Explanation: The text says [veha'Tanya], for it is a Tosefta in Kesuvos, like the Rashbam explained.

Remark: In all text it is written b'Sharcha. The Aruch's text says Shadcha, with a Dalet. It is an expression of serenity. The Targum of "va'Tishkot ha'Aretz" is u'Shdochas Ar'a;

I.e. he is an idle serene man who does not engage in anything.

Support #1: Similarly, the Targum of "Yode'a Tzayid Ish Sadeh" is Nachsidchan [Gevar Nafik Chakla. Yayin ha'Tov translates Nachsidchan as "Ish Batel."] He rested and was tranquil.

Support #2: In Bava Kama (92b), it says 'a bad date tree strolls among Kini d'Shadcha (barren trees).

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): If he were a buyer in [his wife's] lifetime, also after death this is not uprooted, and he would be a buyer.

Rebuttal: In [her] lifetime, he has only Peros!

Explanation #2 (Ri): [Avuha bar Geneiva] asks if a husband is an heir or a buyer, both in [her] lifetime and after death, since he does not distinguish at all;

[Rava] resolves from Ravin's teaching, that at least after death he is an heir, like he says "if the daughter died, the widow is fed from [the daughter's husband's] property, even though her husband inherits her."

Suggestion: Also in [her] lifetime we can proof from [Ravin's] word that he is an heir! He said "if the daughter married, the widow is fed"!

Rejection: Even if in [her] lifetime he were a buyer, [Ravin] properly said that she is fed, for she can sell the Guf today and the Peros after death, since at least after death, her husband is an heir (and receives only what she left over. If he were a buyer, it is as if he bought her property when he married her, before she sold it.)

Therefore, Abaye said had Ravin not sent [his teaching], would we not know that he is an heir after death? A Mishnah teaches that the following do not return in Yovel: the extra portion of the firstborn, and one who inherits his wife. This shows that he is an heir after death!

Explanation: "Rabanan made him [like an heir]" is not precise, for since he holds that it does not return in Yovel, he holds that a husband's inheritance is mid'Oraisa! It says so in Bechoros (52b), and so Rashi explained;

Rather, "Rabanan made him" means that they left him to be an heir, and they did not make him a buyer.

Question: In Kesuvos (95b), Abaye said that [if one said to a married woman] "my property is to you, and afterwards to Ploni", and she sold, and she died, her husband takes from the buyer, Ploni takes from the husband, and the buyer takes from Ploni, and the buyer keeps it;

The Gemara asks there why this is different than the Mishnah that says that they compromise? It answers, there, all have a loss. Here, [only] the buyer has a loss;

Explanation: Since the buyer has a loss, Rabanan made the husband like an heir, and he cannot take from the buyer.

Strengthening of question: Now, here we say that the buyer caused his own loss. He should not have bought from a married woman, for the husband can take from him!

Suggestion: There he did not cause his own loss, for he thought that the husband will not take from him, because Ploni will take from the husband.

Rejection: In any case, he knows that they will go around (taking from each other), and they will need to compromise, and the husband will profit!

Answer (Ri): There, he did not cause his own loss, for he thought that he will compromise with Ploni, and the husband will not collect anything.

Question: Why is this different than what was said above there [that if one said to a single woman] "my property is to you, and afterwards to Ploni", and she married, her husband is [like] a buyer, and Ploni gets nothing when she has a husband?

Inference: Even though Ploni loses, the husband is a buyer!

Answer: A gift is different. It is not such a loss if he does not receive a gift.

Question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (35a) that if they appraised property for a woman [to take for collection of a loan due to her] and she married, or they appraised property from a woman and she married, her husband is a buyer, and the property does not return...

Even though there is a loss to the borrower, his property does not return to him, even though [normally] an appraisal [to take property due to a loan] always returns!

Answer: Since according to letter of the law it does not return, only due to "v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov", this is not considered such a loss.

Question: It says in Bava Kama (89a) that when Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua came from their Rebbi's academy, they said that our Mishnah teaches Takanas Usha (if a married woman sold her Nichsei Melug and then died, her husband takes it back from the buyers)!

Citation (89a - Mishnah): Encounters with a [married] woman, or a slave, are bad. If others damaged them, they are liable. If they damaged others, they are exempt. If not for Takanas Usha, a woman could sell her Nichsei Melug (property that she brought into the marriage, and when she is widowed or divorced, she takes it back without compensation for change in value) and give [the money] to [the victims]!

Inference: If there is Takanas Usha, she cannot give anything to [the victims]. What is the reason? Chachamim enacted that a husband is a buyer only when there is no loss to others. Here, there is a loss to the victims!

Answer #1: We could have asked "also according to you (who say that if not for Takanas Usha, the Mishnah this is difficult, it is difficult even if there is Takanas Usha)!' Even without this, we asked properly.

Answer #2 (Rashba): This is not difficult at all. Since Rabanan enacted that a husband takes from buyers for his benefit when there is no loss to others, they did not distinguish;

They enacted that whenever a woman sells, her husband takes from buyers, even in a case that she wounded others, and there is loss to others, since it is not common that there is loss to others. Therefore Rabanan did not distinguish, and in every case he takes.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): We discuss food and Parnasah (an orphaned daughter receives a 10th of the estate when she marries).

Rebuttal (Rivan): "Mezonos" is food and drink. Parnasah is clothing and needs of Nisu'in. They are two [independent] matters, like it says (Kesuvos 68b) "we take [from Meshubadim, i.e. sold property] for Parnasah, but not for Mezonos";

Also, it was taught (Kesuvos 47b) "daughters are fed and receive Parnasah", and likewise in several places it connotes that they are two [independent] matters.

Citation (Kesuvos 109a): Whenever R. Gamliel said "I agree with Admon", the Halachah follows him. Rava asked Rav Nachman "is this even in a Beraisa?"...

Inference: That entire Sugya connotes that the Halachah follows Admon.

Question: Here in the Gemara (140a), the entire Sugya is like Rabanan of Admon, unlike the Halachah!

R. Asi said in the name of R. Yochanan that if orphans sold sparse property... and also R. Yirmeyah's question from R. Avahu is according to Rabanan;

It says also in Sotah (21a) "what is the case of a cunning Rasha? R. Asi said in the name of R. Yochanan, this is one who counsels [orphans] to sell sparse property.

Pesak: R. Chananel, Bahag and the Rif rule like Rabanan of Admon, for our Sugya here is like them.

Answer (to Question (c) - R. Tam): Admon does not argue with Rabanan. He merely expresses astonishment at the enactment they made for sparse property, but in any case he holds like Rabanan.

Rebuttal: [The Mishnah] connotes unlike this, for R. Gamliel said "I see (agree with) Admon's words"! (See Tosfos Kesuvos 108b, who explains that R. Gamliel agrees that the enactment is astounding.)