Explanation: We must say that this Isuy (coercion) was verbal, like below (53a, Yehudah bar Mereimar did not want to be present at the discussion of how much of a dowry Aba Sura'ah would give, for) "my entering is Isuy."

Support: This explains why the Gemara said "does he require Isuy?!" If this is the Halachah, why did he coerce verbally? He should have lashed and forced them until they fed him! Also R. Tam explained like this.

Disclaimer: However, we find non-verbal Isuy, e.g. we force [a husband to divorce his wife] only if she is forbidden to him (below, 77a).

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that the first time, he may give a fifth, and from now and onwards every year he gives a fifth of what he profits.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Avos 5:21) says that at 10 a boy learns Mishnah!

Answer: We do not deprive his sustenance then [if he does not learn], rather, we gently try to teach him.

Answer: We are not Yored l'Chayav (lash him and deprive his sustenance, if he does not learn) until 12 years.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Avos says that a five year old boy learns written Torah!

Answer: Then, we gently try to teach him, but not to stuff him [until six].

Explanation: This refers to one who is six years and one day, just like "Bar Eser l'Mishnah", which is 10 years and one day, like the Mishnah in Avos;

There it is 10 years and one day, just like Ben Yud Gimel l'Mitzvos.

Observation: Bar Shis l'Mikra is unlike Bar Eser l'Mishnah, for Bar Shis l'Mikra is to stuff him like an ox, and Bar Eser l'Mishnah is not to stuff him, rather, to gently try to teach him until 12.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is during the 12th year, due to Chinuch (training in Mitzvos).

Explanation #2 (Ri): This is after 12 years and one day, similar to Bar Eser, like I explained;

He teaches that we do not hold that she completes the fast mid'Rabanan (before adulthood), like R. Yochanan in Yoma (82a).

Explanation (Rashi): A girl completes the fast before a boy, because she is fast to strengthen.

Rebuttal: There was no need to say so. Rather, her Chinuch is a year before her adulthood, i.e. 12 years and one day, just like a boy's Chinuch is a year before his adulthood.

Explanation (R. Tam): This is so it will not bite him;

It is unreasonable to explain that it is after it bit him, for he said that he will not live. This implies that no cure will help him!

Explanation #1: According to R. Yochanan, who says that Kinyan Peros k'Kinyan ha'Guf (rights to the revenue that comes from a matter is like owning the matter itself), there was no need for Takanas Usha;

Rather, it is according to Reish Lakish [who holds that Kinyan Peros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf], and it is brought [to explain Shmuel's teaching] according to Reish Lakish in Bava Kama (88b).

Answer #2A: Takanas Usha is needed also according to R. Yochanan, e.g. one gave a gift to his wife; the husband does not eat the Peros.

Answer #2B: Alternatively, her husband wrote to her "I have no claim to the Peros of your property."

Suggested Answer #2C: He wrote to her "I have no claim to your property and its Peros!"

Rejection (of Answer #2C): A Mishnah (below, 83a) says that in such a case, if she sold or gave a gift, it takes effect (the husband cannot take back the property, even after Takanas Usha).

Inference: Rav Yosef was smaller [in Chachmah] than Rav Hamnuna.

Question: In Kidushin (25a), it connotes that Rav Hamnuna was Rav Chisda's Talmid, regarding the elders of Nazyasa who did not come to Rav Chisda's Shi'ur. He told Rav Hamnuna to rebuke (or excommunicate) them;

Rav Yosef was the colleague of Rav Chisda. (If so, he was greater than Rav Hamnuna!)

Answer: We must say that there were two Chachamim named Rav Hamnuna.

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel, below 68a): Shmuel taught that we estimate based on the father. This is not to increase the daughter's rights, to give to her more than a 10th of the property if her father was generous;

Rather, it is to decrease her rights, and give to her less than a 10th of the property if we know that he is stingy.

Source #1: We do not find estimation to increase, only to decree, like it says there "a case occurred, and Rebbi gave to her one part in 12 of the property.

