(Mishnah): If he (a Yisrael) did not write 'if you will be captured, I will redeem you and return you to be my wife', or for a Kohen's wife (he did not write) 'if you will be captured, I will return you to your land', he is obligated, for this is a Tenai Beis Din.

If she is captured, he must redeem her. If he said 'behold, here is her Get and her Kesuvah (I divorce her), let her redeem herself', he is not allowed.

If she gets sick, he must heal her. If he said 'behold, here is her Get and her Kesuvah (I divorce her), let her heal herself', he may.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If a Yevamah was captured, the heirs are not obligated to redeem her.

(R. Chiya bar Ashi citing Rav): This is not only if she was captured in her husband's lifetime. Rather, even if she was captured after her husband died, the heirs are not obligated to redeem her.

Support (for Rav - R. Chiya bar Acha - Mishnah): 'I will return you to be my wife', and she is not his wife.

Question: For a Kohen's wife (it is as if he wrote) 'I will return you to your land.' What is 'to your land' - is it literally to her land?

Answer: [No - it is] to civilization.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Any wound that has a limit (how much it will cost to heal it, a widow) is healed [from the estate, and the amount used to heal her is deducted] from her Kesuvah. If it has no limit, she is healed from the property [that he left over].

This is like the case of a woman who came in front of R. Yochanan. He said to her 'did your doctor fix [how much it will cost to heal you eye]? If he fixed, it is [deducted] from your Kesuvah. [If not, your husband will pay him.]' She said, no (he did not fix an amount).

Question: Didn't R. Chagai say in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, 'do not make yourself like a lawyer' (Avos 1:8) - do not reveal the law to an individual (lest he claim falsely in order to get a favorable verdict)?!

Answer: [R. Yochanan] knew that she is proper (she would not lie).

(Mishnah): [Even] if he did not write to her [in the Kesuvah] 'Your sons from me will inherit the money of your Kesuvah together will their portion with their brothers (from other wives)', he is obligated, for it is a stipulation of Beis Din.

(Gemara): The reason [for the Reisha, i.e. Kesuvas Benin Dichrin] is like R. Ami said, in order that it be common for a man to give generously to his daughter.

(Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Brokah): If one said 'Shimon should inherit me', if Shimon is proper to inherit him, his words are fulfilled. If he said so about someone not proper to inherit him, his words are not fulfilled.

(R. Yochanan): [R. Yochanan] ben Brokah said only about [giving the entire inheritance to] a son among sons, or a daughter among daughters, but a daughter among sons, or a brother [of the Mes] amidst daughters, no (his words are not fulfilled).

(R. Yosah citing R. Yochanan): A case occurred, and Rebbi ruled like R. Yochanan ben Brokah.

Version #1 - Question (R. Ze'ira citing R. Yochanan): Rebbi asked Nasan ha'Bavli 'what is the reason of R. Yochanan ben Brokah?'

Version #2 - Question (R. Ba and R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): Rebbi asked Nasan ha'Bavli 'why did Chachamim say that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Brokah?' (This ends Version #2.)

Answer (Noson ha'Bavli, to Rebbi): Did you (Chachmei Eretz Yisrael) not teach so [in a Stam Mishnah, like R. Yochanan ben Berokah?! 'Sons...] will inherit [your Kesuvah'! According to R. Zeira, he answered that R. Yochanan ben Brokah inferred from our Mishnah of Kesuvas Benin Dichrin that one may alter inheritance.]

Rebuttal (Rebbi): The Mishnah [does not say inherit, rather,] 'they will receive.' (It is even like Chachamim.)

Rebbi came to his father. [His father] told him, him 'you misled Nasan ha'Bavli! It does not say here (in the Mishnah) 'inherit', rather, 'receive.' (Before Rebbi codified the Mishnah, each Chacham had his own version of the Mishnah. Rebbi thought that most Chachmei Eretz Yisrael teach 'receive'; his father corrected him.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): So [Rebbi's father] told him - I erred. I taught to you a mistake. [The primary text] does not say receive, rather, inherit. (It cannot say 'receive', for then it would be collected from Meshubadim. We hold that Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is not collected from Meshubadim!)

(R. Ze'ira): (Even if the text is 'inherit', it is even like Chachamim.) This is a leniency in Tana'im of the Kesuvah. (One can alter inheritance, even though Chachamim hold that normally, one cannot.)

Support #1: Everywhere, a person acquires only through writing, and here, even verbally (even if a Kesuvah was not written, she collects).

Support #2: Everywhere, a person can be Mezakeh (acquire) only for one who is in the world, and here, even for one who is not in the world (sons who will be born will inherit...)

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Ze'ira): I am astounded - how can Rabanan compare Kesuvah to inheritance (to infer from Kesuvas Benin Dichrin whether one can alter inheritance)? They are different! Inheritance is mid'Oraisa, and Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan, and you say so! (We explained this entire Sugya based on DOROS RISHONIM, Sof Yemei ha'Tana'im v'Amora'im Perek 23, with minor changes.)

Strengthening of question: And even if you will say that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa, stipulations of Kesuvah are mid'Rabanan!