# dafyomi

lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Terumas Ma'aser of Demai. (If one separated 
                    Terumas Ma'aser from doubtfully tithed produce 
                    and it became mixed with Chulin, we believe the 
                    seller to say that the produce was tithed.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Also Rav follows estimation!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> If a Shechiv Mera (a sick person who fears 
               lest he die) wrote a gift document that says that an 
               acquisition was made, this gives the recipient both 
               advantages:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It is like the gift of a healthy person, in 
                    which the giver cannot retract;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It is like the gift of a Shechiv Mera, in which 
                    the giver can transfer a loan owed to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> I do not know how to judge this.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Perhaps he intended that the gift should take 
                    effect only through the document (and 
                    Chalipin), which cannot work after he dies.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE FINAL RULING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, both Rav and R. Nasan follow estimation. 
          We understand the one who said that the Halachah follows 
          R. Elazar ben Azaryah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The other says that the Halachah does not follow him 
               because here, we assess that he gave Tosefes due to 
               the feeling of closeness, which already came (before 
               Nisu'in).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanina):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar (ben 
          Azaryah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yanai:</font></b> Do not teach this in the Beis Medrash! The 
          Halachah follows Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
          Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
          Elazar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman himself):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow 
               R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim of Neharda'a:</font></b> Rav Nachman says, the Halachah 
          follows R. Elazar;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Even though Rav Nachman cursed any judge who will rule 
          like R. Elazar, the Halachah follows R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  In practice, the Halachah follows R. Elazar.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN IS THE ADDITION TO THE 'KESUVAH' ACQUIRED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravin):</font></b> If there was Chupah but no Bi'ah, does 
          she receive the Tosefes?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does the dearness of Chupah acquire?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, does the dearness of Bi'ah acquire?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef's Beraisa):</font></b> He wrote the Tosefes only 
          for the dearness of the first night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, if the dearness of Chupah acquires, this is 
               only the first night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If the dearness of Bi'ah acquires, this is 
               not only the first night!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (You learn from here that the dearness of 
          Chupah acquires.) Chupah is not only at night!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> Do you say that Bi'ah is only at 
               night?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> One may have Bi'ah during the day in a 
                    dark house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that it is normal to 
               have Bi'ah only at night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since Chupah is for Bi'ah, it is normal to do it 
          at night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If she entered Chupah and became 
          Nidah, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the dearness of Chupah acquires, is this only a 
               Chupah fitting for Bi'ah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps we do not distinguish!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  The question is unsettled.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WRITING A RECEIPT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> He may write to a virgin... (and 
          she writes that she received half).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that we do not write receipts!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If one paid part of his 
               debt, we destroy the first document and write a new 
               one for the remaining debt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, we write a receipt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> The receipt is written in the 
          Kesuvah itself (so there is no concern lest he lose the 
          receipt and she will collect the entire amount).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> The receipt need not be written in the 
          Kesuvah itself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a borrower who paid; if he takes a receipt 
               he might lose it and have to pay again;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here, the husband did not pay anything. She merely 
               <i>said</i> that she received part. If he guards the 
               receipt, fine; if not, he caused his own loss!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, Abaye did not answer like R. Yirmiyah 
          because the Mishnah does not say that the receipt is in 
          the Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why didn't R. Yirmiyah learn like Abaye?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We decree not to write a receipt here lest people 
          do so regarding a loan.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>STIPULATIONS CONTRARY TO 'TORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah implies that she must write that she received 
          100. It is not enough for her to say so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is a monetary matter, and R. Yehudah holds 
          that such stipulations work!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a man was Mekadesh a woman 
               on condition that he is exempt from giving to her 
               food, clothing or Onah (the proper frequency of 
               Bi'ah), the Kidushin takes effect and his 
               stipulation is void;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, in monetary matters the stipulation 
               is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that Kesuvah is an enactment 
          mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim strengthened their words more 
          than Torah laws.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> An enactment mid'Rabanan allows a husband to 
          eat the Peiros of his wife's land, yet this was not 
          strengthened!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A man may always eat the 
               Peiros of his wife's land unless he writes that he 
               has no rights to her property, its Peiros, and the 
               Peiros of its Peiros ad infinitum.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WRITING A RECEIPT FOR A PARTIAL PAYMENT OR PARTIAL WAIVER OF A KESUVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah (54b) states that a person may give his wife a Kesuvah in which he obligates himself to pay 200 Zuz, and in return she gives him a written affidavit that she has received 100 Zuz, so that she is entitled to collect only 100 Zuz of the Kesuvah, forgoing the other 100 Zuz. The Gemara proves from here that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that in a situation where a partial payment of a loan was made, a receipt is written for the partial payment and given to the borrower, instead of forcing the lender to replace the original Shtar with an entirely new Shtar containing the remaining amount of the loan.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yehudah is contradicting his opinion elsewhere, where he states that when someone makes a partial  repayment of a loan, the lender must rewrite the Shtar for the remaining amount, and the lender may not force the borrower to accept a receipt for the partial amount that he repaid.
</p><p>
(a) The Gemara's question is very difficult to understand. When Rebbi Yehudah rules that, in general, a receipt for partial payment is not written, he means that we cannot force the borrower to accept a receipt instead of having a new Shtar written. Our Mishnah, however, is discussing a man who willingly writes a Kesuvah for 200 Zuz and accepts a receipt from his wife that he only owes her half. He is choosing to accept the receipt from her and he is not being forced to do so! It is obvious that Rebbi Yehudah agrees that in such a case he may accept a receipt! (<b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
(b) Second, there are certain situations in which writing a receipt cannot be avoided, as we learned earlier (16b). One such situation is where a person makes a partial payment for a Kesuvah. Since a Kesuvah is a Tenai Beis Din and thus it may be collected even without a Shtar, rewriting the Kesuvah with the new amount will not protect the husband. The wife can still hide the Kesuvah and state that she is coming to claim the full amount on the basis of the Tenai Beis Din. Alternatively, even if she comes with the new Kesuvah (in which it is written that he owes her only 100 Zuz), she can claim that her husband refused to write her a Kesuvah for 200 Zuz and she is really entitled to collect the full amount of 200 Zuz based on the Tenai Beis Din. The <i>only</i> way to protect the husband is by giving him a receipt for the partial payment of the Kesuvah. Why, then, does the Gemara consider this receipt as a contradiction to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that normally a receipt is not written? In this case, there is no other choice; a receipt must be written! (<b>RE'AH</b>; <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim explain that although the situation in the Mishnah does not prove that we may force a borrower to accept a receipt, the wording of the Mishnah implies, in a number of ways, that this is the case according to Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
1. The <b>RASHBA</b> (in Kidushin, and in Teshuvos ha'Meyuchasos #100) writes that the wording in the Mishnah implies that Rebbi Yehudah is suggesting that the proper way for a woman to forgo part of her Kesuvah is not by writing a 100 Zuz Kesuvah, but rather by giving the husband a receipt for 100 Zuz and writing in the Kesuvah the full amount of 200 Zuz. The Rabanan instituted this as the way for a woman to forgo half of the Kesuvah. If there would be a Halachah that normally the borrower is not forced to accept a receipt, then the Rabanan should not have suggested that the Mechilah of the Kesuvah be done in such a fashion. They should have considered that an inexperienced Beis Din might erringly assume that if the Rabanan instituted that a receipt be given for a partial payment (or Mechilah) of a Kesuvah, then it must be that we may always force someone to take a receipt. Alternatively, they should have considered that people who borrow money might think that they must receive a receipt for a partial repayment and are not entitled to write a new Shtar.
</p><p>
2. The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> suggests that since the Mishnah does not mention the option of writing a 100 Zuz Kesuvah in the first place, it implies that the husband does not have the right to do such a thing. He <i>must</i> accept a receipt.
</p><p>
(b) As for our second question, the <b>RE'AH</b> answers that although it is not possible to avoid giving a receipt to the husband for the half of the Kesuvah that she was Mochel, nevertheless -- according to the opinion that says that we do not write a receipt -- we are obliged to do whatever we can for the benefit of the borrower (i.e. for the one who owes the money, such as the husband in the case of the Kesuvah), even when a receipt <i>is</i> written.
</p><p>
In the case of the Mishnah, it will be more advantageous for the husband not to have a receipt written, and to have the Kesuvah written out with only 100 Zuz, than to have a Kesuvah of 200 Zuz with a receipt, because a Kesuvah with 200 Zuz will make it easier for her to lie (she will be less embarrassed to be so brazen) in the event that he loses the receipt. Since the Mishnah says that the Kesuvah was written for 200 Zuz (and not for 100 Zuz), obviously the husband does not have the upper hand, and the Mishnah therefore must hold that a receipt is written for the husband.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MAKING A CONDITION AGAINST SOMETHING WRITTEN IN THE TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding whether a person may make a Tenai modifying the obligations stipulated by the Torah regarding monetary law ('Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'). Rebbi Meir says that if a man is Mekadesh a woman on condition that he not be obligated to give her She'er, Kesus, and Onah, the Tenai is invalid and the Kidushin takes effect fully (and he is obligated to provide her with She'er, Kesus, and Onah). Rebbi Yehudah says the Tenai is valid, and the Kidushin takes effect and he is not obligated to provide her with She'er, Kesus, and Onah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Meir's view is difficult to understand. If the Tenai is null and void, then why should the Kidushin take effect at all? The man was Mekadesh the woman on condition that if he is not obligated to give her She'er, Kesus, and Onah, then he wants the Kidushin to take effect, and conversely, if he will be obligated in She'er, Kesus, and Onah, then he does not want the Kidushin to take effect! (Rebbi Meir requires a 'Tenai Kaful' -- both sides of the condition stated explicitly -- whenever a Tenai is used, as the Mishnah says in Kidushin 61a.) Since the man specified clearly that he does not want the Kidushin to be valid if he will be obligated to give She'er, Kesus, and Onah, then how can the Kidushin take effect and obligate him in She'er, Kesus, and Onah? He did not have in mind for the Kidushin to take effect under such circumstances! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Harei Zu)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> explains that we learns all the laws of Tenai, including the very fact that one may make a Tenai, from a verse (in Kidushin, ibid.) If not for the fact that the Torah teaches that there is such a thing as making a Tenai, we would not have known that there is a concept of Tenai at all. Had the Torah not taught us the concept of Tenai, that one may make a stipulation when making a Kinyan, we would have thought that when a person makes a Tenai as a precondition to a certain Kinyan, we just ignore the Tenai and the Kinyan takes effect. By teaching that a Tenai does work, the Torah is teaching that if the condition is not fulfilled, the Kinyan is annulled retroactively. In the situations in which the Torah does not teach that a Tenai works (such as a situation in which the Tenai counters that which is written in the Torah), we revert back to the original way we would have ruled had the Torah not taught us the concept of Tenai, and the Kinyan works regardless of the fulfillment of the Tenai.
</p><p>
This answer of Tosfos is very difficult to understand. Even without the Torah teaching us the laws of Tenai, we should know, logically, that if a person sells an item to his friend and stipulates that the sale should not be valid unless his friend gives him something or does something, then if the friend fails to fulfill the Tenai the sale should not be valid, since the person did not fully commit himself to the sale! 
</p><p>
To answer this question, we must first analyze a related Halachah -- the Halachah of Bereirah. In many places in the Gemara we find the view that holds 'Ein Bereirah,' which means that a Kinyan cannot be effected if -- at the moment that it takes effect -- it is not clear upon <i>what</i> it takes effect. For example, a person cannot pick up an item in order to be Koneh it and say, 'If it rains tomorrow, I want this act of Kinyan to be for Reuven, and if it does not rain tomorrow, I want this act of Kinyan to be for Shimon.' If a person does make such a stipulation, then even if it rains the next day, the object will not belong to Reuven. Similarly, a person cannot eat fruits today, 'The portion that I will choose to separate tomorrow will be Terumah on these fruits starting from now.' If he does so, then even if he separates a portion tomorrow, it will not serve as Terumah.
</p><p>
The logic for this, as the <b>RAN</b> explains in Nedarim (45b), is that 'it is not appropriate for a Kinyan to take effect in a way that leaves a doubt as to how it took effect.' This means that the Kinyan must take effect at the same moment at which the action which accomplishes the Kinyan is performed (such as the act of Hagba'ah (lifting up an item) in the case of a purchase, or Dibur (speech) in the case of making something Terumah). The Kinyan cannot take effect after the act, because the act which makes the Kinyan is no longer present. Thus, if at the moment that the act is performed, the Kinyan 'does not know' where to take effect, the Kinyan does not take effect (or it takes effect on one of the two, regardless of what happens the next day; see Insights to Eruvin 37b). The Kinyan cannot see into the future, so to speak.
</p><p>
What is the difference between Bereirah and a Tenai? No Tenai should ever work if we say 'Ein Bereirah,' because the Kinyan cannot know what will happen in the future (whether the Tenai will be fulfilled or not) in order to be able to take effect now!
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> (Gitin 25b, DH u'l'Chi Mayis) explain that when a person makes a Tenai, it is in his ability, and it is his intention, to fulfill the condition (for otherwise he would not have made the Kinyan in the first place). Hence, the Kinyan is not taking effect in a matter that leaves doubt. Rather, it takes effect <i>for certain</i> at the time the act of Kinyan is made, since he intends to fulfill the Tenai. What, then, is it that revokes the Kinyan retroactively when the condition is not fulfilled? The Kinyan has already been made and completed; it took effect, so how can it be revoked retroactively? The answer is that this is the reason why the Torah has to teach us the novel concept of Tenai -- even though the Kinyan was made, it can be revoked through not fulfilling the condition. This is what the Ri means to say -- since the Torah did not teach the concept of Tenai in a case where the Tenai contradicts the obligations of the Torah, then we revert to saying that the Kinyan is completed and nothing can uproot it retroactively, since it has already been done and has already taken effect. The person who made the Kinyan <i>did</i> intend for the Kinyan to take effect for certain, since he was expecting the Tenai to be fulfilled. 
</p><p>
For this reason, when a man makes a Kidushin on condition that he not be obligated to give She'er, Kesus, and Onah, he obviously thinks that he is able to create such a Kidushin and he has in mind that the Kidushin should be completed, except that it should be uprooted if it turns out that he is obligated to give She'er, Kesus, and Onah. But by that time, it is too late to revoke the Kidushin, since it already took effect.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by the Tosfos Yeshanim and the Tosfos ha'Rosh), the <b>RITVA</b>, and the <b>RASHBA</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explain that when a person makes a Tenai that contradicts the Torah, he does not really mean it, but he is just being 'Mafligah b'Devarim' -- he is just frightening her with words. The Beraisa in Gitin (84a) teaches such a concept with regard to a person who says to his wife that he is giving her a Get on condition that she does something that is physically impossible to do (see Rashi there, DH Mafligah). Since he knows that the Halachah of the Torah requires that Kidushin be done in a certain way with certain obligations, it must be that he is not serious about his condition to alter those obligations, and therefore he probably has in mind to make a Kidushin, and he is just saying this condition in order to frighten her.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam might have rejected the explanation of the Ri because his explanation is logically sound only when the condition is something that will be fulfilled or not fulfilled at a point <i>after</i> the Kinyan is completed. In the case of Kidushin, though, the Kidushin takes effect <i>at the same time</i> that the obligations of She'er, Kesus, and Onah take effect (or do not take effect). Thus, since the Kidushin does not depend on a future event but on a present event, the Kidushin should not take effect (since he did not have in mind to make such a Kidushin that obligates him in She'er, Kesus, and Onah). (See also Rebbi Akiva Eiger.)
</p><p>
The Ri might have explained like the Rashba, who says that the condition that the husband was stipulating was not that Kidushin should take effect without the obligations of She'er, Kesus, and Onah. Rather, the husband was stipulating that Kidushin should take effect only if the woman <i>forgoes her entitlement</i> to She'er, Kesus, and Onah. This can take place after the Kidushin is effected. (This is not like the opinion of Rabeinu Elchanan as quoted later in Tosfos.)
</p><p>
The Ri, on the other hand, did not accept Rabeinu Tam's explanation, because 'Mafligah b'Devarim' can only be applied to a Tenai made against something written in the Torah, but not when any of the other details of Tenai were omitted. However, we find that if a person makes a Tenai in the wrong order ('Ma'aseh Kodem le'Tenai'), then the Kinyan takes effect and we ignore the Tenai even though the logic of 'Mafligah b'Devarim' does not apply (as the <b>RE'AH</b> points out)! 
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We hold that here, 'writes' really means 'says'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> All wives have a Kesuvah, but not all 
          have Peiros; Chachamim strengthened their enactment 
          regarding Kesuvah, which is common, but not regarding 
          Peiros, which are uncommon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Merchants are common, yet (R. Yehudah holds 
          that) Chachamim did not strengthen their enactment (of 
          Demai, to suspect that merchants scheme to lie for each 
          other)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If two merchants entered a city, and one 
               said 'My produce is Chadash (new), and my friend's 
               is old. Mine is untithed, and my friend's is 
               tithed', they are not believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, they are believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> A Vadai enactment mid'Rabanan was 
          strengthened, but not one that is based on Safek.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Chachamim were lenient about Demai 
          (because most Amei ha'Aretz tithe).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>STIPULATIONS TO REDUCE THE 'KESUVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> Anyone who reduces the Kesuvah from 
          200...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> <i>Anyone</i> connotes that even if he stipulated, 
          the stipulation is void and the Kesuvah really is 200, 
          but since she thinks that it is not 200, the Bi'ah is 
          Znus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Meir holds that a stipulation contrary to 
          <i>Torah</i> is void. This implies that a stipulation contrary 
          to a mid'Rabanan law is valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir holds that the Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If anyone reduces the Kesuvah of a 
          virgin from 200, or of a non-virgin from 100, the Bi'ah 
          is Znus;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, he is permitted;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, he may write 200 to a virgin or 100 to a 
          non-virgin, and she writes that she received half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yosi forbids!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not designate 
               Metaltelim (to be the sole source of payment) for a 
               Kesuvah. This is an enactment to fix matters.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (R. Yosi):</font></b> How does this fix things? Their 
               value is not fixed, and they depreciate!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Also the first Tana does not allow 
                    designating Metaltelim!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the first Tana distinguishes: 
                    Metaltelim may be used only if he accepted 
                    Acharayos (responsibility to pay from other 
                    property if they will be lost);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>R. Yosi forbids even if he accepted Acharayos. 
                    Their value is not fixed, and they depreciate!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of contradiction:</font></b> R. Yosi is concerned 
               lest they depreciate. All the more so he forbids 
               stipulating to definitely decrease the Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is not difficult! She does not know that 
          Metaltelim will depreciate, and does not intend to pardon 
          the loss. Here, she knowingly pardoned the decrease!
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY A COUPLE LIVE TOGETHER WITHOUT A 'KESUVAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rami bar Chama's sister was married to Rav Avya. She lost 
          her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Rav Yehudah cited Shmuel to say that R. Meir 
          holds that she must have a Kesuvah of 200 (to cohabit 
          with her husband), but Chachamim permit a man to keep his 
          wife for two or three years without a Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Rav Nachman cited Shmuel to say that 
          the Halachah follows R. Meir's decrees!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If so, he must write for her 
          another Kesuvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN CAN SHE PARDON THE 'KESUVAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi says that the Tana'im 
          (R. Yosi and R. Yehudah) agree that at the end, she 
          cannot pardon the Kesuvah (verbally, without writing). 
          They argue about (whether she can do so) at the beginning 
          (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan said that they argue in both cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> R. Yochanan told me that he does not argue 
          with R. Yehoshua ben Levi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi calls the start of Chupah 'the 
               beginning', and the end of Bi'ah 'the end.' R. 
               Yochanan said they argue at the start and end of 
               Chupah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The end of Chupah is the start of Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin):</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that the Tana'im argue 
          at the end. At the beginning, they agree that she can 
          pardon the Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan said that they argue in both cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> R. Yochanan told me that he does not disagree 
          with R. Yehoshua ben Levi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi calls the start of Chupah 'the 
               beginning', and the end of Chupah 'the end.' R. 
               Yochanan said they argue at the start and end of 
               Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Had R. Avahu not explained thusly, I would 
          have said that R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi argue 
          with each other, but Rav Dimi and Ravin do not argue!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ravin calls the end of Chupah 'the end', and Rav 
               Dimi calls the start of Bi'ah 'the beginning'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does Rav Papa teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is better to say that two Amora'im (R. 
          Yehoshua ben Levi and R. Yochanan) argue based on their 
          own reasons, than to say that two Amora'im (Rav Dimi and 
          Ravin) argue about what another Amora said.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE TIME TO PREPARE FOR 'CHUPAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We give a virgin 12 months to prepare for 
          Chupah from when the husband asks to make Nisu'in. Just 
          like we give time to her, he is given time (from when she 
          asks). We give to a widow 30 days;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the time came and they were not married, he must feed 
          her. She may eat Terumah (if he is a Kohen);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Tarfon says, he may give to her only Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, he gives half Terumah and half Chulin 
          (regular food, for her to eat when she is Temei'ah);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If her husband died and she is Shomeres Yavam (awaiting 
          Yibum), she may not eat Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she was an Arusah for six months and Shomeres 
               Yavam for six months, or a full year less one day 
               Arusah and one day Shomeres Yavam, or vice-versa, 
               she may not eat Terumah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This is the first version of the Mishnah. A later Beis 
          Din decreed that she may not eat Terumah until Chupah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHAT IS 'CHUPAH?'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a woman who marries a Kohen may eat Terumah only after the Chupah has been performed. The Mishnah and Gemara use the word 'Chupah' in a number of places, but the Gemara never describes exactly what constitutes 'Chupah.'
</p><p>
The word 'Chupah' appears in Tanach in Yeshayah (4:5), and Yoel (2:16). Its root is the word 'Chofeh,' meaning 'cover.' It seems, therefore, that 'Chupah' refers to something which 'covers' the Kalah in some manner. The Radak (in Yoel) is uncertain whether the Chupah of a Kalah is a roofed room, or ornaments that the Kalah covers herself with. Let us try to find out what type of covering constitutes the Chupah to which the Mishnah refers, and how it effects Nisu'in.
</p><p>
(a) We learned earlier (see Insights to 48:2) the view of the <b>GE'ONIM</b> (cited by the <b>RAN</b> on 1a according to the pages of the Rif), which many understand to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:1). Their view is that Chupah means that the Chasan secludes himself with the Kalah to the absolute exception of anyone else (Yichud). The Rambam adds that the woman must be Ra'uy l'Bi'ah at the time. According to this view, it seems that Chupah accomplishes Nisu'in the same way that Bi'ah accomplishes Nisu'in -- it is the beginning of an intimate relationship of Ishus. (<b>TOSFOS</b>, Yoma 13b DH l'Chada, seems to accept this understanding of Chupah with regards to an Almanah, but not with regards to a Besulah.)
</p><p>
According to this understanding, the word Chupah might mean that after this display of intimacy, the husband feels responsible to be his wife's protector who 'covers' or shields her. (This is also the way the Perishah EH 61:2 interprets the word 'Chupah.') 
</p><p>
(b) We discussed earlier (Insights to 48:2) that there are many proofs against this opinion, and it seems that the Rambam himself does not require an actual Yichud that is Ra'uy l'Bi'ah. Rather, Chupah means that the woman is (1) brought into the husband's house 'l'Shem Nisu'in,' for the purpose of Nisu'in, (2) in a semi-private manner. (That is, they may be still visible to others, who watch  them from, the outside.) This is the way the <b>BEIS ME'IR</b> (EH 55:1) explains the Rambam, and the <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> (end of Ishus 10:6) seems to interpret the Rambam this way as well (see also <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> EH 57:2 and <b>BACH</b> EH 61).
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> (Kesuvos 1a, and <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> EH 55:9) also defines Chupah as 'bringing the Kalah into the Chasan's house l'Shem Ishus' (but he does not seem to require any type of Yichud). The Ran adds that the source for this Kinyan in the Torah is the verse regarding Hafaras Nedarim, 'v'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah' (Bamidbar 30:11), which describes the married woman as 'in the house of her husband.' The <b>TUR</b>, EH 61, defines Chupah as Yichud (but he does not seem to require that the Kalah be brought into his house -- see <b>DERISHAH</b> 61:1, <b>PERISHAH</b> 61:2). 
</p><p>
The Rambam, Ran and Tur all seem to be defining Chupah in a similar, if not identical, fashion. According to their understanding, the 'covering' of Chupah might mean that the Chasan covers the Kalah with his home -- he puts a roof over her head, so to speak.
