Explanation #1 (Rashi): Afterwards, she became Mekudeshes, but did not make Nisu'in.

Support (Rashi, for himself): The Mishnah says "[if property fell] before Nisu'in, and she made Nisu'in, R. Gamliel says 'if she sold or gave, it stands.'

Inference: L'Chatchilah, she may not sell. Rashi infers that "before Nisu'in" connotes even before Eirusin.

Question (Ri): We say in the Gemara that Rav and Shmuel both say that whether the property fell before Eirusin, or after Eirusin and she made Nisu'in, the husband takes from the buyers;

The Gemara asks that this is not like R. Chanina ben Akavya, and not like R. Yehudah.

Question: Why is this unlike R. Chanina ben Akavya, who wants to say that the husband takes from the buyers even if the property fell before Eirusin, and she made Nisu'in?

They refer to [property that fell] before Eirusin, and she made Nisu'in!

Answer: The Gemara understands that "before Nisu'in" does not refer to property that fell before Eirusin.

Explanation: The reason is, "before Nisu'in" connotes that it fell before Nisu'in, and nothing else interrupted in between the property falling and Nisu'in;

Even though now there is no proof from there to Rashi, Rashi can explain like this without a proof.

Implied question: We can infer from there that only [if it fell] before Nisu'in, i.e. after Eirusin, like we explained, but if it fell before Eirusin, and she married, she may sell l'Chatchilah!

Answer: The same applies even if they fell before Eirusin, she may not sell;

It mentioned before Nisu'in, which implies after Eirusin, to teach that even so, if she sold or gave, it takes effect. The Rashba said so.

Citation (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah) Question (R. Tanchum): Why wasn't this taught (in Maseches Eduyos) among matters in which Beis Shamai are lenient and Beis Hillel are stringent?

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Yosef): We taught there only matters that are stringencies in both respects, and lenient from both sides. Here, it is lenient for the woman, and stringent for the husband.

Citation (cont.) Question (R. Tanchum): We taught there (Eduyos 4:3) that Beis Shamai say that "Hefker only for the poor" is Hefker. This is lenient for the poor, and stringent for the owner [who made it Hefker. He loses it!]

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Yosef): It is not stringent for the owner. He willingly made it Hefker!

Question (Ri): It is taught there (4:10) "Beis Shamai say, [if a man forbade relations with his wife through a vow] for two weeks [he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah]." This is lenient for the man, and stringent for the woman. She does not receive a Kesuvah through a vow of one week, like Beis Hillel say!

Answer: [Beis Hillel's opinion] is not a leniency [for her], rather, a stringency. He is commanded to divorce her through a vow of one week. Even if she wants [to be divorced now], perhaps she will retract afterwards [and regret that she was divorced].

Question: If so, also according to Beis Hillel, she can sell l'Chatchilah! Since she is Muchzekes, her Safek is [like] Vadai, and Safek cannot take from Vadai!

This is like we find regarding a Shomeres Yavam who inherited property. A Mishnah there says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that she sells and gives, and it is valid;

The Gemara explains that she inherited when she was an Arusah. Zikah (the bond of a Shomeres Yavam to the Yavam) of one who fell from Eirusin makes [her like a Safek] Arusah;

Since she is Muchzekes, she is [like] Vadai, and the Yavam is Safek, and Safek cannot take from Vadai!

Answer: Here, surely she is destined to make Nisu'in. Everyone who is Mekadesh intends to make Nisu'in. Therefore, l'Chatchilah she may not sell, even though she is Vadai;

There, she is equally destined to do Chalitzah or Yibum. Since she is Vadai, Chachamim said that she may sell l'Chatchilah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Kesav Yado): This refers to the Reisha, which says "before Eirusin, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that she sells and gives and it is valid";

Now we ask if those who said to [R. Gamliel], whether they want to say that l'Chatchilah she may not sell, but b'Di'eved they agree that her sale is valid;

Or, do they want to say that even b'Di'eved, her sale is Batel?

Support: According to this, [Rashi] is correct. His text in that Beraisa we bring is "just like this one, her sale is Batel, also this one, her sale is Batel." [R. Gamliel] said to them 'we are ashamed about the new [property...]';

His text does not say like it says in Seforim, after 'also this one, her sale is Batel', "he said to them 'also this one, she may not sell, but if she sold, her sale is valid.' They said to him 'since he acquired the woman, does he not acquire the property?!' He said to them 'we are ashamed about the new [property...]'

