Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Papa married off his son to the daughter of Aba Sura'a. She was already his sister-in-law, because he too, was married to a daughter of Aba Sura'a.

(b) Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar was hesitant to accompany him when he went to negotiate the Kesuvah, on the basis of a statement made by Shmuel, who instructed Rav Yehudah - not to join the ranks of those who transfer the inheritance even from a bad son to a good one, and certainly not from a son to a daughter. And that is what he suspected that he was about to do.

(c) He continued to decline even after Rav Papa assured him that ...

1. ... based on the previous Sugya, it was perfectly legitimate to write a dowry for his daughter - because, he said, that was only if the father did so willingly, but not if it meant forcing him.
2. ... he did not intend to force his father-in-law to give his daughter a dowry - on the grounds that his very presence would serve to twist Aba Sura'as arm.

(d) Rav Papa convinced him to go with him under protest. He tried to avoid his fears from materializing - by remaining silent.

(a) Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar's fears turned out to be justified however - when, Aba Sura'a, misconstruing his silence for anger at his not having given his daughter a sufficiently large dowry, gave her just about everything he owned.

(b) When Aba Sura'a saw that he remained silent - he commented that if he gave her any more, he would have nothing with which to live!

(c) When, after Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar had explained the reason for his silences, Aba Sura'a offered to retract - he concluded that he had not intended to make such a suggestion (because a person should keep to his word).

(a) Rav Yeimar Saba asked Rav Nachman whether the Takanah of K'suvas B'nin Dichrin would apply to a woman who sold her Kesuvah to her husband. Perhaps it should not apply - because the Din of inheritance that pertains to K'suvas B'nin Dichrin has been removed (and it now comes entirely from the husband, and not from the wife).

(b) When Rava asked him why he did not ask from the more common case of a woman who was Mochel (forewent) her K'suvah - he replied that now that he had doubts about a woman who *sold* her Kesuvah to her husband and who might have done so because she needed the money (and was therefore an O'nes), it was obvious that the same doubt would apply in the case of a woman who was Mochel her K'suvah (where there is no money involved).

(a) Rava maintains that a woman who ...

1. ... sold her K'suvah to others (for a cheap price on the understanding that they will only receive it should her husband divorce her or die before her) - certainly *does not lose her right to K'suvas B'nin Dichrin* (because she is considered an A'nus).
2. ... was Mochel her K'suvah to her husband - certainly *does* (because she is not an A'nus).

(b) Rava then asks whether a woman who sold her Kesuvah to her husband - is comparable to the woman who sold it to someone else or to the woman who was Mochel her K'suvah to her husband, which is worse than selling it to someone else, seeing as he already has the money (and it is similar to being Mochel him).

(c) Rava resolves his own She'eilah - by comparing a woman who sold her Kesuvah to her husband to one who sold it to someone else (in which case she does not lose her rights over 'K'suvas B'nin Dichrin').

(a) The Mishnah in Yevamos says - that if a woman who married a second husband on the basis of the testimony of one witness, died after the return of her first husband, neither her heirs from her first husband nor those from her second husband inherit her Kesuvah.

(b) 'Kesuvah' cannot be understood literally there - because the Tana has already taught us that she does not receive her Kesuvah. Consequently - it must be referring to K'suvas B'nin Dichrin.

(c) Rav Idi bar Avin asks from there on Rava - that, seeing as Rava has just stated that her need for money renders her an A'nus, in which case her sons inherit her K'suvas B'nin Dichrin, why do we not also consider her marriage to the second man an A'nus, caused by the natural urge that a woman has to be married?

(d) We answer - that the Mishnah in Yevamos is different, seeing as Chazal there penalized the woman for not ensuring that her husband was dead before remarrying (irrespective of the aspect of A'nus attached to the case).

(a) Ravin bar Chin'na mi'Shmei de'Rebbi Elazar taught in front of Rav Chisda that a woman who is Mochel her husband from paying her Kesuvah - loses her right to Mezonos when she becomes a widow, because T'nai Kesuvah ki'Kesuvah.

(b) Rav Chisda reacted by quoting a Pasuk in Mishlei that someone who repays bad for good is in for trouble. In other words, it is not because a woman is Mochel her husband her K'suvah, that he should repay her by withholding Mezonos from her. Consequently, he said, if not for the fact that Ravin bar Chin'na quoted a great man (Rebbi Elazar), on the basis of this Pasuk he would have ruled that she still receives her K'suvah.

