Possibility #2: Or, if he exempted her from the Shevu'ah, she collects from a loan in the hands of others, even according to R. Akiva, and unlike Aba Sha'ul ben Eima Miryam.

Suggestion: Perhaps that is like Rebbi, but Rabanan hold that a loan is Ra'uy!

Rejection: If so, some Amora should have established like Rebbi! [Since none did,] this implies that no one argues. Rather, all hold that a loan is Muchzak regarding a Kesuvah.

Nowadays that Ge'onim enacted that a woman and creditor collect from Metaltelim of orphans like from land, orphans who collected a loan owed to their father, whether they collected land or coins, she returns and collects from them;

Just like from land, due to R. Nasan it is considered as if their father collected them in his lifetime, the same applies to Metaltelim.

Question: Rav Papa holds that whether they collected land or coins, [the Bechor] does not have [a double portion]. If so, he holds that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa, for below (175b) we compare these to each other;

In Kidushin (13b), Rav Papa holds that Shibud is mid'Oraisa!

Suggestion: This is because we hold that we divide money about which there is a Safek.

Rejection: The Halachah does not follow Sumchus, like I explained above (35a)!

Explanation: Rather, this is an enactment mid'Rabanan, and where it is explicitly explained, they divide.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He acquired through Shinuy.

Question: How did he ask "initially it was grapes, and now it is wine!"? There is an opinion (Bava Kama 95a) that Shinuy stands in its place (does not acquire)!

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): It did not help for his Pashut portion, and all the more so in the Pashut portion of his brothers.

Rebuttal: Surely his Pashut portion he sold, like it says above (124a) "just like the Pashut portion, even though it did not come to his hand (it is as if it came to his hand)."

Explanation #2: It did not help at all in half, i.e. the Pashut portion of his brothers, but he sold Chelek Bechorah (his extra portion), and all the more so his Pashut portion!

The other opinion holds that it did not help at all in all of them, not in Chelek Bechorah, and not in the Pashut portion of his brothers.

Question: According to the opinion that it did not help at all in half, i.e. in the Pashut portion of the brothers, what is Rava's Chidush? Did they need to ask about the brothers' portion?!

Pesak: Even though we hold like Rabanan, like Rav Papa ruled, that the Bechor does not have a double portion in a loan, like Rabanan, who say that Chelek Bechorah, until it comes to his hand [he does not own it]...

Rabanan agree that a Bechor has [authority over his portion] before division, like the Rashbam explained, that it is Ra'uy (applicable) "Lases Lo" (to give to him). From the time the father died, it was Ra'uy to give to him.

In any case, he does not receive a double portion in Shevach. We do not exclude it from "Lases Lo", rather, from "Yimatzei Lo" we exclude, for we require what was [already] found [with the father], and Muchzak, to exclude a loan, Ra'uy and Shevach;

"Lases Lo" reveals to us [to expound so]. Since it is called a gift, we expound from "Yimatzei Lo" that it must be found and Muchzak. If not for "Yimatzei Lo" we would not expound from Lases Lo to exclude Ra'uy.

Support: Sifri d'Bei Rav connotes like this. From "Yimatzei Lo" we exclude Shevach. Really, Rabanan hold that a Bechor has before division.

Implied suggestion: We say (124a) that if he said "I will not take, and I will not give", he may. This is because he has before division!

Rejection: Even if a Bechor does not have [before division], he can say "I will not take, and I will not give." It is not because he wants to remove himself from Bechorah, that he cannot return and claim it. Rather, he tells them "I do not take, and as long as I did not take, you cannot claim anything from me."

Reference: This is explained in Kesuvos (56a. Since his Tenai is contrary to Torah, the Tenai is Batel, and his action takes effect.)