Observation: Both of these conditions are required (in order to say that a guarantor for a Kesuvah does not really become a guarantor). However, where he is not doing a Mitzvah and she is not losing, such as a guarantor who becomes a guarantor after the wedding, he does become a guarantor. Similarly, if he is doing a Mitzvah but she is losing money (the Tosfos Ha'Rosh says that he became a guarantor for Nichsei Tzoan Barzel at the marriage), he becomes a guarantor.

Observation: Similarly, if he has to pay back land, he pays the worst of his properties, meaning low grade property. However, low grade vessels are still considered Meitav, as stated in Bava Kama (7b) that everything is considered Meitav.

Explanation: It appears that he holds that a lien is a Torah concept. If he held it is Rabbinic in nature, then even though collecting from the father according to Torah law is done with the best grade property, collection from the orphans would be from low grade property. This is because according to Torah law, he does not collect (from orphans) at all.

Mar Zutra and Abaye who hold that the person can collect from the low-grade property of the orphans must hold that a lien is not a Torah concept, as we explain in our Mishnah. If not, why would the Rabbanan change the law? Alternatively (they must hold this way as), the Rabbanan did not differentiate regarding orphans (whether or not there was a condition to collect from the high-grade property).

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that the Gemara means as follows. What is the Idis referred to here, that even though it is stated in the document that he can collect from it, we do not allow him to do so? The case is where the Idis was swept away after the loan, meaning that it "jumped away" from the person who was supposed to collect from it, making him unable to do so. For example, if criminals took it, its harvest was wiped out due to bad winds, or the river swept it away, as this would make his condition null and void.

Now, this creditor should collect from the low-grade quality according to Torah law. However, due to the fact that this would cause people not to lend money, the Rabbanan said he should collect mid-grade property. When it came to orphans, the Rabbanan left the law as it is according to Torah law. This is like the opinion of Rava, who says that if when the Idis was taken away after the damages he still has all grades of property, but the property that was wiped out was very high-grade property, he should collect from the mid-grade property. This is because his claim is gone, as he can claim your field was swept away and your bad luck caused it.

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this explanation. When the Gemara asks, "What is Idis?" and responds, "Shafai Idis," the implication is that it is contradicting the previous assumption that there was a condition in the document that he was going to collect from high-grade property. (Note: According to Rashi, we are still dealing with this type of case.)

Question#2: Additionally, who ever mentioned laws regarding very high-grade property? (Note: We have never seen that there is a difference between high-grade and very high-grade.)

Question#3: Rashi explains that if the very high-grade property was ruined, he should not collect from the high-grade property that is left. If so, you have lessened the power of collection due to damages to mid-grade property. A similar question is asked in Bava Kama (7b, not 8a).

Question#4: Additionally, Rava implies there that he holds that we evaluate standards of property based on the general standards. He implies this while discussing a case there where Reuven sold all of his fields to Shimon. If so, what does very high-grade property have to do with anything here? One does not collect from property that is generally considered very high-grade property.

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that when the Gemara asks, "What is Idis?" and answers "Shafai Idis," the word Shafai is used as it is used in the Pasuk, "And in all of their edges are their grazing" (Yeshaya 49:9). It is normal that in good fields that are on the edge of the river, the end of the field that is next to the river is for the grazing of animals. It is worse than the normal low quality property, because the river always sweeps away what is grown there.

When the Beraisa states, "even if they are Idis," it means even if they are the edges of the field that are normally considered worse than low-grade property, he has to take this as his collection from the orphans.

This (definition of Shafai) can also be seen from Rava's statement that if someone damaged low-grade property, he collects from high-grade property. (Note: This is based on the explanation of the Tosfos Ha'Rosh. Many commentaries have different approaches in understanding why Tosfos is quoting Rava.)

However, if he damaged the edges of the field by putting his animals there to graze, he collects from the mid-grade property. This is not considered damaging, as it is set aside for people to bring their animals for grazing (and to pay the owner of the field later). He is therefore considered like a person who owes money, even though he put his animals there without the knowledge of the owner.

Question: How would we find a case of an oath regarding orphans who are minors, according to Rav Asi who says in Erchin (22a) that we do not interfere with the property of orphans unless they are losing money due to interest?

It is understandable that one would find a case where they would pay low-grade property. This would be in a case where their father admitted he owed the money and then died, according to the opinion of Rav Huna (the son of Rebbi Yehoshua in Erchin ibid.). He says that the reason for this law (that we do not collect from orphans who are minors) is because we suspect that the claimant took some money before the person who damaged died. (Note: When the person who damaged admits owing the full sum before he dies, Rav Huna would say there is no suspicion. This is stated clearly in the Gemara in Erchin ibid.) However, we do not find a case where we would say he should have to take an oath (to collect from orphans who are minors according to Rav Asi quoted above).

According to Rabeinu Tam who explains that Chazal only forbade being partners with a Nochri in Sanhedrin (63b) because he (his partner) might have to take an oath (and will swear in the name of his idol). However, if he was already liable to take an oath, it is permitted to make the Nochri take the oath in order to save his money.

