Observation: We could have said that [she has a proof through] a document of admission. We cannot say that he did so to reveal her coins.

Explanation: They were in a place where they write a document. [Rav Huna] said that in this place, [Rav Nachman's] teaching (that he cannot say that he merely wanted to reveal her coins) does not help at all (for she acquires even without the coins), even though it helps in a place where they do not write;

However, even in a place where they write, it is relevant to say that this affects when he said "if I want, I will acquire through the document. If I want, I will acquire through money" even though he did not write the document for him.

Note: Perhaps Tosfos wrote "she'Lo Kasav Lo (masculine)" because he explains a citation from Kidushin 26a which discusses a Stam buyer who stipulates that he may acquire whichever way he wants.

Alternatively he wrote the document first, and afterwards gave money. If we would say that he wanted to reveal her coins, she would not acquire. (Rav Huna said that she acquires even without the coins when he wrote after she gave the coins, for we cannot say that he wrote in order to reveal the coins.)

Observation: A Beraisa teaches like this regarding Kidushin. If he wrote to her on paper or earthenware, even though it is not Shavah Perutah "your daughter is Mekudeshes to me..."

R. Tam: This is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei (the witnesses who see a document handed over, they empower it);

According to R. Meir, since witnesses must sign on the Kidushin document, like it says in Kidushin (48a) "Rav Nachman said, the case is, he was Mekadesh her with a document without witnesses on it. R. Meir teaches like he taught elsewhere, that Edei Chasimah Karsei...

If so, signatures do not help on something that can be forged (erasures on earthenware are not recognized), like the Mishnah in Gitin (21b) says that we do not write on a parchment [that has already been erased, because erasures on such parchments are not recognizable;

Even if there are Edei Mesirah, it does not help according to R. Meir. [The document] must be Muchach mi'Tocho (the testimony of the signatures must suffice), like it says in Gitin (24b) regarding one who wrote a Get to divorce his older wife;

According to R. Meir, it cannot be used to divorce even his older wife [for whom it was written, if he has another wife with the identical name, since it is not known from the document itself which he divorces.

Question: It says in Gitin (22b) that R. Elazar was Machshir [forgeable documents] only for Gitin, and only immediately (i.e. the Edei Mesirah come to testify shortly after they were given. If there is a long delay, perhaps there was a Tenai in the document, and it was erased, and they will not remember.)

Inference: He is not Machshir other documents even immediately!

Answer #1: It means that R. Elazar was Machshir [forgeable documents] only for Gitin and similar matters...

E.g. the case here of "my field is sold to you", and the case of Kidushin, which were written only to acquire a field or woman, similar to Gitin, which are not made primarily for a proof, rather, to divorce;

However, documents that are intended to be used for a proof, no (R. Elazar is not Machshir them if they are forgeable).

Answer #2: Here and in Kidushin, we discuss only what is in his handwriting, like it says "he showed [a document] in his handwriting...";

This cannot be forged, for it would be recognized that it is not his handwriting.

Question: What is the Chidush [that it is not] Shavah Perutah?

Granted, regarding Kidushin, it mentioned that he wrote for her on a paper or earthenware, even though it is not worth a Perutah, for this is a Chidush;

Even though she is not Mekudeshes due to Kesef, since it is not Shavah Perutah, she is Mekudeshes due to a document.

However, regarding a sale, even if it is Shavah Perutah, it does not acquire due to Kesef, for the seller gives the document, and not a the buyer, and land is not acquired Agav (along with) money! (What is the Chidush that the document is not Shavah Perutah?

Note: Tosfos Kidushin 9a said that since a verse discusses "Nesinah" (giving) of a sale document, one might have thought that it must be Shavah Perutah.

Explanation: This is so the giver will have Acharayus like the law of a seller.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He wrote all this in the document "my field is sold to you" and also "my field is given to you." He wrote an expression of a gift due to Dina d'Var Metzra (a neighbor has the right to buy land before anyone else. This law does not apply a gift.)

Objection #1: It says in Bava Metzi'a (108b) that if a gift has Acharayus, Dina d'Var Metzra applies to it!

Objection #2 (R. Tam): Why does it say twice "my field"?

