b), regarding one who was Makdish his wife's earnings, we explain that R. Meir holds that since he can force her to work, it is as if he said "her hands are Hekdesh to their Maker." Her hands are in the world;

Citation (58b) Question: Does R. Meir hold that one cannot be Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam? A Beraisa says [if one said] "you are Mekudeshes to me after I convert..."

Citation (cont.) Answer: Indeed, we learn from there [that he holds that one can be Makneh or Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam]. From here (one who was Makdish his wife's earnings) we cannot learn (for perhaps he was Makdish her hands).

Summation of question: Also from there (after I convert...") we cannot learn that one can be Makdish something that is not in the world at all, e.g. her [future] earnings;

We could still say that her earnings are not Kodesh, if not because it is as if he said "you hands are Kodesh to their Maker"!

Answer: Since we find that [at least] partially he holds like his Rebbi R. Eliezer ben Yakov, similarly regarding something not in the world at all he holds like him;

He (R. Eliezer ben Yakov) holds below (regarding Peros of a patch) that one can be Makneh something not in the world at all.

Question: In Bava Basra (141b), it connotes that a fetus is worse (considered less in the world) than a convert, according to R. Meir. R. Meir said that one who is Mezakeh (acquires for) a fetus does not acquire;

Also Rav Huna, who holds here like R. Meir, holds that even after he is born, he does not acquire, even though "after I convert...", she is Mekudeshes;

R. Chanina holds oppositely in Kidushin (62b). He holds that "after I convert...", she is not Mekudeshes;

Even so, R. Chanina said there that if one said to his friend "if your wife will give birth to a female, she is Mekudeshes to me", if she was pregnant, his words are fulfilled!

Answer #1: We need not be so concerned for this. We similarly find that the reasoning of Rav Nachman is opposite to that of Rav Huna (regarding Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam and to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam)!

Answer #2: R. Chanina taught only according to the opinion that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Implied question: Why did he do so? The Mishnah holds that one cannot be Makneh [Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam]!

Answer: Even so, he prefers to establish this that was taught there '"if your wife will give birth to a female, she is Mekudeshes to me", she is not Mekudeshes' according to everyone (R. Meir agrees, if she was not pregnant);

This is because the Beraisa in the Gemara (63a, taught that R. Meir argues with Rabanan about the other cases of Kidushin she'Lo Ba l'Olam in the Mishnah, but) did not teach R. Meir argues with Rabanan about this case.

Question: What was the question? Surely the reason for one witness is because she investigates well before marrying, like is proven above!

Answer (Ri): We ask whether we rely on her investigation because it is Avid l'Igluyei (prone to become known, if he is alive), and Avid l'Igluyei is the primary reason;

Therefore, we rely on even a little investigation in a case like here, that [sometimes] she does not check so well, because she loves him (the Yavam);

Or, perhaps the primary reason for one witness is because she investigates well. Therefore, we require great investigation, and here, that she loves him, she does not check so much.

Implied question: According to this version, why don't we resolve this from [the Mishnah that says] that a woman is believed to say "my husband died" and do Yibum?

Answer: He holds that due to love, she would not intentionally lie. However, we can say that she would rely on one witness and not investigate here like she normally would.

Explanation: Rav Sheshes resolved this from our Mishnah - "they told her that her son died, and afterwards...

Inference: One witness is believed here, even though she is not believed to say that her son died and then her husband, when she and her son went [with her husband] overseas, like the Mishnah explicitly says below (118b).

We are concerned lest she lies, because she loves [the Yavam];

All the more so, regarding [when it is known that there are no children] "your husband died", which she herself is believed to say, one witness should be believed!

Question: How can we say that she investigates when one witness permits her to do Yibum? There is no severity (fines) at the end [if her husband is found to be alive] when she falls from Nisu'in;

Rav and Shmuel argue about a Yevamah (i.e. one who did Yibum because she heard that her husband died) from Eirusin (and afterwards her husband returned), whether she is like an Eshes Ish, and is forbidden to return [to her husband], or not, but all agree that if she fell from Nisu'in, she may return to him.

Answer #1: She investigates in any case, for she does not know whether [the Yavam] will do Yibum or Chalitzah. She is concerned lest he do Chalitzah, and she will marry l'Shuk, and there is severity!

Answer #2: Since there is severity for all other women, also this one she investigates well like others, who are used to checking well.

Note: This is a Chidush, that Edus Ishah is frequent, and women generally publicize how they verified the report, so all women will investigate well, even those who have no risk of suffering the fines. Even when the fines apply, Chachamim were concerned lest certain women rely on estimation, e.g. in war. All the more so, we should be concerned lest women rely on estimation when the fines do not apply! If it seems that he died, but she cannot verify that he Vadai died, will she remain an Agunah just because other women wait until it is Vadai?!

Implied question: Two pairs of contradictory witnesses is a Safek mid'Rabanan. (Mid'Oraisa, we leave the matter in its Chazakah.) We should establish her in Chezkas Isur to the Yavam!

Answer (Ri): When the Yavam and she say "it is clear to me" [that he died], we should not say that she must leave, just like when she married one of her witnesses (who say that her husband died - above 88b).

Explanation: [We ask whether one witness is believed about this, for] she is not believed about it, like we say below.

This version holds that one witness is better than her, unlike we held in the first version, that one witness is weaker than her.

Implied question: We could have asked whether one witness is believed to permit a Yevamah to do Yibum when they say "your son died, and afterwards your husband died", for she is not believed about this!

Answer #1: They happened to ask about a Yevamah l'Shuk.

Answer #2: Also the case of "your son died, and afterwards your husband died", we say that we need not ask about this;