Question (Rashi): Why does it say "even"? Dates are better than dried figs, like it says "if one ate dried figs and paid dates, he should be blessed!"

Answer (R. Tam): We do not say "even dates," rather, many crushed [dates] gathered together. They are not so good.

Implied question: Rav Yehudah taught in Bava Basra (36a) that if one consumed Shevi'is or Kil'ayim, this does not make a Chazakah (to be believed after three years to say that he bought it, and lost his document).

The Rashba explained there that he ate forbidden Peros. Therefore, it is not a Chazakah, since he did not eat [the Peros] in the normal way [of owners. The original owner can say this is why he did not bother to protest, since the Machazik did not eat the Peros the way owners do.)

Answer: Since the Gemara did not ask this contradiction, it seems that also there the text says "this is a Chazakah."

Support: It says so in the texts of R. Chananel and R. Gershom.

Question: Here it connotes that wood of Kil'ayim is permitted. Why is this different than straw of Kil'ai ha'Kerem?

It says in Pesachim (26b) that if an oven was heated with Orlah peels or straw of Kil'ai ha'Kerem, if it is new, it must be destroyed. (The first time one lights an oven, this solidifies it.) If it is old, one must let it cool down [before baking in it, lest he benefit from Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem].

Inference: [Straw of Kil'ai ha'Kerem] is forbidden!

Answer: There, it was initially planted [in a situation of Kil'ayim]. Then everything is forbidden;

However, here it was initially already planted [b'Heter, and then it became Kil'ayim], and the Peros increased [after this one part in] 200 [of their previous size], but the wood did not;

We say in Pesachim (25a) and Chulin (116a) that if it was initially already planted [b'Heter], if it increased [one part in] 200, yes (it is forbidden). If it did not increase [one part in] 200, no (the Isur is Batel).

Implied question: Why should we discuss when the Peros increased [one part in] 200, but the wood did not?

Answer: This is normal, that the vines are already big before Kil'ayim was planted.

Question (R. Chananel): Why wasn't this taught, that he swears and receives, with those who swear and receive, in Shevuos (44b)?

Answer (R. Chananel): It lists only cases in which others contradict the one who swears, e.g. a worker (the employer claims that he paid him), one who is suspected to swear falsely (his opponent swears and collects).

Implied question: It lists a grocer based on his ledger (Ploni asked the grocer to pay Ploni's workers. The grocer says that he paid them, and they deny this), even though Ploni does not contradict him! (Ploni does not know whether or not he paid them.)

Answer: In any case, the grocer and the workers contradict each other.

Answer (cont.): However, here there is no contradiction.

Support: This is why we do not list there one who comes to be paid from orphans' property [for they do not contradict him].

Implied question: One who comes to be paid from orphans' property swears and collects even if the orphans contradict him!

Answer: We listed [in Shevuos 44b, among those who swear and receive] only cases in which we must teach that they receive, for one would have thought that even with an oath, they do not receive.

Implied question: There, we say that an employer is distracted with his workers. Letter of the law, the worker should collect without a Shevu'ah [and even so, it was listed]!

[The employer] is like one who says "you lent to me, and I am unsure whether I paid you." He must pay. The oath is merely to appease the employer [lest he suspect that the worker lies]!

Answer: Had the Mishnah not taught [that the worker swears and collects], we would not know that [the employer] is like one who is unsure, and the worker would not collect even with an oath.

Distinction: The cases that are taught with one who comes to be paid from orphans' property (below, 87a), had the Mishnah not taught them, one might have thought that they receive without a Shevu'ah, due to the document. They are not listed there [in Shevu'os].

Support: It says there "they swear and collect." This connotes that it comes to teach that they swear;

Here, it says "they collect only with an oath. This connotes that had the Mishnah not taught them, one might have thought that they receive without a Shevu'ah.

Implied question: The Tana of the Beraisa below (87b) lists one who admits that his document was partially paid, among those who swear and receive [even though the Chidush is that he must swear]!

Answer #1: That Tana does not distinguish [whether the Chidush is that he must swear, or that he receives through an oath].

Answer #2: Alternatively, we can answer like I will explain below (87b DH v'Elu. Since he admits that he is not owed like the document says, it is as if he does not collect due to the document. It is a Chidush that he receives through an oath.)

Implied question: We say in Bava Metzi'a (76a) that if Ploni hired a worker to work on Ploni's property, and he showed him Reuven's property [and the worker worked on it], Ploni owes him his full wage!

