An orphan and his sister came in front of Rava, who instructed that they give him (from Metaltelim) enough food for both of them.

Chachamim: You yourself said that food, Kesuvah and Parnasah are collected only from land!

Rava: (She will serve him to be fed.) If he wanted a slave to serve him, would we not buy one? All the more so, we are also feeding a daughter!

(Beraisa - Rebbi): Both property that can have a lien on it (i.e. land) and property which cannot (Metaltelim) are used to feed a widow and orphan daughters;

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, from land we take from sons to daughters (for food and dowries), from daughters to daughters (when there are no sons and the older daughters seized the property, we make them divide it equally, and likewise) from sons to sons, and from daughters to sons when there is much property (more than needed to feed the children until they mature);

We do not take from daughters to sons when there is little property;

We take Metaltelim from sons to sons, from daughters to daughters, from daughters to sons, but not from sons to daughters.

Even though we (generally) rule like Rebbi against his colleague, here the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar;

(Rava): Food, Kesuvah and Parnasah are collected only from land.

(Mishnah): If a man did not write a Kesuvah to his wife, it is an enactment of Beis Din that a virgin collects 200 and a non-virgin collects 100;

If he wrote that she should collect a field worth 100 in place of 200, or did not write that there is a lien on all his property to the Kesuvah, he is obligated (she has a lien and collects 200), by an enactment of Beis Din.

If he (a Yisrael) did not write 'if you will be captured, I will redeem you and return you to be my wife', or if a Kohen did not write 'if you will be captured, I will return you to your land', he is obligated by an enactment of Beis Din.

If she is captured, he must redeem her. He may not say 'Behold, I divorce her. Here is a Get and her Kesuvah, let her redeem herself.'

If she gets sick, he must heal her. He may say 'Behold that I divorce her; here is a Get and her Kesuvah, let her heal herself.'

(Gemara): The Mishnah is like R. Meir, who says that if her Kesuvah is less than 200 for a virgin or 100 for a non-virgin, Bi'ah with her is considered Znus.

It cannot be R. Yehudah, who permits writing 200 to a virgin or 100 to a widow, and she writes a receipt for him that she received half (even if she received nothing).

(Seifa): Even if he did not write that there is a lien on all his property, he is obligated.

This is like R. Yehudah, who says that Acharayos Ta'us Sofer (a loan document puts a lien on land even if it does not say so. We attribute the omission to a mistake of the scribe). R. Meir disagrees;

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one finds a loan document, if it mentions a lien on property, we do not return it, since Beis Din collects (from land that people bought from the borrower) to pay the loan (and we suspect that the loan was already paid);

If the document does not mention a lien, it may be returned, since Beis Din does not collect from it.

Chachamim say, in either case it may not be returned, since Beis Din collects (from sold land).

Question: If the Reisha R. Meir and the Seifa R. Yehudah?!

Suggestion: Perhaps the whole Mishnah is like R. Meir, and he distinguishes between a Kesuvah and other documents.

Rejection: He doesn't distinguish!

(Beraisa): Five things are collected only from free (unsold) property: Peiros of and improvements made on stolen land; one who agrees to feed his wife's child; a loan document or Kesuvah that does not mention a lien.

This Beraisa is like R. Meir, who says that a loan document without a lien does not permit collecting from sold property, and it says the same about a Kesuvah!

Answer #1: The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah.

R. Yehudah permits her to write that she received half, but he must write the full amount!

Answer #2: The entire Mishnah is R. Meir.

It says that even if he didn't write a lien, he must pay, i.e. from unsold property.

(Shmuel's father): If a Yisrael's wife was raped, she is forbidden to her husband. We are concerned lest initially she was forced, but later desired the Bi'ah.

Question #1 (Rav - Mishnah): 'If you are captured... I will return you to be a wife'!

Shmuel's father was silent.

Rav: "The princes held back word, they put a hand to their mouths".

Question: What could Shmuel's father have answered?

Answer: Chachamim were lenient about a captured woman (since it is a Safek whether or not she was raped).

Question #2: The Torah permits a raped woman to her husband (this is brought below). According to Shmuel's father, what is the case?

Answer: Witnesses say that she screamed from beginning to end.

Rava disagrees with Shmuel's father.

(Rava): If initially she was forced, even if she later desires, even if she says 'Leave him. If he didn't want to, I would pay him for this', she is permitted (to her husband).

This is because he put the evil inclination on her (against her will).

Support (for Rava - Beraisa #1): If "she was not grabbed" she is forbidden. Had she been grabbed, she would be permitted;

There is another case in which she is permitted even if she was not grabbed, i.e. she was forced in the beginning and desired in the end.

(Beraisa #2): If "she was not grabbed" she is forbidden. Had she been grabbed, she would be permitted;

There is another case in which she is forbidden even if she was grabbed, i.e. a Kohen's wife.

(Rav Yehudah citing R. Yishmael): If "she was not grabbed" she is forbidden. Had she been grabbed, she would be permitted;

There is another case in which she is permitted even if she was not grabbed, i.e. mistaken Kidushin. Even if her son is on her shoulder, she may do Mi'un (say that she doesn't desire him) and leave him.

(Rav Yehudah): Women captured by robbers are permitted to their husbands.

Chachamim: The women supply the robbers with bread (this shows that they want to be with them)!

Rav Yehudah: They do so out of fear.

Chachamim: But they supply them with arrows!

Rav Yehudah: They do so out of fear;

If the robbers allow the women to return to their husbands and they choose to stay with the robbers, they are certainly forbidden.

(Beraisa #3): A captive of the king is like a captive (she is permitted to her husband if he is a Yisrael). A captive of a robber is not like a captive (she is forbidden to her husband).

Contradiction: Another Beraisa (#4) says oppositely!

Answer: Beraisa #3 permits a captive of the king, i.e. a king like Achashverosh. (She has no hope that he will marry her, so she is forced.) Beraisa #4 forbids a captive of a king like Ben Netzar (a marauder who conquered cities. Perhaps she hoped that he would marry her and had Bi'ah willingly);

Beraisa #3 forbids a captive of a robber like Ben Netzar. Beraisa #4 permits a captive of a plain robber.

Question: Why does Beraisa #3 call Ben Netzar a robber, and Beraisa #4 calls him a king?

Answer: Compared to Achashverosh he is only a robber. Compared to regular robbers, he is a king.