The Gemara continues that even though she forgives the debt of the Kesuvah,
she will still receive the money that she would have received from the
Kesuvah, since anyway she inherits her father's estate. The buyers of the
Kesuvah will not be entitled to receive anything.
Why does the Gemara say that the buyers came to the *daughter* to collect the
Kesuvah? Obviously, the Kesuvah was not yet in the hands of the daughter --
because it was still a debt that the father owed to her which she had the
ability to forgive and annul, as Rav Nachman suggested to her that she do.
Why, then, did the buyer not go directly to her *father* and demand from him
the money of the Kesuvah?
(a) RASHI (85b, DH Asu) explains that the daughter had already approached her
father to ask him for the Kesuvah. Therefore, the buyers, upon seeing her
approach her father to collect the Kesuvah, went to her to inform her that
the Kesuvah is not hers to collect. They were not actually trying to collect
anything from her.
(b) The ROSH and RITVA say that not only did the girl's mother die, but the
girl's father also died after divorcing his wife. Hence, as heir to her
father's property, the buyers had to approach *her* to claim the Kesuvah.
This also explains why Rav Nachman was so sure that if she forgives the debt
of the Kesuvah, she would still get the money as a Yerushah, and he was not
concerned that the father would use it up or that she would die before her
father; since the father was already dead, she would immediately inherit his
estate.
Why does Rashi not accept this simple explanation? The answer is that the
Gemara in Bava Kama (109a) explains that a person cannot forgive a debt that
he owes to himself. If he owes it to himself, it is considered as though it
has been collected already and there is nothing to forgive! Therefore, if the
girl's father had already died, she cannot forgive the debt of the Kesuvah
that he owes her, because since she inherited his estate, she owes herself
the money of the Kesuvah and there is no debt to speak of that she could
forgive! It is as if she has already collected it, and thus the buyers are
entitled to receive it.
The Rosh and Ritva, on the other hand, maintain that our Sugya teaches that a
person *is* able to forgive a debt owed to himself and it is not considered
to be already collected. They learn that this Sugya disagrees with the Sugya
in Bava Kama regarding whether or not one may forgive a debt that he owes to
himself. (See the RASHBA in Bava Kama there, who explains that even if our
Sugya is discussing a situation where the father already died, it does not
contradict the Sugya in Bava Kama, since the Gemara in Bava Kama that says
one cannot forgive a debt owed to himself is discussing a specific, limited
situation.)
The RAMBAN (81b) points out that Rashi's opinion that one cannot forgive a
debt owed to himself answers a question that Tosfos poses (81b, DH Lo). The
Gemara there says that if a man owes money to his brother, and his brother
dies with no children, making the brother who borrowed money into a Yavam who
must do Yibum with his lender's wife, the Yavam cannot say that "since I
inherit my brother's property through Yibum, I now owe myself money, and the
money belongs to me [and is not Meshubad to the Kesuvah of the Yevamah]."
Rather, the money must remain designated for the collection of the Kesuvah of
the Yevamah.
Tosfos asks why the Yavam cannot simply forgive the debt. Since the living
brother owes his deceased brother money, and the living brother inherits the
property of -- and the debts owed to -- his deceased brother, he should be
able to act on behalf of his brother and annul the debt (since the heir of a
debt can forgive the debt)!
According to Rashi, this question does not begin. Once a person owes money to
himself, it is considered as though he paid it already, and it is too late to
forgive the debt. The money therefore already became Meshubad towards the
payment ofn the Yevamah's Kesuvah.