(c) Rav Chiya bar Ami instructed that man whose Arusah had died - to either bury her or to give her her Kesuvah, because he interpreted the word Kesuvah (in 'Kevurah Tachas Kesuvah' [Daf 47b.]) to mean Manah u'Masayim (see Tosfos DH 'she'Ein').

(a) They proved him wrong however, from a Beraisa. We infer from 'Meis Hu, Govah K'suvasah' - 'Ha Meisah Hi, Ein Lah Kesuvah' (including Kevurah).

(b) Rav Oshaya ascribed this to the Lashon written in the Kesuvah 'Le'che'she'Tinas'i le'Acher, Titli Mah she'Kasuv Lechi' - which does not apply here (seeing as he was not the one who died or divorced her). Consequently, he does not inherit her, nor is he obligated to bury her.

(c) Should one of them die, then, assuming that both of them are Kohanim ...

1. ... he is not permitted to bury her.
2. ... she is permitted, though not obligated, to bury him.

(d) If he dies, she receives her Kesuvah (assuming he wrote her one).

9)

(a) Rav's text in our Mishnah regarding the Takanah of 'B'nan Nukvan' conforms with ours: 'ad de'Tilakchun le'Guvrin'. Levi's version of the text is - 'ad de'Tibagrun'.

(b) This does not mean that according to ...

1. ... Rav, a Bogeres who is not yet married will still receive Mezonos - because everyone agrees that a Bogeres leaves her father's domain.
2. ... Levi, a Na'arah who marries still receives Mezonos - because everyone agrees that a married woman leaves her father's domain.

(c) In fact, they argue about a Na'arah who becomes betrothed - Rav interprets 'ad de'Tilakchun le'Guvrin' to mean until they become betrothed (even though they are still Na'aros); whereas according to Levi's text, a betrothed girl still remains in her father's domain until she becomes a Bogeres.

(d) When Levi quotes a Beraisa which states 'ad de'Tebagrun *ve'Yimti* Z'maneihon de'Insavun' (meaning 'Your time comes to get married') he means 'ad de'Tebagrun *O Yimti* Z'maneihon de'Insavun'.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states 'ad Masai ha'Bas Nizonis, ad sheTe'ares' - Rebbi Elazar holds 'ad she'Tebager'.

(b) Rav Yosef too, cites a Beraisa which says 'ad de'Tehavyan', though we are not sure whether this means - until they become *betrothed* or *married*, a She'eilah which remains unresolved.

(c) According to the first Lashon, when Rav Chisda asked Rav Yosef whether an Arusah receives Mezonos, he replied that he had not heard anything about it. However ...

1. ... he reckoned that she ought not to receive it any longer - because her Chasan, not wanting to see her degrading herself by begging, will feed her himself.
2. ... Rav Chisda thinks that she ought to receive it - because, in his opinion, her Chasan will not spend money on his Kalah as long as he is not certain that he will marry her (a likelihood that exists as long as he does not know that she has no blemishes - as we shall see in Perek Af-al-pi).

(d) According to the second Lashon - they simply switch their opinions Rav Yosef maintains that an Arusah ought to receive Mezonos, whereas Rav Chisda believes that she ought not to receive it.

(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether a Mema'enes receives Mezonos from the Takanah of 'B'nan Nukvan' - because on the one hand, her Miy'un uproots the marriage (so she ought to return to her previous status); on the other, it may well be that, once she marries, she loses her rights to be fed from her father's estate for good.

(b) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that a widow, a divorcee and a Shomeres Yavam in her father's house all receive Mezonos. By a widow and a divorcee - he can only mean after Eirusin (because once she marries, everyone agrees that she leaves her father's domain for good).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah says that as long as she is in her father's house, she receives Mezonos ... . Rav Sheishes explains - that their Machlokes concerns a Mema'enes, who, according to the Tana Kama, receives Mezonos (because he automatically compares her to the other cases, since she too, is not married); whereas Rebbi Yehudah says that it is only as long as she is in her father's house that she receives Mezonos, but not from the moment she gets married.

(a) Resh Lakish asks whether the daughter of a Yevamah receives Mezonos. She should ...

1. ... not receive it - because initially, her claim on the Kesuvah is on the estate left by her *first* husband (the Yavam's brother), and not on the Yavam.
2. ... nevertheless receive it - because, in the event of there not being sufficient funds in her husband's estate, she receives her Kesuvah from the estate of the Yavam.

(b) This She'eilah too - remains unresolved.

(c) Rebbi Elazar asked whether the daughter of a Sh'niyah receives Mezonos. Despite the fact that her mother does not receive a Kesuvah, she might receive the T'nai - because, whereas her mother sinned, she did not.