Rabeinu Tam holds that the Pasuk, "It should not be heard on your lips" (which is used to derive that it should also not be caused to be said by you, i.e. making a Nochri swear) is only an Asmachta. (Note: This is not a Torah law.) The Pasuk is clearly talking about a Jew.

According to Rabeinu Tam, the case where an oath would be required is when there is a document that has interest, and the Nochri accepts to judge according to Jewish law (that he should take an oath before collecting from orphans who are minors).

However, according to Rabeinu Shmuel who says that it is forbidden to actually accept an oath from a Nochri based on a Kal v'Chomer from the prohibition against being his partner (because it might cause him to swear), this is difficult.

Answer#1: It is referring to a Ger Toshav who accepted upon himself not to serve idols.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it could be as established in the Yerushalmi in ha'Kosev that their father had a fellow Jew be a guarantor for him when he borrowed with interest from a Nochri. The Nochri accepted a condition to first attempt to collect from the borrower. Otherwise, the Nochri would go after the guarantor, and it would be forbidden to be the guarantor for such a loan, as stated in Bava Metzia (71b). (Note: Being that the loan was with interest, we would say that the orphans should swear (see Maharam).)

Answer#3: Alternatively, it could be that this is according to Rebbi Yochanan who says we do collect a Kesuvah from orphans.

Explanation: This case is specifically when he did not give them equal amounts. However, if he did give them equal amounts, even without Achrayus in the document we would say that whoever was first should acquire his portion first. This is apparent from the fact that he did not say give six hundred to Ploni, Ploni, and Ploni (and instead made a specific order, i.e. give two hundred to Ploni etc.). This implies that he wanted to make the first ones receive their share first.

Opinion#1: Each person gives proportionally, based on his share. This is similar to a firstborn son who pays double.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Chananel compared this to the Mishnah in Kesuvos (93a), but it appears that a differentiation between the two can be made. (Note: See Maharam Shif for the explanation and possible differentiation between the two cases.)

Question: This is slightly difficult. What was the thought of the one asking the question in the Gemara? Why didn't he himself understand (what the Gemara eventually answers in its first alternative answer) that the Beraisa meant that only the last one loses?

The first part of the Beraisa that states that the creditor collects from everyone clearly means that everyone loses, as there it is obvious he receives mid grade property. (Note: It therefore should have been obvious that the term "collect" in the second part of the Beraisa could also mean "loses." Many Rishonim and Acharonim answer Tosfos' question.)

Implied Question: One can differentiate between the present of a Shechiv Meira and other presents where the lender does not think that the borrower will die and (right before that) give away all of his possessions. This is as we stated earlier that a lender does not usually think of the possibility that the borrower is going to die, and therefore this (circumstance) does not make it difficult for people to get loans. (Note: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the Beraisa's case cannot be proof to whether or not the Rabbanan instituted this law regarding presents in general?)

Answer#1: The Gemara did not deem it logical to differentiate between the two cases of presents.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case here is where the present is a partial present (he did not give away all of his possessions, only some), and therefore takes effect like the present of a healthy person.

Observation: The Gemara here implies that if a creditor whose lien on the field came later than other creditors collected before them, his collection is invalid. This is as the Beraisa states that if a loan document came out etc. This is also the law regarding fields (not just by money, which is the case discussed in our Beraisa).

Explanation: If it would be discussing a present it would be understandable, as it is obviously talking about a document where he is ordering his money to be distributed (when he is dying). There is no other type of document it would be.

Observation: In Kesuvos (51b), the Beraisa states that there are five cases where we collect from property without a lien (before property with a lien). Both here and in the Mishnah there the Tana left out other cases, even though there it specified that there are five cases.

Implied Question: Rashi explains that in Bava Metzia (15a) we say that the seller writes for the buyer, "I will uphold and quiet (and rumors regarding) this sale, the land, the work, the improvement, and its fruit." (Note: It would therefore seem that the improvement should be able to be collected, as it was guaranteed to be protected by the seller.)

Answer: Even so, being that when it was written there was no improvement, there is no voice (i.e. news does not get out about it) to this written guarantee.

Explanation#1: According to this, when the Gemara asks that the support for the woman and children are as if they are written, the question is not from the daughters support, but rather from the woman as she was alive when the agreement was written.

Explanation#2: Alternatively, the proof is also from the girls. We are dealing with a case where the girls are alive. The case could be, for example, where he divorced her and remarried her.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that we should suspect that she took money, as we say later?

Answer#1: The Gemara at this point does not hold of this answer (on 51a it does).

Answer#2: Alternatively, when the Gemara later establishes that there was a Kinyan, it is possible to also suspect taking money early. In this case we are not discussing a prior Kinyan, and therefore we do not suspect the taking of money.

Explanation: The Gemara is not asking whether or not Reish Lakish requires a set amount and written (it is only asking according to Rebbi Chanina). (Note: A simple explanation of Tosfos is that the Gemara did not have its question according to Reish Lakish, as he only mentioned "written." However, it is unclear if Rebbi Chanina is adding onto Reish Lakish's statement, or saying his own statement. This is why the Gemara's question is only according to Rebbi Chanina (Maharam).)