Rashi's text: This is Rashi's text.

Question #1: What was the question, that just like Ha'adafah (her extra earnings) is the husband's, also her Metzi'ah is the husband's?

At the beginning of the Sugya, it connotes that her Metzi'ah is hers more (i.e. there is more than reason to say so) than Ha'adafah!

It said "R. Akiva says that she keeps her Ha'adafah. All the more so she keeps her Metzi'ah!"

If so, it is possible that all agree that her husband gets Ha'adafah, and they argue about Metzi'ah!

Question #2: According to Rashi, Rav Papa gave an answer. He should have said only "her Metzi'ah is like Ha'adafah" through exertion;

He should not have said "R. Akiva and Rabanan argue about this!"

R. Chananel's text: R. Chananel's text is primary. It does not say "v'Ha" (to begin a question), rather, "when Ravina came, he said in the name of R. Yochanan "Ha'adafah not through exertion..."

Explanation: This is an independent matter. He comes to explain the argument of R. Akiva and Rabanan. They argue in the Beraisa about Metzi'ah and her earnings;

They argue about Ha'adafah through exertion. It is like a Metzi'ah, which they also argue about;

You are forced to say that R. Akiva said that she keeps her Metzi'ah in any case when she was not idle from work;

If she was idle from work while picking it up, she owes the wages of the time she neglected, for she was idle while picking it up!

Rav Papa addresses this, and says that her Metzi'ah is like Ha'adafah through exertion.

Explanation: He does not ask about this, for we learn from Rava. Above, he equated Metzi'ah to Ha'adafah through exertion;

Ravin said that they argue about Ha'adafah through exertion. If so, they argue also about her Metzi'ah, e.g. she picked it up while working;

Rather, Rav Papa asked about if she did two Melachos at once. Do we compare this to her Metzi'ah, and she keeps it according to R. Akiva?

Or, perhaps her husband gets it. All this is her earnings, since it is at the time of Melachah. It is in exchange for the silver Ma'ah.

Implied question: He should learn from Ha'adafah through exertion! R. Akiva said that it is hers!

Answer: That is when she works at a time when [most] people are sleeping. [Rav Papa's question] was not resolved.

Question: Why didn't Rav Papa say "it is obvious to me that her Metzi'ah is like Ha'adafah"?

Answer: It is because he did not say that Metzi'ah is like Ha'adafah through exertion through his own reasoning. Rather, he learned from Ravin.

Observation: Here it connotes that her Metzi'ah is in exchange for food, just like her earnings, since we equate Metzi'ah to Ha'adafah.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (12b) that her husband gets her Metzi'ah, lest there be enmity!

Answer: Also her earnings are due to enmity, like we say above (58b) "he holds that food is primary, and her earnings are due to enmity."

Question: We say in Yevamos (90b) [about a woman who remarried based on one witness who testified that her husband died, and her husband returned] "neither of her husbands receives her Metzi'ah or earnings";

The Gemara explains why they do not receive her Metzi'ah. The reason Rabanan said that a husband receives his wife's Metzi'ah is lest there be enmity. Here, we want there to be enmity [lest she stay with one of them b'Isur].

Regarding her earnings, it says that the reason Rabanan said that a husband receives his wife's earnings is because he feeds her. Here, she is not fed.

Summation of question: If Metzi'ah is in exchange for food, the Gemara should have given one reason for both [Metzi'ah and earnings], either due to enmity, or because he feeds her! (Pnei Yehoshua - Tosfos explained that Chachamim equate Metzi'ah to Ha'adafah. We hold like R. Akiva, that she receives her Metzi'os. Yevamos 90b holds like this.)

Question: What was the question? In our Mishnah, he does not give to the woman the full amount of the Boshes, and to her husband in addition to the amount of the Boshes. Rather, from the woman's portion we give to her husband!

If so, if the woman had no embarrassment, so we would not give to her, also to her husband we would not give anything!

What was the question from embarrassing a horse, which has no embarrassment?! (Other Rishonim connote we understand that he receives because he is embarrassed through her injury. We ask "would he likewise receive if someone embarrassed his horse?!", and rejected this, for one does not feel shame due to injury to his horse.)

Explanation: It is incumbent on them to guard him from people who hit him;

However, a rich member of an esteemed family, it is not incumbent on them to guard him. His family is not embarrassed due to [people who hit] him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because the property decreases in value.