Explanation #2 (R. Tam and Ri): We do not discuss one who wrote both of them. Rather, he wrote "sold" or "given";

[Rav Ashi] said that even if he wrote "sold", he wanted to give it for a gift. He wrote an expression of a sale to give the recipient better rights, i.e. he accepted on himself Acharayus.

Explanation #3: He wrote two documents to him. One uses an expression of a sale, and the other uses an expression of a gift. If [the recipient] needs [a document] for [evading] the law of Bar Metzra, he shows the gift document. If he needs [a document] for [collecting] Acharayus, he shows the sale document.

Explanation #4: Even if he wrote both of them in one document, he has better rights due to the expression of a gift regarding the Mishnah below (71a) which says "this refers to a sale, but one who gave a gift, gave all of them. (People give more generously that they sell.) It says so in the Yerushalmi in Kidushin.

Explanation #5: Writing an expression of a gift causes that he need not pay money [before he acquires].

Question: This is difficult. (Why does he need an expression of a gift?) It suffices [to stipulate] "if I want, I will acquire through the document" (like Tosfos said above in DH Dal)!

Question: What is the Chidush that he freed him or divorced her? Obviously, if they have no claim against him while they are under his authority, they have no claim against him also after they leave!

Answer: One might have thought that he resolves to be Makneh to them that they will acquire after he is freed or she is divorced.

Inference: He specifically mentioned borrowing, but not selling (there is no drawback to being a seller);

He mentioned a borrower due to the case of a woman. Regarding a slave there is no difference whether he borrowed or sold, for what a slave acquired, his master acquired.

Opinion #1 (R. Tam): The text does not say "Berem (however,) R. Aba...", rather, "R. Aba, R. Avahu and all Gedolei ha'Dor... to give to him greater rights";

The text does not say "Kochah (her rights)", rather, "to better Kocho" (his rights. R. Tam) explained this is so he will eat the Peros.

Support: Now (according to this text), Rav Huna bar Avin brings a support for his words. It is astounding that he would send that all Gedolei ha'Dor argue with him, for if so, his words have no substance!

Question (Ri): This text is difficult. If so, why did they need to say that he wanted to give a gift to her?

Opinion #2 (Ri): The text of Seforim is correct, "Berem, R. Aba... to better her rights";

They argue with him, and hold that one who sells to his wife, she did not acquire. He wanted to reveal her coins. They hold like Rav Huna, who said "even without the coins, she acquires through the document";

What she acquires through the document is only a gift, since he wanted to reveal her coins, and she did not acquire through the coins.

He wrote an expression of a sale only to better her rights.

Answer #1 (for R. Tam): It says "he wanted to give to her [a gift]" for this matter, that one who receives a gift receives all of them (people give generously).

Answer #2 (for R. Tam): [It says] "he wanted to give...", for even according to the opinion that one who sells to his wife, she acquires, and he does not say that he wanted to reveal her coins, she acquired only because he gave to her a gift;

There is no sale here, for she did not give anything to him, since even without this, the money is his.

Implied question: He cannot take the money from her in Din!

Answer: Even so, if he seized [the coins] from her, or took from her through guile, it is his, like we say below;

If so, now that he extracted the coins via a sale, they are his, and there is no sale.

Therefore, according to the opinion that she acquired, she acquired only because he wanted to give to her a gift.

He wrote an expression of a sale to better his rights, so that he eats the Peros, for the [expression of a] sale is Mevatel the Kinyan, for there is no sale, like I explained;

Regarding the field (Kinyan ha'Guf), it is a gift, and she acquired. Regarding Peros, it is a sale, and she did not acquire.

Question: It says in Gitin (77b) regarding the Shechiv Mera (dangerously sick person) who wrote a Get to his wife in the afternoon on Friday afternoon [and was unable to give it before Shabbos]...

He came in front of Rava, who told him to be Makneh to her the place where the Get was. Rav Ilish said "what a [married] woman acquired, her husband acquired!" Rava was embarrassed.

What was the question? Regarding a gift, her husband does not eat the Peros. If so, her husband did not acquire!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): It does not depend on rights to eat the Peros to be called her Chatzer, for Rava holds like Reish Lakish, that Kinyan Peros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf;

Even if the husband has Peros, this does not uproot her Ko'ach, for the Guf is hers. She is properly divorced;

Rather, it depends on this. It is called her Chatzer to acquire for her only when she sells or gives, and it stands.

