Previous daf

1)

(a) The Rabbanan announced that anyone who would declare Rebbi dead - would be pierced with a sword.

(b) Rebbi's (wise) maidservant went on to the roof and prayed that the wishes of the creatures on earth who wanted Rebbi to live, should prevail over those in heaven, who wanted him to die. She changed her mind however - when she saw how often he needed to relieve himself, and how he had to keep taking off his Tefilin and putting them on again (which caused him more anguish than the physical pain).

(c) To stop the people from Davenning for Rebbi to survive - she threw an earthenware jug from the roof. When it hit the ground and smashed, everyone stopped Davenning, and Rebbi died.

(a) They sent Bar Kapara to see whether Rebbi was still alive. The first thing he did upon discovering that he was dead - was to tear Keri'ah and turn the tear inwards, so that it should not be immediately noticeable.

(b) He then proclaimed 'Er'eilim u'Metzulim Achzu Aron ha'Kodesh. Nitzchu Er'eilim es ha'Metzukim ve'Nashvah Aron ha'Kodesh' - the Er'eilim referred to the angels, and the Metzukim, to the Tzadikim.

(c) When he said that, the Rabbanan said (or asked him whether) Rebbi was dead, to which he responded 'You said it, not I'!

(a) Before he died, Rebbi raised his ten fingers heavenwards - and declared that although he had used all ten fingers to perform Torah, he had never in his life, set out to indulge in the pursuit of personal pleasure, even to the amount of his little finger.

(b) Rebbi concluded his words with 'Yehi Ratzon she'Yehei Shalom bi'Menuchasi'. At which a Heavenly Voice announced "Yavo ve'Shalom Yanuchu al Mishkevosam"!

(c) The significance of the fact that "Yanuchu" is written in the plural is - that it refers to the Tzadikim who came out to greet him, and who were now being ordered to return to their place of Shalom.

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, this is said by the third group of angels who comes to greet *every* Tzadik. The first group says to him "Bo be'Shalom". The second group says - 'Holech Nich'cho'.

(b) There are also three groups that come to greet a Rasha. The first one says to him "Ein Shalom, Amar Hashem la'Resha'im"; the second, "le'Ma'atzeivah Tishkevun" (both in Yeshayah). The third group quotes him the Pasuk - "Redah ve'Hashk'vah im ha'Areilim".

(a) In the opinion of Rebbi Meir quoting Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, as long as the Almanah resides in her father's house, she may claim her Kesuvah at any time. An Almanah who resides in her husband's house - has up to twenty-five years to claim it.

(b) The Chachamim say the opposite - twenty-five years for an Almanah who resides in her father's house, whereas one who resides in her husband's house may claim it forever.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - the reason for the twenty-five years, which, according to Rebbi Meir, is because, in the course of twenty-five years, the bread and salt which she regularly sends her neighbors as a gesture of friendliness and goodwill (from the property of the Yesomim) amounts to the sum of her Kesuvah (a reason which does not apply if she resides in her father's house); whereas according to the Rabbanan, it is because (due to the favors that the Yesomim constantly perform on her behalf, she is too embarrassed to ask (a reason which will not apply when she resides in her father's house, where her twenty-five year silence is a sign that she has been Mochel her Kesuvah.

(d) Should she die - her heirs have twenty-five years in which to claim her Kesuvah.

(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether, according to Rebbi Meir, a wealthy woman like Marsa bas Baytus will also lose her Kesuvah after twenty-five years just like a poor one - because the Kesuvah of a wealthy woman is more than that of a poor one, and it will therefore take longer than twenty-five years to give away her Kesuvah in the form of gifts to the neighbors.

(b) Rav Yosef replied with the adage, 'According to the camel is its load' - meaning that the more wealthy the Almanah (i.e. the larger her Kesuvah), the more she will spend each year, such that she will still give away her entire Kesuvah in the form of gifts to the neighbors over a twenty-five year period.

(c) He also asked him whether this meant that, if she came before sunset of the twenty-five year period, she would still receive her Kesuvah, whereas if she came after sunset (only a few minutes later) she would lose it. Rav Yosef answered him - that that is the way of Chazal. All their measurements are exact: If someone Tovels in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah, he becomes Tahor, should the Mikvah lack just one Kurtuv (a tiny measure), he remains Tamei. And so it is with before sunset and after it.

(d) They asked (according to Rebbi Meir) 'Mahu she'Teshalesh'?, and remain with a 'Teiku'. The She'eilah is - whether the twenty-five years works on a scale; that for each year that she fails to claim it, she loses one twenty- fifth of her Kesuvah, or whether it is a matter of all or nothing.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav quoting ... Rebbi Yossi, the Chachamim (according to whom the twenty-five year period is because of Mechilah) only said their Din when the Almanah does not have a Sh'tar Kesuvah, but when she does, she may claim forever - because, had she really been Mochel, she would have returned the Kesuvah.

(b) When the Tana of the Beraisa states that a creditor may claim she'Lo be'Hazkarah' - he means that even though he was silent for twenty-five years, he does not lose his right to claim his debt.