Support: Surely, this is not in the text. How could he say 'also this one, she may not sell'? The Mishnah explicitly says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that she may sell l'Chatchilah! Also, it is not in the Tosefta.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [They asked whether they said to R. Gamliel that] Beis Shamai [should permit her to sell] l'Chatchilah, or [that] Beis Hillel [should say that her sale is valid] b'Di'eved.

Consequence: According to this, there was no need for Rashi to erase the text [that Tosfos cited above]! He deleted it only because it is not written in the Tosefta.

Objection (R. Tam): How can we ask whether those who said to R. Gamliel discuss according to Beis Shamai? In the entire Gemara, we ask "does he come to teach the reason for Beis Shamai?!"

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): We ask whether l'Chatchilah, i.e. it refers to the Reisha, when it fell to her before Eirusin. She may sell l'Chatchilah;

They said "since he acquired her, he should acquire her property, and she should not be able to sell l'Chatchilah, just like when property fell to her after Eirusin.

He responded to them 'we are ashamed about the new', i.e. when it fell to her after Eirusin, which is new property that fell to her immediately, we are ashamed why she may not sell even l'Chatchilah...

Do you come to arouse on us the old [property], that fell to her before Eirusin, that she should not sell it l'Chatchilah?'

Or, perhaps [they address] b'Di'eved, in the Seifa. It fell to her during Eirusin. Beis Hillel says that her sale is valid;

They say that her sale should be Batel, just like when it fell after Nisu'in. He responded to them 'we are ashamed about the new', i.e. on what fell after Nisu'in, which is new property, we are ashamed why her sale is Batel. Do you come to arouse on us the old?!

This does not mean that it is old at the time of the sale, for it fell to her after Eirusin, and she sold during Eirusin. This is new!

Rather, it is old when she married.

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara ask whether they discuss the Reisha or Seifa, and rather, asked if it is l'Chatchilah or b'Di'eved?

Answer (R. Tam): The Gemara is wont to ask with the same expression that it answers at the end, [in this case] "this teaches [that they asked about] b'Di'eved."

It could not have answered "this teaches [that they asked] about the Seifa, for the Beraisa does not mention Reisha or Seifa.

Explanation #3 (cont.): The Gemara brought a proof from a Beraisa that says 'he said to them "also this one may not sell."' I.e. I agree about this one, that she is like his wife, and may not sell l'Chatchilah.

Now, it is a proper answer. Since they said "also this, her sale is Batel." This shows that they refer to the Seifa;

Regarding the Reisha, they would not have said that her sale is Batel.

Also since he responded to them "also this, she may not sell l'Chatchilah" this shows that he refers to the Seifa.

Observation: Also according to Rashi's first Perush, we can resolve the text in Seforim "he said to them 'also this one, she may not sell.'"

It means as follows. Since this is his wife, i.e. it fell to her after Eirusin, and she made Nisu'in, and [also] this is his wife, i.e. when property fell to her before Eirusin, and she became Mekudeshes, just like her (the former's) sale is Batel...

Since it said both of them admit that if she sold or gave, it is valid, when she sold during Eirusin, this implies that they argue about if she sold after Nisu'in, it is Batel, even though it fell to her after Eirusin;

Also this one, her sale should be Batel, [if she inherited property] before Eirusin, and she became Mekudeshes [and sold it]!

[R. Gamliel] said to them also this one, she may not sell. I.e. also this one, who inherited property after Eirusin and made Nisu'in, only l'Chatchilah she may not sell, but b'Di'eved, her sale is valid.

Question (Rashba): R. Gamliel should have responded to them why until Eirusin, she may sell l'Chatchilah!

Explanation: He did not need to answer their question about an Arusah like we said. He had a superior, triumphant answer regarding an Arusah.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): This is Rashi's text. He explains that our Mishnah should say so.

Question #1 (Rivam): He should rather change the text of the Beraisa, rather than the Mishnah!

Question #2: If he would change the text of Beraisa, R. Gamliel would properly hold like Beis Hillel. Now that he changes the text of the Mishnah, R. Gamliel is like Beis Shamai!