Therefore, when her husband gave to her, even though he does not eat the Peros, since if she sold or gave it would not stand, it is not called her Chatzer, for he did not give it to her with intent that she sell or give it.

Support (R. Tam, for himself): In Gitin (77b), regarding one who threw a Get to her Chatzer, the Gemara asks "what a woman acquired, her husband acquired!", and answers that he wrote to her "I do not have Din u'Devarim in your property";

Even though he wrote so to her, a husband has Peros until he writes to her "and in their (the Peros') Peros", like the Mishnah in Kesuvos (83a);

Even so, it is considered her Chatzer, since if she sold or gave, it stands, like the Mishnah in Kesuvos (83a).

Disclaimer: This is not a proof. Even though it does not mention "and in their Peros", it means like this, like we find above (49a) regarding "a man does not have a Chazakah in his wife's property."

Question: Even though she cannot sell, she acquires the Get, just like we find regarding rental!

It says about R. Gamliel [that he said] "the Ma'aser is given to Yehoshua, and its place is rented to him" (he acquired through the rental).

Below (84b), if he measured and did not do Meshichah, he did not acquire. If he was clever, he rents the place [to acquire].

Answer (R. Tam): A renter has a greater Kinyan than this, for even if he died within the time, the place is rented to his heirs until the time.

A woman is different. If she sold, the husband takes from the buyer.

Observation: The Yerushalmi connotes unlike R. Tam. It asks in Gitin (Perek 8, Halachah 1), doesn't her husband have a lien on her roof or Chatzer to eat the Peros?!

R. Yochanan answered in the name of R. Yanai [that she acquires] only if he wrote "I have no Din u'Devarim in your property and its Peros";

Inference: Since he asked from Peros, this connotes that it depends on Peros, and not on her inability to sell!

Answer #2 (Ri): Even if it depends on acquiring rights to Peros, in any case it asks properly "what a woman acquired, her husband acquired!", for he did not give to her the place of the Get. He merely lent it to her;

Only regarding a gift, we say that she acquires, and her husband does not eat the Peros.

Answer #3 (Ri): Here we say that she acquires, and her husband does not eat the Peros. This means only that he does not consume then, but [the Peros] are like Nichsei Melug. He buys land with them, and he eats the Peros;

Therefore it asks properly there "what a woman acquired, her husband acquired!"

Assertion: It seems that if the woman said "give to Ploni, for they are his", he gives to him, for she is believed through a Migo. If she wanted to, she could have taken from him (the Shomer), and given to [Ploni].

Even if the husband says that the money is his, he has no power to take it from her, since it says "he returns to the woman";

He should have said "he informs the husband, if the husband had power to take it from her when he says that it is his.

Implied question: Below, regarding Rabah bar bar Chanah's wife, we distinguish between whether or not he believes her!

Answer: This is only at the time of death, when she has no Migo, that she could take it from him and give it to whom she wants;

If the husband took from her hand, she cannot take from him and say "it is Ploni's", like [the Beraisa] said above "if one borrowed from his wife and divorced her, she has no claim against him";

If she were believed to say "it is Ploni's", she would be believed to say "it is mine", Migo that she could say that others deposited with her, for she need not say who deposited, and the money would stay with her forever.

Limitation: This is only regarding hidden coins. Above, one who borrowed from a woman discusses hidden coins, for he said that he wanted to reveal the coins;

However, coins that are not hidden, she has a claim against him. Similarly, if he seized them, we take them from him.

Support: Also since Rava said that regarding coins that are not hidden, she acquires, this implies that if he seized them, we take them from him;

If we do not take them from him, why did she acquire? He can say "I intended to take from her hand, for I had no other way to take from her hand, and even in Beis Din!"

Distinction: If she does business in the house, she is not believed to say "it is mine", or "it is Ploni's";

Citation (below, 52b): Similarly, a woman who does business... and said "it is mine", she must bring a proof;

We do not believe her through a Migo, that if she wanted, she could have said that others deposited with her.

Question: If she does not do business in her husband's livelihood, but her husband's money is commonly in her hand (he trusts her and deposits it with her), it is not clear whether or not we consider it as if she does business.