Source #2: Also below (52b), it connotes that Rabanan permit only until a 10th of his property, but more than this is transferring inheritance;

Citation (52b) Question: Do we find that the Torah said that a boy inherits, and a girl does not inherit, and Chachamim enact...?

The Gemara concludes "up to how much?", i.e. up to how much do Rabanan permit, even though it is like transferring inheritance? Until a 10th of the property.

Question: Here, "Iluya of the father" according to Shmuel connotes increasing!

Answer: Only regarding Metaltelim it is to increase. Since we estimate the father's intent, she collects also from Metaltelim;

However, regarding how much the father wanted to give, it is to decrease. We do not increased on a 10th, but we can decrease.

Question - Citation (68a - Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If [the father] married off his first daughter [and died], we give to the second like he gave to the first.

This is even if he gave to the first more than a 10th of the property, for Rabanan responded "sometimes a man is wealthy, and becomes poor";

Explanation: I.e. sometimes he was generous, and became stingy, and he would not give to this one like he gave to the first. Rather, we assess the property and give a 10th, and not more;

Shmuel, who said that we estimate the father, holds like R. Yehudah.

Answer (Ri): R. Yehudah said that we give to the second like he gave to the first only when he gave the first a 10th of the property or less;

Rabanan responded to him that we should not follow his initial temperament, since a man's temperament changes. Therefore, we always give a 10th of the property.

Support: We can prove that Rebbi explicitly holds like R. Yehudah below (68a). There, Rebbi says that she takes from Meshubadim for Parnasah, but not for food;

[Surely, this is because] food has no fixed limit, like we say in Gitin (51a), but Parnasah is fixed, like it says there.

If we estimate the father also to add to a 10th of the property, if so also Parnasah is not fixed! However, if we estimate only to decrease from a 10th of the property, this is fine;

Even though there is no minimal amount, since there is a maximum, buyers can beware, and leave [the seller] enough Bnei Chorin that suffice for a 10th of the property [for each daughter].

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. If it were, for the same reason there should be a limit to food, for when the brothers mortgaged [or sold the land], for there is an upper limit until Bagrus.

Question: Perhaps she will get sick, and need Refu'ah, and we say below (52b) that Refu'ah without a limit is included in food!

Answer: In Gitin (51a) we consider one who stipulated to feed his wife's daughter [from a previous husband] for five years to be limited, for it teaches that it is collected from Meshubadim!

Rather, surely, even though it (food) is limited above until Bagrus, since it is not bounded below, for perhaps she will marry beforehand, it is not considered fixed;

However, Parnasah has a limit. Buyers can clarify the matter through Beis Din and estimate his temperament above and below.

Note: New daughters can be born! However, surely they will not marry before three years. The lender can collect before this. The borrower's temperament could change! A buyer can be careful, and ensure that there is enough property for a full 10th in case the borrower will become generous.

Question: Why is this ruling of Shmuel greater than that of Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef? We were unsure whether or not Rav holds like it!

Answer: Because Shmuel did so in practice, we bring [a proof] from him.

It is unreasonable that Rav argues with Shmuel, for even without this, "Rav was Zan" connotes that he gave food;

He asked, because he was uneasy to say that Rav argues with the Mishnah, which says that food of the daughters is like Kesuvas Benin Dichrin;

He brought a proof from Shmuel, who did so in practice [even though it is unlike the Mishnah]. Also Rav can hold like him, like Rav's words (Zan) connote!

They hold that afterwards, they changed the enactment.

Question: How do Shmuel's words "go and be Zan" connote actual food, more than R. Chiya bar Yosef's words, "Rav was Zan"?

Answer: It is logical that when one gives a ruling, he should use words that leave no room to err. Therefore, there is more reason to say that [Shmuel] said to actually feed her;

R. Chiya bar Yosef taught what he received. He was not so precise with his words.

Implied question: Rav Nachman considered that they erred bi'Dvar Mishnah (a clearcut matter). He himself could have annulled the ruling!

Answer: The litigants would not have heeded him like they would heed the judges [who judged them]. Therefore, he told them to retract.