Regarding a general marriage, it was stated later that according to everyone's opinion, if she sold or gave [property], even post facto, the husband can extract [it] from the hands of the buyers. Here, regarding the connection of marriage, which is doubtful and not like an actual marriage, property is maintained in doubt. Therefore, according to Beit Shammai, division is preferable [and according to Beit Hillel, possession is preferable].

The bond of a betrothed woman - the bond of a yevamah that fell from betrothal is a doubtful betrothal and not a certain betrothal. And although regarding property he has no power over them, it is found that the bond of betrothal is nothing, it is called a doubtful betrothal because one cannot say that Ulla considered the bond of betrothal to be nothing since halitza is required.

Beit Hillel concedes such and such - in astonishment. Rather, it is derived from it as a doubtful betrothal, therefore, she may sell initially according to the law.

Making a doubtful married woman - as I explained above, since when definitely married, the husband can extract [property] from the hands of the buyers, here, where she is doubtfully married, the properties are in doubt and for Beit Shammai, division is preferred because she does not have a stronger claim on them than him, his hand is like her hand, and for Beit Hillel, possession is preferred because his hand is not like her hand since they did not fall to her while under the husband.

Rabba said to Ulla - if the reason is because division is preferable, they should divide the very body of the land and after death they should divide in her lifetime and for the fruits, according to Beit Shammai, the yavam divides the fruits together because she is doubtfully married, whereas if definitely married, the husband would take them unwillingly, and according to Beit Hillel, the properties are in her possession and nothing is taken from her because the teachings pick up [the topic of] death at the end, thus it is derived that the reasoning of Beit Shammai initially teaches her possession because she exists.

Rather, Rabba said both in the case where she fell [to yibum] - to yibum when she is married, etc.

She definitely - since her principal [amount] whatever it may be, therefore let's say her possession is established:

Conclusion - since she has died, these come and claim based on inheritance, and the yavam claims based on inheritance. Therefore, for both of them, it is doubtful according to Beit Shammai; if the connection is like marriage, there is nothing here for the heirs of the father because the husband inherits her, and if not like marriage, there is nothing here for the yavam. Therefore, it is doubtful, and it is doubtful, and they should divide. And according to Beit Hillel, since these are certain relatives, and this inheritance has already been established in the possession of their family, we say to uphold her possession, but during her lifetime and for the fruits, even Beit Shammai admits that the properties are in their possession, and the husband does not take anything.

Upon him and his heirs - 33 [ל"ג].

The house has fallen etc. - If he has no assets and the heirs do have assets.

The son died first - and did not acquire the father's assets, and the creditor has nothing to collect.

The father's heirs certainly - are presumed to come by a definite inheritance, such that even if the father dies first, the son’s assets presumably fall to the heirs, whereas the creditor lacks the means to collect until the court establishes their hold on them.

And a creditor of uncertain status - whose document has not been established over them and comes with uncertainty, takes half from the hands of certainty.

As collecting its value - meaning the document's power is great and as it is established in the assets, and behold, they stand in the place of the son and are established in the assets similarly. Therefore, it is a doubt and it remains a doubt, and there is no presumption here more for one than for the other. If the father died first, the creditor is established immediately and we do not say that this lacks a collection means; and if the son died first, the heirs are established.

Their husbands died - Any woman whose husband acquired [property] for her and she became secluded, and he died before she drank [the bitter water], she takes her ketubah even though perhaps she committed adultery and has no [right to a] ketubah.

They do not drink - because we require 'and the man brings his wife' and this is not applicable.

From a certainty - from the heirs of the husband who are certainly established, she extracts this ketubah from doubt:

But - it is not to be said that Beit Shammai considers a document that stands to be collected as if already collected, and since he died the assets immediately stood in the possession of the woman, and the heirs came to exclude her because of doubt of adultery and doubt does not take from certainty. If it were not considered as collected and the reason is because doubt takes from certainty, they would have to say they divide it and equate doubt with certainty, but to benefit her from it, there is no one who says so. Regarding 'the house fell' it is said they divide because even when we say as if collected, we do not find for the creditor to equate with certainty more than the heirs since he was not established in these assets and this document emerges upon him and not upon the father therefore it is doubt and doubt whether if the father died first, it is found the creditor is certain of this document as if collected and the heirs are nothing, and if the son died first, the heirs are found certain and the creditor is nothing.

And Abaye - because he did not initially hold this opinion due to the reason of a document that stands to be collected, as he applied it to Rabah from the case of 'the house that fell' discussed in 'Bava Batra' in the order of 'Yeshu'ot':

not applying it from this - because the teaching is in the order of 'Women' here too doubt extracts from certainty:

and Abaye - therefore did not apply it from the ketubah, as he believed that a ketubah is different because of the favor it is supposed to bring in the eyes of women, making them inclined to marry, therefore he held it from doubt.

And he does not apply it from the ketubah of the teaching - because Beit Shammai say they divide, thinking now that even Beit Shammai in the case of the ketubah say they divide, and her heirs came from doubt and collected half of the ketubah from the brother-in-law who is certain. And there, it is not to say because of favor since there she died, and regarding heirs we do not worry about favor as stated in the case of a widow's maintenance (Ketubot 97b) unless her heirs were female.

They do not disagree - for Beit Shammai concede that she is in the presumptive possession of the husband’s heirs that the ketubah was not given to be collected during [the husband's] lifetime, and anything that she died during the lifetime of the yavam, the heirs of her [estate] do not collect her ketubah as the yavam stands in place of the husband. And even though we have heard from Abaye in Ketubot, chapter 'The Woman' (Daf 81), that the ketubah was given to be collected during the lifetime according to Beit Shammai, these words [apply] to obligate the yavam in her burial, for he inherits the ketubah and not from his brothers, but that the heirs of her [estate] should collect her ketubah, we do not hear from him.

This is also precise, etc. - And the reason is not because the document that stands to be collected is not given for the ketubah to be collected during the husband’s lifetime:

The heirs of the husband along with the heirs of the father - melog property.

Abaye - returns to the first part of the Mishnah, for we heard him answer "what is the difference in the first part that they do not disagree, and what is the difference in the latter part that they disagree," and his answer was not because in the first part she is alive and in the latter part because she is not, for certainly in the latter part also, if she inherited while she was awaiting Yibbum, Beit Shammai would agree that the father's heirs are certain and the property remains in their possession. Rather, the first part deals with her inheriting while she was awaiting Yibbum, therefore she sells initially, and the same applies if she died, her heirs inherit her, as the connection does not help to acquire current assets.

The latter part deals with her inheriting while she was - under her first husband.