Reference: I explained this above (27a. One may write Pruzbul on any amount of land, for one can collect the land for part of the debt, sell it back, collect it again... like the episode with the plot of Abaye (Kesuvos 91b), and collect the entire debt.)

Implied question: Land Kol she'Hu is obligated in Pe'ah is truly any amount, like we said above (27a)!

Answer: That is because it is more reasonable [for Pe'ah]. In Kidushin (26a) I elaborated about the laws of Kol she'Hu.

Question: What was the difficulty? Surely [Rav Yosef] argues with Rav above! (Rav requires enough Metaltelim to support himself.)

Answer: He asks "does he argue with Rav about all of these?!"

Question: I do not know the source of the Shi'urim of Rabanan and R. Dosa. (Kovetz Shi'urim asks why this is different than other Shi'urim, which are traditions from Sinai.)

Implied question - Citation (Kelim 5:1 - Mishnah - R. Meir): An oven at the beginning (it is complete) must be four Tefachim (to receive Tum'ah), and a broken oven is Mekabel Tum'ah if four Tefachim remain. Chachamim say, this applies to a big oven. A small oven of any size receives Tum'ah;

And we say (Chulin 124a) how much is Kol she'Hu? It is a Tefach.

Answer: Since [R. Meir] gave a big Shi'ur (four Tefachim, and Chachamim) give a small Shi'ur [they call it Kol she'Hu, just like here].

Explanation: He asks about mid'Rabanan laws, but for Torah laws, it is obvious, for slaves are equated to land, like I explained above (68a) regarding this matter.

Explanation: So Rav Nachman answered Rava, but Rav Ashi would not say so from his own reasoning. (This is why he said "Masninan Lah", i.e. we received that this is how Rav Nachman answered him.)

Support (R. Tam): In Gitin (9a), it asks a contradiction in Rav Nachman, and answers that it is because it is not Krus Gita. This connotes that Rav Nachman himself said so.

Implied question: Why doesn't he count also what was taught above (132a) that if a man wrote all his property to his wife, and a creditor brought a loan document (dated before the gift but after the Kesuvah) against him, R. Eliezer says that she tears up the gift document (and he collects. If and when she needs to collect her Kesuvah, if her husband left no other property, she collects from what the creditor took);

There, he said all his property, and it says there afterwards "she is pleased that there be publicity that he wrote all his property to her"!

Answer #1: There, "all the property" is not precise. He needs only more than her Kesuvah.

Answer #2: [Rav Nachman] does not discuss laws about which there is an argument. (Chachamim argue with R. Eliezer.)

Implied question: There is an argument about a diversion document in Kesuvos (79a), like the Rashbam brought!

Answer: In any case, when she revealed her intent that [she gives] because she marries, all agree, like it says there.

Explanation: He designated them for her Kesuvah, like Ameimar said in Kesuvos (55a), like the Rashbam explained.

Implied question: Above (132b), it says "do you say Metaltelim?! I did not say Metaltelim!" I.e. Metaltelim are not a Shiyur for a Kesuvah.

Answer: Here we discuss Metaltelim that he designated for her Kesuvah, like the Rashbam explained. Those are surely a Shiyur.

Reference: I explained this above (77b DH Rav Papa. It is an enactment mid'Rabanan regarding Harsha'ah, to enable one to make a Shali'ach even for a Harsha'ah of a loan, even though one cannot be Makneh it), and there (77a DH Chozer) I explained also the law of two documents (when one may protest against writing a document).