Previous daf

1)

(a) The Pasuk "ve'Neder Almanah u'Gerushah ... Yakum Alehah" is superfluous - inasmuch as, seeing as she has no father and no husband to nullify her vows, why would we have thought otherwise?

(b) The Pasuk therefore comes to teach us - that a woman who became a widow (or was divorced) after having been handed over to the Chasan's Sh'luchim without having been under the Chupah, does not return to the domain of her father.

(c)

1. Rav Papa substantiates this D'rashah from the final phrase in the Mishnah in Sanahedrin: 'ha'Ba al Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, Eino Chayav ad she'Tehei Na'arah, Besulah, Me'urasah, *ve'Hi be'Veis Avhihah'*, which can only be coming to preclude such a case (seeing as we already preclude Bogeres, Be'ulah and Nesu'ah from 'Na'arah', 'Besulah' and 'Me'urasah' respectively).
2. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak substantiates it from the Lashon of the Mishnah there: "ha'Ba al Eishes Ish, Keivan *she'Nichnesah li'R'shus ha'Ba'al*, af-al-pi she'Lo Niv'elah, ha'Ba Alehah Harei Zeh be'Chenek' - and not 'she'Nichnesah le'Chupah'.

(a) From the wording of the two Takanos 'ha'Banim Yirshu, ve'ha'Banos Yazunu' (both contained in the Kesuvah) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah Darshened in front of the Chachamim in Yavneh - that the obligation for daughters to be fed from one's property only applies after death, in the same way as sons only inherit after their father's death.

(b) He made this D'rashah - on the day that he was appointed Nasi of the Sanhedrin.

(c) The Sanhedrin is referred to as 'Kerem' - because they sat in rows like trees in a vineyard (a particularly apt Mashal, seeing as the deep understanding of Torah is compared to wine).

(d) The Takanah of 'ha'Banim Yirshu' - refers to 'K'suvas B'nin Dichrin' (that the male sons born to the woman from her husband inherit her K'suvah).

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, it is a Mitzvah (though not an obligation) for a man to feed his daughters during his lifetime, 'Kal va'Chomer' his sons; according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is a Mitzvah to feed his sons, 'Kal va'Chomer' his daughters. It is a 'Kal va'Chomer' to feed ...

1. ... one's sons, according to Rebbi Meir - because they are obligated to study Torah.
2. ... one's daughters, according to Rebbi Yehudah - because it is more degrading for a woman to go begging than it is for a man.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah holds - that it is an obligation for a man's daughters to be fed after his death, but not even a Mitzvah incumbent on him during his lifetime.

(c) We can infer from our Mishnah 'ha'Av Eino *Chayav* bi'Mezonos *Bito* - that he is Chayav to feed his sons during his lifetime, and that even though he is not obligated to feed his daughters then, it is nevertheless a Mitzvah to do so. This does not seem to conform with any of the opinions in the Beraisa.

(a) We reconcile our Mishnah with the opinion of ...

1. ... Rebi Meir - by equating 'son' and 'daughter' in the initial statement ('ha'Av Eino Chayav bi'Mezonos Bito'), from which we can infer that feeding even his daughter is a Mitzvah. Had the Tana mentioned 'son' (rather than 'daughter'), we would have inferred that it is a Mitzvah to feed his sons (who are obligated to study Torah) but not his daughters?
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - (also) by equating 'son' and 'daughter' in the initial statement. Had the Tana mentioned 'son', we would have said that as far as a daughter is concerned, he is even *obligated* to feed her (to avoid her embarrassment).
3. ... Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - (also) by equating 'son' and 'daughter' in the initial statement. Nor is there even a *Mitzvah* to feed them, and the reason theTana uses the Lashon 'Eino Chayav' (rather than 'Ein Mitzvah') is in order to balance with the Seifa, where he says that, after the father's death, there is a Chiyuv.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, the Tana mention specifically 'daughter' - because it his daughter who must be fed after his death, and that is why he says 'Chayav' in the Reisha.

5)

(a) According to Rebbi Ila'a Amar Resh Lakish Mishum Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - the Beis-Din in Usha issued a ruling that a person is obligated to feed one's children.

(b)

1. When they asked Rav Yehudah about feeding one's children - he replied that a serpent leaves its chilren to be fed by others, intimatng that someone who does not feed his children is no better than a serpent.
2. Rav Chisda used to declare - that a man who refused to feed his children is worse that a raven, who (in spite of its cruel nature) feeds its young.

(c) He would instruct them to overturn a mortar and to make the declaration on it. If not the Sh'liach Tzibur (in charge of community affairs) - then it was the man himself who might be the one to stand on the mortar and make the declaration.

(d) By citing Rav Yehudah and Rav Chisda - we prove that the Halachah is like Rebbi Ila'a Amar Resh Lakish Mishum Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina (that a person is obligated to feed one's children).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "li'V'nei Orev Asher Yikra'u" - that ravens do not feed their young.

(b) Rav Yehudah intimated that ravens do feed their young - speaks after they have grown a little and turned black. The Pasuk is speaking about very young ravens, who are pale-colored, as a result of which the parents hate them.

(c) Rava would ask someone who declined to feed his children - whether he would like his children to e fed from Tzedakah.

(a) One even goes so far as to force a man to feed his children - if he is well-off, and can easily afford it.

(b) Rava forced Rav Nasan bar Ami - to give four hundred Zuz for Tzedakah.

(c) This is connected to the previous Halachah - because there too, feeding one's children is no different than giving Tzedakah (even if they would not be his children - and certainly now that the Pasuk in Mishlei writes "u'mi'B'sarchah al Tis'alem" - 'Charity begins at home').

(a) According to Rebbi Ila'a Amar Resh Lakish - Beis-Din instituted in Usha that, if a man wrote out all his property to his son in his lifetime - he and his wife are nevertheless sustained from that property.

(b) Ravin sent in a letter that if a man dies, leaving behind a widow and a married daughter, the widow continues to be fed from his property. This case highly irregular - because the property is mortgaged to his son-in-law, and a widow does not.

(c) Should the married daughter die - Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina's nephew testified that he was involved in precisely such a caase, and the Beis-Din ruled that the widow continues to be fed from his property.

(a) Rebbi Zeira or Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini asks from here on Rebbi Ila'a Amar Resh Lakish - that if the man's widow is fed from his property (in spite of the above-mentioned principle), then how much more so the man himself together with his wife during their lifetime!

(b) Rebbi Ila'a's need to present this case despite Ravin's letter is justified however - because we might have thought that, when he is still alive, let him work and sustain himself and his wife (and it is only his widow who cannot fend for herself, who is fed from his property).

(a) That man kiss Rebbi Yonasan feet - because he forced the man's children to feed him after he had given them all his property.

(b) We prove from there that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Ila'a Amar Resh Lakish - because if it would be, then it would not have been necessary for Rebbi Yonasan to force the sons (which in fact suggests that he was asking them to go beyond the letter of the law).