Explanation: Shmuel said that she keeps any lost object she finds even if she is being supported. Being that the orphans can stop giving her food whenever they want they are not like a husband (who would keep anything she found), even though they do receive her Masei Yadayim.

However, if the Mishnah states "Nizones" like the Anshei Galil, but the Anshei Yehudah would hold that her Masei Yadayim belong to her, it would be difficult to understand Shmuel. This that Shmuel said that a widow keeps any lost objects she finds must mean according to the Anshei Galil.

According to the Anshei Yehudah, Shmuel should have just said that she keeps her Masei Yadayim, and we would certainly know that she keeps any of her lost objects!

Question: Once we know Shmuel's statement is according to the Anshei Galil, why does she keep her lost objects? The orphans should keep it, as they are in place of the husband and she should have to give lost objects to them!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that when Shmuel discusses a widow, he is referring to the widow discussed in our Mishnah.

This is not solely because the Gemara's proof that "ha'Nizones" is the correct text does not work out well if Shmuel is not addressing the Mishnah. This conclusion is supported by Tosfos' earlier proof (95b, DH "Nizones") that Shmuel must have made this statement only according to the Anshei Yehudah. According to them Shmuel stated that the widow keeps any lost objects, but her Masei Yadayim go the orphans.

The main reason (that Shmuel must be addressing the Mishnah and is not getting involved in the argument between the Anshei Galil and Anshei Yehudah) is so that Shmuel should not contradict himself, as he himself holds like the Anshei Galil (54a).

Question: This that Rashi explains that if the Mishnah states "ha'Nizones" it is understandable, as Shmuel would be talking about a case where she is not being supported, is difficult.

If the case is where she is not being supported, it is obvious that she keeps any lost objects that she finds.

Additionally, Shmuel should have stated she keeps her Masei Yadayim, and we would know that she certainly keeps her lost objects that she finds. This would be like the extra monies that she earns through extra effort that she certainly keeps, as is apparent from the Gemara earlier (66a).

Furthermore, if the Mishnah's text would read "ha'Nizones" we would say Shmuel must be talking about a case where she is not being supported (according to Rashi), for example in a case where the inheritors already received their Kesuvah.

Therefore, we should similarly say that if the Mishnah's text is "Nizones" and according to the opinion of the Anshei Galil, we can say that Shmuel is discussing a case where she claimed her Kesuvah in Beis Din or sold it so that she is not supported. Such a woman would be able to keep any lost objects that she finds even according to the Anshei Galil.

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (28b) quoted a Beraisa that said that if a slave put on Tefilin in front of his master we do not assume he has been freed. [Therefore this does not seem to be an assurance that people will not think the student is a slave.]

Answer: However, a slave does not usually have Tefilin on all the time.

Rivan's Opinion: The Rivan explains that the seizure mentioned here is after the husband has died.

Question: Why should her seizure for the purpose of her food be more valid than a seizure for collecting her Kesuvah?

Answer: This is because she cannot seize other properties for her food, while she can seize properties (that her Kesuvah has a lien on) to collect her Kesuvah.

Question: This should mean that someone who purchases a field without Achrayus should be able to seize a field that essentially does not belong to him after the death of the seller. [The Maharsha explains that this question is according to the opinion that the buyer can get his money back from the seller in the seller's lifetime.]

Similarly, it is difficult to say that a buyer with Achrayus whose field was seized by a creditor of the seller, along with the improvements made by the buyer, should be able to seize his field back from the creditor.

It is understandable that one cannot ask a question from a case of a loan that was not documented that even though such a person has no lien enabling him to seize the borrower's sold fields, he still cannot seize property. This is because he can still demand payment of the loan when the borrower is alive.

However, for a purchaser who has no lien on anyone's field and cannot bring the seller to Beis Din as he is no longer alive, why shouldn't seizing movable objects be valid, just as it is valid for the widow mentioned in our Gemara?

Answer: Tosfos answers that specifically in a case where the widow needs food that cannot be collected from property (via a lien) and it is a condition set by Beis Din (that a widow receives food support) did the Rabbanan state that her seizure is valid. Rebbi admitted that this approach is correct.

