Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PROBLEMS THAT MAY INVALIDATE THE SALE

1. If the slave is found to be a thief or gambler - the sale is valid!
2. If the concern is that he is an armed robber, or will be executed by the king - such things are known!

(b) Question: Both according to Ula and Rav Shmuel Bar Yehudah, she does not eat - what difference is there between them?
(c) Answer #1: If the husband accepted her even if she is blemished (blemish is not a concern, feeding siblings is a concern);

1. Answer #2: The father handed her to the messengers of the husband (the only concern is a blemish);
2. Answer #3: Messengers of the father went with her and with messengers of the husband (the only concern is a blemish).

(a) (Mishnah - R. Tarfon): He may give her all Terumah ...
(b) (Abaye): The dispute is by a Bas Kohen married to a Kohen - but all agree that a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen receives half Chulin (regular food).
(c) (Abaye): The dispute is by an engaged girl - but all agree that after Nesu'in, she receives half Chulin (regular food).
(d) A Beraisa supports both these laws.

1. R. Tarfon says, he may give her all Terumah; R. Akiva says, he gives her half Chulin. This applies to a Bas Kohen engaged to a Kohen; but if she is a Bas Yisrael, or fully married, all agree that she receives half Chulin;
2. R. Yehudah Ben Beseira says, she receives 2/3 Terumah, 1/3 Chulin; R. Yehudah says, he gives her all Terumah, and she sells it to buy Chulin; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, whenever he gives Terumah, he gives double the quantity.
3. Question: What is the dispute between R. Yehudah and R. Shimon Ben Gamliel?
4. Answer: How much exertion she will need to sell the Terumah.

(a) (Mishnah): A Yavam does not enable a Yevamah to eat Terumah.

1. "(A Kohen's) monetary acquisition" - but she is the acquisition of his brother.

(b) (Mishnah): If she was engaged 6 months ...
(c) Question: If she does not eat in merit of her husband, we need not hear that she does not eat in merit of the Yavam!
(d) Answer: Correct! The 2nd law of the Mishnah (12 months less 1 day in front of the Yavam) may be learned from the previous law.
(e) (Mishnah): This is the first version of the Mishnah ...
(f) Question: Why is the latter Mishnah more stringent?
(g) Answer (Ula; some say, Rav Shmuel Bar Yehudah): We are concerned, she may have a blemish.

1. We understand, if Ula said this - the first Mishnah was concerned that she may share her Terumah with her siblings; the latter, lest she have a blemish.

2. Question: If Rav Shmuel Bar Yehudah said this, this is the same explanation he gave for the first Mishnah!
3. Answer: They differ, mid'Oraisa we rely on his relatives checking her for blemishes.

i. The 1st Mishnah relies on this, the 2nd does not.

(a) (Mishnah): One who declares his wife's earnings Hekdesh - she may eat what she earns;
(b) R. Meir says, if she makes extra money, it is Hekdesh; R. Yochanan ha'Sandler says it is not.
(c) (Gemara - Rav): A wife can tell her husband, do not feed me, and I will not work for you.

1. He holds, the primary decree was that that she should be fed; he receives her earnings to avoid resentment.
2. If she wants, this arrangement does not apply.

(d) Question (Beraisa): It was enacted that he feed her in return for receiving her earnings.
(e) Answer: Rather, say the enactment was that he receives her earnings in return for feeding her.
(f) Suggestion: Our Mishnah supports Rav - One who declares his wife's earnings Hekdesh - she may eat what she earns.

1. Isn't the case, he offers to feed her (but since she declines, he has no claim to her earnings)?

(g) Rejection: No - he does not offer to feed her.
(h) Question: If so, the law is obvious!

1. Even the opinion that says that one may tell his slave, 'Work for me, and I will not feed you' - this only applies to a Kanani slave, but not to a Jewish slave, by which it says, "As a worker and settler he will be with you".
2. All the more so, one cannot say this to his wife!

(i) Answer: We need to hear the end of the Mishnah - R. Meir says, if she makes extra money, it is Hekdesh; R. Yochanan ha'Sandler says it is not.
(j) Rav Huna argues on Reish Lakish.

1. (Reish Lakish): R. Meir did not say the extra earnings are Hekdesh because he holds one can make Hekdesh something which is not yet in the world;
2. Rather, because he can force her to work, it is as if he said, 'Your hands are sanctified to their Maker'.
3. Question: But he didn't say that!
4. Answer: Since R. Meir holds, a person does not speak in vain, he certainly meant this.

(k) Question: Does R. Meir really hold, a person cannot make Hekdesh something not in the world?

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): A man tells a woman, 'You are betrothed to me after I convert'; or, after you convert; after I am freed; after you are freed; after your husband dies; after your sister (that I am married to) dies; after you do Chalitzah - she is engaged (when the time comes).

(l) Answer: That Beraisa indeed proves, R. Meir says that one may transfer ownership of something not yet in the world - but our Mishnah is no proof.
(m) (Mishnah): R. Meir says, the excess is Hekdesh.
(n) Question: When does it become Hekdesh?
(o) Answer #1 (Rav): After she dies.
(p) Answer #2 (Rav Ada Bar Ahavah): During her lifetime.

1. Question (Rav Papa): What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If he is feeding her and giving her a weekly coin for other needs - why does Rav say it is not Hekdesh during her lifetime?
ii. Suggestion: If he is not feeding her nor paying for other needs - why does Rav Ada say it is Hekdesh during her lifetime?

2. Answer (Rav Papa): Really, he is feeding her, but is not paying for other needs.