Answer (cont.): Whereas one cannot reject the Beraisa quoted in our Sugya by establishing it by Manah/Masayim ...

Answer (cont.): Because the Tana would need to insert the largest possible payment that the Eidim Zom'min are obligated to pay ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, assuming that she is able to sell her Nechsei Tzon Barzel, the Eidim Zom'min stand to cause the woman a greater loss when they say that her husband divorced her gave her her Kesubah with regard to the Nechsei Tzon Barzel which she is able to sell completely, than with regard to the Manah/Masayim, which she is not.

Answer (cont.): Not so in the Mishnah in Makos, where they come to testify in order to cause the husband a loss, by claiming that he divorced her and did not pay her Kesubah, they cause him a greater loss with regard to the Manah/Masayim which they are now obligating him to pay ...

Answer (cont.): Since he may have been Patur from paying, in the event that she would die in his lifetime, than with regard to Nechsei Tzon Barzel, which she might sell, and from which her death would then not exempt him from paying.

Answer (concl.): Hence (in both the Mishnah and the Beraisa) the Tana mentions their Hazamah in a case which magnifies their payment.

Clarification: This speaks specifically about Peirei Peiros that come from an outside source, such as the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesubah or the Kefel that the Ganav who steals the Kesubah has to pay the woman, as the Gemara says at the beginning of 'ha'Ishah sh'Naflu lah Nechasim' (Kesuvos, Daf 79b) ...

Reason: Because the Rabanan did not institute Peirei Peiros (in such cases) ...

Clarification (cont.): But it is obvious that they did institute Peirei Peiros regarding that what comes from the property itself, such as the baby of the babies of an animal of Nechsei Milug ...

Source: As we learned (in Kesuvos, Daf 83a) 'He does eat the Peirei Peiros ... '.

Chidush #1: And it seems that 'The Peirei Peiros' that the Rabanan did not institute there is not equivalent to the 'Peirei Peiros' here ...

Chidush #1 (cont.): Because, granted that he pays the Kefel to the woman, it seems that it is used to purchase Karka, of which he eats the Peiros (See Maharsha).

Chidush #2: It also seems that how much more so if the Ganav steals the animal of Nichsei Milug itself, that he pays Kefel to the woman.

Question: At the beginning of 'Af-al-Pi' (Kesuvos, Daf 54b) it implies that that is not Rebbi Meir's reason ...

Source: In connection with the Mishnah where Rebbi Meir declares a Be'ilas Z'nus the Bi'ah of anyone who detracts from Masayim for a Besulah or a Manah for an Almanah ...

Source (cont.): The Gemara (Daf 56b) extrapolates from 'Kol ha'Poches' that this applies even where he stipulates - 'So we see that in his opinion, the condition is void and she receives the full amount.

Source (concl.): And since he told her that she will only receive a Manah, she loses her confidence, and his Be'ilah is a Be'ilas Z'nus? But we have heard that Rebbi Meir holds that regarding de'Rabanans, his condition is valid?

Question (cont.): This implies that it is because she is entitled to the full amount, and she does not have confidence when he tells her that she will receive only a Manah that it is a Be'ilas Z'nus ...

Question (concl.): But that if his condition would be valid and she would not receive it, it would not be a Be'ilas Z'nus?

Answer: Kal va'Chomer if the condition would be Bateil and she would not receive her due, it would be a Be'ilas Z'nus ...

Answer (cont.): And there the Gemara extrapolates that 'He (Rebbi Meir) holds that the condition is invalid ... ', since he did not say 'A Besulah who does not receive Masayim and an Almanah, a Manah ... ' ...

Answer (concl.): This implies that what he means to say is that whoever detracts, even though it is in a way that she does receive (what he promises her), it is nevertheless a Be'ilas Z'nus.

Question: From where do we know that Rebi Meirb is speaking in a case where he made stipulated? Perhaps he concedes that his condition isw valid ...

Question (cont.): And what he means is that whoever detracts even in a manner where she receives, such as at the conclusion of the Bi'ah ...

Source: As it says there at the end of the Sugya - All agree that, at that stage, she is not Mochel?

Answer #1: The Lashon 'Kol ha'Poches' implies that he detracts from her, and at the conclusion of the Bi'ah it is she, and not he, who is able to detract ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And the Lashon 'Pocheis' is only applicable where there is a condition.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is from the word 'Kol' that the Gemara extrapolates.

Question: Why not sell it to her husband and pay of the victim.

Answer #1: Her husband will not agree to purchase it, in order not to cause his wife a loss.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we will shortly establish it like Rebbi Meir, who forbids living with one's wife without a Kesubah.

Question: How can she forego her Kesubah, seeing as the Gemara at the beginning of 'Af-al-Pi' (Kesuvos, Daf 57a) prohibits foregoing it as from the conclusion of the first Bi'ah?

