Question: Both according to Abaye and Rava, we say in Yevamos (85a) that a widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a Mamzeres or Nesinah to a Yisrael, she has a Kesuvah, Peros and Bala'os (remnants or depreciation of her property);

Peros refers to redemption, for redemption corresponds to Peros!

Answer (Ri): There, Rashi explained that she has Peros, i.e. what her husband consumed [Peros of her property, he must give towards redeeming her], but if they do not suffice, he need not redeem her from his property;

Regarding Sheniyos (Arayos mid'Rabanan), it taught there that they have no Peros, i.e. even what the husband consumed, he need not return;

Abaye explains there that a widow to a Kohen Gadol has the full law of Peros. Her husband must redeem her;

Rava explains literally Peros, like he ate. Those Peros themselves he returns to her only if she is captured;

If [the law were that] he returns them even if she is not captured, she would profit [through marrying a man forbidden to her];

Also, all women would want that they are not redeemed, and the Peros are theirs, even though we said above that redemption is better for her than Peros. (I.e. Chachamim preferred this, lest she assimilate among Nochrim. However, women prefer to keep their Peros, for captivity is rare.)

Implied question: We should explain the argument [differently;] one holds that we follow the initial status, and one holds that it depends on the final status, like we conclude below!

Answer: He prefers to establish their argument about putting a finger between her teeth, for we find that Tana'im argue about this below (71a).

Question: In Gitin (45a), we ask about the Mishnah "we do not redeem captives for more than their value due to Tikun ha'Olam", whether this is due to depleting the Tzibur's money, or lest it incite captors to capture more;

We should resolve from here that it is due to depleting the Tzibur's money, for it says that he redeems for up to 10 times her value!

Answer: Even according to the opinion that it is lest it incite captors to capture more, they did not enact that one cannot redeem himself for more than his value, for "Ohr b'Ad Ohr v'Chol Asher la'Ish Yiten b'Ad Nafsho" (one will give all his wealth to save his life);

Here, his wife is like his body.

Implied question: There, we wanted to resolve the question from Levi, who redeemed his daughter for 13,000 Dinars!

Answer: This is because one's daughter is unlike his own body.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rabanan enacted that he redeem her only once.

Inference: If she was captured a second time, he does not redeem her at all, even for her value.

Question: Above (47b), we concluded that they enacted what is common for what is common;

Inference: Peros and redemption are more common than Kesuvah and burial, which occur only once in all her days, but Peros and redemption can be several times!

Answer: According to Rashi, we must say oppositely, that Peros and redemption are not common. Burial is considered common, for women die before men, like it says in the Yerushalmi;

Similarly, Kesuvah is common.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): If he wants, he need not redeem her for more than her value. However, he must redeem her for her value.

Question (Rashba): If so, also according to Rabanan, we can ask about the second redemption. [The first Beraisa obligates up to her value,] even if her value is more than her Kesuvah;

The other Beraisa connotes that he does not redeem her for more than her Kesuvah! We would need to answer that they hold of two leniencies in the second redemption (just like we answered for R. Shimon ben Gamliel);

The Gemara connotes that we need to give this answer only for R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Explanation: This refers to the Reisha.

Explanation: This is because Refu'ah is included in food, and she received [food] corresponding to her earnings until now;

However, he may not say "she will receive her Get and redeem herself", because she did not receive payment for the Peros he ate until now.

Pesak: Now that Ge'onim enacted that Kesuvah is collected from Metaltelim, also Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is collected from Metaltelim, for Rabanan made it like the Kesuvah.

Implied question: Also the Makshan knew that the Mishnah says "Yarsun" (they will inherit. If he held that the text of the Mishnah says Yasvun (will be given to them), they do take from Meshubadim! If so, what was the answer?)

Answer: He answered him concisely. He meant that Chachamim wanted to give to them only the law of inheritance, since they come [to collect] due to the power of inheritance.

Implied question: When we asked why a daughter does not inherit [her mother's dowry] when she has paternal brothers [but no maternal brothers], why didn't we give this answer (the Mishnah says "they inherit")?

Answer: Even according to the opinion that the text of the Mishnah says Yasvun (a gift), admits that for this, Chachamim made it like inheritance! This is proven from Bava Basra 131a. (Mishmeros Kehunah - Rebbi proved that the text of the Mishnah is not Yasvun, for we hold that Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is not collected from Meshubadim. He did not prove this from the fact that a daughter amidst sons does not receive it! However, Rashi disagrees with Tosfos. He holds that Rebbi gave one of two possible proofs.)

However, regarding collecting from Meshubadim, there is a difference between these texts, like it says there and below (55a).