Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava asks whether the daughter of an Arusah receives Mezonos or not. The case is - when a man with sons had relations with his Arusah, who bore him a daughter and died.

(b) His She'eilah is based on the fact that - on the one hand, an Arusah receives a Kesuvah should the Arus write her one, whereas on the other, Chazal only obligated a Kesuvah after the marriage.

(c) Alternatively, 'Keivan de'Is Lah Kesuvah' might mean - that Chazal fixed a Kesuvah already from the time of Eirusin; and 'O Dilma Keivan de'Lo Takinu Lei Rabbanan ad Sha'as Nisu'in' - that it is only documented at the time of Nisu'in.

(d) The She'eilah remains unresolved.

(a) Rav Papa asks whether the daughter of a woman who was raped and who subsquently married the rapist will receive Mezonos or not, a She'eilah which is restricted to the Rabbanan, but not relevant according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - who says that a girl who is raped receives a Kesuvah of one Manah over and above the K'nas.

(b) The Rabbanan hold that the payment of K'nas cancels the necessity to pay her a Kesuvah.

(c) One side of the She'eilah is that since there is no Kesuvah, there is no T'nai Kesuvah either. The other side is - that the exemption from paying her a Kesuvah is due to the fact that Chazal's reason for instituting a Kesuvah in the first place (so that a man should not find it too easy to divorce his wife) will not apply here (seeing as he is not permitted to divorce her anyway). But there is no reason for the other T'na'ei Kesuvah [such as 'B'nan Nukvan'] not to remain in force.

(a) One of the conditions of the Kesuvah is 'At Tehei Yasva be'Veisi u'Miszana mi'Neshsi'. The Tana quoted by Rav Yosef infers from the word 'be'Veisi' - that as long as their father leaves a house that is habitable, they cannot order the widow to leave it and return to her parental home, but not if he leaves only a reed-hut (in which case, they may ask her to leave).

(b) According to Mar bar Rav Ashi (whose opinion we generally follow), she does not receive Mezonos either - because of the Lashon written in the Kesuvah 'At Tehei Yasva be'Veisi u'Miszana mi'Nechsi', which he links together (i.e. she is only fed as long as she lives in her deceased husband's house).

(c) Rav Yosef argues with Mar bar Rav Ashi - on the basis of the extra 'be'Veisi' mentioned in the Kesuvah 've'At Tehei Yasva *be'Veisi*, Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusech *be'Veisi* (which comes to teach us that she is fed anyway - perhaps on the basis of the principle that two *ex*clusions actually come to *in*clude).

(d) The Halachah is not like Mar bar Rav Ashi (in spite of the general rule) - because, in this case, the Gemara specifically rules against him.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that, from the moment a daughter accepts her suitor's proposal, she no longer receives Mezonos (from her father's estate). Rav Anan restricts the inference (that if she declines his proposal, she continues to be fed) - to when she declines in defference to her deceased husband, but not if her refusal is based on other motives (even if she claims that the suitor is not a decent person).

(b) According to Rav Chisda, a girl who has relations with a man, no longer receives Mezonos. Rav Yosef says - that she only loses her Mezonos from when she begins adorning herself.

(c) Rav Yosef disagrees with Rav Chisda - on the grounds that having relations with a man is merely the result of a passing Yeitzer-ha'Ra, and is not indicative of her readiness to get married.

(d) The Halachah is not like either of them, but like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who says that she only loses Mezonos from the time that she claims her Kesuvah in Beis-Din (and not for the reasons mentioned by Rav Chisda and Rav Yosef).

(a) We reconcile Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel with the Tana, who says in a Beraisa that a woman who sells her Kesuvah, gives it as collateral or as an Apotiki no longer receives Mezonos - by pointing out that, whereas the Beraisa does not differentiate between a woman who does these things in Beis-Din or anywhere else, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel specifically referred to a woman who claims her Kesuvah *in Beis-Din*.

(b) An Apotiki is - the designition of specific property to which the creditor's claim will be restricted.

(a) Bavel and the surrounding areas followed the opinion of Rav, who ruled like the men of Yehudah in our Mishnah ('ad she'Yirtzu ha'Yorshin Liten Lach K'suvasech'). Neherda'a and its surrounding areas - followed the ruling of Shmuel, who ruled like the men of the Galil ('Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusach' - like the men of Yerushalayim).

(b) When Rav Nachman told a woman from Mechuza that, seeing as she was from Bavel, she was obligated to follow the opinion of the B'nei Bavel (and lose her Mezonos from the moment that the Yesomim offered her her Kesuvah - the Rabbanan objected on the grounds that her husband was from Neherda'a, in which case, she ought to continue receiving Mezonos as long as she was an Almanah.

(c) Rav Nachman knew that she was from Mechuza - from her accent.

(d) They gauged the exact border between Neherda'a and the rest of Bavel - by checking the weights and measures system (which differed in Neherda'a from the rest of Bavel) that was in use in that particular town.

