Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Sh'man bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, if the Kalah brings in pieces of gold - the Chasan enters them according to their intrinsic value, no less, no more.

(b) We ask on him from a Beraisa, which compares gold to vessels, which we initially take to mean silver vessels - which, in turn, would enter be entered at only eighty per-cent of their intrinsic value, because silver vessels deteriorate.

(c) We answer that the Tana means golden *vessels* (not pieces of gold). But that, in turn, is grammatically difficult - because then, he should have written 'ha'Zahav, Harei Hu ke'Keilav', rather than ' ... Harei Hu ke'Keilim'.

(a) We also ask on Rebbi Yochanan from another Beraisa, where the Tana Kama compares gold to vessels, and golden Dinrim to money. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that there where it is customary not to use them as coins, one assesses them according to their intrinsic value.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel cannot be referring to the Seifa of the Tana Kama's words - because that would imply that the Tana Kama considered golden Dinrim to be money even when it is not legal tender (which makes no sense).

(c) So he must be referring to the Reisha - in which case, the Tana Kama clearly compares pieces of gold to silver vessels (to deduct a fifth - a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(d) In the first answer, we establish the Machlokes on the Seifa, and they argue over golden Dinrim that can be used as coinage, but only with difficulty. The Tana Kama compares them to money (to add a fifth), since, at a pinch, they can be spent - whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that it is only with regular coins that can be easily spent that one adds a fifth. In any event, they both agree that the Chasan enters pieces of gold according to their intrinsic value, like Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) Alternatively, we establish the entire Beraisa like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, and there are words missing. After the opening statements ('Zahav, Harei Hu ke'Keilim, Dinrei Zahav, Harei Hein ki'Chesafim'), the Tana continues - 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'Makom she'Nahagu le'Fortan, Aval be'Makom she'Nahagu she'Lo le'Fortan, Shamin Osan, ve'Hein ke'Shavyan, Divrei Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, she'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer ... '.

(b) Yet a third answer establishes the Beraisa ('ha'Zahav, Harei Hu ke'Keilim'), to mean that pieces of gold are compared to silver vessels (seeing as they tend to wear down when they are handled (like we concluded originally) - whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking about gold-bars, which do not wear down.

(c) The advantage of this explanation over the previous ones is - that it also answers the Kashya that the Tana should have said 'ha'Zahav, Harei Hu *ke'Keilav'* (which remains difficult according to both previous answers).

(d) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa by 'Mamla' - gold-dust, which certainly deteriorates in value, as some of the particles blow away; whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking about pieces of gold.

(a) Rebbi Yanai considers the Besamim of Antioch like money (with regard to adding a fifth to the price before entering them into the Kesuvah) - because that was the residents of Anti'och's main business.

(b) Arabian camels (according to Rebbi Yochanan - see Tosfos DH 'Gemalim'), clothes from Mechsi, sacks from Rudya and ropes from Kamchunya (according to Rav Papi) have in common - the fact that a woman may claim her Kesuvah from them, even though they are Metaltelin, and normally, a woman may only claim her Kesuvah from Karka. This is because the women of those towns relied on them completely (as much as they did on Karka).

(c) Rava initially contended that the same will apply to purses from Mechuza - because he thought that the women relied on them too.

(d) He changed his mind however - when he realized that the women of Mechuza were claiming the purses and using the proceeds to buy land.

(a) The minimum dowry that a man should give his daughter - is fifty Zuz (Dinrim).

(b) In the event that he failed to include clothes in her dowry - the Chasan is obligated to send her clothes immediately (even before they are married).

(c) The minimum dowry that one gives an orphan is fifty Zuz - which is paid from the Kupah shel Tzedakah?

(d) If she is of good stock - then one adds in accordance with her status, provided there is money in the kitty.

(a) We prove from the Seifa of the Mishnah that the minimum of fifty Zuz for a woman's dowry means fifty Zuz Medinah (and not Tzuri) - from the fact that the Gabai Tzedakah is obligated to provide upwards of fifty Zuz if there is money in the kitty, a huge amount to expect Tzedakah funds to provide for, should fifty Zuz mean Zuz Tzuri.

(b) Should a Yasom and a Yesomah both need ...

1. ... sustenance - the Yesomah has precedence, because it is normal for a man to go begging from door to door, but not for a woman.
2. ... to get married - because the shame of a woman (to remain single) is greater than that of a man.

7)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Dei Machsoro" - that, if necessary, one is obligated to provide a poor man with an apartment.
2. ... "Asher Yechsar" - with basic furniture.
3. ... "Lo" - with a wife.

(b) We know that "Lo" refers to a wife" - from the Pasuk in Bereishis "E'eseh *Lo* Eizer Kenegdo".

(c) The significance of the order of priorities as listed in the above-mentioned Pasuk is - that, if a man comes and asks for a wife, one is obligated to first provide with a house and furniture, and only then with a wife.

(d) Another Beraisa learns from "Dei Machsoro" that one is not obligated to enrich a poor man, and from "Asher Yechsar Lo" that one should provide him with a horse, should he need it, and an Eved to run in front of him. When Hillel was once unable to find the latter - he ran in front of the poor man himself for a distance of three Mil.

(a) It happened once in the upper-Galilee that they bought a litre (a weight) of meat daily for a poor man from Tzipori who was of good stock. According to one explanation, the Chidush is that the meat that they fed him was chicken's meat (which in those days was more expensive than that of animals. The Chidush ...

