Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (whether a Kohen feeds his betrothed after the waiting period entirely Terumah or half Terumah, half Chulin) by a bas Kohen who is betrothed to a Kohen. They will both agree by ...

1. ... a bas Yisrael to a Kohen - that he may only feed her half Terumah, half Chulin (because she is not experienced at guarding Terumah be'Taharah and of selling it when she is Tamei. A bas Kohen, on the other hand, has the advantage of a father who will sell the Terumah on her behalf).
2. ... (even) a bas Kohen who is married to a Kohen - that he may only feed her half Terumah, half Chulin (because it is not becoming for a married woman to leave the house to sell the Terumah when she is Tamei [because of the Pasuk "Kol K'vudah bas Melech P'nimah").

(b) Abaye is proven correct - by a Beraisa, which supports both of his points.

(a) The proportion of Terumah to Chulin that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in the Beraisa prescribes for the Kohen to give in the above cases is - two thirds Terumah and one third Chulin.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah prescribes half Terumah, half Chulin, like Rebbi Tarfon - only according to the latter, he gives her half Terumah, even though the money that she receives from the sale will not be the equivalent of the half Chulin (because Terumah is sold at a cheaper price than Chulin); whereas according to the former, he gives her sufficient Terumah to purchase with it the equivalent of the half Chulin.

(c) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that he gives her double the amount of Chulin - he means that he gives her plenty of Terumah to make it easy for her to sell at a cheap price (and not at its market value).

(d) When the Beraisa concludes that the difference between *them* is the bother involved - it refers to Rebbi Yehudah (who leaves her with the trouble to sell the Terumah at its regular price) and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who does not, as we just explained) It seems to me though, that the statement also incorporates the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah Beseira, since the difference between all of these opinions is the level of Tircha to which we the woman is subjected.

(a) We learn (with regard to feeding one's betrothed Terumah) from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kinyan Kaspo" - that a Yavam is not permitted to feed the Yevamah Terumah (because she is not "Kinyan Kaspo" but 'Kinyan de'Achiv').
2. ... (concerning a Yevamah) "u'Lekachah Lo le'Ishah" - that, once a Yavam acquires his Yevamah with Bi'ah, she is his full-fledged wife.

(b) We know that a Yevamah may feed the Yavam Terumah, despite the fact that he acquired her with Bi'ah and not with money (in which case she is not "Kinyan Kaspo") - from the fact that (min ha'Torah) a man who acquires a woman through Bi'ah may feed her Terumah. This we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah", which compares all types of Kidushin, giving a woman who was acquired with Bi'ah the same Din as one who is acquired with money. We then extend this Din to a Yevamah.

(c) Having taught that if the woman waited the full twelfth-month period, barring one day, during her husband's lifetime, she is forbidden to eat Terumah, the Tana nevertheless saw fit to add that if she waited twelve months for the Yavam, she is forbidden, too - following the principle 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (sometimes the Tana teaches a Chidush, adding a smaller Chidush, as if to say that the second Chidush goes without saying).

(a) The reason that Ula or Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah gives for the Mishnah *Acharonah* forbidding an Arusah to eat Terumah until she actually enters the Chupah is - because of Simpon.

(b) This seems to conform with Ula - who ascribes the Mishnah *Rishonah's* prohibition of an Arusah to eat Terumah to the fear that she might hand a cup of Terumah to her siblings. But according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who ascribes it to the fear of Simpon, the Mishnah Rishonah and the Mishnah Acharonah are both basing their opinions on Simpon. In that case, what are they arguing about?

(c) According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, the basis of their Machlokes (despite the fact that both opinions are based on Simpon) - is whether the husband considers an external examination (one that is performed by others, as opposed to one that he performs himself) sufficiently reliable, to prevent him from retracting (Mishnah Rishonah) or not (Mishnah Acharonah).

5)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that if a husband declares Hekdesh the work of his wife's hands - she may continue to produce and eat (this will be explained in the Gemara).

(b) 'Mosar' - is what a woman produces that is in excess of her basic needs, and which her husband receives against the Dinar that he pays her each week for extra Shabbos treats.

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, if a man declares the Mosar 'Hekdesh', it becomes Hekdesh. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar says - that it does not.

