Previous daf

1)

(a) We have already learned that the Kesuvah of a Besulah is two hundred Zuz, and of an Almanah, one hundred (a Manah). The Tana mentions this in connection with a betrothed woman, even though a betrothed woman does not normally receive a Kesuvah - because he is speaking in a case when the Chasan wrote her one.

(b) Rebbi Nasan then says that whether or not, a woman is obligated to return her Kidushin money or not, depends upon local Minhag. What is strange about Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi's subsequent statement is - the fact that he seems to mimic what Rebbi Nasan just said.

(c) We try to establish the Machlokes - by whether the Kalah can claim 'T'nu Li Ba'ali ve'Esmach Imo' or not.

(d) After amending Rebbi Nasan's statement to pertain specifically to where the Kalah died, Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi - adds that either way, where the Minhag is to return the money, she must return it.

(a) We refute this suggestion however. On the assumption that both Tana'im agree that the woman can say 'T'nu Li Ba'ali ve'Esmach Imo' (like Rav Yosef bar Aba ... Amar Shmuel) they argue - in a case where specifically the Kalah died.

(b) And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Chasan gives the Kidushin money unconditionally (even in the eventuality that the Kalah dies and the money has been wasted [Rebbi]), or only on condition that they eventually marry (Rebbi Nasan).

(c) The Tana's words 'Makom she'Nahagu Lehachzir' - must then pertain to Sivlonos, the trinkets that the Chasan sends the Kalah after the Kidushin (which even Rebbi Nasan concedes, he gives her unconditionally).

(d) And we connect this Machlokes with a Machlokes Tana'im in another Beraisa. In a case where a man betrothed a woman with a Kikar - twenty-five Manah, Rebbi Meir says that if she is a Besulah, she will claim two hundred Zuz for her Kesuvah, and if she is an Almanah, a Manah (over and above the Kidushin-money, which she is not obligated to return).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah rules - that the woman claims her Kusevah out of the Kikar and returns the rest.

(b) The Beraisa cannot be speaking when ...

1. ... the Kalah died - because then she would lose her Kesuvah.
2. ... the Chasan died - because, having just concluded that everyone agrees that she is not then required to return the Kidushin money, why does Rebbi Yehudah say that she is.

(c) The Tana must therefore be speaking about a Kalah who committed adultery. He cannot however, be referring to an Eishes Yisrael who ...

1. ... committed adultery - because then she would lose her Kesuvah (so why do the Tana'im grant her the Kesuvah)?
2. ... was raped - because then, she would be permitted to return to her husband, and there would be no justification to force her to return the Kidushin.

(d) We finally establish the Beraisa by an Eishes Kohen who was raped. The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah is - whether 'Kidushin le'Tivu'in Nitnu' (Rebbi Meir), or not (Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) Rebbi Yossi is cited as a third opinion in the Beraisa. According to him, in a case where her husband betrothed her with ...

1. ... twenty Shekalim (eighty Zuz or Dinrim) - he must now give her thirty half-Shekalim (sixty Zuz).
2. ... thirty Shekalim (a hundred and twenty Zuz) - he must give her twenty half-Shekalim (or forty Zuz).

(b) Assuming that we are speaking about an Almanah, the significance of these amounts is - that they comprise the balance of the Kesuvah of an Almanah after she has returned half the Kidushin money.

(c) Rebbi Yossi's reasoning is - based on his Safek whether 'Kidushin le'Tivu'in Nitnu (like Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi) or not (like Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nasan).

(a) According to the Neherda'i, when Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman said that Bavel is a place where the Minhag is for the Kalah to return the Kidushin money - he was referring to Neherda'a.

(b) As far as the rest of Bavel is concerned, Rabah and Rav Yosef hold 'Mohari Hadri, Kidushi Lo Hadri'. Sivlonos constitutes - the gifts that a Chasan sends the Kalah after the Kidushin, whereas Mohari - comprises the money that he sends her at the time of the Kidushin, with the intention that it is written into the Kesuvah (which is why it is called 'Mohari' [another name for Kesuvah]).

(a) Rav Papa rules that, irrespective of which of them dies, Mohari must be returned, and the same will apply if either of them retracts. The difference between the Chasan retracting and the Kalah is - that in the former case, the Kalah does not need to return the Kidushin-money, whereas in the latter case, she does.

(b) Ameimar disagrees with the final ruling of Rav Papa. In his opinion - the Kalah never returns the Kidushin-money, in case this will cause people to jump to conclusions, assume the Kidushin to be annulled and permit the Chasan to marry the Kalah's sister (in her lifetime).

(c) Rav Ashi argues with Ameimar - on the grounds that the Get precludes such a possibility.

(d) We conclude however, that Rav Ashi is a joke - since there are people who were present when the Kalah returned the Kidushin, but not when the Chasan gave her the Get.

7)

(a) The Beraisa lists five specifications pertaining to Shushbinus. The first three are; that it can be claimed in Beis-Din; that it must be repaid in its time, that it is not subject to Ribis, and the final two - that Shemitah does not negate it (even though it is a loan) and that a Bechor does not take double (as we learned earlier in the Sugya).

(b) It can be claimed in Beis-Din, because it is considered a loan, and a Bechor cannot claim double, because it is Ra'uy, as we already learned. The reason that it is not subject to ...