Question: Whose opinion does this Beraisa follow? If it follows Rebbi, she should be able to get this money through Beis Din without having to resort to seizure. Rebbi stated earlier (51a) that both possessions that normally have Achrayus and those without Achrayus (including movable objects) are used to pay for the food of a widow and the food of the deceased's daughters.

If our Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, why should it make a difference if she seizes these movable objects? Rebbi Shimon states that possessions that do not have Achrayus are taken for the sons from the daughters.

Answer: Rebbi says that this Beraisa is authored by Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar meant specifically that such movable objects can be taken from the daughters to give to the sons, but not from the wife to give to the sons.

Mar bar Rav Ashi later asks why is (seizure of movable objects for a) Kesuvah different than (for) food support, and he wants to answer that the same is indeed true for Kesuvah.

This is not because he really holds this is true. He would not argue on Rebbi Akiva who says that seizure does not help after the husband dies.

Mar bar Rav Ashi is merely saying that the Beraisa that says that seizure helps for her food after her husband dies must be according to Rebbi Tarfon, who says that whatever she seizes (even after her husband dies) is a valid seizure.

Being that Rebbi Tarfon authored the statement that seizure helps for her food after her husband died, it must be that Rebbi Tarfon also holds that seizure helps for her Kesuvah after her husband dies.

Rach's Opinion: The Rach and the Halachos Gedolos explain that our Gemara is talking about a case where the seizure is done when the husband is still alive.

It specifically works for food that she needs when he is alive. It does not work for a Kesuvah for the simple reason that a Kesuvah is not collected when a husband is alive (and she is still married to him).

Halachos Gedolos' Ruling: The Halachos Gedolos indeed rules like Ravina.

Question: This is difficult, as in the Teshuvos Ha'Gaonim it is ruled that the Halachah always follows Mar bar Rav Ashi besides for the cases where a vow is turned around by the defendant (see Shevuos 41a) and regarding a document of admitting owing money (see Sanhedrin 29a).

The Rach and Aruch also ruled that the Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi besides for a case where a vow is turned around by the defendant and regarding the whiteness of Tzomes ha'Gidin (see Chulin 76b). The Rach even wrote that a mnemonic device to remember this is the Pasuk "it all turned (vow) white (Tzomes ha'Gidin) it is pure (we rule like Mar bar Rav Ashi in all other cases)."

This is still difficult, even though the Rivan wrote that he saw in the Teshuvas ha'Gaonim that the Halachah is unlike Mar bar Rav Ashi besides for a turned around vow and a document of admitting owing money.

However, it seems that the Halachos Gedolos himself rules like those who ruled that the Halachah is only unlike Mar bar Rav Ashi in a turned around oath and a document of admitting owing money.

Answer: It must be that Mar bar Rav Ashi's opinion here is only said in an attacking manner, and is not his actual opinion.

Rach's Ruling: The Rach, however, does rule like Mar bar Rav Ashi here. I have talked about this at length earlier (84b, DH "v'Hu she'Tafas").

Explanation: Rebbi explains that the Gemara is discussing the food support for the past year. It seems apparent that since the widow was quiet until now the orphans are telling the truth (that they already paid).

However, regarding future food support it is certainly upon the orphans to bring proof that they already paid her. Rebbi Yochanan himself says in Bava Metzia (17a) that someone who claims that he has paid an obligation that he is obligated to pay due to a stipulation of Beis Din has not said anything (he must bring witnesses to this effect).

Even according to someone who would argue with this statement of Rebbi Yochanan (in Bava Metzia ibid.), he would have to admit that orphans are not believed to say they paid food support. If they would be believed, what would the Chachamim have gained with their decree that a widow should receive food support (as long as she has not yet received her Kesuvah)? The orphans will always claim they paid!

This is like a Kesuvah in a place where the custom is not to write a Kesuvah. Everyone agrees that a husband cannot just claim that he paid (without bringing witnesses) because of the reasoning above (there would be no point, as every husband could always get out of his obligation by making this claim).

