1) TOSFOS DH AL-M'NAS SHE'EIN LE'BA'ALECH ...
תוספות ד"ה על מנת שאין לבעליך ...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos initially establish the Sugya like Rav Sheishes in the first Perek of Kidushin, who validates such conditions, but like Rebbi Elazar, who does not. Nevertheless, he reconciles our Mishnah, which refers to money belonging to the ben Sorer's mother, in two possible ways).
סוגיא זו כרב ששת דפ"ק דקדושין (דף כג.), דאמר 'לרבנן אהני ליה תנאיה'.
(a) 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.
אבל ר' אלעזר סבירא ליה דאפילו כי האי גוונא, אין קנין לעבד בלא רבו, ואין קנין לאשה בלא בעלה.
(b) 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.
ומ"מ, מתניתין לא תקשה ליה ...
(c) Implied Question: Nevertheless, there is no Kashya on him from the Mishnah ...
דהוה משני 'בדמי סעודה המוכנת לאביו ולאמו'.
(d) 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).
אי נמי, רבי אלעזר הוה מוקי לה בשנתן לה בעלה ...
(e) Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, Rebbi Elazar would establish it where her husband gave it to her.
דהא ר"א הוא דאמר בחזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף נא. ושם) 'אחד וזה אחד זה קנתה ואין הבעל אוכל פירות'.
(f) 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'.
2) TOSFOS DH BEN NO'ACH SHE'BEIRACH ES HASH-M VE'NISGAYER
תוספות ד"ה בן נח שבירך את השם ונתגייר ...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain how it is that Rebbi Chanina's ruling is not subject to the Machlokes Tana'im in Yevamos as to whether Geirim are punished for sins that they transgressed prior to their Geirus or whether they are like new-born babies, who are without sin).
תימה, אי הוה מילתיה דרבי חנינא כתנאי ...
(a) Question #1 (Part 1): Rebbi Chanina's ruling seems to be a Machlokes Tana'im ...
דפליגי בהחולץ (יבמות דף מח:) 'מפני מה גרים מעונין בזמן הזה, מפני שלא קיימו ז' מצות שקבלו עליהן בני נח', אלמא מיענשי; ורבי יוסי פליג התם ואמר 'גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי', ולא מיענשי כלל?
(b) 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
ועוד קשה, דסוגיא דהכא דלא כחד, דאמרינן 'עשה כן, בישראל חייב', ואי כר' יוסי כקטן שנולד דמי?
(c) 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.
ונראה שיש לחלק דכולה שמעתין בדיני אדם, והתם בדיני שמים.
(d) 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.
3) TOSFOS DH KALAH BA'CHAMURAH MEISHACH SHAYCHA (1)
תוספות ד"ה קלה בחמורה מישך שייכא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos initially explain this to mean that the lighter punishment that he is Chayav now, is included in the stricter punishment that he was Chayav before, and they reconcile this with the Gemara, which says shortly with regard to 'Sarchah ve'li'be'Sof Bagrah' - 'Ho'il ve'Ishtani Ishtani'. They also reconcile Rebbi Yochanan, who holds Teidan bi'Sekilah [the original death], with the Beraisa, which sentences a Ger to the latter death).
חנק שהיא מיתה קלה היה ראוי לו מתחלה ויותר.
(a) 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]).
ובסמוך גבי סרחה ולבסוף בגרה, דקאמר 'בסקילה מ"ט לא, דכיון דאישתני אישתני'.
(b) 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 ...
הא דקרי ליה ,'אישתני', לאו א'מיתה קאי, אלא אישתני גופה.
(c) Answer: It does not mean that her punishment has changed, but that her body has changed.
והא דאמר רבי יוחנן לתנא 'תני "תידון בסקילה", והכא לא דיינינן ליה במיתה קמייתא ...
(d) 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?
משום דהתם לא אישתני דינא כי הכא.
(e) Answer: Because there (in the case of the Na'arah) her basic Din has not changed, like it has here (See Maharam).
4) TOSFOS DH KALAH BA'CHAMURAH MEISHACH SHAYCHA (2)
תוספות ד"ה קלה בחמורה מישך שייכא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos query their initial explanation of 'Ho'il ve'Ishtani Ishtani', from the Lashon of the Gemara at the end of the Sugya. They therefore redefine the statement 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach Shaycha', making it possible to reconcile the discrepancy between the rulings of 'Na'arah she'Bagrah' and 'ben No'ach').
ומיהו קשה, דגבי 'סרחה ואחר כך בגרה' לא משמע דאיירי בשינוי הגוף ...
(a) 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 ...
מדקאמר 'כ"ש הכא דאישתני לגמרי', משמע דאישתני קמא כהאי?
(b) 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).
ונראה לפרש, דהא דקאמר 'קלה בחמורה מישך שייכא' לאו למימר דלא חשיב אישתני קטלא, דמכל מקום קטלא אישתני.
(c) 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 ...
אלא כלומר אית לן למידייניה בקלה, כיון דמעיקרא נתחייב אף בחמורה מזו.
(d) 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.
ולא דמי לבן נח שבירך את השם, דלא דיינינן במיתה דהשתא דחמורה ...
(e) 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 ...
דמעיקרא לא איחייב בה, ובמיתה דמעיקרא נמי לא כיון דהשתא לא שייכא ביה.
(f) 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.