</p><p>
(c) Others explain that Chupah is a symbolic act which shows that the Chasan is designating the Kalah for himself and is about to bring her into his home permanently to be his wife. This act could be an act of covering the Kalah ('Chofeh') in some way.
</p><p>
The Tashbetz (Tashbetz Katan #461) and the <b>REMA</b> (EH 55:1) describe Chupah a cloth or curtain spread over the heads of the Chasan and Kalah -- in short, what we refer to today as Chupah. This canopy might also be reminiscent of Kabalas ha'Torah, where Hash-m was 'wedded' to the Bnei Yisrael by holding the mountain over the people in an act of 'Chupah.' (In fact, Tashbetz [ibid. #465] writes that 'all of the customs of the Chasan and Kalah are learned from Matan Toah, where Hash-m appeared to us like a Chasan coming to greet the Kalah, Bnei Yisrael'; see Rashi, Shemos 19:17.)
</p><p>
The <b>ME'IRI</b> (Kesuvos 7b) writes that the practice was to take a corner of the head covering of the Kalah and cover the Chasan's head with it. The <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b> (Kesuvos 1:17) writes that they covered the Kalah's head with the Chasan's Talis. (An allusion to this is to be found in the Gemara in Kidushin (18b) which refers to marriage as 'spreading one's Talis' over one's wife.) A hint to such a practice can be found in the verse in Ruth (3:9), where Ruth requests of Boaz that he 'spread his garment over your maidservant.'
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Yoma (13b) writes that covering the Kalah's head with the veil ('Hinuma') is Chupah (at least for a Besulah). The Hinuma is a sign that she is now a married woman. An allusion to this can be found in the verse that says that when Rivka saw Yitzchak as she was brought to him to marry him, she covered her face with a veil (Bereishis 24:65).
</p><p>
(The <b>BA'AL HA'ITUR</b> (Birchas Chasanim, #2) writes that Chupah means bringing her into his house once he has decorated it in her honor, or into a pretty bridal canopy. He seems to also be following the view that Chupah is a symbolic act which shows that he is about to take her into his house permanently as his wife.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> We attempt to fulfill most of these opinions of Chupah at weddings nowadays, as the <b>BACH</b> (EH 61) points out. The Chasan lowers the veil over and covers the Kalah's face (Badeken), which is the Chupah according to Tosfos. They stand underneath a canopy that is spread out over the two of them. The Chasan then brings the Kalah to the Yichud room, where they eat together in a private place (<b>REMA</b> EH 55:1).
</p><p>
The Poskim (<b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> 55:18) mention that according to those who say that the Chupah constitutes bringing the Kalah into the Chasan's house, the Chasan should buy (or rent) the Cheder Yichud so that the area into which he brings the Kalah belongs to him. (However, the Vilna Ga'on EH 55:9 maintains that it is not important for the Chasan to own the land where they are standing in order for the Chupah to take effect.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source of a year to 
          prepare for Chupah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'Let her (Rivkah) stay with us Yamim 
          (days) or 10'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> 'Yamim' means two days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> It is not normal to request two, and if 
               this is not granted, to request 10!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rather, it means a year - 'It may be redeemed for 
               <i>Yamim</i>'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is a month - 'Ad Chodesh Yamim'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is better to learn Stam (unspecified) Yamim 
          from Stam Yamim, and not from 'Chodesh Yamim'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> A minor or her father may delay the Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she wants to go to Chupah, why should her 
          father object?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He reasons that she does not know that she will 
          not be happy, and he will have to marry her off again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba bar Levi):</font></b> We do not arrange to make Nisu'in for 
          a minor, but we may arrange Nisu'in (Rashi - without 
          Kidushin) for her now for when she grows up.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Obviously this is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we are concerned lest 
          she will become weak from fright. R. Aba teaches that we 
          are not concerned.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>TIME FOR A 'BOGERES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a Bogeres became Mekudeshes, we allow her 
          30 days, like a widow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If she became a Bogeres, it is as if 
          the husband asked to have Chupah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is like a virgin being asked (and she 
               has 12 months)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is like a widow being asked.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a Bogeres was 
          Mekudeshes for 12 months, since now her husband must feed 
          her, he can annul her vows.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that she has 12 months to prepare!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> It means, a Bogeres <i>or</i> one who has waited 12 
          months...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Mekadesh a virgin, whether he asks 
          and she delays or vice-versa, we give 12 months from the 
          request, not from the Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Becoming a Bogeres is like being asked.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she was Bogeres for one day and became 
               Mekudeshes, she gets 12 months. An Arusah gets 30 
               days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'an Arusah gets 30 days'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> If she was a Bogeres for 12 months and 
          became an Arusah, she gets 30 days, like a widow.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY 'ARUSOS' MAY NOT EAT 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, a Bas Yisrael Mekudeshes to a Kohen 
          may eat Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'A Kohen who acquires a soul through money' - an 
               Arusah can be acquired with money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Ula):</font></b> Mid'Rabanan, she may not eat Terumah 
          lest they mix a cup of Terumah wine for her, and she will 
          give to her siblings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This concern applies even after the time for 
          Chupah comes (yet the original Mishnah permits her after 
          this time)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> When the time comes, he designates a place for 
          her (away from her family).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If this is a concern, a Kohen farmhand living 
          with a Yisrael should not eat Terumah, lest they come to 
          eat with him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They give him to eat. Surely they will not they 
          eat from him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> An Arusah may not 
          eat, lest she has a Mum that will invalidate the 
          marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, even after Chupah, if they did not yet 
          have Bi'ah she should be forbidden to eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The husband checks her (through his female 
          relatives) before Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The same concern should apply to a slave bought 
          from a Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Mumim in a slave do not invalidate the sale:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If they are visible, the buyer saw them (and wanted 
               the slave anyway)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If they are covered, since the slave is needed only 
               for labor, the master doesn't care about them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If the slave is found to be a thief or gambler, the 
               sale is valid (for this is normal for slaves).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the slave is an armed robber, or the 
          kingdom sentenced him to be executed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Such matters become known. (Rashi - the buyer 
          cannot retract. R. Tam - he can retract, but it is rare 
          to buy such slaves, so we are not concerned for this.)
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REASONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah agree that she 
          does not eat. What difference does it make what the 
          reason is?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue in the following cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The husband accepted her, even if she has a Mum (the 
               only concern is feeding siblings);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> The father gave her to the 
               husband's Sheluchim, or Sheluchim of the father went 
               with her and with the husband's Sheluchim (the only 
               concern is a Mum).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Version #2 (Tosfos Kidushin 11a DH Kibel). The 
               father gave her to the husband's Sheluchim <i>and</i> 
               Sheluchim of the father went with her. (We are not 
               concerned for a Mum, for her husband checks her 
               first through relatives, but we are concerned lest 
               she feed Terumah to her father's Sheluchim.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'KOHEN'S' WIFE RECEIVES 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Tarfon):</font></b> He may give to her only Terumah...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> They argue about a Kohen who married a Bas Kohen 
          (she is used to guarding Terumah and selling it), but all 
          agree that a Bas Yisrael receives half Chulin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> They argue about an Arusah (who lives with her 
          father, who can sell Terumah for her), but all agree that 
          a Nesu'ah receives half Chulin (it is undignified for her 
          to go out to sell).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for both laws - Beraisa - R. Tarfon):</font></b> He may 
          give to her all Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, he gives to her half Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This applies to a Bas Kohen Mekudeshes to a Kohen. 
               If she is a Bas Yisrael, or Nesu'ah, all agree that 
               she receives half Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, she receives two thirds 
               Terumah and a third Chulin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, he may give to her only Terumah, 
               and she sells it to buy Chulin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, whenever he gives 
               Terumah, he gives double the quantity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do R. Yehudah and R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
          argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about whether (she gets 'extra' 
          Terumah, so she can sell it <i>easily</i> at a discount (R. 
          Shimon), or if she must toil to sell it (at the market 
          price of Terumah to obtain the Chulin she needs (R. 
          Yehudah)).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN WHO MUST WAIT BEFORE EATING 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Yavam does not permit a Shomeres Yavam to 
          eat Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> '<i>His</i>(a Kohen's) monetary acquisition' eats. She 
               is the acquisition of his brother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was an Arusah for six months (... or 
          for a full year less one day and Shomeres Yavam for one 
          day, or vice-versa*, she may not eat).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If her husband does not permit her to eat (even 
          if she was an Arusah almost a full year), It need not 
          teach that (in a similar case) the Yavam does not permit 
          her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Correct! The Mishnah taught this (a year less one 
          day Shomeres Yavam), even though it can be learned from 
          the previous law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This is the Mishnah Rishonah (the original 
          version...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the Mishnah Acharonah (the revision) 
          more stringent?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ula; alternatively, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> We 
          are concerned lest she has a Mum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, if Ula said this, the Mishnah Rishonah 
          was concerned lest she share her Terumah with her 
          siblings, and the Mishnah Acharonah is concerned for a 
          Mum.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REASON WHY AN 'ARUSAH' WHO IS BETROTHED TO A KOHEN MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah regarding the reason why the Rabanan decreed that a woman who is betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah. According to Ula, we are afraid that she might feed the Terumah to her brothers and sisters (who are not Kohanim) since she is still living in her father's home. According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, we are afraid of 'Simpon' (a 'revocation' of the marriage) -- the husband might discover later that the woman has a blemish, making the Kidushin a 'Mekach Ta'us' (an acquisition in error). The betrothal will be annulled retroactively, and thus retroactively the woman will have transgressed the Isur d'Oraisa of eating Terumah.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that the practical difference between these two opinions are the cases of 'Kibel, Masar, v'Halach' (literally, 'he accepted, he gave over, and he went'). <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Masar v'Halach' refers to when the father 'gave over' his daughter to the husband, or when the father's emissaries 'went' with the emissaries of the husband when bringing the Kalah to the husband's home. In such cases, there is still a fear of 'Simpon' (because the husband does not fully examine her for blemishes until the time that he starts supporting her), but there is no fear that she will feed Terumah to her siblings, because she has already left her father and her father's home.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes later on this page that nowadays the Kalah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is performed, not like the original enactment mentioned in the Mishnah. This is because of 'Simpon,' since the husband does not finish examining her for blemishes until the Chupah.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's conclusion, it should be clear that if the father gives over his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, she still cannot eat Terumah, because there still is a fear of 'Simpon.' How can this be reconciled with the Gemara earlier (48b) in which Rav Asi states that from the time of the Mesirah (giving over) of the woman to the emissaries of the husband, the woman may eat Terumah? (It is true that Rav argues in that Gemara and says that she may not eat Terumah at that point. However, Rav Asi maintains that she can. How can his view be reconciled with the Gemara here?)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (in the margin of the Gemara) writes that Rav and Rav Asi argue whether the husband already checks for blemishes at the time the father gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries (as Tosfos says on 48b, DH Rav Asi). Our Sugya follows the opinion of Rav. Rav Asi holds the husband <i>does</i> check for blemishes at the time he gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries, and therefore Mesirah ('Masar') will not be a practical difference between the reasons given by Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah. (See Tosfos there who raises a question on this answer.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (11a, DH Kibel) and the <b>RITVA</b> in our Sugya explain that the words 'Masar v'Halach' are not two different cases, but they refer to a single case. The case to which they refer is when the father gave over ('Masar') his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, and then the father went along with them ('Halach') to the husband's home. (That explains why it says 'Halach' in the singular ('he went') and not 'Halchu' in the plural ('they went').) Since the father is traveling with the husband's emissaries, the woman cannot eat Terumah even according to Rav Asi. 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, cited by the <b>RASHBA</b>, explains that all three words are describing a single case. 'Kibel' means that the father accepted the money of Kidushin, and 'Masar v'Halach' means that immediately upon receiving the Kidushin, the father gave his daughter over to the husband, who took her with him to his home. There is a fear of 'Simpon' because the husband obviously did not have enough time to check for blemishes. 
</p><p>
Accordingly, it is possible that Rav Asi maintains that she may eat Terumah only when the father gives her over to the husband after a period of time long enough for the husband to have checked her for blemishes.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RASHI</b> (48b) suggests the simplest answer. He says that Rav and Rav Asi, who argue whether the Kalah may eat Terumah from the time of the Mesirah, also argue concerning the reason why the Rabanan prohibited an Arusah from eating Terumah. Rav holds like Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, that the reason she may not eat Terumah is because of 'Simpon,' and that is why she is still prohibited from eating Terumah after Mesirah. Rav Asi holds like Ula, that the reason she may not eat Terumah is because she might feed her siblings Terumah, and thus once she has left her father's home, she may eat Terumah because there is no fear that she will feed her siblings.
</p><p>
Although our Gemara concludes that nowadays a Kalah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah because of 'Simpon' (and not because of the fear that she might feed Terumah to her siblings), there is a Tana in Kidushin (10b) who says that the reason an Arusah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is because she might feed her siblings, and not only because of 'Simpon' (see <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> on 48b and <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> there). Even though she normally eats what her Chasan gives her in a separate section of the house, there is still a concern that she might feed her siblings (even after twelve months have passed).
</p><p>
However, there is a problem with this answer. According to Rashi's explanation, 'Halach' means that the emissaries of the father went along with the emissaries of the husband. How could that be a practical difference between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah? In such a case, even Rav Asi -- who holds like Ula that we are afraid that she will feed her siblings Terumah -- says that she cannot eat Terumah. If the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband, all Amora'im agree that she cannot eat Terumah until she is formally given over through Mesirah to the emissaries of the husband. How can Rashi say that there is no fear that she might feed her siblings Terumah in a case of 'Halach!' (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> 48b, and <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> here)
</p><p>
To answer this, we must first answer another question on Rashi's explanation. How could Rashi say that in a case of 'Halach,' where the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband, there is no concern that she will feed Terumah to her siblings because they are not with her? According to that reasoning, we should say that every time she walks out of her father's home without her siblings she is permitted to eat Terumah! Obviously this is not the case, since we assume that she is going to come back into the home and eat again with her siblings, and thus we prohibit her from eating Terumah because she is still going to eat with her siblings in the future. Accordingly, the same should apply to a case where the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband. Perhaps the emissaries of the father, in whose custody he put his daughter, will turn back and return the daughter to her father's home. In the case of 'Masar' this is not a problem, since the Kalah has already been given over to the husband and she is now under his guardianship and she cannot return to live in her father's home. But while she is still in the guardianship of her father, she should be prohibited to eat Terumah! (See He'oros b'Maseches Kesuvos, for a similar question in the name of Hagaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.)
</p><p>
The answer to this question appears to be as follows. Rashi does not mean that she is permitted to eat Terumah from the moment that the emissaries of the father walk away with the emissaries of the husband. She is still prohibited to eat Terumah at that point, since they might turn around and bring her back to her father's home. Rather, after the emissaries of the father give her over to the emissaries of the husband, then she may begin eating Terumah because she is in the husband's domain.
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rashi say that at the time that the emissaries of t2he father went with the emissaries of the husband, she may already eat Terumah? The answer is that Rashi understands that once the emissaries of the father give her over to the emissaries of the husband, then that shows that from the time that the emissaries of the father left his home to escort her to the husband's home, she was not going to come back, and thus <i>retroactive1y</i> she could eat Terumah from that point.
</p><p>
If, practically, she cannot actually eat Terumah from that point (since she cannot <i>eat</i> retroactively!), what difference does it make to say that she may eat Terumah from the time that the emissaries of the father depart with her with the emissaries of the husband? The practical difference might be in a case where the woman ate Terumah after the emissaries of the father left with the emissaries of the husband but <i>before</i> before they gave her over to the emissaries of the husband. If she was prohibited mid'Rabanan from eating Terumah, then she would have to pay restitution of 'Keren v'Chomesh' (the principal plus a fifth) like any non-Kohen who eats Terumah. But if, retroactively, it becomes permitted for her to eat Terumah, then she does not have to pay restitution if she improperly ate Terumah before she was handed over to the emissaries of the husband.
</p><p>
It is now clear why Rav Asi states that it is permitted for her to eat Terumah from the time of Mesirah. Rav Asi is referring to when she is permitted to eat Terumah <i>l'Chatchilah</i>. The Gemara here, on the other hand, says that as soon as she goes with the emissaries of the father in order to be given to the emissaries of the husband, b'Di'eved she may eat Terumah from that point after she has been given over to the emissaries of the husband.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain the Gemara this way? Why does he not explain that 'Halach' means that the emissaries of the father gave her over to the emissaries of the husband? Why does he say that they <i>went</i> with the emissaries of the husband? The answer is that Rashi understands that if that is what 'Halach' means, then there would be no reason for the Gemara to mention 'Masar v'Halach' as two different cases. If she is permitted to eat Terumah in both cases because she has been given over to the husband or to his emissaries, then it does not make a difference who gave her over, her father or his emissaries. That is why Rashi learns that the case of 'Halach' refers to <i>before</i> she was given over to the emissaries of the husband. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if Rav Shmuel said this, this is just like he 
               explained the Mishnah Rishonah! (Why did the law 
               change?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about whether or not we rely on his 
          relatives to check her for Mumim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Mishnah relies on this (he will not feed 
               her until he checks her through relatives). The 
               Mishnah Acharonah does not rely on this (until he 
               himself checks her).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A HUSBAND MAKE HIS WIFE'S EARNINGS 'HEKDESH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Makdish his wife's earnings, she 
          may eat what she earns (it is not Hekdesh);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, if he was Makdish her extra earnings (more 
          than the Mishnah (64b) requires), it is Hekdesh;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, it is Chulin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> A wife can tell her husband 'do not 
          feed me, and I will not work for you.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that the primary enactment was that she 
               should be fed. He receives her earnings to avoid 
               resentment;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she wants, the enactment does not apply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> It was enacted that he feed her in 
          exchange for receiving her earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It should say that the enactment was that he 
          receives her earnings in exchange for feeding her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Huna - Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Makdish his 
          wife's earnings, she may eat what she earns.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The case is, he offers to feed her (but 
               she declines, so he has no rights to her earnings)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, the case is, he does not (have the means 
          to) feed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the law is obvious!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even the opinion that allows one to force his slave 
               to work for him without feeding him, says so only 
               about a Kena'ani slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Yisrael slave it says 'with you' (he 
               eats like you). All the more so, one may not take 
               his wife's earnings unless he feeds her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the entire Mishnah was taught for the 
          sake of the Seifa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa - R. Meir):</font></b> If she makes extra money, it is 
               Hekdesh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, it is Chulin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna disagrees with Reish Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> R. Meir's reason (why her extra 
               earnings are Hekdesh) is not because he holds that 
               one can make Hekdesh something that is not yet in 
               the world. Rather, <i>since he can force her to work</i>, 
               it is as if he said 'your hands are Hekdesh to their 
               Maker'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> He didn't say that!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since R. Meir holds that a person does not 
               speak in vain (about Hekdesh), he certainly meant 
               this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Meir holds that a person <i>can</i> be Makdish 
          something not in the world!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> In the following cases, a woman 
               becomes Mekudeshes (in the proper time):
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  John was Mekadesh Lisa to take effect after he 
                    or she converts, after he or she is freed (from 
                    being a Kena'ani slave), or after her husband 
                    or her sister (John's current wife) dies, or 
                    after she does Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> (Even though he cannot Mekadesh her now, it takes 
               effect when it is possible. Likewise, one may 
               transfer ownership or be Makdish something not yet 
               in the world, to take effect when it comes to the 
               world!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, that Beraisa proves that R. Meir says so. 
          Reish Lakish teaches that our Mishnah is not a proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> The extra is Hekdesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When does it become Hekdesh?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> It is Hekdesh after she dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> It is Hekdesh (even) in 
          her lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he is feeding her and giving her a Ma'ah (a coin, 
               a sixth of a Dinar) every week for other needs, Rav 
               and Shmuel should agree that it is Hekdesh in her 
               lifetime!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he is not feeding her and giving a weekly Ma'ah, 
               why does Rav Ada say that it is Hekdesh during her 
               lifetime?
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ENACTMENT TO FEED ONE'S WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> He is feeding her, but is not giving a 
          weekly Ma'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav and Shmuel hold that food was enacted in 
               exchange for (standard) earnings, and a weekly Ma'ah 
               in exchange for extra earnings;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since he is not giving a Ma'ah, the extra earnings 
               are not his.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rav Ada holds that food was enacted in exchange for extra 
          earnings; and a Ma'ah in exchange for earnings;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since he is feeding her, the extra earnings are his.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis of the argument?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel hold that we enacted what is 
          common (food) in return for what is common (standard 
          earnings). Rav Ada holds that we enacted what is fixed (a 
          Ma'ah) for what is fixed (standard earnings, detailed in 
          the Mishnah 64b).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Ada - Beraisa):</font></b> Food was enacted in 
          return for earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It means 'in return for <i>extra</i> earnings.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav and Shmuel - Mishnah):</font></b> If he does 
          not give to her money for extra expenses, she keeps her 
          earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It means 'she keeps her <i>extra</i> earnings.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah proceeds to teach 'How much must 
          she produce? She must spin five Sela'im of 
          warp-thread...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It teaches how much is required, so we will know 
          what is considered extra. The standard is five Sela'im...
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A VOW ABOUT SOMETHING NOT YET IN THE WORLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shmuel contradicts himself! (Above (58b), 
          Shmuel said that the Tana'im argue about Hekdesh of 
          something not yet in the world, and R. Yochanan 
          ha'Sandlar holds that it does not take effect.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a wife vowed 'what my hands produce is 
               Konam (forbidden like a Korban) to your mouth', her 
               husband need not annul it (it is void anyway);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, he should annul it, lest she will 
               earn extra;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, he should annul it, lest 
               he divorce her and be unable to remarry her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri. 
               (He says the vow takes effect on what is not yet in 
               the world.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Shmuel said that the Halachah follows R. 
          Yochanan ben Nuri regarding extra earnings. (Tosfos - her 
          husband gets them. Rashi - he should annul the vow, like 
          R. Yochanan ben Nuri said, but not due to concern for 
          after divorce, rather, because the vow forbids extra 
          earnings.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, Shmuel should have said that the 
          Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri regarding extra 
          earnings, or that the Halachah is unlike the first Tana, 
          or that the Halachah follows R. Akiva!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> One cannot ask a question from 
          Konamos to Hekdesh. Konamos are different!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since Reuven can forbid Shimon's property to himself 
               through Konamos, he can also forbid something that 
               is not yet in the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Granted, Reuven can forbid Shimon's 
          friend's property to himself through Konam, just like 
          Reuven can forbid his own property to Shimon (it suffices 
          for the forbidden object <i>or</i> the forbidden person to be 
          in Reuven's Reshus);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But can Reuven forbid something not in the world to 
               Shimon?! (The forbidden object <i>and</i> the forbidden 
               person are not in Reuven's Reshus.) Reuven cannot 
               forbid Shimon's property to Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> The case is, 
          she said 'My hands are Hekdesh to their Maker.' Her hands 
          are in the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Her hands do not become Hekdesh! They are not 
          in her Reshus, for they are obliged to work for the 
          husband!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She said 'they will be Hekdesh after I am 
          divorced.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Do we ever find that something does not become 
          Hekdesh now, and it becomes Hekdesh later?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Ila'i):</font></b> Yes! Reuven says 'this field that I 
          sell to you should be Hekdesh when I buy it back!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> The comparison is faulty! 
               There, he can be Makdish it now (before selling it). 
               The wife cannot!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> Our case is like Reuven saying 'the 
               field that I <i>sold</i> to you should be Hekdesh when I 
               buy it back.' It does not become Hekdesh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> The comparison is faulty! 
               There, the buyer owns the field itself and its 
               Peiros. In our case, the wife owns her hands!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE PURPOSE OF A WIFE ACCORDING TO REBBI CHIYA</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites three statements taught by Rebbi Chiya. 'A wife is only for beauty, a wife is only for children... a wife is only for wearing jewelry.' Why does Rebbi Chiya extol the importance of beauty and jewelry in a wife?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM</b> explains that the Gemara in Yevamos (63a) relates that although Rebbi Chiya's wife tormented him, Rebbi Chiya consoled himself by saying that 'it is enough that our wives raise our children and save us from sin.' The sin to which he was referring was 'Hirhurei Aveirah,' thoughts of immoral behavior. The way the wife saves her husband from Hirhurei Aveirah is through her beauty, and if she is not naturally beautiful, through applying makeup and cosmetics to make herself beautiful to her husband (as it says in Yevamos 63b and Ta'anis 23b). 