Question: Why shouldn't we consider possessions to normally be in the possession of a creditor? Why are orphans normally believed to say that they paid an oral (undocumented) loan? [The Pnei Yehoshua explains Tosfos' question in the following manner. Why does our Gemara entertain the possibility that the widow, who is essentially like a creditor, should be considered as having the monies in her possession when a creditor of an oral loan is not considered to be in possession?]

One might suggest that the monies should be considered in the possession of the widow as she can sell possessions of the estate for her food without consulting Beis Din.

If so, according to Rav and Shmuel who presumably do not hold of Rebbi Yochanan's law (see Tosfos 96a DH "Yesomim") that anyone who claims that they paid a condition obligated upon them by Beis Din is not believed, there is a difficulty. If she loses her Kesuvah, the orphans should not be believed to say they paid the Kesuvah!

Being that she can sell from the estate to collect her Kesuvah without consulting Beis Din, the possessions are deemed to be in her possession.

One might say that even though the possessions are deemed to be in her possession, orphans are still believed to say they paid a Kesuvah that she really lost. The reasoning would be that the Kesuvah has no reason to be extant according to the orphans, as it was torn up when they paid the widow. Even so, if there were witnesses that the Kesuvah was burned in a fire we should still say that the orphans would not be believed (as she can sell possessions from the estate).

First Answer: It is possible that in fact this is true. [If there were witnesses that the Kesuvah was burned in a fire we would indeed say that the orphans would not be believed (as she can sell possessions from the estate).]

Second Answer: Alternatively, possession regarding food support is different than regarding Kesuvah. When a Kesuvah is paid, the widow has no more claim on the estate. However, she continuously can claim food support until she demands that her Kesuvah should be paid. This is why the possessions are deemed to be in the hands of the orphans more regarding Kesuvah than by food support.

Implied Question: This is unlike the Gemara in Bava Metzia (110a) where orphans claim that they improved a field, and their father's creditor claims that their father improved the field.

The Gemara there concludes that since the land is supposed to be collected (for the creditor's debt) it is as if it was already collected.

Answer: The case there is where the orphans agree that this land was specifically designated by their father as the field that served as a security for this person's loan. This is why the Gemara concludes that it is as if the land was already collected.

A proof that this is indeed the details of the case is that the Gemara (ibid.) quotes another case where when it is unclear who was first, the tree owner must cut down the tree and the other party does not have to pay. This is because the tree is going to be cut down in any event, so it is as if it is already cut down (and money therefore does not have to be paid, see Bava Basra 24b at length).

In that case as well the tree owner admits that he has to cut down the tree. He merely wants to be compensated. If so, the case it is compared to (regarding the creditor and the orphans) must also be talking about a similar scenario (where the orphans admit that this specific land was supposed to serve as security for the creditor).

Explanation: Being that we only find that she must bring proof when she is married, we see that if she received her Kesuvah or she demands her Kesuvah in Beis Din the burden of proof is on the orphans even (see Maharsha that "even" is inaccurate) regarding prior food support.

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi explained Rebbi Yosi's statement "and so her strength is good" in the following manner. When the orphan's possessions are used up, she should now make a reckoning of those who bought from her whatever she sold for food support (so she can now seize it from them based on her Kesuvah).

Question: This does not seem correct to Rebbi. The Gemara later says an alternate answer that everyone holds the possessions are in the possession of the orphans, and Rebbi Yosi's reasoning follows Abaye. This implies that until now Rebbi Yosi never thought of this line of reasoning.

Question: Rebbi understands that Rebbi Yosi's statement regarding her strength is referring to the fact that since she sells without necessarily stating what she is selling for, she benefits by being able to say that she sold for food support.

The orphans cannot tell her that her delay caused her to lose food support like they could have told her if she specifically wrote that she sold certain items for food support and certain items for her Kesuvah. They then would be able to tell her that the rest of the food support she must have forfeited.

However, the Gemara as of yet did not think that this would affect her being able to take the possessions back from buyers. This was only thought of later when the Gemara concluded that everyone holds that the possessions are in the possession of the orphans.

Then it was no longer possible to apply the logic of "her strength is good," as she is not believed to say to the orphans that she sold everything for food support as the possessions are in the possession of the orphans.

