Halachah: One can also resolve from here that should the husband wish to retain an Overes al Das, he may do so even if he warned her.

Question #1: Why do Beis Shamai say here that she receives her Kesubah, whereas in Perek Mi She'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 158.) in the case where 'The house fell on him and on his wife or on him and on his father, and his wife claimed her Kesubah, ... Beis Shamai rule 'Yachloku', seeing as there is a Safek as to who died first?

Question #2: Similarly, in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 38.) and in Kesuvos, Perek ha'Ishah she'Naflu lah Mechasim (Daf 80:) in the case of a Shomeres Yavam who died, what happens to the property that comes in with her and goes out with her?, Beis Shamai rules 'Yachloku' ...

Question #2 (cont.): And the Gemara in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 38:) explains that this is because the Zikah of a Nesu'ah, renders her a Safek Nesu'ah.

Question #2 (concl.): So we see that in a case of doubt, Beis Shamai say 'Yachloku', as opposed to saying that we establish all the property in the domain of the woman's heirs, on account of 'Sh'tar ha'Omeid Lig'vos, ke'Gavuy Dami'?

Answer: In the case of where the house fell on him and on his father, the son did not own property, only the wife claims that the father died first, in which case his son inherited him and the property is Meshubad to her Kesubah ...

Answer (cont.): There to be sure, the wife never had a hold on the father's property; nevertheless, since they hold 'ke'Gavuy Dami', it is a Safek as to whether the father died first and the property entered her Chazakah or whether the son died first, in which case she had no claim on the property, which was in the Chazakah of the heirs.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, it is a Safek as to whether her Sh'tar actually stood to claim that property at all; therefore the Din is 'Cholkin'.

Answer (cont.):

Answer (cont.): And similarly with regard to a Shomeres Yavam who died, Beis Shamai says that, since each one comes to inherit, they divide it.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, where she is alive and her Kesubah stands to be claimed after her husband's death, that is not the case, because, since it is as if it has already been claimed, the onus lies on the heirs to prove that she committed adultery.

Precedent: And in similar vein, the Gemara says in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 38:) 'The Reisha where she is alive, she is a Vaday and they are a Safek, and a Safek cannot take away from a Vaday; whilst in the Seifa, where she has died, each one comes to inherit ... '.

Clarification: The Gemara (there) in Perek ha'Choletz explains that 'If they do not drink they do not receive their Kesubah'.

Safek (Nechsei Tzon Barzel): Tosfos does not know what Beis Hillel will hold with regard to Nechsei Tzon Barzel ...

Safek (cont.): Because in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 158.) in the case where 'The house fell on him and his wife', Beis Hillel say (with reference to Nechsei Tzon Barzel) that the property remains in its former Chazakah.

Safek (cont.): And the Amora'im argue in the Gemara (Ibid, Amud Beis) regarding in whose Chazakah it remains, whether it is in the Chazakah of the heirs of the husband or of the wife. According to the Beraisa cited by bar Kapara, seeing as both parties come to inherit, 'Yachloku'.

Safek (concl.): But here, where she is still alive, perhaps the property stands in her Chazakah, or whether, seeing as the husband was responsible for it, it is in his Chazakah, o there is no difference and it belongs to the Machlokes there.

Nechsei Milug: Nechsei Milug on the other hand, Beis Hillel does not argue, and even in the case of a Safek, he establishes them in the Chazakah of the woman, how much more so here, where, even assuming that she definitely sinned, she will not lose them.

Nechsei Milug (cont.): As we say in Perek Almanah Nizonis (Kesuvos, Daf 101.) 'A woman who goes out on account of a bad name, she takes what is in front of her (with reference ot Nechsei Milug) and leaves.

Question: Why is our Mishnah different than the Machlokes Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah, and Rav Nachman and Rebbi Yochanan, who argue in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 12:) in the case of 'Manah li be'Yad'cha', ve'ha'lah Amar 'Eini Yode'a where the former say 'Chayav', and the latter, 'Patur'.

Question (cont.): Here too, she claims 'Bari', whereas he is unable to do so - a Kashya on Rav Huna (and Rav Yehudah).

Answer: Since the Torah turned it into a Safek until she drinks, she is not able to claim Bari.

Clarification: And the Machlokes in the Mishnah there regarding 'Someone who marries a woman and finds that she is not a Besulah' is not relevant here.

Reason: Because there, even Beis Shamai will concede that perhaps that Sh'tar never stood to be claimed, seeing as the husband claims that 'his sale was a false one'.

Implied Question: Nor can we say in our case, according to Beis Hillel 'Place the woman on her Chazakah and say that she did not sin'

Answer: Since there are grounds for suspicion, seeing as he warned her and she nevertheless secluded herself, and the Pasuk therefore took her out of her Chazakah and turned it into a Safek.

Question: If one asks from the Gemara in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 110.) 'Yesomim who claim that they improved the property and the creditor counters that it was their father who improved it, on whom lies the onus to prove his claim?

Question (cont.): Rav Huna thought that the land lies in the Chazakah of the Yesomim, and it is up to the creditor to bring the proof. But an old man, quoting Rebbi Yochanan, informed him the onus to prove it lies on the Yesomim.

Question (cont.): Why is that? Because, since the land stands to be claimed, it is as if it has already been claimed.

Answer: The answer is that since here, where the Shibud of the Kesubah itself lies in doubt, and the land does not stand to be claimed, Beis Hillel say that 'It is not as if it has been claimed'.