(a) According to one opinion, a man is permitted to say to his Eved Kena'ani 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha'. From the Pasuk "Ki Tov Lo "Imach" - we learn that one cannot say this to an Eved Ivri ...

(b) ... 'Kal va'Chomer' to one's wife.

(c) We prove from Rav Huna Amar Rav, who says that a woman may say to her husband 'Einah Nizones, ve'Eino Osah' - that Chazal's initial Takanah was Mezonos, following which they instituted that Ma'aseh Yadehah goes to the husband, in return for the Mezonos (and not vice-versa).

(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav amends the Beraisa 'Tiknu Mezonos Tachas Ma'aseh Yadehah' - by switching it to 'Tiknu Ma'aseh Yadehah Tachas Mezonos'.

(b) We try to prove Rav Huna Amar Rav's statement from our Mishnah 'ha'Makdish Ma'aseh Yedei Ishto ... ' - which we assume speaks when he is feeding her. So, unless the initial Takanah was on behalf of the wife (who is entitled to decline should she so wish), how could she eat from her Ma'aseh Yadehah, in spite of her husband's Neder?

(c) We refute the proof however, by establishing our Mishnah when her husband was not in fact, feeding her (in which case it is obvious that she may retain her Ma'aseh Yadehah).

(d) If that is so, the Chidush in our Mishnah, which permits a woman to feed herself from what she produces in spite of her husband's Neder lies not in the Reisha - but in the Seifa, to teach us the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar regarding Mosar.

(a) Resh Lakish disagrees with Rav Huna. According to him, the reason of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah is not because he holds that it is possible to declare Hekdesh something even before it has come into the world, but because, since he is entitled to force his wife to give him her Ma'aseh Yadehah (see Tosfos DH 'Mitoch'), he is also entitled to declare his wife's hands Hekdesh to Hashem (with regard to what they produce).

(b) We interpret Rebbi Meir in this way, despite the fact that the husband mention what his wife's hands produce, and not the hands themselves - because this conforms with his opinion in Erchin, where he holds that a person does not speak for nothing (and that consequently, should he make a declaration which is known to have no Halachic basis, we interpret his words in a way that they do indeed have Halachic validity).

(c) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa that if someone who betroths a woman, on condition that the Kidushin should become effective after he or she converts or is set free - then the Kidushin is valid (in spite of the fact that at that point in time, he or she was still a Nochri or a slave.

(d) When Resh Lakish suggests that Rebbi Meir does not hold 'Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' - he means that there is no proof for this from our Mishnah, but on the basis of that Beraisa, he will agree that in fact, Rebbi Meir holds 'Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam'.

(a) According to Rav and Shmuel, the Mosar only becomes Hekdesh after her death - according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, even during her lifetime.

(b) They would both hold, Rav Papa explains, that if her husband was ...

1. ... both feeding her and paying her a Ma'ah Kesef for Shabbos - that the Mosar would be Hekdesh even during her lifetime.
2. ... neither feeding her nor paying her a Ma'ah Kesef - that it would only become Hekdesh after her death.

(c) Rav Papa establishes the case when he is feeding her but not giving her a Ma'ah Kesef. Rav and Shmuel's position is now clear. Rav Ada bar Ahavah nevertheless declares the Mosar Hekdesh immediately - because in his opinion, Chazal did not institute Mezonos against Ma'aseh Yadehah and Ma'ah Kesef against Mosar (as we learned until now), but vice-versa, Mezonos against Mosar and Ma'ah Kesef against Ma'aseh Yadehah.

(d) Rav Papa does establish the Mishnah when he is *not feeding her* but giving her a Ma'ah Kesef (see Maharsha) - because earlier, Rav established our Mishnah when he *is feeding her*.

1. Rav and Shmuel maintain 'Mezonos Tachas *Ma'aseh Yadehah'* (rather than 'Tachas Mosar') - because both are common, whereas Mosar is not.
2. Rav Ada bar Ahavah maintain *'Ma'ah Kesef* Tachas Ma'aseh Yadehah' (rather than Mezonos) - because both are fixed amounts (as we shall see in the following Mishnah), whereas Mezonos is not.