Question: What kind of strength is it that she can claim that she sold everything for food support and therefore did not lose her Kesuvah? Isn't this a painful lie as she also sold for her Kesuvah?

Answer: [We can answer this question with another question.] Why is it that if she waits two or three years without claiming her food support that she loses the right to food support? It must be that because she has not claimed it, she has forfeited her right.

However, here we cannot say this. It is possible that she simply did not claim food support because she can say that she indeed was selling possessions from the estate for food support.

Even according to Rashi it is not deceptive to say to the buyers that she sold everything for food support. She indeed would have had a right to claim food support from property on which she had a lien, if it were not for the fact that her support is not a set amount, as is stated in Gitin.

The buyers should therefore always be wary to leave the estate with an amount of property that covers the value of her Kesuvah even if she sold her Kesuvah, being that she could always claim that the estate's sales went towards her food support.

Question: Can't the buyers claim that they left her something to collect (and she therefore has no right to seize their property)?

Answer: This is like a case where something goes wrong with the supposed lien free property, where the ruling is that one is allowed to collect from property with a lien as we stated previously (95a).

Implied Question: It is impossible to say here that she ruined herself (and therefore should not be entitled to receive from the buyers, see 95a where this logic is applied).

First Answer: She sold what she sold in order to get food support.

Second Answer: Alternatively, it could be talking about buyers who bought from her after she sold her Kesuvah.

Question: According to the reasoning that was explained earlier, that the reason that orphans should be believed is that she was quiet and did not claim her food support, there is a difficulty from our Gemara.

In our Gemara, why should she have to bring a proof? The aforementioned reasoning does not apply here, as she can claim she did not say anything previously because she had sold possessions to pay for her food support.

Answer: The reasoning of the previous Gemara where she must bring proof is because it is not possible to say that the sages did not help with their institution of food support if the orphans can push away the claim by saying that they paid. This is because she can always claim future food support.

Here, too, she can write that she sold some possessions for food support and some for her Kesuvah.

Question: What did we think originally that made us unable to answer Rebbi Yochanan's question from this Mishnah?

Answer: It seems to me that the Gemara always thought that the Mishnah was only giving good advice to the widow (and therefore did not answer the question from the Mishnah). However, the Beraisa did not seem to be merely suggesting good advice but rather halachic advice, just as Rebbi Yosi's opinion in the Beraisa that "her strength is good" was halachic advice.

Explanation: This means that he can take money because he is a creditor and take additional money as a present. The point is to say that if he wants he can take the money coming to him as a creditor from possessions that are free of any lien, and he would then be unable to collect the present from possessions that already have a lien.

This is why it says "if he takes it as a present his strength is not as good." If he takes the present money from lien free property he can also take as a creditor from property with a lien. This explanation is also implied by Rashi (unlike the simple explanation one would assume from our Gemara, that he can take the two hundred zuz either as a present or as a debt).

Question: Rebbi has difficulty with this explanation. At the end of Bava Basra (138b), the Gemara quotes a Beraisa that states the following. If a person on his deathbed says "you should give two hundred zuz to ploni (someone) who is my creditor as is deserving for him," he (ploni) takes both the present and what he is owed.

The Gemara there asks, just because the man added "as is deserving for him" he should receive both these monies as a present and whatever he is owed? Perhaps the sick man was just saying "as is deserving for him" regarding the amount that he owed him as a creditor? The Gemara answers that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Akiva, who deduces from additional terminology that something significant was meant.

This implies (unlike the explanation of our Gemara suggested above) that if the person would have just stated "give two hundred zuz to ploni my creditor" and he would not say "as is deserving for him" he would not receive both a present and money that is owed to him.

Answer: It seems that if the text there would read "to my creditor" (instead of "to ploni my creditor") we could reconcile these two explanations. Certainly when one does not say "to ploni" but rather says "to my creditor" it implies that his debt should be paid to him if he would not add "as is deserving to him."

Some Sefarim indeed have this text, and do not have the statement "to ploni." However, where it says "to ploni my creditor" it is obvious from the terminology that he is giving a present. This is dependent on logic.