Answer (cont.): Whilst there the Yesomim concede to the creditor that the land itself is Meshubad to him, and are not holding back the land from him. Consequently, even Beis Hillel agree that in such a case 'It is as if it has been claimed', in which case the land is not in the Chazakah of the Yesomim.

Answer (cont.): And since it is not in the Chazakah of the Yesomim, it is up to the Yesomim to prove that they improved it, similar to the case of the town and the tree which the Gemara cites their with regard to that case - 'If there is a Safek which one was there first, he must cut it down and does not pay its value'.

Answer (cont.): So we see that, seeing as the tree stands to be cut down, irrespective of whether it or the town was there first, and the discussion is that, if the tree preceded the town, he cuts it down and has to pay for it ...

Answer (cont.): We say to him 'Go and cut it down! And as for paying for it, bring a proof (that it was there first) and claim.

Answer (concl.): Concerning this land too, we say to the Yesomim 'Give the land to the creditor, seeing as it stands to be claimed, and as for the improvement, bring a proof (that you improved it) and claim it!' (from Tosfos' Rebbe [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]).

Distinction #1: One cannot apply here all the Machlokos between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, who argue in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 100:) with regard to 'Whatever stands to be harvested is considered as if it has been cut (ki'Betzuros Damyan)'.

Distinction #2: Or the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15.) and in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 39.) regarding 'Whatever stands to be sheared'.

Distinction #3: Or the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in Perek ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim (Menachos, Daf 102:) regarding 'Kol ha'Omeid Lizrok, ke Zaruk Dami', and regarding 'Lifdos' and 'Lisrof'.

Explanation: Because one cannot 'weave them all in the same web', since here everybody will agree that we say 'La'av ke'Gavuy Dami' and that we will therefore place the money in the Chazakah of the owner, seeing as it required Dayanim, and is therefore not under his control ...

Precedent: Like the Gemara says (in Kidushin, Daf 62:) with regard a Ger 'Who says that he will find a Beis-Din?'

Reason for #1: And the reason of Rebbi Meir, who says 'ki'Betzuros Damyan' is - because it lies in his hands (to pick them) and because they no longer require the land. Therefore they are no longer considered Karka.

Precedent: And this is how the Gemara explains in Perek Beheimah ha'Makshah (Chulin, Daf 73.) with regard to the handles of vessels, which one only Tovels up to the place of the given measure, because they stand to be cut off.

Reason for #2: And regarding 'one's hair that stands to be shorn', the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15.) that Rebbi Meir agrees that it is not considered as if it is shorn, because as long as it remains attached, it improves'.

Reason for #2 (cont.): Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees however, and says 'ke'Gazuz Dami', because one does not generally tend to leave it.

Reason for #3: And another reason applies to the cases of Rebbi Shimon - which he only says when a Mitzvah is concerned, such as 'sprinkling the blood, redeeming the cow (when he finds one that is better than the one that one has), and burning it'.

Reason for #3 (cont.): But that is not applicable in the cases of Rebbi Meir and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Implied Question: And when, regarding a Shofar of Avodas-Kochavim in Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 28.), regarding a Lulav of Asheirah (Succah, Daf 31:) and regarding a shoe, in Perrek Mitzvas Chalitzah (Yevamos, Daf 103:) the Gemara says 'Their Shi'ur is cut-up' ...

Answer: Even the Rabbanan concede there, because it is an Isur Hana'ah, which is considered like the dust of the earth, and which therefore has no Shi'ur.

Answer (cont.): And the Parah Adumah (Menachos 102:), 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' helps (to make it a food even though it stands to be burned.

Question: One needs to look into why K'lai ha'Kerem is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, and why we do not say 'Ketusei Michtas Shi'ureih'?

Conclusion: And this is why we cannot compare all the cases to one another.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek Na'arah (Kesuvos, Daf 51.) 'Whatever stands to be harvested, is considered as if it has been cut ...

Answer: The reason is that they only instituted that the creditor should claim things that still need the ground a little.

Proof: And this is also how Rashi explains (in Bava Metzi'a 15:) 'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Chesafim' - which stands to be cut soon abut which still needs the ground a little.

Clarifying the Text: This is how the Beraisa is worded in the Tosefta (Perek 5): 'Someone who warns his Arusah or his Shomeres Yavam, if she then secludes herself with a man after he marries her, she either drinks or does not receive her Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): A young man who has a wife and children, marries a woman who is barren or old, she either drinks or does not receive her Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): His wife who is pregnant from him or who is feeding his baby, either drinks or does not receive her Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): A Kohenes, Leviyah or Yisre'eilis who married a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael, a Mamzeres or a Mamzer; a Nesinah who married a Nasin, or the wife of a Ger (to a Ger) or of an Eved Meshuchrar and an Aylonis, either drinks or does not receive her Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar maintains that an Aylonis does not drink and does not receive her Kesubah, because the Torah writes "And if she is innocent, she will have a child", to preclude an Aylonis, who cannot have children.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): But if someone warns his Arusah or his Shomeres Yavam, and she secludes herself before he marries her, she neither drinks nor does she receive her Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): And a young man who does not have a wife and children who marries a woman who is barren or old, they neither drink nor do they receive their Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): If he marries a woman who is pregnant from another man or who is feeding his baby, then she neither drinks nor does she receive her Kesubah.

Clarifying the Text (cont.): Rebbi Eliezer maintains that he can divorce her and take her back later'.