1. ... according to the second explanation is - that it was not a litre of meat that we are talking about, but meat for a litre of money (so exorbitant was the price of meat).
2. ... according to Rav Ashi, who establishes that the case took place in a small village - where it meant paying for a whole animal each time, in order to feed him a small amount of meat.

(b) That poor man who was used to eating juicy meat and old wine, and whom Rebbi Nechemyah fed lentils - died from the change of diet.

(c) Rebbi Nechemyah lamented him with the words 'Woe to that man whom Nechemyah killed', and not 'Woe to Nechemyah who killed that man' - because he had only himself to blame, for spoiling himself with such expensive food.

(a) When Rava rebuked that poor man for eating fat hens and old wine at the community's expense - he retorted that it was not at *their* expense that he was eating but at *Hashem*'s, as it is written "Einei Chol ... ve'Atah Nosein Lahem es Ochlam *be'Ito*" (and not "be'Itam), to teach us that Hashem feeds each and every person in his time (as his need to be fed arrives).
(b) Just then - Rava's sister, whom he had not seen for thirteen years, arrived with a nice fat hen and old wine, causing Rava to concede that the poor man was right, and that he had spoken hastily, and to invite him to sit down and eat.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of the Beraisa), if a poor man does not want to receive Tzedakah, the Gabai Tzedakah gives him a loan, which he then transfers into a gift. Rava explains the Chachamim, who reverse the order (in spite of the fact that we are speaking about a man who does not want a gift) - to say that we begin by offering him a gift, and when he refuses, we offer him the money in the form of a loan.

(b) The Tana adds that in the case of a person who has money, but who insists on being sustained from Tzedakah funds, we give him hat he needs and then ask him to pay it back - which Rav Papa explains to mean after his death (otherwise, he will refuse to accept it the second time).

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the previous opinions. He says that ...

1. ... in the latter case, when the poor man insists that the Gabai Tzedakah sustains him - we ignore him altogether (even if he chooses to starve himself as a result).
2. ... in the former case, when he does not have, and does not want to accept from Tzedakah - we ask him for collateral (to let him believe that they really want to lend him the money), in which case he will accept the money even though he has no collateral to give.

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah (the Tana Kama) learns like Rebbi Meir in the previous Beraisa. He derives the first Halachah from "Ha'avet", and the second, from "Ta'avitenu". The Chachamim (who hold like Rebbi Shimon regarding a poor man who insists on being sustained from Tzedakah) explain that the Torah writes the double Lashon "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu" 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam' (the Torah speaks in human terminology - and humans sometimes tend to use double expressions in order to stress what they are saying).

(b) Mar Ukva used to place four Zuzim daily inside the door-post belonging to a certain poor man. One day - the poor man decided to hide behind the door-post and discover who his benefactor was.

(c) Mar Ukva ...

1. ... (and his wife who 'happened' to have accompanied him that day) prevented their identity from being discovered - by hiding inside a heated oven whose burning coals had been removed.
2. ... 's wife explained to her husband that his leg got burnt, but not her's - because she had the added merit of feeding the poor ready-to-eat food, whereas he would only give them money, which was not yet ready to eat.

(d) They went to such lengths to avoid discovery, even to the point of getting burnt - because, as Chazal learn from Tamar (who was prepared to die by burning rather than divulge Yehudah's name), it is preferable to jump into a fiery furnace than to put someone to shame in public (see Ya'avetz).

(a) Mar Ukva's son told his father that the poor man to whom he sent a donation of four hundred Zuz every Erev Yom-Kipur did not need it - before he saw him sprinkling old wine over himself (a luxury that was generally confined to the rich).

(b) Mar Ukva responded - by sympathizing with the poor man, who was so finicky, and by promptly doubling his annual donation.

(c) When, on Mar Ukva's deathbed, they informed him that he had given seven thousand Dinrim Tzedakah in good coinage (Aruch) - he reacted by announcing that he did not have sufficient supplies for the long journey ahead of him. So he donated half of his remaining wealth to Tzedakah.

(d) We reconcile this with the Takanah of Usha not to give more than one fifth of one's resources for Tzedakah - by restricting that to the Tzedakah that one gives during one's lifetime (when the resulting poverty might leave the person relying on the community), something that would hardly apply to a person on his deathbed.

(a) Rebbi Aba used to place money in his shawl and sling it over his shoulder for the poor to take. He made sure that some dishonest person would not come and help himself to it - by remaining half-turned, to someone who was not genuinely poor from taking the money.

(b) Rebbi Chanina's wife told her husband that the poor man to whom he would send four Zuzim each Erev Shabbos did not really need it - because she overheard them asking him whether he wanted to eat on a tablecloth of white linen or of colored silks. (See Tosfos DH 'bi'T'lei', who distinguish between this case and the case that we learned earlier, where Mar Ukva actually doubled his annual gift when he saw how spoilt the poor man was).

(c) Rebbi Chanina was grateful to him and to other swindlers like him - because otherwise, people who fail to give the Tzedakah expected of them (as the Torah writes in Re'ei "ve'Kara Alecha el Hashem, ve'Hayah Becha Chet").

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah extrapolates from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Hishamer Lecha Pen Yihyeh Davar im Levavcha Beliya'al" in conjunction with the Pasuk there "Yatz'u Anashim B'nei Beliya'al" - that someone who hides his eyes from Tzedakah is considered as if he was guilty of idolatry.