Previous daf

1)

(a) A similar incident occurred in Masa Mechsaya. When the Yavam offered to share the property with his younger brother - the latter initially declined to accept his offer, because he suspected that they would do to him like 'the swindlers of Pumbedisa', who negated the Yavam's gift.

(b) The Yavam attempted to convince him not to stop him from going ahead with the Yibum - by offering to give him the gift later, but that he should acquire it already now with a Kinyan that would work retroactively from the time that he performed Yibum.

(c) But Mar bar Rav Ashi ruled otherwise, in spite of a statement of Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who said that if a person acquired a cow with the intention of taking ownership after thirty days, then in thirty days time, he would acquire it even if, at the end of thirty days, it was standing in a public meadow (where normally, one cannot acquire a cow).

(d) Mar bar Rav Ashi decided that Rebbi Yochanan's ruling was not appropriate in our case - because, in our case, even if he had wanted to acquire it now, he could not have done so (and a Kinyan works retroactively only by an article that one had the option of acquiring now).

(a) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling with the ruling of Ravin in his name (that, even when it is possible to acquire the object now, his Kinyan now is not effective to acquire it later) - by establishing the latter ruling when he failed to stipulate that the Kinyan was retroactive.

(b) They asked Ula what the Din would be if the Yavam shared his deceased brother's property with his younger brother after performing Yibum. He replied - that the transaction would be invalid.

(c) Then they asked him what the Din would be if he divided the property before Yibum. When Rav Sheishes asked that, seeing as Ula's reply to the first She'eilah was in the negative, what was the point of the second She'eilah - we replied that the two She'eilos were asked independently by two different people, and that the second person one was unaware of the first She'eilah.

(d) The final ruling in this matter is - that whenever the Yavam shared his deceased brother's property with his younger brother, before the Yibum or after it, his gift is invalid (like Rav Yosef).

(a) The Chachamim in our Mishnah said that fruit that is attached to the ground belongs to the Yavam - a problem, in view of what we learned that all the deceased husband's property is Meshubad towards the Yevamah's Kesuvah.

(b) So Resh Lakish changes it to 'she'Lo' to 'she'Lah'.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that the moment the Yavam performs Yibum, the Yevamah becomes his wife, to teach us that should he wish to divorce her, she will require a Get, and that he will be permitted to remarry her. It is not so obvious that ...

1. ... she will require a Get - because we may otherwise have learned from "ve'Yibmah" that, even after he has performed Yibum, she remains his Yevamah, who can only be released through Chalitzah, and not through a Get.
2. ... he will be permitted to remarry her - because we may otherwise have thought that having performed the Mitzvah of Yibum, once she is divorced from him, she reverts to being Eishes Achiv.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in "u'Lekachah Lo le'Ishah" - that once the Yavam performs Yibum, the Yevamah becomes his wife (and the title 'Eishes Ach' is removed once and for all).

5)

(a) The Kesuvah is paid out of the estate of the Yevamah's first husband (rather than out of the Yavam's) - because the Torah presented him with the gift of a wife (relieving him of the onus of writing a Kesuvah).

(b) Chazal nevertheless instituted that, should the first husband not have left an estate, the Yavam must write her a Kesuvah - so that it should not be too easy for him to divorce her.

(c) Having informed us that the Yavam is not permitted to tell the Yevamah that her Kesuvah is on the table - the Tana nevertheless needs to teach us that the same applies to a husband vis-a-vis his wife - because we would otherwise have thought that a woman relies on the clause that he inserts in the Kesuvah, rendering all property that he has bought and that he will buy is Meshubad to her Kesuvah (which does not apply to a Yavam (see Tosfos end of 81a.).

(d) We learn from the Mishnah 'Girshah, Ein Lah Ela K'suvasah' - that before the divorce, the Yavam is forbidden to sell any of his brother's property (like Rebbi Aba taught on 81a.). The previous phrase (that all the Yavam's property is Meshubad towards her Kesuvah) is only sound advice, as we learned earlier).

7)

(a) The women initially refused to marry - because they were afraid that, seeing as nothing was done to safeguard their Kesuvah, when their husbands died, the heirs would simply hide the money that they had inherited, on order to avoid having to pay them their Kesuvah.

(b) Shimon ben Shetach changed matters - by instituting that every husband inserts a clause mortgaging all his property towards the Kesuvah.

(a) Before Shimon ben Shetach's Takanah, they instituted placing the money for her Kesuvah in her father's house. But that Takanah backfired - because a husband would get angry and simply order his wife to leave.

(b) So they instituted placing the money in the husband's house. The ...

1. ... wealthy women began melting down the silver and the gold and making silver and golden baskets with it.
2. ... poor women began making chamber-pots (see also Tosfos DH Avit') with the money.

(c) However, that Takanah did not work out either. They though it would - because at least then the designated Kesuvah was serving some beneficial purpose in the home, which might deter the husband from divorcing his wife.

Next daf