Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is a kidnapper.

Objection #1: Bechoros (5a) connotes unlike this. The Keisar told R. Gamliel "your Rebbi Moshe was a thief, Kubyustus, or incompetent in calculations!"

There, he discussed money (Moshe collected more silver for the Mishkan than was used to make the Adanim), for [R. Gamliel] already answered his first question "we find the total number of Leviyim [was only 22,000, but when we add the numbers of each of the three Batei Av, it comes to 22,300!]

Objection #2: Regarding "the sale stands", Rashi explained that most [slaves] are like this. It is unreasonable to say that most are kidnappers!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): Kubyustus is a diceplayer.

Implied question: We say in Chulin (91b) [the angel with whom Yakov fought] said "send me, for dawn came", and Yakov said to him "are you a thief, or a Kubyustus, that you fear morning?!"

This is fine for Rashi.

Answer: Also according to R. Chananel, we can say that diceplayers owe people, and they normally hide from them.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The buyer knew, and accepted.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): In Bava Basra (92b), it explicitly says that if he was an armed robber, or was Chayav Misah to the kingdom, [the buyer] says [to the seller] "yours is in front of you" (I did not buy him)!

Objection #2: In Bava Metzi'a (80a), it says that if [the seller said] "this Shifchah is a lunatic or epileptic...", it is a Mekach Ta'os (mistake sale, which invalid);

If so, regarding these blemishes, we should be concerned for Simpon!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): These have publicity, so they are not common. We are not concerned for them for Simpon [even though it is a Mekach Ta'os], for they are not common.

Also those in Bava Metzi'a are not common.

Implied question: It says in Gitin (86a) that R. Yehudah enacted in a document of [sale of] slaves "this slave is free from any claims of freedom, partnership, sentenced to the king..." (Even without stipulating, if he was sentenced to the king it is a Mekach Ta'os!)

Answer: There was no need to stipulate, like I explained. Also Stam, it is a Mekach Ta'os. He stipulated merely to make the document clearer (leave no room for doubt).

Defense (of Explanation #1 - R. Eliyahu): Here, when the seller received the money, we say that since the buyer did not check before giving the money for these blemishes that have publicity, he accepted them;

[The buyer] can say "yours is in front of you" before he gave the money.

Support: In Bava Basra (92b), we ask "the sale stands. Is this not because most are like this? This shows that we follow the majority [in monetary laws]!"

Question: What was the question (i.e. attempted proof)? Perhaps [this is not because we follow the majority, rather,] ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah!

Answer: This shows that the buyer is Muchzak (did not yet pay. The sale stands, and he must pay.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The same applies if the entire [year] was in front of her husband. She does not eat after he died, for his Kinyan Kesef lapsed;

However, if the entire year was in front of her husband, she would have eaten in his lifetime.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This that the Gemara expounds 'the Torah said "Kinyan Kaspo", and she was his brother's Kinyan' is a mere Asmachta. Mid'Oraisa, she eats;

According to Mishnah Rishonah, when she ate in her husband's lifetime, she eats also when she is Zekukah l'Yibum, for it says even if the entire [year] was in front of her husband, except for one day;

Inference: If all of these were in front of her husband, she eats.

Support #1: A Mishnah in our Perek, in the Yerushalmi's text, says that if the time came and they did not marry, or their husbands died, they eat from him, and they eat Terumah. (Yefei Einayim - in our text of the Yerushalmi, this is in the Gemara, but not in the Mishnah. Pnei Moshe alters the text of the Yerushalmi to say "if their husbands died, they do not eat Terumah.)

Inference: When their husbands died, the Yavam feeds them without Bi'ah, similar to the case of when the time came, which is when they did not marry;

If it were after Bi'ah, this is obvious! She is his full wife!

Support #2: A Tosefta says "this was Mishnah Rishonah. Raboseinu said that a woman does not eat Terumah until Chupah, and a Yevamah until Bi'ah;

This is the reason for Mishnah Rishonah. When she did not eat in her husband's lifetime, she does not eat [while Shomeres Yavam], for there is concern for Simpon and lest she give Terumah to her siblings.

Since the time did not come in her husband's lifetime, he did not check her, for he is not obligated to feed her, unless he stood in judgment and fled, like it says in Yevamos (41b. Therefore, there is concern for Simpon);

[There is concern for giving Terumah to her siblings, because] he does not designate a place for her.

The reason is because it is not normal to delay. Normally, immediately he does Chalitzah or Yibum.

Therefore, they did not enact food from the Yavam like they enacted from the husband when the time arrived.

Distinction: However, when she ate in her husband's lifetime, there is no further concern for Simpon, and not lest she give Terumah to her siblings;

Once the time arrived, he designates a place for her in her father's house. Presumably, she always eats there, and does not budge from her place.

Question: Since mid'Oraisa she eats when she falls from Nisu'in, why is she forbidden according to Mishnah Acharonah until Bi'ah?

There is no concern for Simpon, since she was already checked [when she had Bi'ah with the brother who died]!

