So what is the difference between this case and the above case of the buyer and seller? The buyer owes money. The seller then forgives the debt and the property of the buyer goes automatically to the seller.
I confess I did not understand Rav Shach's answer to this problem but I did see how he blew all the other proposed solutions out of the water. His seems to revolve on the money owed by the woman is forgiven as opposed to the money owed by the buyer which creates an act of purchase. I can see that the origins of the money owed in the two cases are different.One is in fact a loan. The other is money owed because of goods bought. Still I have a hard time understanding why that would make any difference