</p><p>
That is what Rebbi Chiya means in our Sugya as well. At the very least, any woman can serve her husband by bearing him offspring and by being beautiful (or properly jeweled), which saves him from Hirhurei Aveirah.
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Bi'ur ha'Gra EH 1:1) points out that these three elements of a wife correspond to the three groups of women mentioned in the Beraisa at the end of Ta'anis. The Gemara there (31a) says that when men were choosing wives on the 15th of Av, three groups of women would try to attract the men's attention in three different ways. The women of distinguished lineage (Yichus) would tell them to marry a woman in order to bear children. The women who were attractive, but had no Yichus, would tell them to marry a woman for her beauty. The unattractive women with no Yichus would tell the men to marry a woman l'Shem Shamayim, with pure intentions, and to make sure to decorate her with jewelry. The Vilna Ga'on explains that this third group corresponds to Rebbi Chiya's statement that a woman is to be decorated with jewelry, meaning that if she is not naturally beautiful, when she is decorated with jewelry she will look attractive to her husband and serve her purpose in that manner. (Rashi explains the women's statement about jewelry in the end of Ta'anis differently.)
</p><p>
Although the <i>Beraisa</i> in Ta'anis lists three types of women that attract men in three different ways, the Mishnah there lists only the group that tells the men to marry a wife for the purpose of bearing children. The reason for this, the Vilna Ga'on explains, is like the Mishnah there (26b) continues: because, 'Sheker ha'Chen v'Hevel ha'Yofi' (Mishlei 31:30) -- external beauty ('Chen,' see Megilah 13a) and intrinsic beauty ('Yofi') is false and vain. The true reason to marry a woman is to bear children who will follow the Mitzvos and fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. 
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on (Kol Eliyahu #30) points out that the verse, however, concludes, 'Ishah Yir'as Hash-m, Hi Sishalal' -- 'the woman who fears Hash-m -- she is to be praised,' teaching that when a woman fears Hash-m, then her beauty is not in vain. On the contrary, she is praiseworthy for using her beauty to serve Hash-m (as the Maharsham described).
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> We find such a case. Reuven says 
          'the field that I mortgaged to you (gave for collateral 
          for a loan, to eat its produce until the loan is repaid) 
          should be Hekdesh when I redeem it.' The field becomes 
          Hekdesh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> The 
               comparison is faulty! There, he can redeem the 
               field. The wife cannot divorce herself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> We find such a 
          case. Reuven says 'the field that I mortgaged to you for 
          10 years should be Hekdesh when I redeem it.' The field 
          becomes Hekdesh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The comparison is faulty! 
               There, he can redeem the field after 10 years. A 
               wife can never divorce herself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (to Question (b) - Rav Ashi):</font></b> One cannot ask 
          from Konamos, for they are different. They are like 
          Hekdesh ha'Guf (for Avodah in the Mikdash), like Rava 
          taught:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Hekdesh (ha'Guf), the Isur of Chametz, and 
               freeing a slave uproot liens.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, her earnings should become forbidden 
          immediately!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim strengthened the lien of a husband, 
          therefore it does not become Hekdesh now.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WORK A WIFE MUST DO FOR HER HUSBAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A wife must grind, bake, launder, cook, nurse 
          her son, spread her husband's bedsheet, and spin wool;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she brought a slave into the marriage, she is exempted 
          from grinding, baking and laundering;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If she brought two slaves, she is exempted also from 
          cooking and nursing;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If she brought three slaves, she is exempted also from 
          making his bed and spinning wool;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If she brought four slaves, she sits in a comfortable 
          chair (and need not work at all);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, even if she brings 100 slaves, he forces 
          her to spin wool, since idleness causes immorality;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even if through a vow one 
          forbade his wife to work, he must divorce her and pay a 
          Kesuvah, for idleness leads to insanity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Does the Mishnah really mean that she 
          grinds? (Water turns the millstone!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, she makes the preparations for 
          grinding.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> She grinds using a hand-mill.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> A wife is only for beauty, and 
               for having and raising children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> A wife is only to receive 
               jewelry to adorn herself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> One who wants to make his wife 
               radiant should clothe her in linen. One who wants to 
               whiten his daughter should feed her chicks and give 
               to her milk to drink before she becomes a Na'arah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She must nurse her son...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If a wife vowed not to 
               nurse her son, she may not nurse him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel says, her husband can force her to nurse 
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If he divorces her, he cannot force her. If the baby 
               recognizes his mother, he pays her wages (for 
               nursing) and she must nurse him, due to the danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Our Mishnah is even like Beis Shamai. The case 
          is, she vowed and he confirmed the vow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai holds that he is to blame (for 
               confirming the vow, therefore it can uproot her 
               obligation to him);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel hold that she is to blame (so it cannot 
               uproot her obligation).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> If so, they should argue more directly 
          about whether or not he must pay a Kesuvah (when he 
          confirmed a vow that obligates him to divorce her)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2 (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> A woman need not 
          nurse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Indeed, our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai!
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RECOGNIZING THE MOTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the baby recognizes his mother...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> At what age do we say that a child recognizes 
          his mother?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It is after three months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Answer #2 (Shmuel) It is after 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is after 50 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Simi bar Abaye):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand Rav and R. Yochanan. Some babies 
          are faster to recognize their mothers than others;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But Shmuel should agree that a baby cannot recognize 
               his mother after 30 days!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rami bar Yechezkel):</font></b> My brother Rav Yehudah 
          cited Shmuel to say 30 days. This is incorrect. Really, 
          Shmuel said that it depends only on when the baby 
          recognizes her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  A (divorced) woman (who did not want to nurse her baby) 
          came in front of Shmuel. Shmuel told Rav Dimi to see if 
          her son recognizes her. He sat her among other women, and 
          passed her son in front of them. When the baby reached 
          her, he was looking at her. Shmuel told her that she must 
          nurse him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can a blind baby recognize his mother?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He recognizes her smell and (her milk's) taste.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW LONG MAY A CHILD NURSE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> A child may nurse for 24 months. 
          After this, it is like nursing from a disgusting thing;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, he may nurse for four or five years. If 
          he stopped nursing after 24 months and resumes, it is 
          like nursing from a disgusting thing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps human milk is 
          forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Kal v'Chomer supports this! We are lenient about 
               touching animals (a living animal is always Tahor), 
               but we are stringent about their milk (of Tamei 
               species);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We are stringent about touching people (a 
                    living Yisrael can become Tamei), all the more 
                    so we should be stringent about their milk!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> (The Tamei animals are listed in Parshas 
               Shemini, and repeated in Parshas Re'eh.) 'The camel 
               (the repetition forbids its milk)... <i>it</i> is Tamei', 
               but milk of humans is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps human milk is permitted because 
               milk of some animals is permitted. The blood of 
               every animal is forbidden, so also human blood 
               should be forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'It' is forbidden, but the blood of 
               humans is permitted. (Rashi - perhaps the same word 
               permits human milk and blood. Alternatively, 'Zeh' 
               permits human blood.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It is not even a Mitzvah 
                    (mid'Rabanan) to refrain from human milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Milk that separated from the breast (into a Kli) 
          is permitted. Nursing (above the permitted age) is 
          despicable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The opposite applies to blood (it is forbidden only if it 
          separated):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If blood is on a loaf, one scrapes it off 
               and eats the loaf;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If blood is between one's teeth, one may swallow it 
               without concern.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> A child may nurse until four or 
          five...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> (He may nurse) 
          even if he can carry a bundle on his shoulder.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is the same Shi'ur (four or five, depending 
          on how healthy he is).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Marinus):</font></b> A moaning child may suckle (from 
          a goat's udder) on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because suckling is Mefarek (a derivative 
               Melachah of Dash, i.e. extracting a food), done in 
               an unskilled way. (Normally, one milks by hand. 
               Suckling is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, so) 
               Chachamim did not forbid it to one who is in pain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Marinus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Nachum Ish Galya):</font></b> If a gutter pipe became 
          clogged, (on Shabbos and the water is dripping into the 
          house) one may covertly squash the clogging matter with 
          his foot, without concern.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because this is an unskillful way of fixing 
               a Kli. (Normally, it is forbidden mid'Rabanan.) 
               Chachamim did not decree when this will cause a 
               loss.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows Nachum Ish Galya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If he ceased nursing after 24 months, he may 
          not resume nursing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How long is considered that he stopped?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 Answer (Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva, citing 
          Shmuel):</font></b> It is three days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 Answer (Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva in front of 
          Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> It is three days.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A NURSING WOMAN MAY NOT MARRY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a woman was widowed during the 24 
          months of nursing, she may not become Mekudeshes or have 
          Nisu'in until 24 months (lest she become pregnant and 
          wean the baby prematurely);
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'THOSE WHO WALK ON TWO LEGS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the status of blood and milk of a human being -- 'Mehalchei Shtayim' ('those who walk on two [legs]') -- with regard to whether one may eat or drink them. Why does the Beraisa refer to a person as 'Mehalchei Shtayim' in this instance, instead of simply calling him a 'person' ('Adam')? (<b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b>, Bikurim 2:7)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> (Bikurim 2:7) answers that the term 'Adam' sometimes refers only to a Jew. Hence, had the Gemara used the term 'Adam' we might have mistakenly thought that these laws apply only to the blood and milk of a Jew. The Gemara uses the term 'Mehalchei Shtayim' to make it clear that we are referring to all persons. (The <b>RISHON L'TZION</b> asks that Tosfos points out in many places that when the term 'ha'Adam' (with the prefix 'Ha') is used, it includes all humans, both Jews and others; if so, the Beraisa could have simply used the term 'ha'Adam!') 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> quotes <b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b>, who explains that the term 'Mehalchei Shtayim' was used in order to include in this category the 'Adnei ha'Sadeh' (a creature referred to in Kil'ayim 9) which also walks on two legs like man, and which, according to some, is Metamei b'Ohel like man (see Insights to Bechoros 8:1)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BEIS DAVID</b> explains that since the Gemara discusses animals in the same context here as it discusses man, it felt that it would be degrading to use the term 'Adam' (as if to say that 'Adam' is just another species of animal; in order to avoid referring to 'Adam' when relating solely to the animalistic, non-reasoning qualities of man, it used the term 'Mehalchei Shtayim').
</p><p>


<font><b>2) PROHIBITING AN ACT BECAUSE OF 'MAR'IS HA'AYIN' EVEN IN PRIVATE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara rules that if a gutter pipe on the roof of one's house becomes clogged, causing water to flood the roof and drip into the house, a person is permitted to kick away the debris, covertly ('b'Tzin'a,' in private), in order to unclog the pipe. It is not appropriate to do so publicly, seemingly because those who might see him doing it might not realize that he is doing it in order to clear out the pipe to prevent a loss, and they will think that he is fixing his pipe on Shabbos which is Asur (because of Metaken).
</p><p>
There is a general rule, put forth by Rav in Beitzah (9a), that 'anything that is prohibited by the Rabanan is prohibited even in the innermost chambers.' The Gemara's ruling here, though, seems to contradict that rule, for it permits doing an Isur d'Rabanan in private! How can our Gemara be reconciled with that rule?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) A number of Rishonim rule, based on this and similar statements in the Gemara, that the Halachah does not follow Rav, and it is permitted to do something that others will think is Asur (but which is really permitted) in private but not in public. (<b>RAV NISIM GAON</b>, cited by Tosfos Avodah Zarah 12a DH Kol Makom and by the Rosh in Shabbos 22:9, <b>RABEINU EFRAIM</b>, cited by the Itur, Hilchos Yom Tov section 4, the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> in Beitzah 4b and Shabbos 28b according to the pages of the Rif, the <b>RA'AH</b>, in Beitzah 9a)
</p><p>
The Rishonim prove that Rav's opinion is not accepted l'Halachah from the Yerushalmi (Kil'ayim 9:1).
</p><p>
(b) Most Rishonim (<b>RIF</b>, Shabbos 146b, <b>RAMBAM</b> Hilchos Shabbos 22:20, Hilchos Yom Tov 5:4, and others), though, rule in accordance with Rav's prohibition, and they differentiate between the case of our Gemara and the cases to which his rule applies. As an example for where his rule applies, the Gemara in Beitzah (9a) cites a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama permits spreading out clothes to dry in the sun on Shabbos when it is done in a private place. Spreading out clothes to dry in a public area, though, is prohibited because of 'Mar'is ha'Ayin,' because people will suspect that the person is not only drying his clothes on Shabbos, but that he washed his clothes on Shabbos as well. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon prohibit spreading out one's clothes even in private, because they hold that whenever there is a concern for Mar'is ha'Ayin, the act is prohibited even in the innermost chambers of one's home.
</p><p>
1. <b>TOSFOS</b> here explains that in our Gemara, even if one is fixing his pipe in a manner that is not prohibited, he is only transgressing an Isur d'Rabanan by fixing it, since he is doing it in an unusual manner (with his foot). Therefore, the Rabanan did not prohibit it when done in private. The case in Beitzah, on the other hand, is where people will suspect that he did something that is Asur <i>d'Oraisa</i>, and therefore the Rabanan prohibited it even in the innermost chambers.
</p><p>
2. Others note that there is a basic difference between the problem of Mar'is ha'Ayin in the case in Beitzah and the Mar'is ha'Ayin in the case of our Gemara. In Beitzah, the person did not actually wash his clothes on Shabbos. Rather, the concern is that people might mistakenly conclude that since he is setting his clothes out to dry,  he also washed them. In our Gemara, the person actually <i>did</i> fix his pipe on Shabbos, an act that might have been prohibited had he not done it to save himself from a significant loss, but people might not realize that he is doing it to prevent damage to his house. The prohibition not to do something that is Asur because of Mar'is ha'Ayin even in one's most private chambers applies only to the former type of Mar'is ha'Ayin -- where people think that a person is doing something other than what he is actually doing. The reason for this difference is explained differently by the Rishonim.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> (Beitzah 9a) explains that if a person is doing a permissible act, but people who see think that it is a prohibited act, the prohibition is not as severe; we allow it to be done in one's innermost chambers. Cleaning out the pipe to prevent a deluge in the house looks prohibited but is actually permitted. In contrast, if people who see him will suspect him of doing something that is not permitted under any circumstances, then the Rabanan are more stringent and prohibit the act even in one's innermost chambers.
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> (Beitzah 9a) differentiates between these two types of Mar'is ha'Ayin based on a different reasoning. He says that when an act is permitted by the Torah and the Rabanan <i>prohibited</i> it because others will think that the person is doing something wrong, it becomes prohibited even in one's innermost chambers. In the case of our Gemara, though, the opposite logic applies. The act of cleaning a pipe is an act that is normally prohibited (mid'Rabanan). Here, the Rabanan are lenient and <i>permit</i> cleaning the pipe in order to save the person's house and his enjoyment of Shabbos. In such a case, although the Rabanan found it necessary to permit the act, because of 'Mar'is ha'Ayin' they limited the permit to doing it in private. (That is, prohibiting it even in private places is not an option, because they saw a necessity to permit it.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> Rav's Halachah is cited by the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 301:45), based on the rulings of the Rif, Rambam and others (opinion (b), above).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, she must wait until 18 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Nasan bar Yosef says, they argue as Beis Shamai and 
          Beis Hillel do;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai say, the Shi'ur is 24 months. Beis 
               Hillel say, it is 18 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, I will explain these 
          opinions:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The opinion that says 24 months (is the Shi'ur for 
               nursing) permits to marry after 21. The opinion that 
               says 18 months permits to marry after 15.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because milk is not impeded until three 
               months of pregnancy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar Ukva):</font></b> R. Chanina permitted me to marry a nursing 
          woman after the baby was 15 months old.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Abaye's sharecropper asked whether he may Mekadesh a 
          nursing woman when the baby is 15 months old.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye):</font></b> (Yes!) Firstly, the rule is the Halachah 
               follows R. Yehudah when he argues with R. Meir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Secondly, the Halachah follows Beis Hillel against 
               Beis Shamai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Thirdly, Ula ruled like R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Fourthly, R. Chanina permitted this to Mar Ukva.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> These rulings permit Nisu'in. All the more so, 
               Kidushin is allowed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Abaye came before Rav Yosef (his Rebbi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel both require waiting 24 
               months, excluding the day of birth and the day of 
               Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye ran three Parsa'os (about 12 kilometers; some 
               say, one Parsah in sand), but did not catch his 
               sharecropper to retract his ruling.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> Chachamim say 'Do not rule in the place of 
               your Rebbi, even to permit eating eggs with a dairy 
               dip.' (Aruch - this refers to eggs found inside a 
               slaughtered chicken.) This is not (only) because it 
               shows arrogance. Rather, he will rule incorrectly!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  I had learned this teaching of Rav and Shmuel, 
                    and still, I erred!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman gave her baby to a wet-nurse or 
          weaned him, or he died, she may marry immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  A case occurred, and Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav 
          Yehoshua were about to rule like this Beraisa. A woman 
          told them that Rav Nachman had forbidden her to marry in 
          such a case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Nachman permitted widows of the Exilarch's 
          house!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is different. A wet-nurse who accepted to 
          nurse a baby of their house would not retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papi):</font></b> We have another source that Rav 
          Nachman forbids!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman must wait three months 
               before remarrying even in the following cases (even 
               though it is unlikely or impossible that she is 
               pregnant):
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  She was constantly going to her father's home 
                    or was quarrelling with her husband;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Her husband was imprisoned or overseas;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Her husband was too old to have children or 
                    sick;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> She was sterile, too old to have children, an 
                    Ailonis or a minor;
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> She miscarried after her husband died;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b> Her womb was uprooted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi permits her to marry immediately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows decrees of R. 
               Meir.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (Rav Papa and Rav Huna):</font></b> We overlooked 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, if the baby died, she may marry. If she 
          weaned him, she must wait;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even if he died, she must wait. If 
          not, perhaps she will kill her baby in order to marry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Such a case occurred, and a woman choked her baby!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> That woman was insane. A normal woman would 
          not kill her baby.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>OBLIGATIONS OF A NURSING WOMAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman accepted to nurse a baby, she may 
          not nurse during this period her own or another's baby;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Even if meager food was stipulated, she must still eat 
          well. She may not eat things bad for the milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she may not nurse her own baby together with 
          the first, we need not teach that she may not nurse 
          another's baby!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that out of concern for 
          her baby, she would nurse him (if we permitted her) even 
          if enough milk will not remain for the first baby;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, we would permit her to nurse another's 
               baby, for she would nurse one baby unless more 
               remains for the other;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa forbids even another's baby.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that if meager food was 
          stipulated, she must still eat well. Who pays for the 
          extra food?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> She pays for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa forbids her to eat things bad for 
          the milk. What are these?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> They are hops, grass, small fish 
          and earth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Even gourds and quince are bad.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Even bark and immature dates are 
          bad.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even Kutach (a dip made with bread 
          and milk) and fried breaded fish are bad.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some of these impede milk; others cloud it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  A child who results from Bi'ah in a millhouse will be 
          epileptic. A child who results from Bi'ah on the ground 
          will be long-necked;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  If she walked on the blood of a donkey, the children will 
          be bald or have warts. (Rashi (cited in Shitah 
          Mekubetzes) says that the following foods affect the baby 
          if she ate them during pregnancy. Perhaps the same 
          applies to walking on a donkey's blood.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  If she ate (or drank) mustard, cress, small fish 
          regularly, earth, beer, or beef and wine, the child will 
          be gluttonous, his eyes will constantly tear, his eyes 
          will always be moving, he will be ugly; he will be black, 
          or he will be healthy, respectively.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) WHEN MAY A NURSING MOTHER REMARRY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that Rav Nachman permitted women of the family of the Reish Galusa (the exilarch) who were widowed or divorced to remarry while they had a nursing baby on condition that they hired a nursemaid ('Menekes') to nurse the child. For those women, Rav Nachman suspended the normal prohibition that the Rabanan instituted prohibited a nursing woman to remarry before twenty-four months pass from the time of the birth of the child. His reasoning was that there was no fear that the baby would be left without a nursemaid, for no nursemaid would quit her job if she was working for the powerful family of the Reish Galusa. 
</p><p>
The Gemara proves from a Beraisa that it is normally prohibited for a woman to remarry within twenty-four months even if she gives her baby to a nursemaid. The Beraisa discusses 'Havchanah' -- the requirement for a woman to wait three months before remarrying after a divorce or after the death of her husband. The reason she may not remarry within three months is because she might be pregnant and if she marries before three months have passed, it will not be possible to determine the identity of the child's father -- the first or second husband. However, the Beraisa says that even if the woman clearly could not have children from the first husband (such as a woman whose husband was out of town or in prison, or was old, or she was barren, etc.), she still must wait three months before remarrying. From that Beraisa we see that when the Rabanan enact a prohibition for a reason, the prohibition still remains in force even in cases where the reason does not apply ('Lo Plug Rabanan').
</p><p>
If the prohibition applies even where the reason does not apply, though, how could Rav Nachman permit the women of the family of the Reish Galusa to remarry within twenty-four months? Moreover, the Gemara says that a nursing mother may not remarry within twenty-four months even if the child dies within that time, because of the concern that a cruel mother might kill her child in order to remarry right away. Why does the Gemara have to give a reason to prohibit her from remarrying if her child dies? It should be prohibited because of the 'Lo Plug' element -- the prohibition applies even when the reason does not apply, just like the prohibition applies even where the woman gives her child to a nursemaid!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that if a woman stops nursing because her baby died or because she gave the baby to a nursemaid, the enactment that a nursing mother may not marry within twenty-four months no longer applies to her. The only reason the Rabanan prohibited such women from remarrying so soon in the case where the baby died was because of a Gezeirah that a mother might kill her baby; in the case where she gave the baby to a nursemaid, the prohibition of remarrying is because of a Gezeirah that the nursemaid might give the baby back to the mother. When a member of the family of the Reish Galusa gives a baby to a nursemaid there is no such concern, and that is why the women of the family of the Reish Galusa were permitted to remarry after giving the child to a nursemaid.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> points out that the answer of Tosfos is very difficult to understand. If the concept of 'Lo Plug' does not apply to a woman who gives her baby to a nursemaid, then why does the Gemara prove from the fact that the Rabanan prohibited a barren woman from remarrying within three months after being divorced or widowed that it is prohibited for a nursing mother to remarry within twenty-four months even when she gives the child to a nursemaid? Tosfos says that we do <i>not</i> apply 'Lo Plug' when a child is given to a nursemaid! Moreover, why indeed does 'Lo Plug' not apply when the child is given to a nursemaid?
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explain the answer of Tosfos more clearly. They say that 'Lo Plug' does not apply when there is a <i>clearly recognizable difference</i> between a specific case and a general case that is normally prohibited. For example, when a child dies, it is clear to all that the child is not alive and is not nursing, so 'Lo Plug' does not apply. Therefore, the mother may remarry right away. Similarly, if a woman from the family of the Reish Galusa gives over her child to a nursemaid, everyone knows that the nursemaid is afraid to break the agreement, and the baby is assuredly in good hands. In contrast, when a woman from a normal family gives her baby to a nursemaid to be nursed, she still may not remarry right away because the nursemaid might go back on the deal. 
</p><p>
When a woman who is not from the Reish Galusa's family gives her baby to a nursemaid, and the nursemaid makes an <i>oath</i> that she will not break the agreement -- may the woman remarry? Since she makes an oath, there is no longer any concern that she will break the agreement, and therefore the mother should be able to remarry! The Gemara says that in such a case, 'Lo Plug' <i>does</i> apply, and it proves this from the fact that it applies to the requirement of Havchanah. The reason is because it is not clear and known to all that the nursemaid made an oath not to break her agreement, and therefore the mother may not remarry for twenty-four months.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Gezeirosav) does not seem to accept this reasoning. Rashi writes that the rule of 'Lo Plug' teaches us that a woman who gave birth may not remarry for twenty-four months whether she is nursing the child or not. It seems from Rashi that the 'Lo Plug' here does not tell us not to differentiate between a nursemaid who took an oath and a nursemaid who did not take an oath. Rather, Rashi understands the Gemara in its simple sense, that 'Lo Plug' teaches us not to differentiate between a mother who is nursing and a mother who is not nursing for whatever reason. Why, then, should the women of the Reish Galusa's family be permitted to remarry right away, and why should a woman whose child died be permitted to remarry (if not for the concern that she might kill her child)?