Refuted Answer: And if you will suggest that it speaks where she declares that shee already received it ('Hiskabalti') ...

Refutation: It implies in Perek Na'arah (Ibid. Daf 51a) that according to Rebbi Meir, she cannot be Mochel even even if she says 'Hiskabalti'?

Answer: That is at the beginning of the Sugya; but according to the Maskana, where Rebbi Yehudah draws a distinction between where she writes 'Hiskabalti' snd where she doesn't, the same will apply to Rebbi Meir.

Question: Still, how cab she be Mochel, seeing as we establish it like Rebbi Meir, who prohibits a man to live with his wife without aa Kesubah?

Answer #1: It speaks where, after she is Mochel, he writes her another Kesubah.

Answer #2: One can also answer that, even though she cannot be Mochel whilst she is still married to him, they will make a deal, by which he will divorce her and after being Mochel her Kesubah, he will take her back.

Question: Since it goes like Rebbi Meir who goes by the Din of 'Garmi' (later, Daf 100a), she will not be permitted to be Mochel, because then she will become obligated to pay the purchasers ...

Source: Like it says in connection with 'Someone who sells a Sh'tar-Chov to his friend and is subsequently Mochel (the borrower). the debt is foregone ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara says there (in Kesuvos, Daf 86a) that 'According to the opinion that holds of Garmi, we make him pay the full amount that is written in the Sh'tar'?

Answer #1: One can answer that she will nevertheless not care, and be Mochel, since she anyway has nothing with which to pay.

Implied Question: Even though when she becomes widowed she will have to pay more ...

Answer: Nevertheless it is considered bothering the Beis-Din unnecessarily, seeing as, when all's said and done, now she does not pay anything.

Answer #2: According to Rabeinu Tam, who is accustomed to explain that, even according to Rebbi Meir, she is only Chayav to pay what she received, it fits even better - Here is not the place to elaborate further.

Question: ha'Rav, R. Shmuel b'Rebbi Chayim asked why she should not sell her Kesubah 'be'Ma'amad Sheloshtan', since she will then not be able to sell it ...

Source: As the Ri extrapolated from the Beraisa, cited in 'ha'Ish Mekadesh' ( Kidushin, Daf 47b) - 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a Sh'tar Chov!', or if he authorised her to collect a debt that is owed to him by others, Rebbi Meir says "Mekudeshes", Rebbi Yehudah, "Einah Mekudeshes" ' ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara concludes that, in the case of a documented loan, they are arguing over whether a woman has confidence , since they both hold like Shmuel, that 'Someone who sells a Sh'tar-Chov to his friend and is then Mochel the debtor, the debt is foregone'.

Source (cont.): And in the case of an oral loan, they are arguing over the Din of Rav Huna, who says 'Give it to so-and-so be'Ma'amad Sheloshtan, he acquires it' - since the Rabanan hold that Ma'amad Sheloshtan only helps by a Pikadon but not by a loan.

Source (concl.): Now if he would be able to be Mochel, what are they worried about if they hold like Rav Huna by a loan, seeing as they hold that she is not confident? (See also Tosfos there, Daf 48a, DH 'Ki Ka'amar').

Answer: The Ri answers that Ma'amad Sheloshtan regarding a Kesubah does not help as long as she is married, seeing as it is not yet eligible to be claimed.

Question: Why do we not write a new Sh'tar in his name, in which case she cannot be Mochel, as the Gemara says in 'ha'Koseiv' (Kesuvos, Daf 86a)?

Answer #1: Here this is not a problem, since the husband may not agree (See beginning of Dibur) ...

Question (cont.): But in the Gemara that we will learn shortly, in connection with where 'She wounded her husband', let her sell it to a third person, in whose name her husband will gladly write a Sh'tar, in order to claim payment for the wound?

Answer: The Ri replied that since the Kesubah is no longer on her name, it is as if he is leaving his wife without a Kesubah ...

Chidush: Even though the reason "So that it should not be easy for him to divorce her' does not apply.

Question: Seeing as 'Whenever her husband is involved, she is bound to be Mochel', how could the Gemara say earlier that 'We assess how much a person would give for this woman's Kesubah' ...

Question (cont.): Nobody will venture to purchase it from her since she is bound to be Mochel, in which case the Eidim Zom'min can say to her 'What loss did we cause you?'?

Precedent: Like the Gemara said before in the case of 'Im Tovas Hana'ah le'Ba'al'?

Answer: She can secure the sale by giving a Mashkon, by appointing guarantors, or by making a Neder or a Shevu'ah that she will not be Mochel.

Answer (cont.): Whereas in the current case, if she has money, let her pay; and if she doesn't, she is not Mechubad to the Nizak that she needs to take measures to secure her obligation towards him.

Conclusion: This needs to be looked into.

Question: To be sure, he loses, because if she does not sell, he will claim payment for the wound in the event that she becomes widowed or divorced, whereas if she does and is then Mochel her husband, he loses everything?

