Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Abaye extrapolate from Rav, re. a case where three men betrothed a woman on the same day; the first one 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom', the second one, 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Esrim Yom' and the third one, 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Asarah Yamim'?

(b) What is the reason for this?

(c) Why does Abaye need to tell us this? Is it not obvious?

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav.
What does he mean when he says 'Afilu Me'ah Tofsin Bah'?

(b) Why can he not mean that each one is a Safek Kidushin, by way of the explanation that Abaye just rejected?

(c) How did Rav Mesharshaya B'rei de'Rav Ami explain this to Rav Asi?

(a) The Beraisa states 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah, Get ve'Eino Get'.
What does the Tana rule with re. to Yibum, if the Mekadesh then died?

(b) The Tana of this Beraisa supports the opinion of Rav.
How does Shmuel reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa?

(c) What ought to be the Din according to Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan? Why should the Get be invalid?

(d) On what grounds does Abaye refute Rava's suggestion that since both a Get and death take a woman out of her husband's jurisdiction, her husband's death will conclude what the Get began?

(a) So how does Abaye explain the Beraisa (which requires Chalitzah and not Yibum, by 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah') according to Ula Rebbi Yochanan?

(b) Why do we not then require Chalitzah in the case of 'me'Hayom Im Meisi' on account of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah'?

(c) If that is so, why are we then not worried in the case of 'me'Hayom u'e'Achar Miysah' too, that once we require Chalitzah, they may go and perform Yibum?

(a) What does the Tana say about a case where a man stipulates 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li al-M'nas she'Etein Lach ...

1. ... Masayim Zuz'?
2. ... Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an ve'ad Sheloshim Yom'?

(b) If he stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Masayim Zuz', the Tana says that she is betrothed if he has it.
What does he say in a case where the man stipulated that he will show her two hundred Zuz? In which case will she not then be betrothed?

(c) According to Rav Huna, the woman is betrothed immediately provided he gives her the two hundred Zuz, whenever that will be.
What does Rav Yehudah say?

(d) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?

(a) Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah repeat their Machlokes with re. to Gitin.
Why can the ramifications of this Machlokes not be in a case where she received Kidushin from another man before the condition on the Get has been fulfilled (like we learned by Kidushin)?

(b) Then what are its ramifications?

(c) Seeing as Rav Huna already argues with Rav Yehudah in the case of ...

1. ... Kidushin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Gitin?
2. ... Gitin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Kidushin?

7)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa cites a case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz, Af-al-Pi she'Niskara ha'Get O she'Avad'. What does he rule there ...

1. ... with re. to the validity of the Get?
2. ... with re. to getting married on account of it?

(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama rules that, if, in the same case, the husband then dies before she has fulfilled the condition, she is subject to the Mitzvah of Yibum.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) The first Beraisa is clearly a support for Rav Huna.
How can we extrapolate Rav Huna's opinion even from the second one?

(a) How will Rav Yehudah reconcile his opinion with the two Beraisos which we just discussed (and both of which support Rav Huna)?

(b) When Rebbi Zeira lived in Bavel, he maintained that Rav Huna Amar Rebbi's statement 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas ke'Omer me'Achshav Dami' was indeed the opinion of Rebbi alone, and that the Rabbanan disagrees with him. After he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, what did he learn from Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan?

(c) In which case *do* the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi?

(d) What support do we bring for this opinion?

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, who maintains that they also argue by 'al-M'nas', why does the Tana of the Beraisa only cite the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah'?

(b) Why does he not rather cite the case of 'al-M'nas' to teach us that even there, the Rabbanan invalidate the Get?

(c) Why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us that, if, in the case of 'al-M'nas she'Etein Lach Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sheloshim Yom', and he fails to fulfill the condition, the Get is not valid? Is this not obvious?

(d) And what does the Tana mean when he says ...

1. ... 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Masayim Zuz, Harei Zu Mekudeshes ve'Yesh Lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be? Why would we not suspect that he may possess two hundred Zuz, without our being aware of it (as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa)?
2. ... 've'Im Her'ah Lah al ha'Shulchan, Einah Mekudeshes'? Is this not obvious?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Beis Kur Afar, Harei Zu Mekudeshes ve'Yesh Lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be).
What is ...

1. ... a Beis Sa'ah?
2. ... a Beis Kur?

(b) How much is this in terms of a square?

(c) What does the Tana mean when he implies that, if he did possess a Beis Kur of earth, she would not be Mekudeshes? How come we do not suspect that he may possess a Beis Kur of earth, without our being aware of it (as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa)?

(d) Having just taught us this very same Halachah in the case of Metaltelin, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by Karka?

(a) Why does the Tana need to inform us that if he stipulated that he had earth in one place, and he has it in another, she is not betrothed? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(b) If he stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Ar'ech Beis Kur Afar', he is obligated to show her his own earth, the Tana of the Beraisa explains, because that is what she had in mind when she asked for this condition to be inserted in the Kidushin (as we learned earlier).
But why does the Tana need to add 've'Im Her'ah be'Bik'ah, Einah Mekudeshes'? How do we establish the Mishnah in order to create a Chidush?

Next daf