Question: We should be concerned lest she sold [her Kesuvah] through Ma'amad Sheloshtam (a special Kinyan in which David tells Levi, in front of Moshe, 'give the money you have of mine to Moshe'). Then, she cannot pardon;

Kidushin (48a) proves so (that she cannot pardon), regarding "be Mekudeshes to me through this loan document, or this loan that others owe to me";

Citation (48a): Regarding a loan document, what do they argue about? They argue about Shmuel's law, that if one sold a loan document and pardoned it (the loan), it is pardoned;

Citation (cont.): Alternatively, all agree to Shmuel's law. They argue about whether or not a woman relies [on the Mekadesh not to pardon, and resolves to be Mekudeshes to him].

Citation (cont.): Regarding a Milveh Al Peh, they argue about Rav Huna's law. He said that b'Ma'amad Sheloshtam, he acquired.

Observation: We do not conclude that all agree to Rav Huna's law, and they argue about whether or not a woman relies [on him not to pardon], like it said above. This shows that [the seller] cannot pardon!

Answer #1: We need not be concerned lest she sold through Ma'amad Sheloshtam, for if there are no witnesses that she sold, the husband and wife will deny the sale! (Now we discuss concern lest they are scheming against the buyer.)

If there are witnesses, we ask them what happened. If they say that the husband agreed or was silent, if so he admits that the receipt is false!

If he protested, i.e. he says "I paid her", if so the receipt was before the sale, and [the buyer] caused his own loss.

Answer #2: Ma'amad Sheloshtam was enacted only for a matter that is proper to collect it immediately;

However, a Kesuvah, which he does not owe now, only after divorce, and also it is possible that she will not be divorced [or widowed, and she will never be owed], they did not enact Ma'amad Sheloshtam for it.

Support: We must say so in Bava Kama (89a) regarding a woman who wounded. She does not lose her Kesuvah.

Why didn't she lose it? She should sell it through Ma'amad Sheloshtam [to pay for the damage]! Rather, we must say that [Ma'amad Sheloshtam] was not enacted for a Kesuvah, like I explained. (No one would buy her Kesuvah without Ma'amad Sheloshtam, for surely she will pardon it, to please her husband.)

Implied question: Perhaps she sold it after divorce, through Ma'amad Sheloshtam! (Since now she may collect it, Ma'amad Sheloshtam applies to it.)

Answer: Presumably, after divorce she sold it for a high price. When her husband will show the receipt from before [her sale], she will need to pay [back what she sold it for], and she does not profit at all through her scheming;

We are concerned only lest she sold it while she was married for Tovas Hana'ah (the right to collect if and when she will be widowed or divorced, which is a small amount. If she pardons it,) she must pay only a little (the amount she sold it for), and she profits (saves her husband) very much.

The Gemara answers that Shmuel's law is correct. If she would pardon to her husband, she would pay the buyer only what he paid [to her], and she profits greatly.

Implied question: Regarding an Arev for a woman's Kesuvah, and [her husband] wants to divorce her (and he lacks property, so she will collect from the Arev), a Mishnah (Bava Basra 173b) says that [her husband] vows not to benefit from her;

Inference: We are concerned for scheming (after she collects her Kesuvah from the Arev, she will return to her husband), even though [her husband] is obligated to pay everything to the Arev;

We are concerned for scheming is because he does not have anything with which to pay.

Answer: These are different. There, the Arev loses immediately, and we are concerned for scheming;

However, here it is a mere concern. Perhaps she did not sell [her Kesuvah]. And even if she sold, perhaps the buyers will not lose, for [her husband] does not take from them. Rather, the debt (Kesuvah) that the husband owed them, the woman will owe them (for the receipt shows that she sold to them after she collected her Kesuvah).

Implied question: When the Chayav admits, why are we concerned above (13a) for scheming?

Answer #1: It is because [the lender] takes immediately from the buyer.

Answer #2: Also, we should be concerned for one who bought without Acharayus. He totally loses.

Explanation: [If a divorcee sold her husband's property to collect her Kesuvah,] even if the sale document was handed over to the buyer before [she gave a receipt to her husband], this does not help. Her husband properly takes [what she sold, if the receipt has an earlier date than the sale document].

So [the Gemara] said above regarding Get Shichrur.

Assertion: This is an enactment of Chachamim that he acquires from the time of the signature, even though it was not handed over to him until many days later;

If not, witnesses could never sign, unless they saw it handed over, due to concern of one who wrote [a document] in Nisan, and did not give it until Tishrei, and sold in between.