Answer: Since now, even though she would not be Mochel, she would not give him anything, when she is Mochel, it is not such a big loss, seeing as a. now he will not receive anything and b. later on too, she may die, and her husband will inherit her.

Question: Initially, it speaks where her Kesubah is worth more than the wound ...

Question (con.): Seeing as the Gemara says 'Let her sell her Kesubah and use the proceeds to pay for the wound?'?

Answer: The Gemara means 'to pay for part of the wound, and in the event that she becomes widowed or divorced, she will claim the rest from another source.

Question: How can now establish it like Rebbi Meir ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as he detracts from Manah/Masayim, in which case, his Be'ilah is a Be'ilas Z'nus, according to him?

Answer: Because she causes her own loss.

Amendment of Text: We do not have the text 'Zuzi' ...

Reason: Because if we do, we will have to say that it is speaking about the Kesubah of a Besulah, since twenty-five Zuzi Tzurim are quivalent to two humdred Zuz Medinah ...

Reason (cont.): And this cannot be, as at the beginning of 'Arba'ah va'Chamishah' (above, Daf 36b [See Tosfos there DH 've'shel']) Tosfos proved that the Kesubah of a Besulah is two hundred Zuz Tzuri.

Explanation: Consequently the text here reads, not 'Zuzi', but 'he loses twenty-five' - meaning the twenty-five Sela'im of an Almanah.

Implied Question: And even though her Kesubah is de'Rabanan ...

Answer: One need not be concerned over the fact that it mentions a Kesubah d'Oraysa (i.e. that of a Besulah).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Just as she is not permitted to sell her Kesubah as long as she is still married to him, so too, will she not lose anything of her Kesubah on account of any wound or damage that she causes as long as she is still married to him'.

Refutation: The Ri does not agree with this however, since earlier, an in many other places (See for example, Kesuvos, 88b), we learned that she may sell her Kesubah be'Tovas Hana'ah (according to what it is worth to her), even wilst she is married to him?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that 'Just as she cannot sell (her Kesubah) because she wounded others, whilst she is married to him ...

Source: As the Gemara said earlier - that 'Whenever iher husband is involved, she is bound to be Mochel her Kesubah' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): So too, will she not lose as long qas she is married to him' - meaning that she cannot sell the Kesubah to her husband because she wounded him'.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana mentions 'a sale' in connection with others and 'a loss' in connection with her husband is ...

Answer: Because with regard to others she cannot lose by selling it to them for the Tovas Hana'ah of the Kesubah, whereas with regard to her husband - where she sells it to him for the Tovas Hana'ah, he will divorce her immediately, and gain everything, whilst she will lose.

Question: Why does the Gemara not cite this Beraisa at the end of 'Na'arah she'Nispatsah' (Kesuvos, Daf 53a) where Rava asks whether 'A woman selling her Kesubah to her husband is the same as selling it to somebody else or not'?

Answer: The Gemara does however, say there that 'After asking the She'eilah, he (Rava) reolved it - 'that it is like selling it to somebody else' ...

Answer (cont.): And it may well be that he resolvd it from the current Beraisa ...

Answer (concl.): Only he did not quote it because it is not so straightforward.

Implied Question: Even though sh is not permitted to forego her Kesubah according to Rebbi Meir ...

Answer: She is nevertheless permitted to sell it.

Implied Question: And even though, according to Rebbi Meir, like whom we Pasken, the husband is not permitted to leave her without a Kesubah ...

Answer #1: The Beraisa nevertheless teaches us the Din that if it happens that she does sell it to her husband, she does not lose the Kesubas B'nin Dichrin.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where she sold the Tosefes,

Inference: It seems from here that the Shichrur of Shein ve'Ayin takes away from Shibud like a Sh'tar Shichrur ...

Question: In Perek Almanah (Yevamos, Daf 66b & 67a) they argue over a case where the woman brought assessed vessels into the marriage, where she demands the vessels and he insists on giving her their value ...

Sugya in Yevamos: Rav Yehudah says that the Din is on her side, because of Sh'vach Beis Avihah, whilst according to Rebbi Ami, the Din is on his side.

Sugya in Yevamos (cont.): The Gemara then cites a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Ami - 'Avadim of Tzon Barzel go out with Shein ve'Ayin for the man but not for the woman' ...

Question (cont.): How is this a proof for Rebbi Ami, seeing as even Rav Yehudah will agree in this case ...

Question (concl.): Because since she still needs to claim the Avadim, Shichrur takes them out of the Shibud? ...

Source: As the Gemara says there in connection with 'The fine woolen coat which they spread on the corpse'.

Answer: Perhaps the Amora who cited 'the Beraisa like Rebbi Ami' held like Na'anai the son of Rava's son, Rav Yosef - who did not consider Avadim lacking claiming ...

Reason: Seeing as he (the husband) cannot pay her off with anything else instead.