(c) Rav Sheishes infers from there - that an Almanah under the same circumstances, does forfeit her rights to her Kesuvah. Now, the Tana seems to be speaking when the creditor has a Sh'tar (and the Almanah, a Kesuvah - a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, who disagrees with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, and does not differentiate between an Almanah who does have a Kesuvah and one who doesn't), because otherwise, with what does he claim?

(d) We establish the Beraisa when the creditor does not have a Sh'tar - and it speaks when his claim is based on the debtor's admission.

8)

(a) Rav Yehudah bar Kaza quotes a Beraisa that corroborates Rav Yehudah Amar Rav quoting ... Rebbi Yossi. The Tana says that if an Almanah claimed her Kesuvah any time within the twenty-five year limit - the twenty-five year limit starts all over again from then.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov also corroborated Rav Yehudah Amar Rav quoting ... Rebbi Yossi. When Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda asked him whether the Halachah was like Rebbi Meir quoting Raban Shimon ben Gamliel or like the Chachamim - he answered that it was like the Chachamim.

(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi ... in the name of bar Kapara, who qualifies the Almanah's Mechilah. Even though she has been Mochel the main part of her Kesuvah, he said - she will still receive the Tosefes.

(b) According to Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan - she loses the Tosefes as well.

(c) This is based on the principle quoted by Rebbi Ayvu Amar Rebbi Yanai - 'T'nai Kesuvah ki'Kesuvah Dami'.

(d) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav also ruled like Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi ... in the name of bar Kapara. When Rebbi Aba mean when he asked Rav Huna whether Rav really said it ...

1. ... he meant that he had better keep it quiet (because *he* agreed with Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan)?
2. ... Rav Huna thought that he meant to say - that he was so pleased with the statement that he was about to offer him a 'Lechayim' for having made it.

(a) Rav Chiya Aricha was the sole heir to his brother, who had married his mother-in-law and died leaving no children. The reason that ...

1. ... he refused to feed her and to give her her Kesuvah, when, after twenty-five years, she claimed them from him - because we have already ruled like the Rabbanan, who say that, as long as she resides in her father's house, she loses her Kesuvah after having failed to claim for twenty-five years (and once she loses her Kesuvah, she loses her Mezonos too).
2. ... Rabah bar Shiloh obligated him to pay her Kesuvah is - because, since Rav Chiya Aricha used to bring the Mezonos to the Almanah to her father's house, she was embarrassed to ask him for her Kesuvah and Mechilah does not apply (in the same way as Mechilah does not apply when the Almanah resides in her husband's house).

(b) When, following Rav Chiya Aricha refusal to comply, Rabah bar Shiloh wrote him an Adrachta (a document authorizing the claimant to seize the defendant's property wherever he finds it) - he went to complain to Rava.

(c) When Rava confirmed Rabah bar Shiloh's ruling - the Almanah demanded the Peiros that Rav Chiya Aricha had eaten from the day that the Adrachta was written.

(d) That claim boomeranged on her however, causing her to lose her previous claim too - when Rava discovered that the Adrachta had not been written correctly (and was therefore invalid), since it failed to confine her claim to the property of her deceased husband (and included Rav Chiya Aricha's personal fields).

(a) Rava refused to uphold even her claim to the Peiros that Rav Chiya Aricha had eaten from the field that she had picked and on which Beis-Din had already announced thirty days earlier - because, since the Adrachta was invalid, the only Peiros that she would be entitled to claim were those that he ate from a field that she had actually claimed.

(b) The learned Almanah queried Rava's ruling - from Rava's own principle 'Acharayus Ta'us Sofer Hu' (in which case we ought to ignore the Sofer's error here too, and reckon as if he had added the missing clause).

(c) Rava did not accept her argument however - on the grounds that it was not the Sofer who had erred here, but Rabah bar Shiloh himself, who thought that it makes no difference which field she takes (which explains why the clause was missing from the Adrachta).

(d) His mistake was - that he did not take into account the possibility that, assuming that Beis-Din assessed a field that did not belong to her husband, and she set about improving it, whilst the heir for his part, does not bother to improve his own, because he knows that, when the time is ripe, he will tell her 'You take your husband's (unimproved field), and give me mine'!, with the result that people will now complain that Beis-Din did not take sufficient care of the Almanah's needs.

12)

(a) Admon and Chanan ben Avishalom were two Daynei G'zeiros in Yerushalayim. Chanan said two things with which the Chachamim disagreed - Admon said seven.

(b) When Chanan said (with regard to someone who goes overseas) 'Tishava be'Sof, ve'Lo Tishava ba'Techilah' - he means that she only needs to swear that she does not have anything of his in her possession, in the event of her death, but not if she claims Mezonos during his lifetime.

(c) The B'nei Kohanim Gedolim say - that she is obligated to swear either way.

(d) Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas agrees with the B'nei Kohanim Gedolim - whereas Raban Yochanan ben Zakai agrees with Chanan.