</p><p>
The answer might be that according to Rashi, 'Lo Plug' does not create a blanket, all-encompassing prohibition. Rather, 'Lo Plug' creates a prohibition (where the reason for the prohibition does not apply) only in cases where the cause for the original enactment is still applicable to at least a minimal extent. Therefore, in order to prohibit a mother from remarrying because of 'Lo Plug,' there must be some possibility that she will need to continue nursing her child (or a similar concern, such as a concern that she might kill the child). Since the women of the Reish Galusa's family have absolutely no cause for concern, 'Lo Plug' does not apply.
</p><p>
This explanation may be derived from the words of Rashi (DH Harei she'Haysah). Rashi writes concerning all the women who are prohibited to remarry because of Havchanah that 'it is <i>not common</i> for them to become pregnant,' implying, however, that it is remotely possible (i.e. that a Ketanah, or an elderly woman, or a woman whose husband is in prison, could become pregnant from her husband). That is why the Rabanan prohibited her immediate remarriage due to 'Lo Plug.' (In the case of an Akarah, a barren woman, the Rabanan might have prohibited a woman from remarrying within three months because of the concern that a healthy woman might make herself an Akarah in order to remarry.
</p><p>
Accordingly, if a nursing mother gives her child to a nursemaid and the nursemaid makes an oath that she will faithfully nurse the child, then perhaps it is permitted for the mother to remarry within twenty-four months. The <b>RITVA</b> indeed cites such an opinion. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN IS A WIFE OBLIGATED TO NURSE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If she ate eggs, fish, celery, coriander or Esrog, the 
          child will be fragrant, have big eyes, have grace in the 
          eyes of people, be radiant, be stout, or be fragrant, 
          respectively.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The wife of Shvor Malka (a Persian king) ate Esrog 
               during pregnancy. When he wanted to smell 
               fragrances, the first thing they would bring was his 
               daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If she wants to nurse and her husband 
          objects, she may nurse. It pains her not to nurse;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Huna bar Chinena):</font></b> If he wants her to 
          nurse, and she does not want to, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is not the custom of her family to nurse, she 
               need not nurse.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We ask about when her family's custom is to nurse 
               but his family's is not to nurse. Do we follow the 
               custom of his family, or of hers?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna - Beraisa):</font></b> She rises with him (in 
          matters of honor) and does not descend with him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> We learn from 'Be'ulas Ba'al', which is 
               like 'b'Aliyas Ba'al', the eminence of her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> We can learn from 'She was the 
          mother of all living.' It (motherhood, which includes 
          nursing) was given for life, not for pain.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXEMPTION FROM CHORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she brought a slave into the marriage (she 
          need not grind, bake or launder).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> The wife must do the other chores.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should be exempt from all chores! She can 
          say 'I brought a woman in my place!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Her husband can respond 'she will serve me and 
          herself. Who will serve you?!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she brought two slaves, she need not cook 
          or nurse...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should be exempt from all chores! She can 
          say 'I brought one to serve me and herself, and one to 
          serve you and herself!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Her husband can respond 'who will serve the 
          guests?!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she brought three slaves she does not make 
          the bed...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should be exempt from all chores! She can 
          say 'I brought another slave to serve the guests!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He can respond 'when there are many in the house, 
          many travelers stop by.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The same applies to four slaves (but then she 
          is exempt)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Once there are many slaves, they help each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chana):</font></b> Even if she did not bring slaves into the 
          marriage, rather enough property to buy slaves, she is 
          exempt from chores.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If she saved money for him (by being satisfied 
          with less than she is entitled to, e.g. cosmetics), it is 
          as if she brought it into the marriage.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SPECIAL TASKS THAT A WIFE DOES FOR HER HUSBAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she brought four slaves, she sits in an 
          easy chair...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yitzchak bar Chananya):</font></b> Nevertheless, she mixes his 
          drink, sets his bed, and washes his hands, feet and face.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yitzchak bar Chananya):</font></b> A Nidah does for a husband 
          everything that a wife does, except for mixing his drink, 
          setting his bed, and washing his hands, feet and face.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Setting the bed is forbidden only in front of 
          him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Shmuel's wife would serve his drink unnaturally, with her 
          left hand;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye's wife would place it on top of a barrel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava's wife would place it at the head of his bed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa's wife would place it on a bench.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO DESIRES FOOD MUST TASTE IT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yitzchak bar Chananya):</font></b> One may delay letting a 
          servant taste any food except for meat and wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> This applies only to fatty meat and old 
          wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> It applies to fatty meat the entire year, and to 
          old wine only in summer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Anan bar Tachlifa:</font></b> I was standing in front of Shmuel, 
          and they brought him a mushroom dish. Had I not been 
          given to taste, I would have been in danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> I was standing in front of Rav Kahana, and they 
          brought him sliced turnips in vinegar. Had I not been 
          given to taste, I would have been in danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Even fat dates can pose a danger.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The rule is, anything with smell or pungency must be 
               tasted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Avuha bar Ihi or Minyamin bar Ihi allowed his attendant 
          to taste all the cooked foods right away. The other let 
          him eat one now, and taste the rest after the meal. 
          Eliyahu would speak only with the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  There were two Chasidim (some say that they were Rav Mari 
          and Rav Pinchas, the sons of Rav Chisda). One allowed his 
          attendant to taste before himself, and the other allowed 
          him to taste after serving his master and the guests. 
          Eliyahu would speak only with the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the 
          doorway of King Azgor. The king's waiters passed, 
          carrying his meal. Rav Ashi saw that Mar Zutra turned 
          pale.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) OVERRIDING A 'SHIBUD' WITH A 'NEDER'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses a man who makes a Neder prohibiting himself from having relations with his wife. <b>RASHI</b> explains that if he makes a Neder saying, 'I am not allowed to have pleasure from you,' then he is able to prohibit himself from his wife. But if he attempts to prohibit his wife by saying, 'You may not have pleasure from me,' she will be permitted to him, because he is obligated by the Torah to provide her with that benefit because of the Mitzvah of Onah, and therefore it is not within his power to remove that obligation with a Neder.
</p><p>
Why is that? The requirement of Onah that a man has to his wife is no more than a 'Shibud,' an obligation that he accepted upon himself. We learned earlier (59b) that 'Konamos (i.e. Nedarim) are like Hekdesh and are able to remove a Shibud.' The Gemara there says that although a Neder can normally override a Shibud, the Rabanan strengthened the Shibud that a woman has towards her husband such that she cannot prohibit herself with a Neder. Here, though, the Mishnah is not discussing the Shibud that she has to him, but rather his Shibud towards her (which the Gemara does not say the Rabanan strengthened against the power of a Neder). Why, then, should his Neder not be able to uproot that Shibud?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> here and the <b>RAN</b> in Nedarim (81b) explain that the Rabanan strengthened the Shibud of both parties in the marriage. Just like a Neder cannot uproot the Shibud that a woman has to her husband, a Neder cannot uproot the Shibud that a man has to his wife. (See also Gemara, Kesuvos 70a)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (59b, DH Konamos) goes further and explains that the Rabanan strengthened <i>every</i> Shibud, and not just the mutual Shibudim between a husband and wife. Therefore, even though, mid'Oraisa, his Neder is effective to prohibit the woman from relations, and to prohibit a person's money to his creditors, the Rabanan strengthened the Shibudim where one person owes something to another person and they instituted that no Neder is able to uproot the Shibud.
</p><p>
(See also Insights to 70:1:a for a discussion of Rashi's opinion on this matter.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Ashi stuck his finger in the food and put it in Mar 
          Zutra's mouth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The waiters:</font></b> You ruined his meal!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The king's officers:</font></b> Why did you do that?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> The one who prepared this is not worthy to 
               prepare the king's food!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The officers:</font></b> What is wrong with it?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> It contains leprous pork!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> They checked the food, and did not find this to be 
               so. Rav Ashi took the chef's finger and stuck it on 
               a piece. 'Did you check this?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> They checked, and found that it was leprous.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan (to Rav Ashi):</font></b> Why did you rely on a 
               miracle?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> I saw a spirit of Tzara'as above Mar 
               Zutra. (Chasam Sofer - this showed that he was in 
               great danger. The Ramban says that turning pale 
               shows danger. Perhaps he explains like Mishneh 
               Halachos (14:271), that the spirit of Tzara'as came 
               over Mar Zutra <i>after</i> he ate it, showing Rav Ashi 
               that there is Tzara'as in the food.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  A man asked a woman to become Mekudeshes to him; she 
          refused. He brought a pomegranate, split it open and was 
          eating it in front of her. She salivated, and swallowed 
          her saliva. He did not give to her, and she became very 
          sick and inflated.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  He said that he would cure her if she would marry him; 
          she agreed. He brought a pomegranate, split it open and 
          was eating it in front of her. She salivated; he told her 
          to spit out the saliva, until green came out of her, and 
          she was cured.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATION TO SPIN WOOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She must spin wool...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> She must spin wool, but not linen. The Mishnah 
          is like R. Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> He cannot force her to serve his father 
               or son, nor to give straw to his animals, but he can 
               force her to give straw to his cattle;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, he can't even force her to spin 
               linen, for (one needs to hold the threads in his 
               mouth to moisten them and) this causes bad breath 
               and elongates the lips.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This applies only to Roman linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Even if she brings 100 slaves (he 
          forces her to spin wool, since idleness causes 
          immorality).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Malkiyo):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Eliezer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> (Six teachings were taught by Amora'im with 
          very similar names.) Rav Malkiyo taught about a roasting 
          spit, slaves and hair follicles. Rav Malkiya taught about 
          Bloris (a pagan rite of letting hair grow very long), 
          ashes and cheese.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rav Malkiya's teachings pertain to Mishnayos 
          and Beraisos. Rav Malkiyo's teachings pertain to Amora'ic 
          teachings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Siman to remember this is Masnisa (Mishnayos and 
               Beraisos) are Malkesa (queen, i.e. supreme. The 
               words Masnisa, Malkesa and Malkiya are all 
               feminine).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Papa and R. Chanina argue about who taught about 
          slaves (Rav Papa says that Rav Malkiya taught this. Some 
          say that they also argue about who taught about ashes - 
          Tosfos.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says (even if through a 
          vow he forbade her to work, he must divorce her and pay a 
          Kesuvah, for idleness leads to insanity.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Also R. Eliezer said that she must (do 
          something, i.e.) spin wool!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about one who (does not work, but) 
          plays with small dogs and plays chess. (This leads to 
          immorality, but not to insanity.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO VOWED TO FORBID 'BI'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If one vowed and forbade Bi'ah 
          with his wife, up to two weeks he may stay married. 
          (Beyond this, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, up to one week he may stay married. 
          (Beyond this, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah;)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim may go to learn for 30 days without permission. 
          Workers may go for one week;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, the Torah obligates Onah (the frequency 
          of Bi'ah) according to his occupation:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> For Tayalim (idle men) it is every day; for workers 
               it is twice a week; for donkey-drivers it is weekly; 
               for camel-drivers it is monthly; for sailors it is 
               once in six months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What are the sources for their 
          opinions?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Beis Shamai learn from Yoledes Nekeivah (one 
          who gave birth to a girl), who (is Temei'ah and) may not 
          have Bi'ah for two weeks. Beis Hillel learn from one who 
          gave birth to a boy, who is forbidden for one week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Beis Hillel should also learn from Yoledes 
          Nekeivah that sometimes a woman is forbidden for two 
          weeks!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Indeed, if Beis Hillel learned from a 
          Yoledes, they would agree with Beis Shamai.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Beis Hillel learn from a Nidah (who is 
          forbidden for seven days);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel learn what is common (vows result from 
               anger, which is common) from what is common (Nidah). 
               Beis Shamai learn what results from the man (the 
               vow) from birth, which is due to the man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> They argue about a vow of specified duration. All 
          agree about a Stam (unlimited) vow, that he must 
          immediately divorce her and pay a Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Even regarding a Stam vow, he waits (one or two 
          weeks), in case he will find a Pesach (a reason why the 
          vow was a mistake and can be annulled).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel already argued similarly!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one vowed that his wife may not 
               benefit from him, up to 30 days, he gets someone to 
               finance her. Beyond this, he must divorce her and 
               pay her Kesuvah. (This does not forbid her to have 
               Bi'ah with him, for he is obligated to her. Above, 
               he forbade to himself pleasure of Bi'ah with her.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> This applies to a vow of specified duration. 
               If he vowed Stam, he must immediately divorce her 
               and pay a Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> Even regarding a Stam vow he waits 30 
               days. Perhaps he will find a Pesach to annul his 
               vow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel needed to argue in both cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only here, we would have said that 
               here Rav obligates him to divorce her immediately 
               (regarding a Stam vow) since no one can have Bi'ah 
               with her in his place, but there he would agree with 
               Shmuel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only there, we would have said that 
               there Shmuel allows waiting (since a third party can 
               finance her), but here he would agree with Rav.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW LONG A MAN MAY LEAVE HOME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Chachamim may go to learn (for 30 days, 
          without permission).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> For how long may they go with permission?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If they have permission, surely there is 
               no limit!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We ask about how long is proper.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He should learn for a month, and be home 
          for a month (like we find regarding the workers who 
          served David) - 'The shifts come and go month by 
          month...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He should learn for a month, and 
          be home for two months (like we find regarding those who 
          cut wood for the Beis ha'Mikdash) - 'one month in 
          Lebanon, and two months in his house.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav did not learn like R. Yochanan, for others can 
               (take turns to help) build the Beis ha'Mikdash 
               (therefore, no worker needs to be away from home so 
               much);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan did not learn like Rav, for there he is 
               paid well (she is pleased that he is away so much).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EFFECTS OF SIGHING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> A sigh breaks half a person's body - 'Sigh, as if 
          your loins broke.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It breaks the entire body - '...Why are 
          you sighing? Every heart melts, all hands are soft, every 
          spirit is weakened, all knees turn to water.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does R. Yochanan explain Rav's verse, 
               which says it is as if the loins are broken?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The loins break first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does Rav explain R. Yochanan's verse?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Hearing about the Churban is more severe 
               (than normal sighing).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A Yisrael and Nochri were on the road together; the 
          Nochri could not keep up with the Yisrael. The Nochri 
          mentioned the Churban. The Yisrael sighed, but still the 
          Nochri could not keep up with him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nochri:</font></b> Don't you say that a sigh breaks half the 
               body?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yisrael:</font></b> That refers only to a new sorrow. This is 
               an old matter.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is like people say, that a woman who has 
                    already suffered the loss of children is not 
                    bewildered when another child dies.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'ONAH' OF DIFFERENT MEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Onah of <i>Tayalim</i> is every day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What are Tayalim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> They are Talmidim (who learn in their 
          city and sleep at home).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> R. Yitzchak taught that '...Hash-m 
          will give l'Dido (to His dear one) Sheinah' refers to the 
          wives of Talmidim, who deprive their eyes of sleep in 
          this world (waiting for their husbands to return) and 
          receive the world to come. You cannot say that Onas 
          Talmidim is every day! (Rashi - if a Talmid is still 
          learning when people normally sleep, surely he has no 
          time for Bi'ah every night! Rashi in Shitah Mekubetzes - 
          Talmidim would not have Bi'ah every night with such women 
          to satisfy them. The women would be concerned for Bitul 
          Torah!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Tayalim are men like Rav Shmuel bar 
          Shilas, who consumes his money (that he gets for teaching 
          children), sleeps in his house, and is not conscripted 
          for the king's work.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Ravin):</font></b> Tayalim are the pampered ones of Eretz 
          Yisrael. (They eat and drink well, so they have strength 
          for Bi'ah every night);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Avahu was in the bathhouse. Two attendants were 
               supporting him. The floor caved in; he grabbed a 
               pole with one hand, grabbed the attendants with the 
               other hand, and lifted them and himself to safety.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan was ascending a ladder; Rav Ami and Rav 
               Asi were supporting him. The rung broke; he lifted 
               them and himself to safety.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan:</font></b> Since you are so strong, why do you use us 
               to support you?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan:</font></b> If I use my strength now, what will 
               remain in my old age?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Onah of workers is twice a week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> The Onah of workers is once a 
          week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses 
          workers who work in their own city. The Beraisa discusses 
          workers who work in another city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> The Onah of workers is twice weekly if 
          they work in their city, and once a week if they work in 
          another city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Onah of donkey-drivers is once a week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah bar Rav Chanan):</font></b> (In the Reisha, Beis 
          Hillel obligated one who vowed to forbid Bi'ah for one 
          week to divorce his wife. Surely, this applies only to 
          one whose Onah is more frequent than once a week.) Does 
          the Mishnah teach only about Tayalim and workers?!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE LEISURE MERITTED BY ONE WHO TEACHES CHILDREN</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara describes a group of people called 'Tayalim' (men of leisure). Rav explains that this term refers to persons like Rav Shmuel bar Sheilas, who 'has enough to eat from his own, has enough to drink from his own, and he sleeps in the shade of his palace, and [because he is not overly wealthy] he does not attract the attention of the king's servants.' 
</p><p>
The <b>HAFLA'AH</b> explains that Rav Shmuel bar Sheilas merited this special treatment because of his sincere Mesirus Nefesh for teaching Torah. 
</p><p>
In Bava Basra (21a), Rav praised Rav Shmuel bar Sheilas as a responsible teacher of Torah to young children. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 245:17) says that a person who teaches Torah to children is not permitted to do any other work other than teaching the children. The <b>REMA</b> adds that he is not allowed to stay up late at night, or to refrain from eating and drinking enough, or to eat or drink too much, because he might become too tired or too hungry to teach properly. Because Rav Shmuel bar Sheilas strove to teach the children in the best possible way he could, he merited Divine assistance that he had enough to eat and drink, and he was relaxed and not tired or pressured, and the king's men did not bother him and distract him so that he could concentrate his efforts unhindered on his important work.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> No, it applies to everyone.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> In any case Onah of sailors is only 
          once every six months!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The vow breaks her hope that her husband 
          will return early.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MEN WHO ARE AWAY FOR LONG PERIODS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah bar Rav Chanan):</font></b> May a donkey-driver 
          become a camel-driver (without his wife's consent)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> No. A woman prefers meager food and 
          frequent Onah, to more food and abstinence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Berona):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Eliezer. (Talmidim 
          may leave for a month without permission.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> Chachamim argue, and permit them to 
          go to learn for two or three years.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Many rely on Rav Ada bar Ahavah's leniency, and 
          are mortally punished for this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Rechumi often learned by Rava; he would return 
               home every Erev Yom Kipur. Once, he was involved in 
               his learning, and delayed. His wife was waiting for 
               him, expecting him to come any moment. She was 
               distressed and shed a tear. Rav Rechumi was sitting 
               on the roof. The roof collapsed, and he died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Onah of Chachamim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is every Shabbos night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'He gives its fruit in the right 
               time' refers to one who has Bi'ah on Shabbos night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya's son Yehudah was R. Yanai's son-in-law. He 
          learned by his Rebbi, and came home every Erev Shabbos. 
          R. Yanai would see a pillar of fire come before him. 
          Once, Yehudah was involved in his learning and delayed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yanai did not see the fire. He commanded to turn 
               over Yehudah's bed (a sign of mourning), for 'If he 
               was alive, he would not have neglected Onah of 
               Shabbos.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He was not careful with his words, and they were 
               fulfilled; Yehudah died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Rebbi was Mekadesh his son to a daughter of R. Chiya. 
          When it was time to write the Kesuvah, she died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebbi:</font></b> Heaven forbid, perhaps one of them has 
               improper lineage!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They checked the lineage. Rebbi descends from 
               Shaftiyah, a son of David, and R. Chiya, from 
               Shim'i, a brother of David. (His seed was not worthy 
               to marry one who descends from a king.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rebbi married his son to a daughter of R. Yosi bar Zimra. 
          They agreed that his son would learn from 12 years before 
          the Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She passed in front of his son, and he decided to 
               learn for only six years before the Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She passed in front of him again, and he decided to 
               have the Nisu'in before going to learn.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He felt embarrassed in front of his father-in-law. 
               His father-in-law told him 'you are like your 
               Maker!'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  At Kri'as Yam Suf, it says '(Hash-m) will bring 
                    Yisrael to (Yerushalayim,) the place of the 
                    Mikdash (and dwell among us, i.e. Nisu'in).' 
                    Later, it says 'they will build for Me a 
                    Mikdash (the Mishkan) and I will dwell among 
                    them (in the Midbar, for Hash-m did not want to 
                    wait so long).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  He went and learned for 12 years. By the time he 
          returned, his wife had become sterile.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebbi:</font></b> What should we do?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he divorces her, people will say that this poor 
               girl waited for him in vain!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he will marry a second wife, people will say that 
               he has a wife and a harlot!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Rebbi prayed, and Hash-m healed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Chananyah ben Chachinai went to learn for 12 years. 
          When he returned, the streets of the city had changed, 
          and he could not find his home. He heard a girl being 
          called 'Bas Chachinai.' He knew that it must be his 
          daughter; he followed her home.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> His wife was sifting flour. When she saw him, she 
               fainted and died. He beseeched 'Hashem, is this her 
               reward?' She returned to life.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Chama bar Bisa went to learn for 12 years. Upon 
          returning, he was careful not to do like R. Chachinai. He 
          sat in the Beis Medrash and sent word to his home.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> His son R. Oshaya (whom he did not recognize) spoke 
               with him in learning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chama:</font></b> If only I had stayed home, I could have 
               raised a son like this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> When he entered his house, his son also entered; R. 
               Chama stood up for him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chama's wife:</font></b> Does a father stand up for his 
               son?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rami bar Chama:</font></b> 'A three-stranded rope does not 
                    quickly become undone' refers to (three 
                    generations of Chachamim, which makes the 
                    family a permanent tower of Torah, such as) R. 
                    Oshaya, R. Chama and his father Bisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva was a shepherd for Ben Kalba Savu'a. Ben Kalba 
          Savu'a's daughter saw modesty and good Midos in R. Akiva. 
          She agreed to become Mekudeshes to him on condition that 
          he would go to learn. He agreed. He was Mekadesh her 
          covertly, and he went to learn. Her father heard about 
          this, expelled her from his house, and vowed that she 
          would not benefit from his property (because R. Akiva was 
          unlearned at the time).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva learned for 12 years; he returned with 12,000 
          Talmidim. He heard a man ask his wife 'How long will you 
          be like a widow (waiting for him)?' She replied that she 
          would prefer that he learn for another 12 years!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: LEARNING TORAH FOR TWELVE YEARS</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara records stories about Tana'im and Amora'im who left their homes to learn Torah for twelve years after their marriage. What is unique about twelve years that they all chose to go away to learn for specifically that amount of time?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the Mishnah in Avos (5:21) states that a person is enjoined to get married at the age of eighteen, and the peak of his strength is at age thirty. Since a person learns best after he is married (Yevamos 62b), the best time to set aside for learning Torah are those years between eighteen and thirty.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHIDA</b> (in Sefer Mar'is ha'Ayin) writes that there are (approximately) 613 weeks in twelve years. By going away for twelve years, one can spend one week learning each Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> adds that the twelve years of learning are comprised of six years learning the six Sedarim of Mishnah and Gemara with breadth (b'Ki'us), and then six years of delving deeply into the six Sedarim (b'Iyun). 
</p><p>
He points out that there is an allusion in a verse that success in learning comes after a person has learned for twelve years. The verse states, 'For six years you shall sow your field, and for six years you shall harvest your vineyard, and you will gather the produce' (Vayikra 25:3). 'For six years you shall sow your field' -- just like sowing a field prepares the way for growing fruits, one must spend six years preparing the way for gaining understanding in the Torah by learning a large breadth of the Torah. 'And for six years you shall harvest your vineyard' -- these are the six years of delving in depth and coming to Halachic conclusions in one's learning. After that, then 'you will gather the produce.' 'The produce' refers to the Torah (Bava Basra 145b), for after twelve years of learning one will have made a true acquisition in his learning of Torah.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. AKIVA'S WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva saw that she desired that he continue learning, 
          so he learned for another 12 years. He returned home with 
          24,000 Talmidim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  His wife heard that he was returning, and went to greet 
          him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Neighbors:</font></b> You should borrow better clothes to greet 
               him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His wife:</font></b> 'A Tzadik knows the soul of his animal.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> When she reached him, she bowed to the ground and 
               kissed his feet. R. Akiva's attendants started to 
               dispel her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> Leave her! My Torah and yours is due to 
               her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Her father heard that a great Chacham came. He went to 
          see him, hoping to annul his vow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> When you vowed, did you intend to forbid 
               her even if her husband would become a great 
               Chacham? (Tosfos - this is normal for one who goes 
               to learn, therefore this was a valid Pesach to 
               permit the vow.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ben Kalba Savu'a:</font></b> Had I known that he would learn 
               even one Perek, or even one Halachah, I would not 
               have vowed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva:</font></b> I am your son-in-law!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> His father-in-law bowed and kissed his foot, and 
               gave half his money to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva's daughter did similarly with Ben Azai. 
