Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE RABBINICAL MARRIAGE OF A MINOR

(a) Question: What does Shmuel teach - we already learned this in a Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): A girl that does Mi'un to her husband - she is permitted to his relatives, and he is permitted to hers; she remains permitted to Kehunah;
2. If he gave her a Get - she is forbidden to his relatives, and he is forbidden to hers; she is disqualified from Kehunah.

(b) Answer: Shmuel teaches that if he gives her a Get, she must wait 3 months before remarrying - this was not taught in a Mishnah.
(c) Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue as the following Tana'im.

1. R. Eliezer says, the actions of a minor are void: her husband does not receive objects she finds, nor her earnings, he may not annul her vows, he does not inherit her, he may not become Tamei to engage in her burial (if he is a Kohen);

i. The rule is, she is not as his wife in any respect, except that she must do Mi'un to leave him.

2. R. Yehoshua says, the actions of a minor take effect: her husband receives objects she finds and her earnings, he may annul her vows, he inherits her, he may become Tamei to engage in her burial;

i. The rule is, she is as his wife in all respects, except that she can do Mi'un.

(d) Suggestion: Rav holds as R. Eliezer, and Shmuel as R. Yehoshua.
(e) Rejection: Granted, Shmuel cannot hold as R. Eliezer - but Rav can hold as R. Yehoshua.

1. R. Yehoshua only said that her husband receives from her as if she is his wife - he did not say that she receives anything from him!

(f) (Mishnah): She does not receive remnants (or depreciation of) her property ...
(g) (Rav Kahana): This only applies to Melug property (i.e. for which her husband took no responsibility) - but she does receive from Tzon Barzel (property for which the husband is responsible to compensate her if it decreases in value; if it increases, he keeps the gain).
(h) Question (Rav Papa): On which case was this said?

1. Suggestion: If regarding a girl that does Mi'un - but if the remnants are around, she receives them whether Melug or Tzon Barzel!

i. If the remnants are not around, she receives compensation, whether Melug or Tzon Barzel!

2. Suggestion: If regarding an Ailonis - if the remnants are around, she receives them whether Melug or Tzon Barzel!

i. If the remnants are not around, the law should be the opposite - if for Melug property, which is in her jurisdiction, she receives no compensation - we cannot say, for Tzon Barzel, which is in his jurisdiction, she receives compensation!

(i) Answer: Rather, he deals with a Sheniyah - Chachamim fined her with what she should have received from him; they fined him with what he should have received from her (Rashi; R. Chananel's text says, Chachamim fined him with what is his; they fined her with what is hers).
(j) (Rav Simi Bar Aba): From Rav Kahana, we learn that if she brings clothing in as Tzon Barzel, it is considered principle, and it may not be worn until it wears out!
(k) Objection: But Rav Nachman said, it may be worn!
(l) Resolution: Rav Nachman argues on Rav Kahana.

(a) (Mishnah): They have no Kesuvah ...
(b) (Shmuel): This only applies to the basic Kesuvah (100 or 200), but they do receive additions to the Kesuvah.

1. Support (Beraisa): When Chachamim said that a woman has no Kesuvah, such as a girl that does Mi'un and the accompanying cases, she does not receive 100 or 200, but she receives any addition to the Kesuvah.
2. When Chachamim said she leaves without a Kesuvah, such as one that transgresses Torah law and the accompanying cases, she does not receive any addition, all the more so she doesn't get 100 or 200.
3. A woman that is divorced because of ill repute (adultery) receives the remains of her (Melug) property.

i. This supports Rav Huna, who said, a woman that had adultery does not lose the remains of her (Melug) property.

(c) A Chacham recited a Beraisa in front of Rav Nachman: If she had adultery, she lost the remnants of her property.
(d) (Rav Nachman): If she had adultery, did her property have adultery?! Rather, the text should say, she does not lose the remains of her property.

i. (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah): (The text need not be changed) - the Stam Beraisa is as R. Menachem, but Chachamim say, if she had adultery, she does not lose the remains of her property.

(e) (Mishnah): If he initially married her (aware that she is an Ailonis) ...
(f) (Rav Huna): An Ailonis is sometimes a wife, sometimes not; a widow (that marries a Kohen Gadol) is always a wife.

1. An Ailonis is sometimes a wife, sometimes not - if he knew she was am Ailonis, she is married; if not, she is not married;
2. A widow is always a wife, whether or not he knew she is a widow, she has a Kesuvah.

(g) (Rav Yehudah): Both an Ailonis and a widow are sometimes married, sometimes not.

1. If he recognized her, she has a Kesuvah; if not, she has no Kesuvah.

(h) Question #1 (Beraisa): If he married her understanding that she is a widow, and she is found to be a widow, she has a Kesuvah.

1. We infer, if he married her without this knowledge, she would have no Kesuvah!

(i) Answer: Rather, infer, if he married her understanding that she is not a widow, and she is found to be a widow, she has no Kesuvah.
(j) Question: But if he married her without any understanding - she would have a Kesuvah?

1. Instead of teaching, if he married her understanding that she is a widow, and she is found to be a widow, she has a Kesuvah - rather teach, if he married her without any understanding, she has a Kesuvah!
2. All the more so, we would know that she has a Kesuvah when he married her with this understanding.

(k) Question #2 (Beraisa): If he married her knowing that she is a widow, and she is found to be a widow, she has a Kesuvah; if he married her without any understanding, she has no Kesuvah.

1. This refutes Rav Huna.

(l) The Mishnah caused Rav Huna to err.

1. He understood, since it only distinguishes by an Ailonis (whether he recognized her), and not by a widow, a widow has a Kesuvah, even if he did not know.
2. This is wrong - when the Mishnah said, a widow has a Kesuvah, it means, in the same case as an Ailonis (when he recognized her when he married her).

3) ONE WHO AGREES TO FEED HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER

(a) (Mishnah): A man married a woman and agreed to feed her daughter for 5 years - he must feed her for 5 years. If his wife married someone else (after he divorced her) and made the same arrangement with the new husband, he must still feed her.

1. He cannot say, I will only feed her as long as her mother is married to me - rather, he sends food to where her mother is.
2. Similarly, the 2 men cannot say, we will feed her together - rather, one feeds her, and the other pays her the monetary equivalent.

(b) If the daughter got married, her husband feeds her, and her stepfathers pay her the monetary equivalent.
(c) If the stepfathers die, their own daughters are fed from unsold property; the stepdaughter is fed even from property sold (after they accepted to feed her), because she is as a creditor.
(d) Clever men would write, 'I will feed your daughter the whole time you are married to me.'
(e) (Gemara): Reuven tells Shimon, 'I owe you 100' - R. Yochanan says, he must pay; Reish Lakish says, he need not.
(f) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If Reuven said, 'You should be witnesses against me' - why would Reish Lakish say that he need not pay?
2. Suggestion: If Reuven did not say, 'You should be witnesses against me' - why would R. Yochanan say that he must pay?

(g) Answer: He did not say this - rather, he said, I owe you 100 in a document (and handed him an unsigned document).

1. R. Yochanan says, the matter of a document is potent, as if he said, you are witnesses against me.
2. Reish Lakish says, the matter of a document is not potent.

(h) (Mishnah): A man married a woman and agreed to feed her daughter for 5 years - he must feed her for 5 years.

1. Suggestion: The case is as above (he gave her an unsigned document).