Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A WIDOW'S RIGHT TO FOOD

(a) Is it not better to take the money as a gift?
(b) Question: How much does a widow sell at one time for food?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): For 12 months at a time; the buyer gives her money for a month's food at a time
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): For 6 months at a time; the buyer gives her money for a month's food at a time.
(e) A Beraisa supports Rav Huna.

1. (Beraisa): She sells for 12 months at a time; the buyer gives her money for a month's food at a time

(f) A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa): She sells for 6 months at a time; the buyer gives her money for a month's food at a time.

(g) (Ameimar): The law is, she sells for 6 months at a time; the buyer gives her money for a month's food at a time.
(h) Question (Rav Ashi): This is against Rav Huna!
(i) Ameimar: I do not hold as Rav Huna.
(j) Question: A widow that sold land for food - can she take the land to collect her Kesuvah?

1. This question hinges on Rav Yosef's law.
2. (Rav Yosef): A widow that sells land, compensation for it (if it is taken) is the responsibility of the orphans; the same is true when Beis Din sells the orphans' land.

i. Do we say, since the responsibility is on the orphans, she can take the land?
ii. Or - granted, she is not responsible if others take the land - but she is responsibility if she herself takes it!

(k) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): She sells land (for food), and leaves over enough to rely on to collect her Kesuvah.

1. We see, she must leave over land - she cannot take what she sold for food.

(l) Rejection: Perhaps she can take it, just the Beraisa counsels her not to, so people will not call her a wavering person.
(m) Objection: If so, let it say, she collects from the rest - why does it say, she relies on the rest?

1. We learn, if she did not leave over, she cannot collect from what she sold.

(a) Question: A man sold land because he needed money, then found that he did not need the money. May he retract the sale?
(b) Answer: A man sold land to Rav Papa, because he needed to by oxen. In the end, he did not need the oxen; Rav Papa returned the land to him.
(c) Rejection: This is no proof - we can say, Rav Papa was not required to do so, he went beyond the letter of the law.
(d) Answer: There was an inflation in Nehardai; everyone sold their houses. In the end, wheat came.

1. (Rav Nachman): The law is, everyone gets his house back.

(e) Rejection: There, the sale was a mistake - a ship with wheat had already come.

1. This would explain Rami Bar Shmuel's objection (Rashi; Tosfos - if so, how can we understand Rami Bar Shmuel?)
2. Rami Bar Shmuel (to Rav Nachman): Your ruling will prevent people from buying in the future!
3. Rav Nachman: Are famines everyday occurrences?
4. Rami Bar Shmuel: In Nehardai, yes!

(f) The law is, one who sold and in the end did not need the money, he may retract the sale.

(a) (Mishnah): A widow, whether from engagement or Nesu'in, may sell outside of Beis Din; R. Shimon says, from Nesu'in, she may sell outside of Beis Din; from engagement, she must sell in Beis Din;

1. This is because from engagement, she is not fed, and anyone that is not fed must sell in Beis Din.

(b) (Gemara): We understand, a widow from Nesu'in may sell outside of Beis Din for food.

(c) Question: Why do Chachamim permit a widow from engagement to sell outside Beis Din?
(d) Answer #1 (Ula): To encourage marriage.
(e) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): A man does not want his wife to be disgraced by having to go to Beis Din.
(f) The difference between these answers is a divorcee.

1. If we want to encourage marriage - we should be lenient by a divorcee as well.
2. If the husband wanted that his wife should not be disgraced - he is only concerned for his widow, not a woman he divorced.

(g) (Mishnah): A divorced woman must sell in Beis Din.
(h) This fits well according to the opinion that the husband wanted that his wife should not be disgraced - he is not concerned for a woman he divorced.

1. Question: According to the opinion that we want to encourage marriage - we should be lenient by a divorcee as well!
2. Answer: That Mishnah is as R. Shimon.
3. Objection: But R. Shimon already taught that a widow from engagement must sell in Beis Din (and the same applies to a divorcee)!
4. Answer: One might have thought, there is more need to encourage marriage by a divorced woman, and she may sell outside of Beis Din - we hear, this is not so.
5. Objection: But R. Shimon already taught that a widow must sell in Beis Din - he said, 'Anyone that is not fed must sell in Beis Din'!

i. Suggestion: Doesn't this come to include a divorcee?

6. Answer: No, it comes to include a woman that is doubtfully divorced (Tosfos - we learn that she receives food in her husband's lifetime, and may sell outside of Beis Din; Rashi - we learn that a woman doubtfully divorced from engagement does not receive food after her husband dies).

i. (R. Zeira): Wherever Chachamim said, 'She is divorced and not divorced', the husband must feed her.

(i) (Beraisa): Just as she sells outside of Beis Din, also her heirs, that inherit her Kesuvah may sell outside of Beis Din.
(j) This fits well according to the opinion that the husband wanted that his wife should not be disgraced - he is also concerned for her heirs.

1. Question: According to the opinion that we want to encourage marriage - we need not be lenient by her heirs!
2. Answer (Ula): The case is, her daughter or sister inherited her.

(a) Mishnah: If she sold her Kesuvah, or part of it; if she gave her Kesuvah as collateral, or part of it; if she gave her Kesuvah as a gift, or part of it - she must sell the rest in Beis Din;
(b) Chachamim say, she may sell even 4 or 5 times, and she may sell outside of Beis Din for food, and she writes, 'I sold this for food'.
(c) A divorced woman must sell in Beis Din.
(d) (Gemara): The Mishnah is as R. Shimon.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): If she sold her (entire) Kesuvah, or gave her Kesuvah as collateral, or designated her Kesuvah to repay a loan - she is not fed;
2. R. Shimon says, even if she only sold or gave as collateral half her Kesuvah, she forfeits being fed.

(e) Objection: This implies, R. Shimon does not say that being owed some of the money is as being owed the entire money (of the Kesuvah), and Chachamim say that it is as being owed the entire amount!

1. But they hold the opposite!
2. (Beraisa - R. Meir): "(A Kohen Gadol) will marry a woman Bivsuleha (with her signs of virginity)" - this excludes a Bogeres, whose tokens of virginity fell out;
3. R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit a Bogeres.

(f) Answer: There, they argue in how to expound the verse.

1. R. Meir holds, "Virgin" implies, even having some tokens of virginity; "Her tokens of virginity" - this connotes, they are all intact; "With her signs of virginity" - the concern is only regarding the place of normal relations, not abnormal relations.
2. R. Elazar and R. Shimon hold, "Virgin" implies having all of virginity; "Her tokens of virginity" - this connotes, even having some of them;