          (However, Ben Azai became so enamoured with Torah that he 
          could not remain married - see Tosfos.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like people say, a sheep follows a sheep. 
               The daughter did like her mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rava sent his son Rav Yosef to learn for six years. After 
          three years, his son decided to see his family, on Erev 
          Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rava heard that he was coming; he took a weapon and went 
          to greet him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rava):</font></b> (You interrupted your learning 
          because) you remembered your harlot (some texts - your 
          spouse)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rava):</font></b> You remembered your dove (mate)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They quarreled, and neither ate the pre-fast meal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SPOUSE WHO REBELS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman rebels against her husband (this 
          will be explained), we reduce her Kesuvah by seven 
          Dinarim every week;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, we deduct seven Tarpa'ikin every week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This continues until her Kesuvah is depleted;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, we decrease indefinitely (and record how 
          much she owes to him). Perhaps she will inherit money, 
          and he will collect from it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if a man rebels against his wife, we add three 
          Dinarim to her Kesuvah every week;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, we add three Tarpa'ikin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is her rebellion?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> She refuses to have Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> She refuses to work.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, if a man rebels against 
          his wife...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this according to Rav Huna (he refuses 
               to have Bi'ah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But according to R. Yosi bar Chanina, is he 
               obligated to work for her?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He refuses to feed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav taught that a man who refuses to feed his 
          wife must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We first ask him to retract (and during this time 
          we add to her Kesuvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The law of rebellion applies whether 
          she is an Arusah or a Nesu'ah, even if she is Nidah, even 
          if she is sick, and even a Shomeres Yavam. (Some texts, 
          including Rashi's omit the next lines until Question (p).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult if rebellion is from work.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if she rebels from Bi'ah, why do we decrease her 
               Kesuvah? A Nidah may not have Bi'ah in any case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Without her rebellion, her husband was (content) 
          like one who has bread in his basket (later, she will be 
          permitted). Now, he is (troubled) like one whose basket 
          is empty.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, rebellion from Bi'ah applies even when 
          she is sick;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PENALTY FOR A REBELLIOUS SPOUSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah discusses how to penalize a man or woman who rebels against his or her spouse and refuses to fulfill his or her obligations. Rav Huna explains that the rebellion under discussion is refusal of marital relations. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says that the refusal is that of work, where the woman refuses to work for her husband (or provide him with her Ma'aseh Yadayim), or where the man refuses to give his wife Mezonos.
</p><p>
It is difficult to understand why there is a fine for the husband or wife who rebels with regard to Melachah.
</p><p>
(a) First, there is a Machlokes in the Gemara earlier (58b) whether the main purpose of the enactment of Mezonos was for the benefit of the woman (so that she will be supported) or for the benefit of the man (so that he will receive her Ma'aseh Yadayim). Rav Huna in the name of Rav says that the enactment was made for the benefit of the woman, and therefore she is entitled to say 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah' -- 'I decline the right to receive the Mezonos [from my husband], in order not to have to give him my Ma'aseh Yadayim.' Reish Lakish argues and says that the enactment of Mezonos was not for her benefit but for the husband's benefit, so that he receive her Ma'aseh Yadayim, and therefore she cannot say 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah.'
</p><p>
Whose opinion does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina follow? If he follows Rav's opinion, then if the wife refuses to work for the husband, she should not be considered to be rebelling, because she is <i>allowed</i> to refuse to give him her Ma'aseh Yadayim by saying 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah.' As soon as she stops working for him, the husband should just stop giving her Mezonos and he has nothing to complain about. If, on the other hand, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina follows Reish Lakish's opinion, that the enactment of Mezonos was made for the husband's benefit, then how could the husband be considered rebellious when he does not give his wife Mezonos? He should be entitled to tell her to keep her Ma'aseh Yadayim and not to give her Mezonos, since the enactment was for his benefit and he may decline the benefit if he wants!
</p><p>
(b) If the rebellion is only a question of a monetary matter, where one of the members of the marriage is not fulfilling his or her monetary obligations, why should the Mishnah make an unlimited penalty (of adding to or taking away from the Kesuvah indefinitely)? The Chachamim should just say that since she owes him money because she rebelled, he merely collects from the Kesuvah the value of whatever Ma'aseh Yadayim she did not give to him!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rav Huna) indeed learns that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina holds like Reish Lakish, that a woman is not entitled to say 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah,' and that is why she is considered to be rebellious when she refuses to give to her husband her Ma'aseh Yadayim. It is Rav Huna who argues with Reish Lakish earlier. In our Sugya, he is following his own view that a woman <i>may</i> say 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah.' 
</p><p>
Why, then, is the husband considered rebellious when he does not give Mezonos to his wife? According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, the husband should be entitled to say that the enactment of Mezonos was for <i>his</i> benefit and he is entitled to decline receiving her Ma'aseh Yadayim and not to give her Mezonos!
</p><p>
Tosfos (47b, DH Tiknu) proves from numerous Gemaras that even though the enactment of Mezonos was made for the husband's benefit according to Reish Lakish, the husband is not allowed to decline the Ma'aseh Yadayim and stop giving her Mezonos (if she does not produce enough Ma'aseh Yadayim to support herself independently). Reish Lakish holds not that the enactment was made solely for the husband's benefit, but that the enactment was made <i>also</i> for his benefit -- as well as for <i>her</i> benefit, and therefore neither one can decline to give what the other one is entitled to receive. Hence, he cannot say that he does not want her Ma'aseh Yadayim and refuse to give her Mezonos.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> and other Rishonim do not accept the assertion of Tosfos that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina holds like Reish Lakish. Rather, they say that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina agrees with Rav Huna in the name of Rav that a woman may say 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah.' If so, why is she considered in order to be considered rebellious? Apparently, the case under discussion is when the wife already received the Mezonos for that day, and she afterwards she refused to give her husnband the Ma'aseh Yadayim for that day in return. Certainly in days that follow, though, the husband will simply keep the Mezonos since she is keeping her Ma'aseh Yadayim.
</p><p>
(b) According to the above, the rebellion of Melachah involves just one day's Ma'aseh Yadayim that was not given to the husband when it was supposed to be given (because after that day, the husband simply stops giving his wife Mezonos). Why, then, do we not simply take that amount off from the Kesuvah? Why do we deduct from the Kesuvah indefinitely?
</p><p>
Tosfos and other Rishonim explain that even if we have the ability to forcefully take the money owed from the rebellious wife or husband, we do not do so, but rather we fine them by lessening or increasing the Kesuvah until they agree to fulfill their obligations on their own. We do not forcefully take away their money because it is impossible for a person to live with a spouse who has to be continually forced in order to fulfill his or her obligations ('Ein Adam Dar Im Nachash b'Kefifah Achas'). By altering the amount of the Kesuvah, the defiant party might be persuaded to agree to fulfill his or her obligations willingly.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if she rebels from work, when she is sick in any 
               case she cannot work!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> All agree that rebellion from Bi'ah is rebellion. 
          They argue about whether or not rebellion from work is 
          <i>also</i> rebellion.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LATER ENACTMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman rebels, we reduce her Kesuvah by 
          seven Dinarim every week;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, we deduct seven Tarpa'ikin every week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Raboseinu later voted to announce for four 
          consecutive Shabbosos that she is rebelling. Beis Din 
          sends to inform her that even if her Kesuvah is 100 
          Maneh, she will lose it all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The law of rebellion applies whether she is an Arusah or 
          a Nesu'ah, even if she is Nidah, even if she is sick, and 
          even if she is a Shomeres Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chiya bar Yosef):</font></b> A Nidah may not have Bi'ah 
          (why is she considered a rebel)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> One who has bread in his basket is 
          unlike one without bread in his basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> We announce about her only in the Beis 
          ha'Keneses and Beis Medrash.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> We announce for four 
          consecutive Shabbosos. (On Shabbos everyone is in the 
          Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Beis Din sends to her twice, once 
          before the announcements, and once after them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Halachah follows 
          Raboseinu.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> That is improper!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> What is improper about it? I 
          said so to Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda in the name of a 
          great man, R. Yosi bar Chanina!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Like whom does Rava hold?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He holds like Rav Sheshes:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava citing Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The Halachah is, we 
               deliberate with her (we delay the Get, reducing her 
               Kesuvah each week. Perhaps she will cease her 
               rebellion.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna bar Yehudah citing Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The 
               Halachah is, we do not deliberate with her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case of a rebel (in which we 
          deliberate)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ameimar):</font></b> She desires (to stay married to) 
          him, she just wants to pain him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she said that he is repulsive to her, we do not 
               force her (to remain with him. He divorces her 
               without a Kesuvah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mar Zutra):</font></b> (Even in this case,) we force her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred, and Mar Zutra forced her to stay 
               married. She (ceased to despise her husband, and) 
               gave birth to R. Chanina of Sura.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> (This does not prove that if we force her, she 
          will desire him again.) There, Shamayim helped (so that 
          R. Chanina would be born)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  Rav Zvid's daughter-in-law rebelled. She was holding a 
          silk garment that she brought into the marriage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi):</font></b> One 
               who rebels forfeits the existing Bala'os (the 
               remnants of property that she brought into the 
               marriage).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Gamda):</font></b> Do you flatter Rav Zvid 
               (pervert the ruling to favor his son) because he is 
               a great Chacham?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Rava never resolved whether or 
                    not she forfeits the existing Bala'os 
                    (therefore, she should keep what is in her 
                    possession)!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A REBELLIOUS SPOUSE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah and Gemara mention a number of ways in which Beis Din forces a spouse to fulfill his or her obligations to the other. The Mishnah (63a) says that Beis Din forces a defiant woman by lessening the amount of her Kesuvah, and ultimately taking it away entirely. The Gemara cites the opinion of 'Raboseinu' who later instituted that instead of gradually reducing her Kesuvah, Beis Din just proclaims in the synagogues on four consecutive Shabbosim that this woman is rebelling against her husband, and that she is going to lose her Kesuvah if she does not change her ways. After the fourth week, if she has not capitulated, they take away her entire Kesuvah at once. The Amora'im here argue whether or not the Halachah follows the view of Raboseinu.
</p><p>
On the next Daf (64a), the Gemara says that Beis Din waits twelve months before permitting the husband to divorce her, during which time the husband is not obligated to support her.
</p><p>
When all is said and done, what is the proper practice of fining a rebellious wife according to the Gemara, and what is the Halachah?
</p><p>
There seems to be a Machlokes among the Rishonim about how to understand the order and application of the different Takanos of the Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b>, the later Takanah of Raboseinu was not accepted by all of the Amora'im as the Halachah. Rather, the Gemara concludes that the Halachah is 'Nimlachin Bah' -- we delay the divorce and the immediate revocation of her Kesuvah (but rather we reduce the amount of the Kesuvah in the manner described in the Mishnah), and we try to persuade her to change her ways. When the Gemara (64a) says that we give her twelve months, it is also in agreement with the fine of our Mishnah. However, it is imposing an upper limit to the fine; after twelve months of rebelliousness, whatever is left of the Kesuvah is taken away and the husband may divorce her without giving her the Kesuvah or Tosefes.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and other Rishonim explain that the Halachah does follow the view of Raboseinu. The only question among the Amora'im is whether Beis Din must inform her of the consequences of her actions both before and after each public announcement, or only after each announcement. The Amora'im agree that she is fined the entire Kesuvah after four weeks.
</p><p>
The Rishonim argue, however, how to understand the Takanah to wait twelve months. Is the Takanah referring to a woman who wants her Kesuvah, or is it referring to a woman who is ready to get divorced and is willing to forgo her Kesuvah?
</p><p>
1. The <b>RASHBA</b> (cited by the Magid Mishneh, Hilchos Ishus 14:9) says that it is referring to a woman who is ready to forgo the Kesuvah. Even though a woman who wants her Kesuvah and continues to hold out is divorced after four weeks without her Kesuvah, however if she says explicitly that she is ready to forgo the entire Kesuvah then we delay the divorce for twelve months. This Takanah to wait twelve months was instituted by the Amora'im because the Chachamim saw that women were getting divorced impulsively and then they were regretful that they lost both husband and Kesuvah. By giving them time before permitting them to divorce, the Chachamim hoped that the husband and wife would appease each other.
</p><p>
2. The <b>ROSH</b> (5:34) explains that the Takanah was not only instituted for a situation where they are both ready to get divorced and she does not want her Kesuvah, but also in a situation where she does want her Kesuvah. The husband still must wait twelve months before divorcing her.
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 14:9-10) writes the opposite of the Rashba. The Takanah to wait twelve months was instituted only for a rebellious woman who <i>wants</i> her Kesuvah. The Magid Mishneh explains that it is shameful for Jewish women to be divorced out of quarreling ('Mipnei Ketatah'). Therefore, we try to appease them for twelve months. But in a situation where she wants to leave right away because she is disgusted with him, and she is willing to forgo her Kesuvah, then the husband may divorce her right away and we do not make her wait at all (because she cannot be persuaded to stay with him under such circumstances of being disgusted by him).
</p><p>
The <b>RIF</b> writes that the Takanos did not end there. At a later period in time, after the time of the Gemara, the Ge'onim instituted that if she does not want her Kesuvah and they both want to divorce, he may divorce her right away (and he does not have to wait twelve months).
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the enactments of the Mishnah and of Raboseinu apply only when the woman says that she still wants her Kesuvah and is not willing to be divorced without it. If she is willing to be divorced without her Kesuvah, then Ameimar says that 'we do not force her' to remain married. The Rishonim argue what Ameimar means when he rules that 'we do not force her' to remain married. 
</p><p>
According to the <b>RASHBAM</b> (cited by the Rosh 5:34) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 14:8), this means that if she wants to leave him without a Kesuvah, we make the husband divorce her and the husband cannot force her to remain married to him.
</p><p>
However, according to <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by Tosfos DH Aval and other Rishonim), the Ameimar does not mean that we force him to divorce her, but rather that we do not influence him <i>not</i> to divorce her; if he wants to divorce her, he may. 
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 77:2) rules that if the woman who rebels is ready to get divorced and to forgo her Kesuvah, she cannot force the husband to divorce her, like the opinion of Rabeinu Tam. If <i>he</i> wants to divorce her, he may divorce her right away. 
</p><p>
If the woman who rebels demands her Kesuvah, she loses her Kesuvah after four weeks of defiance (like Raboseinu), but the husband must wait twelve months before divorcing her. This follows the view of the Rambam, (opinion (b):3 above) that we wait twelve months only when she is angry with him, but not when she is disgusted by him and is ready to leave without a Kesuvah. 
</p><p>
The <b>REMA</b> adds that some say that the Takanah of waiting twelve months after she loses the Kesuvah was only in the times of the Gemara when a person was permitted to marry a second wife. Nowadays, when we may not marry two wives, since waiting twelve months would cause the husband to lose out as well (because he will not be able to marry another wife), we allow him to divorce her immediately. 
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO KEEPS THE 'BALA'OS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi):</font></b> One who 
          rebels does not forfeit the Bala'os of property that she 
          had brought into the marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Gamda):</font></b> Do you pervert the ruling against 
          Rav Zvid because he is a great Chacham (and out of 
          humility he will not protest)?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Rava never resolved whether or not she 
               forfeits the Bala'os.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, we do not take from her what she seized. 
               We do not give to her what she did not seize!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  She waits 12 months before he gives to her a Get. During 
          this time, he does not feed her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'SHOMERES' 'YAVAM' WHO REBELLED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> We write a document of rebellion against an 
          Arusah, but not against a Shomeres Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> (The law of rebellion applies) 
          whether she is Arusah or Nesu'ah, even if she is Nidah, 
          sick, or a Shomeres Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> When the Yavam demands to do Yibum, we write. 
          When she demands, we do not write;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel discusses when she demands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, Shmuel should have said that we write 
          <i>for</i> an Arusah, (but not <i>for</i> a Shomeres Yavam)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps that is indeed what Shmuel said.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Presumably, we don't write for a Shomeres 
          Yavam because she is not commanded to have children. The 
          same applies to an Arusah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We write for an Arusah who wants children to 
          uphold her in her old age and to bury her when she dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> A Yevamah can also claim this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> In both cases the Yavam demands. In the 
          Beraisa, he demands to do Chalitzah (and she wants to do 
          Yibum). Shmuel discusses a Yavam who demands to do Yibum 
          (and she wants to do Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  This is like R. Pedas, who says that we accept a demand 
          to do Chalitzah (and write an Igeres Mered against her), 
          but not a demand to do Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we distinguish?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When he demands to do Yibum, we tell him to marry 
               someone else. We should say the same when he demands 
               to do Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He can say that people will not give to me (their 
          daughters to marry) as long as I have a Shomeres Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> He can say this also when he demands Yibum! 
          (Tosfos - he does not want to do Chalitzah, for then she 
          collects her Kesuvah from his brother's property. 
          Alternatively, she does not want to do Yibum or 
          Chalitzah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> In both cases, he demands to do Yibum. The 
          Beraisa is like the initial Mishnah, and Shmuel is like 
          the latter version:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> At first, when people intended for the 
               Mitzvah of Yibum, this was preferable to Chalitzah. 
               Nowadays that people do not intend for the Mitzvah, 
               Chachamim say that Chalitzah is preferred.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH WE REDUCE OR ADD TO THE 'KESUVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We deduct seven Tarpa'ikin every 
          week.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How much is a Tarpa'ika?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It is one Istira.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How much is an Istira?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is half a Zuz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Three Tarpa'ikin are nine 
               Ma'in. This is one and a half Ma'in per day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chiya bar Yosef):</font></b> When she rebels, we deduct 
          from her Kesuvah corresponding to all seven days of the 
          week, including Shabbos. When he rebels, why do we add to 
          her Kesuvah only for six weekdays, but not for Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> When we subtract from her Kesuvah it 
          does not look like wages, so we subtract even for 
          Shabbos. Adding to her Kesuvah looks like wages, so we do 
          not do so for Shabbos.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'SHOMERES YAVAM' WHO REFUSES TO DO YIBUM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Shmuel says that an <i>Arusah</i> who refuses to marry her husband is considered a rebellious wife ('Moredes'), and her Kesuvah is reduced until she agrees to marry him. Shmuel says further that a <i>Shomeres Yavam</i> who refuses to have anything to do with her Yavam is <i>not</i> considered a rebellious wife and we do not reduce her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions Shmuel's ruling from a Beraisa that states that even a Shomeres Yavam is considered a rebellious wife if she refuses to have anything to do with her Yavam. Rebbi Yochanan answers that Shmuel is discussing a Yavam who wants to do <i>Chalitzah</i> and the Shomeres Yavam refuses, while the Beraisa is discussing a Yavam who wants to do <i>Yibum</i> and the Shomeres Yavam refuses. When the Yavam wants to do Chalitzah, then she is considered a Moredes for refusing, but not if he wants to do Yibum and she refuses.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains the logic of Rebbi Yochanan's statement. Rebbi Yochanan is following the Mishnah Acharonah that states that it is preferable to do Chalitzah than to do Yibum, because a person might not have pure intentions when doing Yibum.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects Rebbi Yochanan's answer, saying  that there should be no difference between Yibum and Chalitzah. If the Yavam claims that no other woman will marry him because he has not yet become exempt from marrying his Yevamah, he should be able to force her to do either Yibum or Chalitzah with him. If, on the other hand, the Yavam is able to find a different wife, then he should <i>not</i> be able to force the Yevamah to do either Yibum or Chalitzah!
</p><p>
Because of this question, the Gemara concludes that Shmuel and the Beraisa are both discussing a Yavam who wants to do Yibum. The Beraisa does not contradict Shmuel, because the Beraisa is following the Mishnah Rishonah that says that Yibum is preferable to Chalitzah (and therefore the Yavam may force the Yevamah to perform Yibum, while Shmuel is following the Mishnah Acharonah that says Chalitzah is preferable because the Yavam might not have pure intentions (and therefore we do not force the Yevamah to do Yibum just because the Yavam wants to). It seems that the Gemara is rejecting Rebbi Yochanan's difference between a Yavam who wants to do Yibum and a Yavam who wants to do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
There are a number of problems with the way the Gemara deals with Rebbi Yochanan's statement, according to the explanation of Rashi.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara say that in a case where the Yavam will be able to find a different wife if he does not do Chalitzah with the Shomeres Yavam, we should not force the Shomeres Yavam to do Chalitzah? Why should we not force her? After all, there is a Mitzvah to do Chalitzah, and the Mishnah Acharonah holds that doing the Mitzvah of Chalitzah is even more important than doing the Mitzvah of Yibum! Just like we force her to do Yibum according to the Mishnah Rishonah, we should force her to do Chalitzah according to the Mishnah Acharonah! (<b>RITVA</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>)
</p><p>
Indeed, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mai) is of the opinion that according to the Mishnah Acharonah, we <i>do</i> force the Yevamah to do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Gemara say, according to Rebbi Yochanan, that we do not force her to do Yibum 'because the Yavam is able to find a different wife without doing Yibum?' There is a better reason not to force her to do Yibum -- Rashi says that Rebbi Yochanan is following the Mishnah Acharonah, which says Yibum is to be avoided since the Yavam might have impure intentions. If so, we certainly do not force someone to do Yibum! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Mai)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Apparently, Rashi means that even though we force a person to do Yibum according to the Mishnah Rishonah, because the Mitzvah of Yibum is greater than the Mitzvah of Chalitzah, nevertheless according to the Mishnah Acharonah -- which holds that Chalitzah is better than Yibum -- the Yavam cannot force the Yevamah to do Chalitzah. 
</p><p>
The reason why he cannot force her to do Chalitzah is due to the way Rashi understands the Mitzvah of Chalitzah. Rashi learns that Chalitzah, in contrast to Yibum, is not a Mitzvas Aseh that is incumbent upon the Yavam to do. Rather, it is merely a way to permit the Yevamah to get married when Yibum is not being performed. It is done solely for the benefit of the Yevamah. Therefore, if the Yevamah does not want to perform Chalitzah and she is prepared to remain an Agunah and never remarry, she cannot be forced to perform Chalitzah. In such a case, there indeed is no reason to perform Chalitzah at all!
</p><p>
Even though the Mishnah in Bechoros (13a) says that the '<i>Mitzvah</i> of Chalitzah is greater than the Mitzvah of Yibum,' seemingly comparing the two and calling both of them Mitzvos Aseh, Rashi learns that the Gemara calls Chalitzah a Mitzvah only because it is an act which the Torah prescribes in order to make a Yevamah permitted to remarry. Since she is <i>required</i> to do Chalitzah in order to remarry (if she does not do Yibum), it is called a Mitzvah. (That is, Chalitzah is a Mitzvah in the same sense the Gerushin is counted in the list of Mitzvos.) When the Mishnah there says that Chalitzah is greater than Yibum, it means that it is greater in the sense that it avoids the problem that arises if the Yavam performs Yibum with impure intentions.
</p><p>
Tosfos, who says that we do force the Yevamah to do Chalitzah according to the Mishnah Acharonah, seems to maintain that Chalitzah is a positive Mitzvah like Yibum, and therefore we may force her to do Chalitzah.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, Rashi is following his own opinion elsewhere. The Mishnah in Sanhedrin (18a) teaches us that a king does not perform Chalitzah if a Yevamah falls to him, nor does his wife to Chalitzah if the king dies with no children. Similarly, a king does not perform Yibum with his brother's wife, nor does a king's wife perform Yibum with her husband's brother.
</p><p>
It is clear why the king does not do Yibum or Chalitzah with his brother's wife; there is a Mitzvah to uphold the honor of a king, and doing Yibum with his brother's wife to 'build the house of his brother, or having his brother's wife spit before him in the performance of Chalitzah, would be a disgrace to the honor of the king (Rashi). Similarly, it is clear why a king's wife cannot do Yibum with her husband's brother. The king's brother is a Hedyot (a non-king), and a  Hedyot is prohibited from marrying the wife of a king after the king dies. However, why does the Mishnah there say that <i>Chalitzah</i> may not be done with a king's wife after the king dies? There is nothing shameful with the king's brother doing Chalitzah with the king's wife!
