Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Beraisa say regarding a case where witnesses testify that a woman who is marrying for the second time, had not been secluded with her first husband before he died?

(b) What is the second case in the Beraisa, which speaks even if they were?

(c) How do we know that she will receive a Kesuvah of one Manah from her second husband?

(d) How does Rav Ashi refute Rabah's proof from here that someone who marries a woman who has a Chezkas Besulah and turns out to be a Be'ulah, receives a Kesuvah like a Be'ulah?

(a) We ask why the Tana of the Beraisa denies the husband Ta'anas Besulim. Why do we not suspect that she may have committed adultery during the period of their betrothal?
How does Rav Sh'ravyah refute this Kashya?

(b) Others cite the entire Sugya (Rabah, Rav Ashi and Rav Sh'ravyah) on our Mishnah, 'Besulah ... min ha'Nisu'in K'subasan Manah, ve'Ein Lahem Ta'anas Besulim'.
What is the difference between the case in our Mishnah and the case in the Beraisa?

(c) If our Sugya pertained to the Mishnah, why would Rav Ashi agree with Rabah in the case in the Beraisa?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that someone who eats by his father-in-law (to be) in Yehudah, does not have a Ta'anas Besulim.
Why is that?

(b) Was the Minhag in Yehudah absolute?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa presents three Minhagim that were practiced in Yehudah, but not in Galil. In Yehudah, they used to seclude the Chasan and Kalah (just before the wedding).
Why did they do that?

(b) They also used to designate two 'Shushbinim' during the night of the wedding.
What was the purpose of those Shushbinim?

(c) How do we now know that the Minhag to seclude the Chasan and Kalah before the wedding was not absolute?

(d) What is the third Minhag that they practiced exclusively in Yehudah?

(a) The Beraisa concludes 'Kol she'Lo Nahag ke'Minhag ha'Zeh, Eino Yachol Lit'on Ta'anas Besulim'.
Why can this not refer to the first of the three Minhagim?

(b) On the other hand, what should the Tana have said, had it referred to the second Minhag?

(c) Abaye therefore establishes it in connection with the *first* Minhag, amending the Beraisa to read 'Kol she'Nahag ... '.
Why does Rava not like that amendment?

(d) Rav Ashi finally accepts the wording of 'Kol she'Lo Mushmash ... ', like we stated earlier the Tana ought to have said.
How does Rava interpret the Beraisa?

(a) Is there any difference between the Kesuvah of an Almanah who is a Yisre'eilis and one who is a Kohenes?

(b) The Beis-Din of Kohanim used to claim four hundred Zuz for a Besulah who was a Kohenes.
Was that for a Kohenes who married a Kohen or one who married a Yisrael?

(c) Did the Chachamim object to that?

(a) How do we reconcile our Mishnah (which specifically places an Almanah who is a Kohenes on a par with a Yisre'eilis) with the Beraisa, which specifies the Kesuvah of a Kohenes as *two hundred* Zuz?

(b) Why did they change her Kesuvah from one hundred to two hundred Zuz, considering that an Almanas Yisrael also receives a hundred Zuz? Why should the stigma of a Kohenes be more significant than that of a Yisre'eilis?

8)

(a) Was the Takanah of the Beis-Din of Kohanim exclusive to Kohanos?

(b) How do we then account for the fact that the Beraisa includes only a bas Yisrael to a Kohen, or vice-versa, in the list, but not a bas Yisrael to a Yisrael?

(a) We have already cited the Mishnah, where Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer rule that if the woman claims that she was raped after the betrothal and the man claimed that the rape preceded the betrothal, *she* is believed.
What reason do we initially attribute to Raban Gamliel's ruling?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(c) If Reuven claims that Shimon owes him a Manah, and Shimon does not remember, Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna obligate him to pay.
Why?

(d) Rav Nachman and Rebbi Yochanan exempt Shimon from paying.
Why is that? On what condition will he be Patur?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah later, with regard to the pregnant woman who claims that she is pregnant from so-and-so, and that he is a Kohen.
What do Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer rule there?

(b) To which case is Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah referring, when he remarks to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah 'Halachah ke'Raban Gamliel af ba'Rishonah'? What does he mean by 'af'?

(c) In light of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's statement, how does Abaye try to establish the Machlokes between Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna, and Rav Nachman and Rav Yochanan?

(a) We reconcile Rav Nachman, who holds 'Manah Li be'Yadcha ve'Halah Amar Eini Yodei'a Patur', with Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah, who believes the woman (that she was raped *after* the betrothal) on the basis of a 'Migu' (which is stronger than a Chezkas Mamon).
Which 'Migu'?

(b) Why is the Ta'anah of 'Mukas Eitz' ...

1. ... is a better argument than that of rape?
2. ... *now* (after the betrothal) better than that of Mukas Eitz *from before*?

(c) What is the alternative way of establishing Rav Nachman like Raban Gamliel?

(a) Is there any alternative explanation to Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna, other than 'Bari ve'Shema Bari Adif'? Like which Tana will they hold?

(b) We finally substantiate the two ways of reconciling Rav Nachman with Raban Gamliel on the grounds that otherwise, we would have a clash of Halachos.
Which Halachos?

Next daf