Answer: Here, the sharecroppers know that it is the woman's property. They entered with intent that if she will be divorced, and the husband will lose everything, they have no claim against him;

They know that the husband will not refrain from divorcing his wife due to them. They intend to lose with him [if this will occur], since they did not stipulate.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Just like Amora'im argue in Bava Basra (158b) about a house that fell on a man and his wife (we do not know who died first). It says there that the property is in its Chazakah...

One opinion says there that it is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, since he had Acharayus for it;

One opinion says that it is in the Chazakah of her father's heirs, since it was hers;

One opinion says that it is in the Chazakah of both of them, and they divide it.

They argue similarly here.

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): Here, all agree that it is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, since the Yavam was already Muchzak in the property before she died, from the time his brother died;

He (the Yavam) inherits, and she does not receive a Kesuvah at all until she does Chalitzah.

Also Beis Shamai agree to Beis Hillel about this, like it says in Yevamos (38a).

However, when a house fell on him and his wife, the father's heirs are Muchzak in the property just like the husband's heirs. Both of them come to inherit;

Neither made a Chazakah yet. Therefore, they argue there (in Bava Basra) about in whose Chazakah they are.

According to Beis Shamai, they divide all the property, even the Nichsei Tzon Barzel (property whose value was written in the Kesuvah. If she is widowed or divorced, compensation is given in order that she receives back the same amount), for there it says Stam "they divide";

It did not teach "the husband's heirs [divide] with the father's heirs", like it says here, which connotes only the Nichsei Melug, in which like the father's heirs are primary, like we meticulously derive in Yevamos (38b. The words connote that initially the father's heirs were Muchzak, and now the husband's heirs take half.)

Rebuttal #2: Also, if they argue also here, if so, according to the opinion who says that they are in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs, we can ask that if so, Beis Shamai establish the Nichsei Tzon Barzel in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs more than Nichsei Melug!

Regarding Nichsei Melug, they say that they divide, and regarding Nichsei Tzon Barzel, they agree with Beis Hillel that they are in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs.

This is not true! In Yevamos (66a), it connotes that Nichsei Tzon Barzel are more in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs;

It says there that slaves of Tzon Barzel eat Terumah (if the husband is a Kohen), but Melug slaves do not. Also in several places [we find that Tzon Barzel is more in the husband's Chazakah than Nichsei Melug].

Also, according to the opinion who says in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, [Tzon Barzel] is more in the husband's Chazakah than Nichsei Melug. It says that normally are in the Chazakah of the father's heirs.

Implied question: Why didn't we teach Nechasim (Tzon Barzel) together with the Kesuvah?

Answer: This was to give the reason. I.e. they are in the Chazakah of the one whom they belonged to until now, i.e. the husband;

However, there was no need to give a reason for the Kesuvah. It is obviously in the husband's Chazakah more than Tzon Barzel.

Support: We must say this reason there according to the opinion that they are in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs. I elaborated in Yevamos.

Question: According to Rashi, the husband's heirs get only 100 or 200, but not the dowry;

We said above (47b) that burial corresponds to the dowry, since one is not obligated to bury his Arusah!

Answer: A Shomeres Yavam was somewhat proper to receive 100 or 200, like we conclude, that the Yavam is like "someone else" (the Kesuvah is paid when she is permitted to marry someone else);

It is as if she entered a dowry to him. Her Kesuvah was against the property of her husband. She entered that Shibud to him. It is as if she received it, and returned it to him;

She is unlike other Arusos, who do not bring anything to the husband.

Consequence: Based on this, we ask even about a Yevamah who fell from Eirusin.

Implied question: According to Rashi, according to the opinion that [Tzon Barzel] is in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs, it should have said that they inherit also her dowry (Tzon Barzel)!

Answer: The Gemara prefers to discuss even according to the opinion that it is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs.

Question: What was the question? Above, a Beraisa teaches that burial corresponds to Kesuvah, i.e. the dowry, and not Nichsei Melug!

Answer: The Gemara was not precise there to say Kesuvah. [Burial corresponds] also to Nichsei Melug;

However, it is more common that she enters Tzon Barzel than Nichsei Melug. (Therefore, it said that it corresponds to the Kesuvah, i.e. Tzon Barzel.)

And according to Rashi, 100 or 200 here is like the dowry, like I explained.