1. ... Ribis is - because he is under no obligated to pay more, in fact if he wants to, he may pay less, only it is customary, due to the prevalent Simchah, to give generously (sometimes more than the amount that one received).
2. ... cancellation in the Sh'mitah-year - because assuming that the Shushbin only married after the Sh'mitah-year, it was not due to be claimed before that, and whatever is not subject to "Lo Yigos" (due to be claimed before the Shemitah-year), is not subject to be canceled when it terminates.

(a) Rav Kahana presents the rules of Shushbinus (with regard to reciprocation). If Reuven participated in Shimon's wedding, Shimon is obligated to reciprocate as long as he is in town. When Rav Kahana says 'Shama Kal Tivla, Iba'i Leih le'Meisei', he means - that if he hears the sound of the wedding-bells (a Jewish Minhag, believe it or not [to inform people that the wedding was taking place]), he ought to make his way to the wedding-hall to participate, an is therefore obligated reciprocate.

(b) The truth of the matter is - that even if Shimon did not hear the bells ringing, he nevertheless remains obligated to fulfill his Shushbinus (to send gifts), though he does have the right to complain to Reuven for not informing him of the time and date of his wedding.

(c) If he was unaware that Reuven's wedding was taking place, he may deduct - one Zuz from the value of the presents, because a guest normally eats a Zuz-worth at a wedding.

(d) That is the minimum however. He may deduct ...

1. ... as much as half - if the value of the presents amounted to four Zuz (because then, they would serve him more food).
2. ... anything in between - depending on his status and the value of the gifts.

1. ... made a big wedding, and Reuven is now making a small one (perhaps because times are tough) - Shimon is entitled to decline to reciprocate, seeing as Reuven did not arrange a big wedding like he did.
2. ... married a Besulah, and Shimon is now marrying an Almanah - Reuven may decline (because, in both cases, he undertook to reciprocate only because he anticipated the same degree of Simchah as there was at his wedding).
3. ... celebrated a second wedding whilst Reuven is now celebrating his first - he is entitled to decline to reciprocate (though for exactly the opposite reason [because he does not like excessive Simchah]).
4. ... married one woman, and Reuven is now about to marry two (on two different occasions [see Tosfos DH 'Asah']) - he can also decline to attend both weddings and reciprocate twice (even to give him two small presents instead of one big one [because of the extra trouble involved]).

(a) The Beraisa writes 'Atir Nichsin, Atir Pumbi, Zeh Hu Ba'al Agados', by which he means - that by 'Someone who is rich in property and in publicity', Chazal are referring to a Ba'al Agadah (a Darshan), who Darshens everywhere (because his D'rashos do not require much depth), and everyone comes to listen to him.

(b) An 'Atir Sil'in, Atir Taku'a' - is a banker (who makes his fortune by handling coins). The Tana is referring to a Ba'al Pilpul.

(c) Besides comparing such a person to someone who owns much property (like in the Pasuk "ve'Ya'akov Taka Ohalo") - 'Atir Tako'a' might also be a reference to oil (because Tako'a was the name of a place that was rich in oil).

(a) 'Anshei Mashach Atir Kamas' means - 'Men of measure, men of stores' meaning men who own large stores of corn, which is measured and put away in storehouses (and not always put to use, like the ...

(b) ... Ba'al Shemu'os, who has valuable stores of knowledge which he does not always put to use.

(c) When the Tana says 'ha'Kol Tzerichin le'Mari Chitaya', he means - that just like everybody needs the wheat-seller, so too, does everybody need the Ba'al Gemara (without whom one cannot understand the Mishnayos [the source of the oral teachings]).

(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav attributes the Pasuk "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" to the Ba'al Gemara - who has to toil to understand the Mishnah, and "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid" to the Ba'al Mishnah - who has an easy time with his shallow understanding of the Mishnah.

(b) Rava reverses the D'rashos, to conform with Rav Mesharshaya, who explains the Pasuk "Masi'a Avanim Ye'atzev Bahem, Boke'a Eitzim Yisachen Bam", which means - 'One who hews stones is hurt by them, whilst one who chops logs of wood is warmed by them.

(c) According to Rav Mesharshaya ...

1. ... "Masi'a Avanim Ye'atzev Bahem" - refers to the Ba'alei Mishnah ...
2. ... "Boke'a Eitzim Yisachen Bam" - to the Ba'alei Gemara ...

(d) ... because the Ba'alei Gemara understand what they learn and benefit from it, whereas the Ba'alei Mishnah derive no benefit from their half-baked knowledge of the Mishnah.

(a) Rebbi Chanina attributes the Pasuk "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" to someone who has a bad wife, and Rebbi Yochanan, to a finicky person. They then interpret "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid" - to someone with a good wife and someone who is easy-going, who is not perturbed easily, respectively?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan attributes "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" to someone who is excessively merciful, and "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid" to one who is cruel (whom nothing can move). The final explanation of this Pasuk is given by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who attributes "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" - to someone who is short-tempered, and "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid"- to someone who is placid.

(c) In spite of the fact that everyone has food for Shabbos and Yom-Tov (when the Gaba'ei Tzedakah provide the poor with their needs for the week), Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" like Shmuel, who says - 'Shinuy Veses Techilas Choli' ('A change of routine is the beginning of illness').

(d) Shlomoh Hamelech says "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im", implying that at nighttime, they enjoy their rest and forget their suffering. ben Sira however, added - that even at night-time, the poor man suffers, when the water from his low-placed roof collects all the water dropping from everyone else's roofs, and the earth that he carried to his top of the mountain vineyards is blown away.