Support #1: The Gemara connotes like this (below, 67a). It asks "isn't [gold] like silver Kelim, which diminish?"

Support #2 (Yerushalmi - Shmuel): They estimated a woman's intent. She wants to wear out her Kelim.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): They are normally over-estimated a fifth, to honor the Kalah and endear her to her husband.

Source: He inferred this from the need to teach an estimation of much property, and an estimation of sparse property;

If she was rich, and uses all [her Kelim], they diminish, whether they are much or sparse.

However, according to the reason that they over-estimate to honor the Kalah, it is reasonable to distinguish between much and sparse, like Rashi explained in the Gemara.

This is why Rashi mentioned garments and merchandise. She uses garments, and they diminish. (Maharsha - both reasons must apply in order to decrease a fifth. Pnei Yehoshua and Hafla'ah disagree. Hafla'ah - there is no need to over-estimate Kelim she uses, for they are not sold, and she takes them intact when she leaves. Depreciation applies to them. Merchandise can be sold, so it is over-estimated.)

Merchandise is not necessarily for business. If it were, it would be like money, and he would add a third!

Rather, it refers to matters that people do not use, e.g. garments that are not sewn, and similar matters.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She entered appraised property for him to accept in the Kesuvah document for 100 [Zuz], and it was worth 100 in the market for anyone.

Rebuttal: This is difficult. Rather, R. Chananel's Perush is primary.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): The case is, she stipulated to bring in property in these words;

When she said "an appraisal for 100 worth 100", this means that she will bring in property appraised for 100 that he will write for her in her Kesuvah, and the appraisal will be only 100, he has only 100;

It need not be worth 125 (100 with an added fifth).

However, a Stam appraisal for 100, she gives 125;

She says that she will bring in appraised property that he will write for her 100 in her Kesuvah. Therefore, she must add a fifth.

Explanation (R. Chananel): When the Chasan designates for her Kelim and other property to use, added to her Kesuvah, and he comes to estimate them and write them in her Kesuvah, he decreases a fifth, for they over-estimate it, to honor the Chasan;

According to the reason that it is because they depreciate, [he decreases] because she uses them. (When she takes the property at the end of the marriage, it will be worth less than it is worth now.)

Explanation #1: A large appraisal corresponds to "he stipulates corresponding to the estimation", which refers to 1000 Dinar;

A small appraisal corresponds to the Seifa, "when the Chasan stipulates", which connotes a stipulation of any (even a very small) amount.

Also from her, the Mishnah teaches a large and small appraisal. A small appraisal is "she gives 31." A big appraisal is "she gives 500."

Explanation #2 (Ri, R. Chananel): "Corresponding to the estimation" does not refer to 1000 Dinar. Rather, it includes what he says afterwards;

The question "this is the same as the Reisha" refers to "if the appraisal was 100, she gives 31 Sela'im and a Dinarim (125), and [when it is] 400, she gives 500." Why did it need to teach both of them?

The text says "he taught a small appraisal and he taught a large appraisal. He taught her appraisal, and he taught his appraisal";

"When the Chasan stipulates" is his appraisal. We need not teach a large appraisal and a small appraisal regarding his stipulation. "When the Chasan stipulates" applies to both of these.

Implied question: It says in Yoma (39b) that in Yerushalayim, a Kalah did not need fragrances, due to the smell of the Ketores!

Answer: Surely, they did not need to perfume themselves. However, they needed cosmetics to soften the skin, remove hair and smooth wrinkles (R. Tam).

Observation: We could have said "if you will say that [he gives 10 Zuz] for every 100 estimated..."

Question: These questions are astounding! If he always gives to her, like we conclude, in every year, 10 Zuz for every 100, for each day, the money will be consumed very quickly!

Answer: Rather, surely it seems that he gives to her 10 Zuz for every 100 to adorn herself forever;

The question is whether we give to her at once, and she guards it to adorn herself until it finishes, and from then and onwards there is no quota for cosmetics. He gives to her according to her honor;

Or, perhaps he does not give to her at once, only what she needs to adorn herself for one day.

Implied question: According to the amount written in her Kesuvah, i.e. a million gold Dinarim, they should have allotted more, based on the calculation of 10 Zuz for every 100!

Answer: Since she did not need more, they did not allot [more] for her.

Distinction: Above (65a), they did not answer Amen, for her husband was not alive;

Here, he was alive, so they answered Amen. Her husband imposed on Chachamim to allot for her.