Answer: Since Chachamim forbade an Arusah whose time arrived, they forbade also a Yevamah, for they are confused with each other, for both of them should be entered [to Chupah or Yibum] immediately.

Question: If a Yevamah is considered the Yavam's Kinyan Kaspo, Yevamos (67b) is difficult!

Regarding the Mishnah "a Yavam disqualifies, and does not feed", [the Gemara] says "if she is a Bas Kohen [awaiting Yibum with] a Yisrael, he disqualifies her, for "v'Shavah El Beis Aviha (she will return to her father's house)" [was not fulfilled];

It should have said that [the Yavam] acquired her, like it says there regarding Eirusin!

Answer: "V'Shavah El Beis Aviha" comes to disqualify a Bas Kohen [awaiting Yibum with] a Yisrael, to infer from this that initially, she did not eat, like it says there (68a). If so, it is not extra to teach about a Shomeres Yavam!

Rather, the Gemara means "it says "v'Shavah", i.e. only one who returned to her father's house, but one who is Zekukah l'Yibum does not return, for it is considered that she is acquired to him.

The text: The text says "[the Mishnah] teaches not only this, rather, even this;

Not only if she was six months in front of the husband, and six in front of the Yavam, she does not eat;

Rather, even if all [of the year] was in front of the husband, except for one day, she does not eat.

Support: This is clear from the Yerushalmi, which explains our entire Mishnah to be "not only this, rather, even this.'

Suggestion: This means when he feeds her.

Rejection: If so, her earnings should be Hekdesh. Why may she work and eat?!

This is like we say below, "if he feeds her, what is the reason for the one who says that after Misah, [her earnings] are Kodesh?" I.e. also in her lifetime, they should be Kodesh!

Explanation: Rather, b'Nizones means that he wants to feed her, but she does not want.

Explanation: Our Mishnah, which says that she works and eats, he establishes like Rav Ada bar Ahavah below, when he feeds her, but does not give to her a silver Ma'ah [every week for other needs].

Explanation: This means to Hash-m, who made them (her hands).

Suggestion: Perhaps it means "for their labor"!

Rejection: If so, it should have said "l'Ma'aseihen", like we say in Nedarim (13b).

Question: In Gitin (13b), we say that even R. Meir, who says that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, this is only to something in the world, but not to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

[In the case of] "after I convert", [she is Makneh herself] to a Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Answer (Ri): "After I convert" is not considered so much Lo Ba l'Olam, since the body is here, just he is lacking conversion;

This is unlike the case there of "to people who will be born." They are not in the world at all.

Support (Ri): R. Eliezer of Shanza said similarly to answer the following question from Bava Metzi'a (33b).

Citation (33b): We heard that R. Meir said that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam only in a case like fruits [that will grow] on a date tree, for they normally come.

Question: All the cases [of Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam] here do not normally come!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar of Shanza): The matters here are physically in the world, so we do not require that they normally come. (We require this only for something not in the world at all.)

Question: If so, what was the question here? Also, we say "indeed, from there (the Mishnah of Kidushin), yes (one can prove that he holds that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, but not from one who was Makdish his wife's earnings);

Also from there we cannot learn her [future] earnings, which are not in the world at all!

We could still say that her earnings do not become Kodesh. Rather, [they are Kodesh only because] it is as if he said "your hands are Kodesh to their Maker"! (Her hands are in the world.)

Answer: Since we find that [at least] partially R. Meir holds like [his Rebbi] R. Eliezer ben Yakov, we should say that even regarding something not in the world at all, he holds like him;

He (R. Eliezer ben Yakov) holds in Yevamos (93b) and Kidushin (62b, regarding Peros of a patch) that one can be Makneh [something not in the world at all].

Answer #2 (R. Eliezer of Shanza): All the cases [of Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam] here, we can establish them to be when they normally come;

E.g. a slave heard from his master that he will free him, "after your husband or sister dies" is when they are Gosesim (mortally sick; most Gosesim die), "after your Yavam does Chalitzah" is when he does not want to do Yibum.

Question: Why are her excess earnings Kadosh after her death, even though this is not common to come?

We cannot say that this is when she is Goseses, for she works!

Implied question: Also according to the opinion that it is Kadosh in her lifetime, we could have asked. Since he feeds her and gives to her a Ma'ah, why does she work and eat?

Answer: Because we wanted to say "if he does not feed her, and does not give to her a Ma'ah, what is the reason for the one who says that it is Kadosh in her lifetime?" also here we asked what is the reason for the one who says that after death it is Kadosh.

Explanation: We establish it like this according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah. However, Rav and Shmuel cannot establish it when he feeds her;

Since they hold that they enacted food in place of her earnings, if so why does she work and eat?

Explanation (cont.): Rather, Rav and Shmuel cannot establish it when he does not feed her and does not give to her a Ma'ah.

Question: What forced Rav to establish our Mishnah after death? He could establish it in her lifetime, e.g. he gives to her a Ma'ah, but does not feed her!

Answer: It is not common to give to her a Ma'ah, and not feed her.