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> in Sanhedrin (19b, DH v'Lo Choltzin) explains that Chalitzah is not performed with the wife of a king because she is prohibited from remarrying. It seems from Rashi that there is no point in performing Chalitzah if it will not enable the woman to remarry! Rashi in our Sugya is following that approach as well. (The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> in Sanhedrin suggests that Rashi might not mean that there is no point in doing Chalitzah if the woman will not be getting married. Rather, Rashi means that the <i>Chachamim instituted</i> that she not perform Chalitzah lest she <i>think</i> that she is permitted to remarry, when she is really prohibited from remarrying because she is the widow of a king. However, taken at face value, Rashi seems to be saying that a woman who does not intend to remarry has no Mitzvah to perform Chalitzah, as we have explained. The question of whether Chalitzah is a Mitzvah in its own right may be related to the Yerushalmi, Yevamos 1:1, that  discusses whether Chalitzah is 'an exemption from Yibum, or a type of Kinyan.')
</p><p>
(b) Regarding why the Gemara does not say that in a case where the Yavam wants to do Yibum, the woman is not considered a Moredes (and we do not force her to do Yibum) because Yibum is looked upon unfavorably according to the Mishnah Acharonah, the answer appears to be as follows. The Gemara means that if the Yavam insists on doing Yibum and she refuses to do either Yibum or Chalitzah, then we force her to do <i>Chalitzah</i> in order to enable him to marry another wife. Even though he is demanding to do Yibum, since his purpose is to be able to marry another wife, we force her to do Chalitzah so that he can get married. (See Tosfos DH Mai Shena, who rejects this approach.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chiya bar Yosef):</font></b> Why is a wife who rebels 
          punished more than a husband who rebels?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Shmuel):</font></b> We find that men hire women for 
          harlotry (and not vice-versa, for men desire Bi'ah more).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> No one sees a woman's desire. A man's 
          desire is perceptible (an erection, which is 
          disgraceful).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MINIMAL RATIONS ONE MUST SUPPLY TO HIS WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who feeds his wife through an intermediary 
          must supply at least this much every week:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Two Kabim of wheat, or four Kabim of barley;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, only R. Yishmael allots barley, for he 
               lived close to Edom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A half Kav of Kitnis (pulse, a kind of legume) and 
               half a <i>Log</i> of oil;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A Kav of dried figs, or a Maneh of pressed figs;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he cannot give these, he gives other fruits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He provides her with a bed, mat and mattress;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  He gives to her a kerchief for her head and a belt. He 
          gives to her shoes every festival;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  He gives to her clothing worth 50 Zuz each year. He does 
          not give new clothing in summer, nor worn clothing in 
          winter. Rather, he gives 50 Zuz worth of new clothing in 
          winter, and she wears the remnants in summer, and the 
          remnants are hers;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  He gives to her a silver Ma'ah each week for her needs;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  She eats with him every Shabbos night;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If he does not give to her a Ma'ah each week, she keeps 
          her (excess) earnings;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Each week, she must spin Shesi (lengthwise) threads (of 
          wool) weighing five Sela'im of Yehudah, which equals 10 
          Sela'im of Galil;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, she can spin 10 Yehudah-Sela'im of 
               Arev (widthwise) threads, which equals 20 
               Galil-Sela'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  If she was nursing, her workload is reduced and her 
          rations are increased;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  This all applies to the poorest man in Yisrael. Each man 
          must increase according to his standing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah is unlike R. Yochanan ben 
          Berokah, and unlike R. Shimon!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> How much bread is two meals (for 
               Eruv Techumim)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (R. Meir):</font></b> It is the amount one eats in 
               two weekday meals;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is based on two Shabbos 
               meals.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Both intend to be lenient. (R. Meir holds that 
                    on Shabbos one eats more bread to accompany the 
                    other foods. R. Yehudah holds that on Shabbos 
                    one eats less bread for he is satiated by the 
                    other foods.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (R. Yochanan ben Berokah):</font></b> It is a loaf 
               bought for a Pundiyon (a 12th of a Dinar) when four 
               Sa'in of wheat cost a Sela (four Dinarim);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #4 (R. Shimon):</font></b> It is two thirds of a loaf of 
               a third of a Kav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Half of this loaf (R. Yochanan and R. Shimon argue 
               about its size) is the size of a meal regarding a 
               house with Tzara'as (if one stays in the house long 
               enough to eat this much, the clothes he is wearing 
               become Tamei);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> If one eats a quarter of this amount of Tamei food, 
               he is disqualified from eating Terumah (until he 
               immerses);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> An eighth of this amount is the Shi'ur for Tum'as 
               Ochlim. (Rishonim argue about whether this is the 
               Shi'ur to receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, to be Metamei 
               other food, or for food to receive Hechsher to 
               become Tamei.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. 
               Yochanan ben Berokah. He says that half a Kav 
               suffices for two meals, so two Kabim are only eight 
               meals. (She must eat 14 meals per week!)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon. He holds that 
                    two ninths of a Kav is two meals, so two Kabim 
                    are 18 meals!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Yochanan ben Berokah. 
          Our calculation was imprecise, because bread costs more 
          than the wheat it is made from!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A third of the price of bread is the 
               grocer's profit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> (If so, a third of Kav makes two meals.) 
               Still, two Kabim are only 12 meals!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> She eats with him on Shabbos night from his 
               food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #1:</font></b> This is like the opinion that 'eats' 
               is literal. It does not answer for the opinion that 
               it is a euphemism for Bi'ah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #2:</font></b> Even according to the former opinion, 
               this accounts for only 13 meals!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Retraction:</font></b> Rather, we rely on the teaching of Rav 
               Chisda that says that half the price of bread is the 
               grocer's mark-up.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Rav Chisda contradicts himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> When the grocer supplies the firewood, the 
               mark-up is a half. When the buyer gives the wood, 
               the mark-up is a third. (Rashba - her husband 
               supplies her with firewood. The Mishnah mentions 
               only the quantities of food he must give.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (If so, a quarter Kav of wheat makes two 
          meals). Two Kabim are 16 meals! (This is more than she 
          needs each week.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Chidka, who obligates 
          eating four meals on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer 2:</font></b> Our Mishnah can be like Chachamim (who obligate 
          eating only three meals on Shabbos). The extra meal is 
          for guests.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (k)):</font></b> Based on this, we can even 
          say that our Mishnah is like R. Shimon. The extra meals 
          are for guests!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> Only R. Yishmael allots barley...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is Edom the only place where people eat 
          barley?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R Yosi says that only R. Yishmael allots twice as 
          much barley as wheat, since barley of Edom is bad.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO WE ALLOT WINE TO A WOMAN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He gives to her a half Kav of pulse...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> The Mishnah does not say that he gives to her 
          wine. This supports R. Elazar:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> We do not allot wine to a woman (lest 
               it arouse her lust).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'Those who give... v'Shikuyai (my drinks) 
               ' shows that women normally drink!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'V'SHiKuyai refers to things for which a 
               woman is MiSHtoKekes (desires), i.e. jewelry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> We do not allot wine to a woman. It says 
          'Chanah got up after her eating... and <i>his</i> drinking', 
          not after <i>her</i> drinking.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, we should likewise deduce '<i>her</i> 
          eating', and not <i>his</i> eating! (But surely, also men 
          eat!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the verse discusses her, 'his drinking' is 
          unnatural, so we expound it. (There is no reason to 
          expound 'her eating'.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If she is accustomed, we give to her 
          (wine).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> When she is used to wine it is different (then 
          it will not arouse her lust), like the following 
          teaching:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chinena):</font></b> If she is accustomed, we give to her 
               one cup; if not, we give to her two.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> If she is accustomed to two cups 
               when with her husband, we give to her one cup when 
               she is alone. If she normally has one cup with him, 
               we do not give to her at all when she is alone.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> A woman who is accustomed receives wine for 
          cooking:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Avahu):</font></b> Chachamim allotted two Sa'im of wine 
               (between 16 and 29 liters) for the daughter-in-law 
               of Nakdimon ben Guryon (who was exceedingly wealthy) 
               to use in cooking each week.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His daughter-in-law:</font></b> So you should allot to your 
               daughters!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beraisa:</font></b> She was a widow who fell to Yibum. (Enraged 
               by the meager allotment, she cursed them that their 
               daughters should also fall to Yibum, so) they did 
               not answer Amen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One cup (of wine) is good for a woman. Two is 
          disgracing. If she has three, she will verbally demand 
          Bi'ah. If she has four, she will seek bestiality with a 
          donkey in the market (in public), without shame.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This is when her husband is not with her. When he 
          is with her, there is no concern.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Chanah was with her husband (and we learned 
          from her that women do not drink)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Halachah is different when they lodge away 
          from home;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> A guest is forbidden to have Bi'ah - 
               'They returned to their city... and Elkanah had 
               Bi'ah with his wife', but not before.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Abaye's widow Chomah came in front of Rava and requested 
          that he allot wine for her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> I know that Abaye did not drink wine!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chomah:</font></b> I swear that he did! I used to give to him 
               in vessels like this (as long as my arm).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> While she was demonstrating, her arm was revealed. 
               The Beis Din was lit up. Rava desired Bi'ah, so he 
               went to his wife, Rav Chisda's daughter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> His wife asked who was in Beis Din that sparked his 
               desire. When she heard that it was Chomah, she hit 
               her with the lock of a chest and chased Chomah out 
               of the city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava's wife:</font></b> You already killed three men (she was 
               widowed twice before marrying Abaye, and was 
               Muchzekes to cause her husbands to die), and you 
               seek to (entice men with your beauty and) kill 
               another?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  The wife of Rav Yosef bar Rava asked Rav Nechemyah bar 
          Rav Yosef to allot wine for her; he did so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nechemyah:</font></b> I know that people of her city drink 
               wine (she 	is used to it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  The widow of Rav Yosef brei d'Rav Menashiya asked Rav 
          Yosef to allot wine for her; he did so. She requested 
          that he allot silk for her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> Why do you need silk?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The widow:</font></b> I need for you and your colleagues (lest 
               I be disgraced in your eyes).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'KELIM' ALLOTED TO WOMEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He gives to her a bed and a mat...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does she need a mattress (and mat? Tosfos 
          omits these words from the text.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> This is in a place where the bed-ropes 
          are uncovered. Sleeping on such a bed without a mattress 
          is painful.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not give to her a pillow and blanket;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Nasan says, we give to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is normal for her family, the first Tana 
               should agree that she gets it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is not normal for her family, why would R. 
               Nasan say that she gets it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is normal for his family, but not for hers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana says that he can tell her 'When I go, 
               I will take them. When I return, I will bring them!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nasan says, she can counter 'sometimes you will 
               return right before Shabbos and will be unable to 
               bring them. You will take my (mat, or pillow and 
               blanket that I myself bought), and force me to sleep 
               on the floor!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He gives to her a kerchief...
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PROVIDING ONE'S WIFE WITH A 'KAR V'KESES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Nasan regarding the obligation for a man to provide his wife with a Kar v'Keses -- a padded blanket and pillow upon which one rests one's head and body. The Gemara says that both agree that in a case where she is accustomed to sleeping on such fine items, he certainly is obligated to provide her with them. The Machlokes is only where she is not accustomed to such luxuries, but <i>he</i> is accustomed to them. The Tana Kama holds that he does not have to buy her a Kar v'Keses of her own. Rebbi Nasan argues and says that he must provide her with a Kar v'Keses, because she can claim that sometimes he might leave town with his own (which the two of them sleep upon, since his is large enough to be used by both of them) and return to his town as Shabbos enters. Due to the prohibition of Hotza'ah (carrying four Amos in a public place on Shabbos) he will not be able to carry his Kar v'Keses all the way home. When he arrives home without his Kar v'Keses, he will take his wife's Kar v'Keses away from her and make her sleep on the ground. Therefore, he must give her a Kar v'Keses of her own.
</p><p>
(a) Why doesn't the Gemara propose a simple reason to require him to buy her a Kar v'Keses? Since he is accustomed to using a Kar v'Keses, we should apply the principle that says that she rises to his degree of luxury and standard of living (Kesuvos 61a)! The very fact that he will take his Kar v'Keses away when he leaves town should be valid reason to require him to buy her a separate set.
</p><p>
(b) How can the Gemara say that she is afraid that he will take away 'her Kar v'Keses,' if he does not buy her a separate Kar v'Keses? She does not have her own Kar v'Keses for him to take away, since he did not buy her one!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) There are a wide variety of answers to the question of why we do not apply the principle that says that she rises to his degree of luxury in our Gemara. 
</p><p>
1. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Urchei) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Shakalt) seem to understand that our Gemara indeed <i>does</i> apply this principle. Nevertheless, they maintain that this principle only applies when they are actually living with each other. When the husband travels away from home, since he is not together with his wife, his wife does not need to live according to his standard of living.
</p><p>
It seems that the only reason we say she rises to his degree of luxury is because it is insulting for her if he denies her the luxury that she <i>sees</i> him experiencing.
</p><p>
2. However, most Rishonim reject this approach, and maintain that even when he is traveling, he must treat his wife (who remained at home) to his own standard of living. Why, then, does our Gemara not mention this rule?
</p><p>
The <b>RIF</b> (as explained by the Ritva and Rishonim), who does not cite the Beraisa we are discussing in his Halachic compilation, seems to have learned that the Beraisa disagrees with the rule that she rises to his level of luxury. The Beraisa is therefore not accepted as Halachah. 
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that when the Gemara says that he is accustomed to using a Kar v'Keses, it means that only he, but not the rest of his family, is accustomed to a Kar v'Keses. Since it is not his <i>family's</i> practice, he need not treat her to that level of luxury.
</p><p>
4. The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the Beraisa (like our Mishnah) is discussing a poverty stricken individual. Since <i>she</i> is not accustomed to living in such luxury, even though he became accustomed to it, he need not beg door to door in order to earn money so that he can treat her to his level of luxury.
</p><p>
5. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the above Rishonim) explains that the Beraisa is discussing whether he must be her a <i>second</i> Kar v'Keses set. She already has one, but he might have to buy her a second set to be prepared for the eventuality that he will leave his own Kar v'Keses on the road and take hers.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> offers two answers to our second question.
</p><p>
1. First, he explains that the woman is not claiming that the husband will take away her <i>Kar v'Keses</i> that she sleeps on, but rather she is claiming that he will take away her simple bedspread from her.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the husband have to take away her bedspread? Let them both sleep on it! Apparently, the normal, simple bedspread is the size of one person, as opposed to the Kar v'Keses, which are large enough for two people. She is therefore afraid that he will take away her bedspread even though he is not entitled to do so. Even though he has his own bedspread at home (and he does not take it along on his travels, since <i>every</i> bed comes with at least a simple bedspread), since he is used to luxury, one bedspread may not suffice for him, and he will take hers as well (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Shakalt).
</p><p>
2. In his second answer, Rashi explains that she is saying that she is going to buy her own Kar v'Keses with her own money (so that she can sleep on it when her husband goes away with his Kar v'Keses, because she has become accustomed to such luxuries), and she is afraid that her husband will unfairly take hers away from her if he finds himself without his Kar v'Keses. 
</p><p>
Why is she afraid that he will take hers away from her, if her Kar v'Keses is large enough for both of them? The answer is that according to this answer, the Kar v'Keses is only large enough to accommodate a single person, just like a simple bedspread. 
</p><p>
According to this, though, how does Rebbi Nasan solve the problem by requiring the husband to buy for his wife a Kar v'Keses? Even if he buys one for her, he might take it away from her if he finds himself without his linen to sleep on! The answer is that now that he buys her one set of Kar v'Keses, she can invest her own money to buy a spare Kar v'Keses for such occasions, and she does not have to buy two spare sets with her own money.
</p><p>
Alternatively, the only reason she is complaining is because he might take away the Kar v'Keses that she purchased with <i>her own money</i> to use when he goes away on trips. If <i>he</i> buys her the Kar v'Keses, though, it will not bother her so much when he takes it away on rare occasions and asks her to sleep on a simple bedspread like she used to do. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
3. According to the Ra'avad (cited above, a:5) the answer to our question is obvious. The Beraisa is discussing whether or not he must buy his wife an <i>extra</i> Kar v'Keses; she already has one set! (However, the Rishonim point out that the Ra'avad's explanation is not consistent with the version of this Beraisa as it is recorded in the <b>TOSEFTA</b>.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> Why does the Tana allot to her 
          clothing only once a year, but allots for her shoes every 
          festival?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Tana is in a mountainous place, where 
          three pairs of shoes are needed each year;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana counsels that one should give them to her 
               at the festival, to make her happy on the festival.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He gives clothes worth 50 Zuz...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> These are simple Zuzim (they are seven eighths 
          copper, and hence worth only an eighth of Zuzim of Tzur 
          of pure silver).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We derive this from the Seifa, which says that we 
               discuss the poorest Yisrael. Such a person would not 
               have 50 Zuz of pure silver!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Excess food belongs to the husband. Extra 
          Bala'os of clothing belong to the wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does she need them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rachbah):</font></b> She wears them when she is Nidah, lest 
          she be despised to her husband (by wearing the same 
          clothing when she is Tehorah as when she is Nidah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> Extra Bala'os of clothing of a widow belong to 
          the heirs (also they buy for her 50 Zuz of clothing each 
          year).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In this case, there is no concern if she is 
               despised.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE HUSBAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'she eats with him on Shabbos 
          night'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Literally, she eats with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> They have Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does it say 'she eats with him?'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is a euphemism - 'She ate... and said 'I did 
          not sin.''
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> She eats with 
          him on Shabbos night and Shabbos (day).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand according to the opinion that this 
               literally means eating;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if it means Bi'ah, do they have Bi'ah during the 
               day?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Yisrael are holy, and do not have 
                    Bi'ah during the day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rava taught that it is permitted in a dark house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was nursing...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ula Rabah):</font></b> Even though Chachamim said that a man 
          need not feed his children when they are minors, he must 
          feed very small children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Until what age is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is until six (full) years.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Asi):</font></b> A six year-old may rely on the Eruv of 
               his mother. (Chachamim made his law like hers, for 
               he depends on her. Likewise, his father must feed 
               him along with his mother.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How did R. Ula derive his law from our Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says that a nursing woman is given more food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He must supply the extra food a nursing 
               woman needs because he must also feed the baby!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. The case is, she is sick (and requires 
          more food).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, the Mishnah should say 'if she is 
          sick...'! Why did it discuss a nursing wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps it teaches that nursing women are assumed 
          to be sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> We allot wine to a nursing 
          mother, for this is good for the milk.
<br>
<br><b>PEREK METZI'AS HA'ISHAH</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRIVILEGES A MAN HAS IN HIS WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A man receives Metzi'os that his wife finds 
          and her earnings. He receives the Peiros of what she 
          inherits in her lifetime (alternatively - if she dies, he 
          inherits her);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If one embarrassed or wounded her, the payments are hers;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, for damage to a covered part 
          of the body, she receives two thirds of the payment and 
          he gets a third. For damage to an exposed part, she 
          receives a third and he gets two thirds.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He receives his share immediately. Her share is used 
               to buy land, and he receives the Peiros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> A previous Mishnah already taught 
          this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A father receives... Metzi'os and 
               earnings of his daughter... a husband has all these 
               privileges, and also receives the Peiros of her 
               property!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah is needed to teach the argument of R. 
          Yehudah ben Beseira and Chachamim about payments for 
          embarrassment and injury.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRIVILEGES A MAN HAS IN HIS WIFE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (A reciter of Beraisos):</font></b> If a married woman finds a 
          Metzi'ah, she keeps it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, it belongs to her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> R. Akiva says that a wife keeps her 
          extra earnings, all the more so Metzi'os!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> (If a woman told her husband) 'What I 
               produce is Konam to your mouth', he need not annul 
               it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, he must annul it, lest she produce 
               extra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must switch the opinions of R. Akiva and 
          Chachamim in the Beraisa. Chachamim say that a husband 
          receives an object his wife finds, and R. Akiva says that 
          she keeps it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Ravin taught that R. Akiva agrees that extra 
          earnings (for which she did not strain herself) belong to 
          the husband (and presumably, also Metzi'os). He argues 
          only about extra earnings that come through exertion!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that such earnings belong to the 
               husband. R. Akiva says that she keeps them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> A found object is (usually hard to 
          get. Therefore, it is) like extra earnings acquired 
          through exertion. Chachamim and R. Akiva argue about 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If she does two jobs simultaneously, 
          is this considered extra earnings through exertion?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> If she does three or four jobs 
          simultaneously, is this considered extra earnings through 
          exertion?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  These questions are unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Payments for injury or embarrassment...(R. 
          Yehudah ben Beseira says, the husband receives...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan):</font></b> Will he also say that a 
          man receives payments if someone embarrasses his horse?! 
          (Tosfos does not understand the question. The Pnei 
          Yehoshua suggests that R. Tam (in Tosfos 65b DH Hachi) 
          initially changed the Mishnah to say that Chachamim say 
          that the husband receives the entire payment, for then 
          this is a valid question according to Chachamim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A horse does not feel embarrassment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If a man spat on Levi's garment, must he pay?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he must!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Mishnah):</font></b> If he spat and the spit reached 
               Levi, or he uncovered a woman's hair, or took off a 
               man's cloak, he pays 400 Zuz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> He pays for spitting only if the spit 
               touched Levi, not if it landed on his garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A man suffers no disgrace if his garment is spat 
          on. He is disgraced when his wife is disgraced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> According to this, if a poor man from 
          a rich family is disgraced, the whole family is 
          disgraced. Do they also receive payments?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> They are not the body that was 
          disgraced. A man's wife is like himself.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>APPRAISING THE DOWRY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a father pledged to give a dowry and the 
          husband died before Nisu'in, the father can tell the 
          Yavam 'I wanted to give to your brother, but I do not 
          want to give to you;'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she pledged to bring 1000 Dinarim into the marriage, 
          her husband writes in the Kesuvah that he received 1500 
          (because he profits with them);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  When property is evaluated, he pledges (writes that she 
          entered) a fifth less than the appraised value (because 
          Kelim that will be used depreciate, and appraisal of 
          merchandise is normally inflated).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If the appraisal was 100 and it is truly worth 100, (he 
          writes 100, and) he cannot demand that she enter more 
          property;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If he writes (that he received) 100, she must bring in 
          property appraised for 125;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If he writes 400, she must bring in property appraised 
          for 500.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE QUALITIES REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONQUER THE JEWS</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara says that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai saw the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion picking barley kernels from the dung of Yishmaelite's beasts, he said, 'Happy is Yisrael, that when they are doing the will of Hash-m, no nation or foreigner can overtake them, and when they are not doing the will of Hash-m, He gives them over into the hands of the lowliest of the nations....' We see from here that when Hash-m deems it necessary to punish the Jewish people, it is a lowly nation that conquers them.
</p><p>
However, this seems to contradict the Gemara in Chagigah (13b). The Gemara relates that Hash-m enabled Nevuchadnezar to conquer the whole world so that the nations would not mock the Jewish people and say that Hash-m gave His people over to a lowly nation. A similar statement appears in Gitin (56b), 'Whoever oppresses Yisrael becomes the head [of a nation].'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara here in Kesuvos means that Hash-m makes the Jewish people subject to a lowly nation <i>morally</i>. That nation might be great in power, but it uncivilized and all of the other nations look down upon it. Hash-m does not want the Jewish people to learn the ways of the nation that conquers them, and therefore He makes a morally low nation conquer them so that the Jewish people themselves will be disgusted by the ways of that nation and not learn from them.
</p><p>
Nevuchadnezar was the ruler of the nation of Kasdim when he conquered Yisrael. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> points out that the Kasdim were indeed a nation that was uncivilized and looked down upon by the other nations, as described in the verse (Yeshayah 23:13, see Rashi there), and the Gemara (Sukah 52b, which says the same of the Yishmaelim). People who would act in an uncouth manner were referred to as 'Bavliyim' (Yoma 66b).