Distinction: Regarding Isur, it seems that if a slave had Bi'ah with a Yisraelis before the Get Shichrur came to his hand, he disqualified her [from Kehunah].

Disclaimer: Perhaps also regarding Isur, they acquire for him from the time of the signature;

Even though the reason I explained does not apply, Rabanan did not distinguish, and Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law.

Question: Abaye holds like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei, regarding the gift document on which two Gisim (men who married sisters) signed (Sanhedrin 28b. Some say that they cannot testify together);

R. Elazar holds in Kesuvos (94b) that if one wrote a document to Ploni and did not hand it over to him, [and wrote] to Almoni and handed it over to him, the one to whom it was handed over first, he acquired!

Answer: That is when there are two documents with the same date. It is not recognized from the document which was first. Therefore, we follow the Mesirah;

However, if the dates are not the same, the one signed first acquired, even if the latter one [signed] was handed over first.

Implied question: In the episode there in which Rami bar Chama's [mother] wrote her property to him in the morning, and to Rav Ukva [his brother] in the afternoon;

Rav Sheshes ruled that Rami bar Chama receives the property, for his [document] was earlier. Rav Nachman ruled that Mar Ukva receives it, due to Shuda (judges' discretion. It should go to the one to whom it was handed over first!)

Answer: We did not know to whom it was handed over first;

Rav Sheshes holds that just like it was written first to Rami, presumably also it was handed over to him first;

Rav Nachman holds that since it is not known from the document that he was first, we do not say that it was handed over to him first, even though it was written first. Therefore, the law is Shuda.

Distinction: If we would know to whom it was handed over first, that one would acquire, since both are written for the same day.

Question: We should be concerned lest she sold her Kesuvah on the day of the receipt. Now, we cannot say that Edav b'Chasumav Zachin Lo! (Perhaps Tosfos holds like the Rif, that Edav b'Chasumav Zachin Lo does not apply to a receipt, since pardon does not require a Kinyan.)

When the husband and the buyers show their documents, the time will be the same, and it is not known which was first. The husband will tell the buyers to bring a proof that their document was earlier, for he is Muchzak that the property is his, and the buyers want to take it, due to [their purchase from] the woman!

Answer: There is no concern lest she sell on the day that the receipt was written.

Question: We are more stringent about money, for we do not follow the majority in monetary matters! (Therefore, Rabah properly derived that if we are lenient about money, all the more so we are lenient about Isur!)

We follow the majority regarding Isur, even when there is Chezkas Isur against the majority, and [we may eat meat, for] we are not concerned lest there was a hole [in the esophagus] in the place he slaughtered. (I.e. there is no way to check if the animal was Tereifah due to a hole there before Shechitah.)

Answer #1: In any case, regarding a married woman [Chachamim] were stringent. Regarding [a married man who drowned in] endless water (i.e. one cannot see the shore in every direction), l'Chatchilah [his wife] may not remarry, even though most people die [in such a case].

Answer #2: Mid'Oraisa, we are not concerned for two "Yosef ben Shimon"s. Mid'Rabanan we are concerned, due to La'az (scandalous talk);

La'az does not apply to money. Therefore, it is a proper question, how he learns Isur from money.

Question: Granted, Chafisah (a small wine pouch) is a Siman, like it says below (28a, about a Get that was lost, and the husband and his wife both give Simanim);

Citation (28a): If he says that it was in a Chafisah, and she says that it was in a Chafisah, we give it to him, for she knows that he puts all his things in his pouch.

Inference: For a stranger [who does not this man's habits], this is a Siman.

However, why is Deluskema (a box in which old people put their Kelim) a Siman? It is normally to put documents in a Deluskema, like the Tosefta in Shevuos (5:6) says, "I handed over to you 10 Deluskema'os full of documents..."

Answer: Here we discuss when he gives a Siman that is not Muvhak in the Deluskema itself;

We are not concerned for She'elah, lest he lent [his Deluskema] to another, and [the borrower] put documents in it, for so Chachamim enacted, that we are not concerned for this.

This is like they enacted to return an Aveidah through a Siman that is not Muvhak, even if [returning an Aveidah through] Simanim is not mid'Oraisa (rather, mid'Rabanan).

Assertion: It connotes to [Rav Safra] that it is in the lender's hand, since [the Tana] calls it Simpon. In the borrower's hand, it is called Shover (receipt). The word "Simpon" is an expression of Bitul.

Also, if it were in the borrower's hand, obviously it is Kosher through Kiyum!