According to Beis Hillel, even during Eirusin she may not sell l'Chatchilah.

Question #3: Just like we ask below against Rav Papa, "does R. Chanina ben Akavya hold like Beis Shamai?!", even more we should have asked against Rav Zevid;

According to him, we cannot answer "Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not argue about this", for if R. Chanina ben Akavya and R. Yehudah did not teach the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, who taught it?

Opinion #2: It seems that the text says "teach 'if she sold, it is valid.'" He corrects the text of the Beraisa.

Opinion #3: R. Chananel's text of the Mishnah says "she sells or gives", and the Beraisa says "if she sold or gave." Rav Zevid answers "teach 'if she sold...'";

He changes the text of the Mishnah, due to the Beraisa, so R. Gamliel will not hold like Beis Shamai.

Afterwards, the Gemara challenges Rav Papa, who does not change the text of the Mishnah, "does R. Yehudah hold like Beis Shamai?!" The text does not say "does R. Chanina ben Akavya hold like Beis Shamai?!"

Consequence: According to this text, the Beraisa above does not say "even this one may not sell", for the Mishnah says that she may sell l'Chatchilah. This would be difficult according to Rav Papa, who does not change the text of the Mishnah.

Question: How did we answer that according to R. Yehudah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not argue about this? The Mishnah connotes that R. Yehudah taught the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, for he discusses this!

Explanation: It is not like R. Yehudah's version of those who said in front of him (R. Gamliel), and not like R. Chanina's version of those who said in front of him, for both of them agree that [if she inherited] before Eirusin, and made Nisu'in, her sale is valid;

They argue only about [if she inherited] after Eirusin, and made Nisu'in.

Implied question: Below (83a), it connotes that [if she inherited] before Nisu'in, and made Nisu'in, her sale is Batel!

The Mishnah says "why did he write to her 'I have no claims [to your property'? It is] so if she sold or gave, it is valid."

The Gemara establishes this to be when he wrote to her during Eirusin. If so, we discuss when the property fell to her before Nisu'in, and she made Nisu'in;

Source: It connotes that had he not written 'I have no claims...', her sale would be Batel.

Answer: [The Mishnah there] is like those who said in front of R. Gamliel, for according to R. Gamliel, her sale is valid.

It is unreasonable to say that it is like Raboseinu (in the Beraisa below) who say that they retracted and voted.

Question (R. Yitzchak): Takanas Usha applies even when property fell to her during Eirusin or beforehand, like it connotes in Bava Kama (89b)!

Citation (89b) Contradiction: One Beraisa says that slaves of Nichsei Melug go free if she destroyed a tooth or eye, but not if he did. Another Beraisa says that they go free if he destroyed a tooth or eye, but not if she did!

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: One Tana (the latter) agrees with Takanas Usha, and the other Tana disagrees with it!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: No, all agree with Takanas Usha. [The first Beraisa] is before the enactment...

Question: Why didn't we say that [the first Beraisa] discusses when the slaves fell to her during Eirusin, and [the latter] discusses slaves who fell after Nisu'in?

Answer: This shows that even if property fell to her during Eirusin, Takanas Usha applies.

Answer: Even without saying so, we answered properly. (Maharsha - Tosfos could mean that indeed, Takanas Usha applies to what fell before Eirusin. Here, we could have given a different answer, that our Mishnah does not teach about property that fell before Eirusin. Alternatively, Tosfos could mean that really, Takanas Usha does not apply to what fell before Eirusin. There, we could have given a different answer, that the slaves fell before Eirusin. There is no way to determine Tosfos' intent. Zera Yitzchak says that all the Poskim hold that it applies to what fell before Eirusin, and no one said that Tosfos disagrees. Therefore, we must say like the first way.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She told witnesses that she intends to divert.

Objection (R. Yitzchak): If so, why did Rav Anan and Rava disagree with Rav Nachman? Obviously she did not acquire!

Explanation #2 (R. Yitzchak): She did not say anything. There is a mere Giluy Milsa.

Implied question: This is Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents), which do not take effect!

Answer: Here it is evident that she intended only to divert, for she prefers herself [over her daughter], like we say below. (See Tosfos below 97a.)