</p><p>
However, when it comes to national conquest (and not just the humbling of individual Jews, as with Nakdimon's daughter), Hash-m does not deliver the Jewish people to the hands of a militarily weak nation so that other nations should not mock the Jewish people. Rather, Hash-m gives them over to a morally low nation which nevertheless is a nation of great military power. (M. Kornfeld -- See also Insights to Moed Katan 18:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  He pledges a fifth less than the appraised value (we will 
          explain why all this is needed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> We need not teach that one who 
          pledged a dowry to a Chacham can say so ('I wanted to 
          give to your brother, but not to you') to an ignoramus 
          Yavam;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Rather, even if he pledged to an ignoramus and the Yavam 
          is a Chacham, he can say that he wanted to give to his 
          brother, but not to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she pledged to bring in 1000 Zuz...(when 
          property is evaluated, he pledges a fifth less...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah give all these examples?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana teaches that we deduct from a big 
          appraisal, and from a small one. He teaches (big and 
          small appraisals) when her relatives appraised (clauses 
<br>      <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b> and (f), in which it says 'she brings in'), and also 
          (big and small) when the husband appraised (clauses (c) 
          and (g), in which it says 'he pledges' - Rashi).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WIFE WHO BROUGHT MONEY INTO THE MARRIAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she pledged to bring money into the 
          marriage, for each four Dinarim, he writes six Dinarim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He must give 10 Dinarim for the box (this will be 
          explained) for every Maneh (100 Dinarim) that she brings 
          in;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, everything goes according to 
          the local custom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The previous Mishnah says that if she 
          enters 1000, he writes 1500. Why must our Mishnah also 
          teach that he adds a third?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It teaches that this applies to a small sum and 
          to a large sum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only a large sum, one might have 
               thought that this is because the profit is great, 
               but for a small sum, he does not add a third;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only a small sum, one might have 
               thought that this is because the expenses and 
               responsibility are small, but for a large sum, he 
               does not add a third.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Chasan must give 10 Dinarim for the box...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is this box?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is a box of perfumes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This applies only in Yerushalayim (where 
          women use them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Does he contribute 10 Dinarim for 
          every Maneh appraised, or for every Maneh that he writes 
          in the Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> If it is for each Maneh that he writes, is 
          this amount given the first day, or every day? (Tosfos - 
          surely, he gives 10 Dinarim only once, and later 
          according to her honor. The Gemara asks whether the 10 
          Dinarim are given immediately, or over the course of 
          time.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> If it is for each day, is this for the first 
          week, or every week?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #4:</font></b> If it is for each week, is this for the 
          first month, or every month?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #5:</font></b> If it is for each month, is this for the 
          first year, or every year?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  These questions are not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Chachamim allotted 400 gold coins for 
          Nakdimon ben Guryon's daughter for perfumes for one day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The daughter:</font></b> So you should allot for your 
               daughters!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Amen!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO DOES NOT GIVE ENOUGH 'TZEDAKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai saw a girl gathering barley amidst 
          the dung of the animals of Arabs. When she saw him, she 
          covered herself with her hair and asked 'feed me'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> Who are you?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The girl:</font></b> I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> What happened to the money of your 
          father's house?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The girl:</font></b> This is like people say in Yerushalayim, the 
          way to salt (preserve) money is to deduct (to give to 
          Tzedakah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Others say that one should do Chesed with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai:</font></b> What happened to the money of your 
          father-in-law's house?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The girl:</font></b> Since it was mixed with money of my father's 
          house, it was also lost. Do you remember when you signed 
          on my Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yochanan ben Zakai (to his Talmidim):</font></b> Yes! Her father 
          gave one million gold Dinarim, and her father-in-law also 
          contributed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Zakai wept. 'Happy are you, Yisrael! 
               When you do Hashem's will, no nation can rule over 
               you! When you do not do His will, He makes you 
               subservient to a lowly nation, even to the animals 
               of a lowly nation!'
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO DOES NOT GIVE ENOUGH 'TZEDAKAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Nakdimon ben Guryon gave Tzedakah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> When Nakdimon ben Guryon walked to the 
               Beis Medrash, they would spread silk garments before 
               him, and the poor would take them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> He did this for his own honor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> He did not give as much as one of his wealth 
          should give.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like people say, people load up a camel 
               according to its strength.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Elazar bar R. Tzadok:</font></b> I swear, I saw her gathering 
          barley amidst the hoof-prints of horses in Ako;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'If you do not know... go in the footsteps of the 
               flock and graze Gediyosayich (your goats)' - we read 
               this Geviyosayich. (If you will not observe the 
               Torah, your bodies will need to graze (eat) from the 
               footsteps of animals.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO BRINGS IN GOLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Shemen bar Aba):</font></b> If she brings in gold, we appraise 
          it, and he writes in the Kesuvah the appraised value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Gold is like Kelim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Gold is like silver Kelim that 
               depreciate (and he writes only four fifths of the 
               appraised value).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> No, they are like gold Kelim that do not 
          depreciate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> If so, it should say that they are like 
          <i>its</i> Kelim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Gold is like Kelim. Gold 
          Dinarim are like money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in a place where they 
               are not commonly changed, they are appraised, and 
               they are (written in the Kesuvah) at their true 
               value.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> About which law does R. Shimon comment?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He cannot comment on the latter law. The first 
                    Tana would not equate gold Dinarim to money in 
                    a place where one cannot convert the Dinarim, 
                    for one cannot spend them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He comments on the first law. The first Tana 
               says that gold is like silver Kelim, and R. Shimon 
               says that it is like gold coins in a place where 
               they are not changed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (to Question #2):</font></b> Really, R. Shimon comments on 
          the latter law. The case is, one can spend the Dinarim 
          with difficulty;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana says, since one can spend them, he 
               writes in the Kesuvah a third above their value. R. 
               Shimon says, since they can be spent only with 
               difficulty, he writes only their value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The entire Beraisa is like R. Shimon. It is 
          abbreviated, and it means as follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Gold is like Kelim, and gold coins are like money. 
               This applies only where they are commonly converted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Where they are not converted, they are written in 
               the Kesuvah at their value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Question #1 remains difficult!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (b)):</font></b> Beraisa #1 discusses fine 
          pieces of gold, which depreciate. (Therefore, they are 
          like silver Kelim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Beraisa #1 discusses gold particles 
          (Rashi; Tosfos - gold ore) (They/it depreciate(s).)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yanai):</font></b> Perfumes of Antichi are like money (it is the 
          main commodity there, so he writes a third above their 
          value).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> A woman collects Parna (Tosfos 
          - her Kesuvah; Rashi - an additional third) from camels 
          of Arabia.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papi):</font></b> A woman collects Parna from garments of Bei 
          Michsi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papi):</font></b> A woman collects Parna from sacks of Rodiya 
          and ropes of Kimchoniya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> I used to say that a woman collects her Kesuvah 
          from a wallet full of coins in Mechuza, because women 
          rely on them,
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Once I saw that they use the money to buy land, I 
               realized that they rely on land, so they may collect 
               only from land.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE MINIMUM DOWRY GIVEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one marries off his daughter without 
          stipulating, he must give at least 50 Zuz;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he stipulated that he will marry her off bare, the 
          husband may not say 'when I bring her to my house, I will 
          clothe her.' Rather, he clothes her while she is in her 
          father's house;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Similarly, one (appointed over Tzedakah) who marries off 
          an orphan girl must give at least 50 Zuz. If there is 
          money in the wallet (this will be explained), she is 
          given according to her honor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Abaye):</font></b> These 50 Zuz are simple (one eighth 
          silver).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  We learn from the Seifa, which says that if there is 
          money in the wallet, she is given according to her honor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rachbah):</font></b> The 'wallet' is the Tzedakah fund.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We would not give 50 Zuz of pure silver from 
               Tzedakah!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATION OF 'TZEDAKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If two orphans, a boy and a girl, come to be 
          fed, we feed the girl before the boy, for it is natural 
          for a man to beg from door to door, but not for a woman.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY NAKDIMON'S ACTS OF TZEDAKAH DID NOT PROTECT HIS FAMILY</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara explains that Nakdimon's daughter suffered a terrible loss of fortune even though her father gave tremendous amounts of Tzedakah. The Gemara asks how such a fate could befall the offspring of such a righteous man, who used to spread out carpets of expensive wool upon which he walked and then distributed to poor people. The Gemara answers that 'he did it for his honor.' (Perhaps he had the poor people roll out the carpets for him in return for taking the carpets when he was finished.) Because of this, the merit of his acts of Tzedakah was not able to help his descendants in the difficult times that ensued.
</p><p>
Why did Nakdimon's merit fail to protect his offspring? The Gemara in Pesachim (8a; see Insights there) says that a person who gives a Sela to Tzedakah and says, 'I am giving this Sela to Tzedakah in order that my [ill] son should recuperate and live,' is considered a 'Tzadik Gamur.' Even though the giver has personal motives, his act of Tzedakah is considered to have been fulfilled in a full and complete manner! How, then, could Nakdimon's acts of Tzedakah not have been considered complete acts of Tzedakah to protect his children? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that although an act of Tzedakah that is done for personal motives is considered a full Mitzvah, if it is done for the sake of <i>personal honor</i> the act is indeed flawed. Personal honor detracts from the Mitzvah of Tzekadah and makes the Mitzvah incomplete.
</p><p>
Why, though, should this be so? 
</p><p>
1. The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (cited in Chafetz Chaim Al ha'Torah) writes that honor is not a physical experience, but a spiritual experience. Even though no physical pleasure can replace the spiritual pleasure that Hash-m gives to a person as reward in Olam ha'Ba for his performance of Mitzvos, nevertheless experiencing the spiritual pleasure of honor in this world can reduce the reward that a person would otherwise receive for his performance of Mitzvos. Accordingly, the words of the Maharsha are easily understood. The honor that Nakdimon received from his performance of the Mitzvah of Tzedakah replaced the reward that he and his descendants would have otherwise received, which includes the Peros (fruits) of the Mitzvah of Tzedakah that they would have received in this world.
</p><p>
2. The <b>HAFLA'AH</b> and <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> explain that the honor Nakdimon received from his acts of Tzedakah was not a byproduct of the Mitzvah, but it was as if the money that he gave for Tzedakah was being used to <i>purchase</i> him that honor by his giving it in such a public manner. As such, it was as if he was conducting a business deal -- he was paying money to the poor in order to purchase honor. He was effectively buying honor.
</p><p>
It is true that when a person gives away his money with intention that Hash-m do for him a particular favor in return, his act of Tzedakah is still considered a full Mitzvah. However, since Nakdimon's money was given away to purchase honor directly (and not in order to merit compensation through Divine intervention, like the person who gave Tzedakah in order to merit the recuperation of his child), his Mitzvah of Tzedakah was lacking. This cannot even be compared to a person who does Mitzvos so that he should be honored by others as a righteous person. In such a case his act is not purchasing for himself honor; the honor comes as a byproduct at a later time. Here, though, the act itself was an act of acquiring honor.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b>, cited by the <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b>, explains that Nakdimon lived at the time of the Churban of the Beis ha'Mikdash, like the Gemara says in Gitin (56a). That was a time of divine wrath (what the Gemara calls 'Idan Rischa'). The Gemara in Menachos (41a) says that although, normally, a person is not held accountable for not doing more Mitzvos than he does (as long as he does not transgress any Aveiros), during a time of Divine anger Hash-m does punish  a person for not trying to do more Mitzvos. Similarly, at the time of the Churban, which was certainly a time of Divine anger, Nakdimon was punished for not giving Tzedakah in an even better manner, although he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Tzedakah in an acceptable manner. That is why his descendants were not protected.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>HAFLA'AH</b> suggests that the fate of poverty does not always come as a punishment. Rather, it is part of the nature of the world for some families to become wealthy and some to become poor, based on their particular Mazal, as the Gemara says in Shabbos (151b; see also Ta'anis 25a). 
</p><p>
The Mitzvah of Tzedakah can save a person from punishment, but it cannot save a person from enduring the fate that he was destined to receive. In order to change his destiny, he has to be perfect in every way and he must have very great merits, like Tosfos says in Shabbos (156a; DH Ein Mazal), and one must give Tzedakah entirely Lishmah with no ulterior motives.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If two orphans, a boy and a girl, come to be 
          married, we marry off the girl first, since the shame of 
          a girl (who is single) is greater than that of a man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If an orphan comes to get married, first we 
          rent a house for him, supply a covered bed and all needed 
          Kelim, then we marry him off.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Sufficient for what he lacks' refers to a house. 
               'That is lacking' refers to a bed and table. 'Lo (to 
               him)' is a wife, like it says, 'I will make Lo (for 
               him) a helper corresponding to him'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Sufficient for what he lacks' - you are 
          commanded to finance him, you need not make him wealthy. 
          'That is lacking to him' - even a horse to ride on, and a 
          slave to run in front of him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There was a poor man that was born to a rich family. 
               Hillel bought for him a horse to ride on and a slave 
               to run in front of him. Once, he did not find a 
               slave to run in front of him; Hillel ran three Mil 
               (about three kilometers) in front of him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred in the upper Galil, in which a 
          man born to a rich family became poor. They bought for 
          him one Litra of meat each day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is so special about that?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> It was a Litra of fowl (which is 
          expensive).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> They bought meat <i>with</i> a Litra of coins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He lived in a small village. Every 
          day they slaughtered an animal for him (even though much 
          of the remaining meat would be wasted).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  A man came in front of R. Nechemyah (and requested food).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Nechemyah:</font></b> What do you normally eat?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The man:</font></b> I eat fat meat and old wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Nechemyah:</font></b> I have lentils. Do you want to eat 
               with me?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The man ate some of the lentils and died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Nechemyah:</font></b> Woe to him, that I killed him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Nechemyah should lament over himself, 
               that he killed him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The man was at fault for making himself so 
               finicky.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  A man came in front of Rava.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> What do you normally eat?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The man:</font></b> I eat fattened hens and old wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> You should be concerned for imposing on the 
               money of the congregation!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The man:</font></b> Do I eat from them?! I eat from Hash-m!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'The eyes of all hope to You, and 
                    You give to them their food in his time' - it 
                    does not say in <i>their</i> time, rather in <i>his</i> 
                    time, teaching that Hash-m gives each one his 
                    food in his time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> In the meantime, Rava's sister came. He had not seen 
               her for 13 years. She brought with her a fatted hen 
               and old wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> I have spoken too much. Come and eat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a person lacks and does not want 
          to receive Tzedakah, we give to him for a loan, and later 
          for a gift;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, we give him a gift, and later a loan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The case is that he will not take a gift!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We offer to him a gift.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - continuation):</font></b> If he has money but refuses to 
          spend it and starves himself because he wants to be 
          supported by Tzedakah, we give him a gift and later 
          collect it from him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, he will not take again!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> We collect it only after he dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - continuation - R. Shimon):</font></b> We are not 
          responsible for one who has money and will not spend it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  If he does not have and does not want to take, we say 
          'give to us a security and we will lend to you' to 
          assuage his mind.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> 'Lend' refers to one who lacks 
          and does not want to receive Tzedakah. We give to him a 
          loan, and later, a gift;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'You will lend to him' refers to one who has, but 
               will not spend it, because he wants to receive 
               Tzedakah. We give to him for a gift, and collect 
               from him after he dies;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, we are not responsible for such a 
               person.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, what do we learn from the 
               repetition 'Lend, you will lend him'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah speaks as people do. (It is normal 
               to double the verb. We do not expound this.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW SOME 'CHACHAMIM' GAVE 'TZEDAKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  There was a poor man in Mar Ukva's neighborhood. Each 
          day, Mar Ukva used to throw four Zuz into the hole where 
          the pivot-hinge of the door swings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One day, the man decided to see who was giving him 
               the money. That day, Mar Ukva was late returning 
               from the Beis Medrash; his wife accompanied him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When the man saw that they were approaching the 
               door, he ran after them. They fled, and entered an 
               oven from which the coals had been swept.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Mar Ukva's feet were getting burnt. His wife (whose 
               feet were fine) told him to put his feet on hers. He 
               was troubled (that he did not merit a miracle like 
               she did).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His wife:</font></b> I am home all day (to give to the poor). 
               Also, I give food, which they can enjoy immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did they go to such extremes so that the 
          poor man should not see them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (Mar Zutra bar Tuvya): It is better for a person 
          to allow people to put him in a furnace, than to make 
          someone blush.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learn from Tamar - 'She was being taken out (to 
               be burned, yet she did not defend herself, because 
               it would have embarrassed Yehudah)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Mar Ukva used to give 400 Zuz to a particular poor person 
          every Erev Yom Kipur. Once, he sent the money with his 
          son.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His son:</font></b> He does not need the money!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar Ukva:</font></b> What did you see?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His son:</font></b> They were scenting the house by sprinkling 
               old wine on the floor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar Ukva:</font></b> I didn't know that they were so delicate!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Mar Ukva sent double the amount he used to send.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  When Mar Ukva was dying, he asked to see his Tzedakah 
          records. He saw that he had given 7000 Si'anki Dinarim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar Ukva:</font></b> I have sparse provisions for a long 
               journey!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He gave half his money to Tzedakah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Ila'a taught that in Usha they enacted 
               that one should not give more than a fifth of his 
               money to Tzedakah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That applies only during his life, lest he 
               come to need. This is not a concern when he dies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Aba used to wrap coins in a garment and throw them 
          behind him. He would go where the poor were, and watch 
          that tricksters should not take the money for themselves.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) GIVING UP ONE'S LIFE IN ORDER NOT TO EMBARRASS SOMEONE </b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara teaches that it is better for a person to jump into a fiery furnace than to embarrass another person in public. The Gemara records a number of incidents that demonstrate this precept.
</p><p>
The Gemara tells us in many places (such as Kesuvos 19a) that there are three Aveiros for which a person must give up his life and not transgress: Avodah Zarah (idolatry), Giluy Arayos (immorality), and Shefichus Damim (murder). If, as our Gemara says, a person is required to jump into a furnace in order to avoid embarrassing someone, why is the Aveirah of embarrassing someone not included in that list?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Sotah (10b) explains that the list includes only those Aveiros that are mentioned explicitly in the Torah. The Aveirah of embarrassing someone and the requirement to avoid it at all costs -- although it is derived from the incident with Tamar and Yehudah -- is not an explicitly written Mitzvah in the Torah, and thus it is not included in the list.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (Sha'arei Teshuvah 3:139) explains that the three Aveiros are <i>general categories</i>, each of which includes Toldos, or subcategories of Aveiros for which one must also give up one's life. For example, a subcategory of Avodah Zarah is using leafs of a tree of Avodah Zarah in order to heal oneself. (See also <b>RAMBAN</b> in Milchamos to Sanhedrin 74a, end of chapter 9, and Pesachim 25a and Insights to Pesachim 25:1.) Rabeinu Yonah explains that embarrassing one's friend is a subcategory of Shefichus Damim, like the Gemara says in Bava Metzia (58b). Therefore, it <i>is</i> included in the list, as a subcategory of Shefichus Damim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ME'IRI</b> (Sotah 10b, Berachos 43b) implies that although the Gemara compares embarrassing one's friend to killing him and says that one must jump into a furnace and not embarrass one's friend, the Gemara is not to be understood literally. Rather, the Gemara is emphasizing to us the severity of embarrassing another person ('Derech Tzachus v'He'arah'). According to the Me'iri, the Gemara might mean that a person should subject himself to discomfort rather than embarrass another person, like Mar Ukva and his wife did. It is not required, though, to actually give up one's life in order to avoid embarrassing someone. (Whether or not it is <i>permitted</i> to give up one's life in order to avoid embarrassing someone, if one is not required to do so, is subject to a Machlokes; see Insights to Kesuvos 3:3(c)).
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE 'TZEDAKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina used to give four Zuz to a certain man every 
          Erev Shabbos. Once, he sent the money with his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  His wife:</font></b> He does not need the money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chanina:</font></b> What did you see?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  His wife:</font></b> I heard them saying 'on what should we dine 
          today, on linen cloths, or colored silk cloths?'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chanina:</font></b> He is a swindler!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> We must be appreciative of swindlers! 
               If not for them, (we could assume that everyone who 
               requests Tzedakah is truly poor, and) we would sin 
               each day (for not giving) - 'He (an Oni to whom you 
               did not give) will cry to Hash-m about you, and you 
               will bear sin'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Rav mi'Difti):</font></b> Anyone who declines to give 
          Tzedakah is like one who serves idolatry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> It says here 'Lest there be a Vliya'al (base) 
               thought in your heart', like it says about idolatry 
               'Vliya'al'. (Note:</font></b> The verse here discusses one who 
               is afraid to <i>lend </i>before Shemitah. Perhaps this is 
               like Tzedakah, for Shemitah is prone to wipe out the 
               loan!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who makes his eye appear blind, or his 
          stomach swollen, or his thigh shriveled, will experience 
          this before he dies!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  One who takes Tzedakah and does not need it will come to 
          need it before he dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not force him to sell his house or the 
          Kelim he uses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If he used gold Kelim, he will 
          use silver. If he used silver Kelim, he will use copper.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Zvid):</font></b> He must sell a bed or table of gold 
          or silver. He may keep cups and bowls of gold or silver.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Presumably, he need not use cheaper cups and 
          bowls because they repulse him. Likewise, he can refuse 
          to accept an (inferior) bed and table!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava brei d'Rabah):</font></b> He must sell a silver 
          back-scratcher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> If one wants to collect gifts for 
          the poor, he may keep his Kelim (even though if he sold 
          them he would have 200 Zuz and would not be considered 
          poor). If we find out that a rich person took such gifts 
          and we demand repayment, if he cannot pay he must sell 
          his finer Kelim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DOWRY OF AN ORPHAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If an orphan girl was married off willingly by 
          her mother or brothers, and they wrote her a dowry of 50 
          or 100 Zuz, when she gets older she can force them to 
          give to her what was appropriate;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, if the father married off one daughter, 
          we give to the second like he gave to the first;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, sometimes a person is poor and becomes 
          wealthy, or vice-versa. Rather, we estimate the value of 
          the possessions and give to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Shmuel):</font></b> For Parnasah (the dowry given to a 
          girl who gets married after her father died) we estimate 
          according to the father (how much we think that he would 
          have given).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Daughters receive food and Parnasah 
          from the property of their father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not say that if the father was alive, he would 
               give so much. Rather, we appraise the property, and 
               give accordingly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Parnasah is the dowry she receives when 
               she marries!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> No, it means supplying 
          her needs (her food, while she lives with her brothers).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It says that she receives food and 
               Parnasah. Surely, 'food' is her own needs, and 
               Parnasah is the needs of marriage!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> No, both refer to her own needs. 'Food' 
               refers to food and drink; 'Parnasah' refers to 
               clothing and coverings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah - Chachamim):</font></b> Sometimes a person is 
          poor and becomes wealthy, or vice-versa. Rather, we 
          estimate the value of the possessions, and give to her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What do 'poor' and 'wealthy' mean?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> They refer to financial poverty and 
                    wealth.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> How can the first Tana say that if 
                    the father grew poor, we give the second 
                    daughter like the first. He lacks the means!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, they mean 'stingy' or 'generous'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that we 
               estimate the property and give to her. We do not 
               estimate the father's intention. This refutes 
               Shmuel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel is not refuted. He holds like R. Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If the father married off 
               one daughter, we give to the second like he gave to 
               the first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, Shmuel should have said that the 
          Halachah follows R. Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Had he said so, one might have thought that this 
          is only when the father married off a daughter during his 
          lifetime, and we saw how much he wanted to give to his 
          daughters. We would not know that it is even if he never 
          married off a daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel teaches that R. Yehudah follows estimation 
               whether or not he married off any daughters.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah discusses when he married off a daughter 
               to show the extremity of Chachamim. Even though the 
               father revealed his opinion (of how much to give), 
               we do not estimate his opinion (for other 
               daughters).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava (to Rav Chisda):</font></b> They say in your name that the 
          Halachah follows R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Chisda:</font></b> It should be Hashem's will that all such nice 
          teachings be said in my name!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava holds that the Halachah does not follow R. 
          Yehudah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> A daughter fed by the brothers 
               receives a tenth of the property (for Parnasah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rava says that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah 
          when we know the man's nature. When we know nothing about 
          him, the Halachah follows Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> Rav Ada bar Ahavah reported that Rebbi once gave 
          a 12th for Parnasah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Rebbi said that we give a tenth!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We must say that Rebbi himself said a tenth 
               only when we do not know the man's nature.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> A daughter fed by the brothers 
          receives a tenth of the property;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If a man left 10 daughters and one son, do 
               the daughters get all the property?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rebbi):</font></b> The first daughter receives a tenth; 
               the next gets a tenth of what remains (90%.) The 
               next gets a tenth of what remains (81%), and so on. 
