Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah say about a Chasan who sent Sivlonos to the tune of a hundred Manah to his future father-in-law's house? When does he have the right to reclaim them, and when not?

(b) Does it make any difference which party died or retracted?

(c) What sort of Sivlonos is the Tana referring to? Under which circumstances does our Mishnah not differentiate between whether the Chasan ate at his future in-law's or not?

(d) In the previous case, is the amount of Sivlonos crucial to the case?

(a) In the basic Halachah, the Reisha refers to the Chasan having eaten a Se'udah worth a Dinar.
Will it make any difference if he ate a little less?

(b) We ask three She'eilos based on the Lashon of our Mishnah '*ve'Achal Sham* Se'udah'.
We ask what the Din will be if the Chasan did not eat, but drank, and if it was his Sheli'ach, and not he, who ate at his future in-law's.
What is the third She'eilah?

(c) We answer with an incident that is cited by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel.
What did the Chasan there send his Kalah?

(d) What did they serve him at the entrance of the house? How did the story end?

(a) What distinction did Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah bring before the Chachamim in Usha, that will determine which of those Sivlonos had to be returned and which did not?

(b) What do we prove from here?

(c) How does Rav Ashi refute the proof from here that ...

1. ... even less than a Dinar's worth will suffice to prevent the Chasan from retracting?
2. ... even if they sent him the Se'udah to his house, he can no longer reclaim the Sivlonos?

(a) What do we mean when we ask whether Sh'vach Sivlonos must be returned together with the Sivlonos or not?

(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah? Why might the Sivlonos be considered to be ...

1. ... in the Chasan's domain?
2. ... the Kalah's domain?

(c) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Rava queries the status of Sivlonos that one would expect to wear out, but that did not.
How do we refute the proof from the Beraisa that we just quoted, where Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah rules 've'she'Ein Asuyin Libalos, Nigvin', which implies even if they did not actually wear out?

(b) How do we try and resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah's concluding statement 'Sivlonos Mu'atin she'Tishtamesh Bahen be'Veis Avihah, Ein Nigvin'? How do we initially establish the Mishnah?

(c) How might we have established the Mishnah, in order to refute the proof?

(d) Having established the Beraisa that way, why do we not establish our Mishnah that way, too?

(a) What does Rava mean when he establishes the Mishnah by 'Bayva u'Sevachta'?

(b) Following a text that we do not have, what She'eilah does Rabeinu Chananel discuss, with regard to our Mishnah, which presents the case of the Kalah's family acquiring Sivlonos worth a hundred Dinar after eating a Se'udah worth a Dinar? What does the Sugya extrapolate from there?

(c) What is the outcome of this She'eilah?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav tells of a man who sent his father-in-law wine, oil and linen garments, all freshly-made on Shavu'os.
What do we mean when we say that the object of the story is to teach us the praise worthiness of Eretz Yisrael?

(b) What else might Rav be coming to teach us?

(c) Why did that man follow his wife into a ruin?

(d) He had hidden in his clothes one of two things. Some say it was a radish.
What do others say?

(a) What did his wife answer when he said to her that he could smell the smell of a radish in Galil?

(b) How will we explain the sequence of his question and her answer, according to those who maintain that he took with him ...

1. ... a radish?
2. ... a large date?

(a) What did Chazal rule (with regard to his inheriting her) when the ruin fell on the poor woman and killed her?

(b) What is the reason for this ruling?

(c) What important Halachah do we learn from here?

(d) How do we know that the couple were married and not just engaged?

10)

(a) If the Chasan retracts, then, as we have already learned, S'tam (where he made no stipulation), the Sivlonos that last 'Sivlonos Merubin') must be returned, but not those that wear out or that one expects to be eaten ('Sivlonos Mu'atin').
In which case must the Kalah return even Sivlonos Mu'atin?

(b) Sivlonos that the Kalah and her family ate are not assessed at their full value, says Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, but 've'Shamin Lahen D'mei Basar be'Zul'.
What does that mean in practical terms?

(c) Why do we do that? What principle is involved here?

(a) What distinction does our Mishnah make between a Shechiv-Mera who writes all his property to others but leaves one field for himself, and one who gives away everything?

(b) Will it make any difference whether he does this in writing or orally?

(c) What is the reason for the ruling in the latter case mentioned in the Mishnah?

(d) Will it make any difference if he made a Kinyan?

(a) In a case where someone's son went overseas, what did the father hear that caused him to write all his property to others?

(b) In the event that the son (who is alive and well) subsequently returns, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa upholds the father's gift.
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya say?

(c) According to Rav Nachman, what does this have to do with our Mishnah?

(d) Another Beraisa discusses someone who is being taken out to be killed, and who asks that they should write his wife a Get.
What does the Tana rule there?

(a) Which dual case did Chazal later incorporate in this Halachah?

(b) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds a third case.
What is it?

(c) Who is the author of our Mishnah, according to Rav Sheishes?

(d) Why does Rav ...

1. ... Nachman not establish Rebbi Shimon Shezuri as the author of our Mishnah?
2. ... Sheishes not establish Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya as the author of our Mishnah?

Next daf