(a) When Rav says that one assesses the clothes that an Almanah is wearing (and that her husband had bought her), he means - that the value of those clothes is deducted from her Kesuvah.

(b) Shmuel maintains - that one does not take into account the value of the clothes that she is wearing when paying her Kesuvah.

(c) According to Rav Chiya bar Avin, they switch their views by a Lakit - meaning that, in the opinion of Shmuel, when a hired worker (who lives with his employer and is sustained by him) leaves his employ, the clothes that he is wearing are deducted from his wages; according to Rav, they are not.

(d) Rav Kahana gave the Si'man 'Yasma ve'Armalta Shalach u'Puk' - to point out that he disagrees with Rav Chiya bar Avin, and that, in his opinion, Rav, who says that one deducts the clothes that the widow is wearing from her Kesuvah, is also the one to say that one deducts the clothes that the hired worker is wearing from his wages.

(a) The Mishnah in Erchin (regarding someone who is Makdish his property or is Ma'arich himself) says that the clothes that his wife and children have already worn, the clothes that he specifically dyed on their behalf and the new shoes that he bought them - are not subject to be taken by the treasurer of Hekdesh as a security until he pays.

(b) This Mishnah appears to support Shmuel's opinion regarding his Machlokes with Rav (concerning assessing the clothes of an Almanah who claims her Kesuvah) - inasmuch as, like Shmuel, the Tana considers these items personal property of the wife and children, and not of the husband (in which case they ought not to be deductable from the wife's Kesuvah).

(c) Rav Nachman nevertheless ruled like Rav - because it is only on the surface that the Mishnah in Erchin supports Shmuel, but in reality, it is only as long as his wife is living with him (as in the case in Erchin) that he wants her to keep the things that he bought her, but not after they have parted - irrespective of how they parted (as in the case of Rav and Shmuel.

(a) The daughter-in-law of Bei bar Elyashiv wore all the clothes that her deceased husband had left her - when the heirs, on their way to Beis-Din to defend themselves against her claim to the Kesuvah, maintained that it was undignified for her to go to Beis-Din dressed the way she was.

(b) Ravina subsequently ruled - that, seeing as the Halachah is like Rav, all the clothes that she was wearing should be assessed and the total deducted from her Kesuvah.

(c) When a father designated ...

1. ... clothes for his daughter's dowry, and the clothes depreciated - Rav Idi bar Avin ruled that the heirs were not obligated to make-up the difference.
2. ... four hundred Zuz worth of wine for his daughter's dowry, and the price of the wine rose - Rav Yosef ruled that it was the heirs who would benefit from the rise, and the Almanah should still receive the same four hundred Zuz worth of wine.

10)

(a) A relation of Rebbi Yochanan complained to him that his dying father's wife ate excessive amounts of Mezonos. Rebbi Yochanan advised him - to instruct his father to designate a field for her Mezonos, and, as we learned in a Mishnah in Pei'ah, if someone writes all his property to his sons and just one field to his widow, she loses her Kesuvah.

(b) Despite the fact that the designation was made orally and not in writing - he was hoping that she would accept his proposition, and, in the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, that is sufficient (seeing as there were witnesses.

(c) Resh Lakish was unimpressed with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling. He ordered them to give the woman even more - because, according to the Halachah, all of her husband's estate was automatically designated for her Kesuvah. Consequently, by designating *that* field, he was indicating that should the heirs not alot ample Mezonos, then this field should serve as additional Mezonos.

(d) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yochanan himself respected Resh Lakish's opinion, Rebbi Avahu defended him - by agreeing with Resh Lakish only provided the father said 'li'Mezonos, but if he said 'bi'Mezonos, then he meant to designate it as Mezonos, and Rebbi Yochanan's ruling would bejustified.

11)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits adding to the Manah u'Masayim that Chazal instituted in the Kesuvah of a Besulah and a Be'ulah respectively - even as much as a hundred Manah.

(b) Had the Tana not told us this - we would have thought that Chazal fixed Manah u'Masayim, and no more, in order not to shame those who are unable to afford more.

(c) According to the Tana Kama, if her husband dies or divorces her, irrespective of whether they were married or merely betrothed, the woman receives her full Kesuvah. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - that, if they were only betrothed, she receives only a Manah, because a man only writes a Kesuvah of Masayim on the understanding that they will get married.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah permits a man to write a full Kesuvah and the woman to write that she has already received half. Rebbi Meir says - 'Kol ha'Poches li'Besulah Masayim, u'le'Almanah Manah, Harei Zu Be'ilas Z'nus'! (that a Besulah has to receive Masayim, and a Be'ulah, a Manah).

(a) We infer from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Ratzah Lehosif ... ' - that whatever the husband adds of his own accord becomes part of the Kesuvah (and is not merely a personal gift).

(b) This is a proof for Rebbi Yanai - who says 'T'nai Kesuvah ki'Kesuvah' (the ramifications of which are about to be discussed).