               Then, the girls split their money equally among 
               themselves.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LOSING THE RIGHTS TO RECEIVE A DOWRY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar argue regarding when a Yesomah, a girl whose father died, is no longer eligible to receive from her father's estate her Nedunya -- the 'Isur Nechasim,' or 'Parnasah,' which is the dowry given to her from one-tenth of her father's estate (see Chart #11). According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, a Na'arah who gets married, and a Bogeres even before she gets married, are not entitled to receive the 'Isur Nechasim.' 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Af Ivdu) writes (as the Shitah Mekubetzes explicates) that a Na'arah who is married and a Bogeres do not receive their 'Isur Nechasim' for two different reasons. The reason why the Bogeres does not receive it is because the Rabanan did not institute that a Bogeres receive 'Isur Nechasim' since she is able to take care of herself; she is no longer dependent upon the estate and is not entitled to any part of it. In contrast, a Na'arah who is married <i>is</i> entitled to part of the estate, but since she became married without first claiming her 'Isur Nechasim,' she has shown that she willfully forfeited her entitlement to the 'Isur Nechasim.'
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation raises a number of questions. How does Rashi know that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's ruling regarding a Na'arah who is married and a Bogeres stem from two different lines of reasoning? Rashi should have explained simply that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that a Na'arah who gets married no longer has anything to do with her father's estate, just like a Bogeres!
</p><p>
In addition, it is clear from the Gemara's conclusion that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar <i>must</i> hold that a Na'arah who gets married is removed from her father's estate, like a Bogeres, and that she does not receive the 'Isur Nechasim' even if she protests ('Mochah') its revocation. This is clear from the Gemara's statement that even Rebbi agrees that a Na'arah who gets married loses her 'Isur Nechasim' if she does not protest, and that the Beraisa in which Rebbi argues with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is discussing a Na'arah who <i>does</i> protest. Obviously, then, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar who argues with Rebbi holds that even if the Na'arah does protest, she does <i>not</i> receive the 'Isur Nechasim' (like <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> points out, as quoted by the Shitah Mekubetzes)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi finds it necessary to explain the Gemara's original understanding of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the way he did because the Gemara attempts to attribute the statement of the Mishnah (68a) to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (see Rashi DH Vitrah). The Mishnah does not say that a Na'arah who gets married has no entitlement to the 'Isur Nechasim.' It only says that a Na'arah who gets married loses the 'Isur Nechasim' if she does not protest and she accepts less than a tenth of the estate at the time of her wedding. The Gemara must have understood that the Na'arah who gets married loses the rights to the 'Isur Nechasim' according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar only because she did not protest and she willingly forfeited it (and not because she has no entitlement to it at all).
</p><p>
Later, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah is expressing Rebbi's opinion, and not the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. If so, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar must be of the opinion that a Na'arah who is married never gets Isur Nechasim, even if she does protest at the time.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) PROTESTING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE 'ISUR NECHASIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that our Mishnah (68a) -- which implies that a Gedolah who gets married and does not protest when her brothers do not give her the 'Isur Nechasim' loses her entitlement to the 'Isur Nechasim' -- is following the opinion of Rebbi. The Gemara proves that this is indeed Rebbi's opinion from a Beraisa. In the Beraisa, Rebbi says that a girl receives the 'Isur Nechasim' upon her marriage only if she is being supported by her brothers. If they are not providing her with support, then she does not receive the 'Isur Nechasim. How can Rebbi say that she loses the 'Isur Nechasim' when she is not being supported, if he says that a Bogeres who is not being supported <i>does</i> receive the 'Isur Nechasim?' It must be that the statement in which Rebbi connects the rights to receive 'Isur Nechasim' to Mezonos (being supported), is discussing a Bogeres who did not protest when she was not given the 'Isur Nechasim.' If she protests, however, then she receives the 'Isur Nechasim.'
</p><p>
Rashi explains that when Rebbi says in the Beraisa that a girl who is being supported by her brothers receives the 'Isur Nechasim' (even when she does not protest), he is referring to a Ketanah <i>or a Na'arah</i>.
</p><p>
How can Rashi write that the Beraisa is referring to a Na'arah and that a Na'arah gets the 'Isur Nechasim' even if she does not protest? The Mishnah implies that a Na'arah (i.e. any Gedolah) <i>loses</i> the 'Isur Nechasim' when she does not protest! (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> and <b>MAHARAM</b> answer that our Mishnah -- which implies that a Na'arah loses the 'Isur Nechasim' when she does not protest -- is discussing a Na'arah who has become married (which parallels the Mishnah's case of a Ketanah that became married). The Beraisa, on the other hand, which says that as long as she is receiving Mezonos she does not have to protest in order to receive the 'Isur Nechasim,' is discussing a Na'arah who has not yet become married. That is why she does not have to protest in order to receive the 'Isur Nechasim.'
</p><p>
The Maharsha points out that Rashi makes this clear (in DH Nizones) by saying that Rebbi in the Beraisa is discussing a Na'arah 'who is <i>coming</i> to get married,' in contrast to a Na'arah who is already married.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Each daughter took for herself (she was 
               entitled to a tenth. Why must she share it with her 
               sisters?)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rebbi said they share equally only when they 
               all come to get married at the same time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> This supports Rav Masnah:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Masnah):</font></b> If they all come to get married 
                    at the same time, they receive one tenth.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> This is unreasonable!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Correction:</font></b> Rather they receive a tenth, like 
                    one (i.e. they share equally).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DOES A 'BOGERES' FORFEIT 'PARNASAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1 - Rebbi):</font></b> Whether a girl became a Bogeres 
          before or after marrying, she ceases to be fed from the 
          estate, but she does not forfeit Parnasah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, (if she became Bogeres before 
          marrying) she forfeits also Parnasah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> To avoid this, she can 'hire' a husband (i.e. make 
               it financially advantageous for a man to marry her 
               before Bagrus), and she receives her Parnasah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If an orphan was willingly 
          married off by her mother or brothers and they wrote for 
          her 50 or 100 Zuz, when she grows up she can claim the 
          rest of what was appropriate for her to get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> This is because she was a minor. An adult 
               cannot claim the rest, because she pardoned her 
               privilege. (Presumably, the Halachah follows our 
               Stam Mishnah!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> An adult pardoned Parnasah only if she didn't 
          protest.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> If this were not true, Rebbi would contradict 
          himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #2 - Rebbi):</font></b> A daughter fed by the brothers 
               receives a tenth of the property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> She receives only if she is fed, i.e. 
               before Bagrus!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Question: In Beraisa #1, Rebbi says that she 
               receives even after Bagrus!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Answer:</font></b> We must answer like we said above, that she 
               (an adult) pardoned Parnasah only if she didn't 
               protest.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ravina (to Rava):</font></b> Rav Ada bar Ahavah said in your name 
          that she need not protest when she turns Bogeres <i>or</i> is 
          married, but must protest if she turns Bogeres <i>and</i> 
          marries.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava does not say so!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava asked Rav Nachman (above) and accepted his 
               answer, that even a Na'arah who marries forfeits 
               Parnasah, if she does not protest!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> When she is fed by the brothers (after Nisu'in), 
          only a Bogeres must protest. (We can say that a Na'arah 
          was silent because they feed her.) If she is not fed, 
          even a Na'arah who marries must protest.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 'PARNASAH' AND FOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna citing Rebbi):</font></b> Parnasah is unlike (feeding 
          daughters from the estate after the father dies,) a 
          stipulation of the Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In what respect are they different?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> If the brothers sold inherited property, 
               daughters may seize it to collect Parnasah, but not 
               for food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Huna would not need to teach this. 
               All know this law, for it comes up every day!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Parnasah can be collected from Metaltelim, but 
          food cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Rebbi holds that also food is collected from 
          Metaltelim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> Both property with Acharayos (it 
               can be seized by creditors after it was sold, i.e. 
               land) and without Acharayos (Metaltelim) are used to 
               feed the widow and daughters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> If: one said 'my daughters should 
          not be fed from my estate (after I die),' they are fed 
          anyway. If he said 'they should not receive Parnasah', 
          they do not.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE 'PARNASAH' AND FOOD COLLECTED FROM SOLD PROPERTY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav):</font></b> If brothers diverted the property to 
          others, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Chiya was present when this question was 
               delivered (to Rebbi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Chiya):</font></b> Does he mean that they sold the 
               property, or that they gave it for collateral?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions (Rebbi):</font></b> It makes no difference. 
          In either case, daughters can collect Parnasah from it, 
          but not food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Rav specify whether they sold it, or 
          gave it for collateral?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav wanted to know about both:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had he asked about when they sold it, and Rebbi 
               would answer that daughters collect it, Rav would 
               know that all the more so, if they gave it for 
               collateral;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  However, if Rebbi would answer that it is not 
                    collected, Rav would not know about when they 
                    gave it for collateral.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had he asked about when they gave it for collateral, 
               and Rebbi would answer that daughters do not collect 
               it, Rav would know that all the more so, if they 
               sold it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  However, if Rebbi would answer that it is 
                    collected, Rav would not know about when they 
                    sold it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, he worded his question in a way that 
               includes both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We do not collect for food or Parnasah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did R. Yochanan not hear Rebbi's ruling, but 
          had he heard it, he would have retracted his own ruling?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Or, R. Yochanan heard it, but nevertheless he 
               argued?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The following shows that he had heard it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> A man died, leaving two daughters and 
               a son. One daughter took Parnasah. If the son died 
               before the other daughter received Parnasah, she 
               pardoned her Parnasah (and splits the remaining 
               property with her sister);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (R. Chanina):</font></b> A bigger Chidush was taught, 
               that we take (sold property to pay) Parnasah, but 
               not for food. How can you say that she pardoned it?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If R. Yochanan had not heard Rebbi's ruling, he 
                    should have asked 'Who says that Parnasah is 
                    taken from sold property (since R. Yochanan 
                    himself argues)!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps R. Yochanan had not heard it (when he 
          taught (e) above), but he heard it later, before R. 
          Chanina challenged him. Even though R. Yochanan accepted 
          the ruling, he argued with R. Chanina <i>in this case</i>, 
          where the second daughter receives much property anyway 
          (therefore she pardons Parnasah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yemar):</font></b> According to R. Yochanan, if a girl 
          has money because she found a Metzi'ah, does she pardon 
          Parnasah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> No. R. Yochanan says so only when she 
          receives a large share <i>of the estate</i>.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'PARNASAH' IS LIKE A DEBT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ameimar):</font></b> A daughter who receives Parnasah is considered 
          an heir.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If so, the sons cannot force her to 
          accept money (if she wants a tenth of the land)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ameimar):</font></b> Correct!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If the sons want her to take the 
          land in one place, can she demand a tenth of each piece 
          of land?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ameimar):</font></b> She can!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> She is like a creditor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Ameimar subsequently retracted, and agreed to Rav Ashi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Minyomi):</font></b> A woman came in front of Ameimar 
               claiming Parnasah. The brothers said 'If we had 
               money, we could force you to take it instead of the 
               land', and Ameimar was silent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that Ameimar agrees that they could force 
               her to accept money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is she like a creditor of the father, or of the 
          brothers?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she is a creditor of the brothers she collects 
               middle quality land, without an oath (like a regular 
               lender collects from the borrower);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she is a creditor of the father, she collects low 
               quality land, with an oath (like a lender collects 
               from heirs of the borrower).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The following episode proves that she is a 
          creditor of the brothers:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ravina authorized Rav Ashi's daughter to collect 
               middle quality land from her brother, without an 
               oath.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She also collected low quality land from the son of 
               a deceased brother, with an oath (since she was a 
               creditor of the deceased brother, and was collecting 
               from his heir).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Nechemyah sent to Rabah bar Rav Huna to collect 
          Parnasah for a certain woman, even from the base of a 
          millstone.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> In Rav Kahana's academy, we used to collect for 
          women even from rental of houses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Anan sent to Rav Huna 'Huna our colleague, Shalom! 
          When this woman comes before you, collect a tenth of the 
          estate for her.' (This was not a proper way to address 
          Rav Huna. Even Shmuel put Rav Huna before himself!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Huna (to Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Say the following to Rav 
               Anan verbatim! If not, you will be excommunicated!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Anan, Anan! From land, or from Metaltelim? Also, 
               who sits at the head in the house of Marzicha?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes delivered the message verbatim, but 
               first apologized to Rav Anan. 'You are greater than 
               me; Rav Huna is greater than you. He said I will be 
               in Cherem if I do not give this message. Otherwise, 
               I would not say it! Anan, Anan...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Anan (to Mar Ukva):</font></b> Do you see how he treated 
               me? Also - what is Marzicha?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN RAV HUNA AND RAV ANAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara records an odd story involving Rav Anan and Rav Huna. Rav Anan first sent a message to Rav Huna, calling him 'Huna Chavrin' and asking him to provide a certain woman with her 'Isur Nechasim' (her Nedunya, dowry, from a tenth of the estate of her father). Rav Huna, apparently upset with the appellation that Rav Anan chose for him, made Rav Sheshes swear that he would convey to Rav Anan the following statement: 'Anan, Anan, [should I give the dowry only] from land or even from mobile property? And who sits at the head of the meal of an Avel (mourner)?' 
</p><p>
This exchange is very perplexing.
</p><p>
(a) Why did Rav Anan lower the honor of Rav Huna by calling him, 'Huna Chavrin?'
</p><p>
(b) What did Rav Huna mean by sending a message in which he repeated Rav Anan's name twice, 'Anan, Anan?'
</p><p>
(c) Of all questions to ask, why did Rav Huna add the question about the order of seating at the meal of an Avel? What does that have to do with giving a woman her dowry from the land of her father or from his mobile property?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in 'l'Cheker Shemos u'Kinuyim b'Talmud,' #11) suggests a marvelous explanation for this incident.
</p><p>
Rav Anan, he points out, was a member of the Reish Galusa's family, as we find in Seder Olam Zuta. He was not the only member of the Reish Galusa's family who called Rav Huna, 'Huna Chavrin.' Rav Nachman, the son-in-law of the Reish Galusa (see Chulin 124a, Bava Basra 65a), also called Rav Huna, 'Huna Chavrin' quite often (Bava Metzia 15a, Chulin 56a, Nidah 16a). He even referred to Rav Huna's son, Rabah bar Rav Huna, as 'Bar Chavrin' ('the son of our Chaver'; Beitzah 25a). In other places, we find that Rav Nachman called Rav Huna 'Huna' alone (Eruvin 42b; see also Kesuvos 7b, Kesuvos 68a, Bava Metzia 71a, Bava Basra 138b). The fact that a number of members of the house of the Reish Galusa referred to Rav Huna as 'Huna Chavrin' indicates a certain attitude of the Reish Galusa's family towards Rav Huna, which may be explained as follows.
</p><p>
The word 'Chaver,' besides meaning a 'friend' or 'colleague,' is also used in the Gemara to refer to a Talmid Chacham who has not yet received Semichah and is therefore not entitled to judge certain matters of law, such as cases of Kenas penalties (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:2, Kidushin 33b, Shemos Rabah 27:5). The Yerushalmi (ibid.) tells us that one Huna was a 'Chaver' and not a 'Chacham Musmach.' Actually, the Bavli in Sanhedrin (5a) tells us that while the Rav Huna of our Sugya did not receive Semichah from the Reish Galusa in Bavel (although he lived in Bavel), he did receive Semichah from Rav, who received Semichah from Rebbi Chiya, who received Semichah from Rebbi in Eretz Yisrael. Because of this, Rav Huna's son, Rabah bar Rav Huna, during disputes with the Reish Galusa, would say, 'I do not need you -- my Semichah comes from Eretz Yisrael and not from you!'
</p><p>
The Reish Galusa's family was upset that Rav Huna did not receive Semichah from the Reish Galusa. They did not recognize the Semichah that he received from Eretz Yisrael. This explains why Rav Anan and Rav Nachman referred to Rav Huna as 'Huna Chavrin,' as opposed to 'Chacham'; they did this in order to emphasize that he was not considered a 'Chacham Musmach,' but only a 'Chaver.' This also explains the exchange that we find in Pesachim (86b), in which Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna, 'What is your name?' Rav Huna replied, 'Rav Huna.' He then asked him, 'Why do you call yourself 'Rav' Huna,' to which Rav Huna answered, 'Because that is my name.' <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> there explains that by saying, 'That is my name,' he meant to say that 'I have Semichah and therefore I am entitled to call myself <i>Rav</i> Huna.'
</p><p>
In light of this, we can understand the story in our Gemara. Rav Anan, who was a colleague of Rav Nachman (see Chulin 56a) and relative of Rav Nachman from the family of the Reish Galusa, called Rav Huna, 'Huna Chavrin,' in order to emphasize that the Reish Galusa did not recognize Rav Huna's Semichah. Although Rav Huna tolerated this when Rav Nachman, his contemporary Torah giant, referred to him in such a manner, he did not stand for Rav Anan calling him 'Huna Chavrin.' Rav Huna, in order to prove that he was deserving of respect whether or not they recognized his Semichah, answered with riddles, effectively showing them that his level of scholarship was even greater than theirs. 
</p><p>
We indeed find that Rav Huna spoke in riddles with Rav Nachman in Berachos (47b), where Rav Huna told Rav Nachman that 'nine people and 'Aron' are considered a Minyan [of ten].' Rav Nachman asked, 'How can an Aron count as [the tenth for] a Minyan? An Aron is not a person!' Rav Huna replied that what he meant was that nine people, who are crowded together as a group so that they look like there are ten people, are considered a Minyan. When he said 'nine people and Aron,' he was speaking in disguised terms, and he meant 'nine people and <i>Echad Ro'eh v'Eino Nir'eh</i> (the One Who sees but cannot be seen, or Hashem's presence),' the first letters of which spell out the acronym, 'Aron.' He was saying that nine people, together with Hash-m, count as a Minyan (Divrei Eliyahu to Berachos 47b, see also Kol Eliyahu #186).
</p><p>
Here, in our Gemara as well, Rav Huna spoke in disguised terms, also using an acronym in his message. The second 'Anan' in his statement is an acronym for 'Isur Nechasim Nigvis' -- 'the tenth of the [father's] property is collected,' and he was saying, 'Anan, Isur Nechasim Nigvis (is the tenth of the property collected) from Karka or from Metaltelim?'
</p><p>
In his second statement, in which he asked who sits at the head of the meal of an Avel, Rav Huna was telling Rav Anan that although one with the Reish Galusa's Semichah might have certain privileges over a 'Chaver,' there are certain situations in which a 'Chaver' like Rav Huna certainly deserves more respect that Rav Anan, even though Rav Anan has Semichah from the Reish Galusa. That situation would be where they are seated together at a meal, like the Gemara says in Bava Basra (120b). The Gemara there says that when the Chachamim are seated together in a discussion of Halachah, the 'Chacham' (which might mean who has Semichah) sits at the head, but when sitting at a meal, the Zaken (the oldest person) sits at the head. Someone who is an extremely wise Chacham sits at the head even at a meal. Rav Huna was not only older than Rav Anan, but he was exceptionally wise (as the Gemara in Moed Katan 28a says). Rav Huna was saying that 'even you, Rav Anan, must agree that I deserve more respect in certain situations, such as at a meal, because I am older and because of my superior wisdom.' (Rav Huna mentioned the house of an Avel because the verse that discusses an Avel serves as the source for how we are to sit at a meal.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Mar Ukva asked to hear the full story. Rav Anan 
               explained.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar Ukva:</font></b> You do not know what Marzicha is, and you 
               called Rav Huna 'Huna, our <i>colleague'</i>?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Marzicha?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a mourner - 'Do not come to a house of 
          Marzach.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Avahu):</font></b> How do we know that a mourner sits 
          at the head?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Avahu):</font></b> 'V'Eshev Rosh...ka'Asher Avelim 
          Yenachem'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Yenachem connotes consoling others (the 
               consoler is at the head)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It is written (so 
               we can read it) 'Yinachem' (will be consoled. The 
               verse could have said 'Menachem' (console), which 
               cannot be read any other way - Tosfos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Mar Zutra):</font></b> 'V'Sar Mirzach Seruchim' - a 
          mourner becomes a Sar (leader) to great people (who come 
          to console him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah is, the following are taken only 
          from land, not from Metaltelim: feeding a widow and 
          daughters, paying a Kesuvah, and Parnasah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO ENTRUSTS MONEY TO GIVE TO HIS DAUGHTER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If Levi gave money to David for 
          Levi's daughter (for her dowry or to buy a field for 
          her), and she says 'I trust my husband (give the money to 
          him)', David should do like he was instructed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, even if he bought a field for her and she 
          wanted to sell it, she could. It is as if it is already 
          sold! (Therefore, we heed her.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This applies to an adult; but the actions of a minor are 
          void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If Levi gave money to 
          David, to give to Levi's son-in-law to buy a field for 
          Levi's daughter, and she says 'give it to my husband', if 
          she is Nesu'ah, we heed her. If she is Arusah, David does 
          like he was instructed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, we heed an adult, whether she is Nesu'ah or 
          Arusah. We do not heed a minor, whether Nesu'ah or 
          Arusah. Rather, David does like he was instructed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In which case do they argue?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They argue about a Nesu'ah minor. R. Meir says 
          that we heed her. R. Yosi says that even if she is 
          Nesu'ah, we heed her only if she is an adult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection - Question:</font></b> If so, who taught the Seifa, which 
          says 'but the actions of a minor are void?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is not R. Yosi. He already said 'it is like a 
               field that she wants to sell', which shows that he 
               discusses only an adult, who can sell!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, R. Meir taught it. The Mishnah is 
               abbreviated; it means as follows:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  David does like he was instructed. This is if 
                    she was Arusah, but if she was Nesu'ah, we heed 
                    her. This refers to an adult, but the actions 
                    of a minor are void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> They argue about an Arusah adult. (R. Meir 
          says, David does like he was instructed; R. Yosi says, we 
          heed her.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Meir.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO LEFT MONEY FOR HIS CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  (Ilfa was very poor, and went away to earn money. He 
          returned and found out that had he stayed, he would have 
          been appointed Rosh Yeshiva.) He hung himself on a mast.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ilfa:</font></b> If anyone can say a Tosefta of R. Chiya and R. 
          Oshaya, for which I cannot bring its source in the 
          Mishnah, I will fall and drown!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  An elder asked the source of the following Tosefta.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one said 'give a Shekel to my children each 
               week', and they need a Sela, we give to them a Sela. 
               If he said 'give to them only a Shekel', we give to 
               them only a Shekel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he said 'if they die, others should inherit in 
               place of them', whether or not he said 'only', we 
               give to them only a Shekel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ilfa:</font></b> That is like R. Meir, who says (in our Mishnah) 
          that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the 
          deceased.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO LEFT MONEY FOR HIS CHILDREN (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Halachah is, whether or not he said 
          'only', we give them all they need.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Meir, who says that it 
          is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is in other cases. Here, the deceased wants 
          his children to have their full needs. He said to give to 
          them only a Shekel, merely so that they will be frugal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Pa'utos (mature children) buy or sell 
          Metaltelim, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rafram):</font></b> If they have an overseer, the sale is invalid. 
          We learn this from the Seifa of our Mishnah, 'the actions 
          of a minor are void'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this is only when there is a third 
          party (who was told what to do with the property)!!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, the Mishnah would have said 'but regarding 
          a minor, David does like he was instructed;'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The actions of a minor are void' teaches that they 
               are always void (when there is an overseer).
<br>
<br><b>PEREK HA'MADIR</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO FORBIDS HIS WIFE THROUGH A VOW</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one vowed that his wife may not benefit 
          from him, up to 30 days, he gets someone to finance her. 
          Beyond this, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, a Yisrael who vows thusly may keep his 
          wife for one month, but (if he vowed) for two months he 
          must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Kohen (who cannot remarry her if he divorces her) 
               keeps her two months, but for three months, he must 
               divorce her and pay her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If one forbade any type of produce to his wife through a 
          vow, he divorces her and pays her Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, a Yisrael may keep her for one day, but 
          for two days, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah. A 
          Kohen keeps her two days, but for three days, he must 
          divorce her and pay her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If one forbade any type of cosmetics on his wife through 
          a vow, he divorces her and pays her Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, he divorces a poor woman if he did not 
          limit the duration of the vow. For a rich woman, the 
          Shi'ur is 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> He is obligated to her! How can he 
          uproot his obligation through a vow?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a wife says 'What I produce is Konam 
               to your mouth', her husband does not need to annul 
               this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since she is obligated to him, she cannot uproot her 
               obligation.	Also here, he cannot uproot his 
               obligation to feed her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Since he can say 'use your earnings to feed 
          yourself', it is as if he said this.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) OVERRIDING A 'SHIBUD' WITH A 'NEDER'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a man may prohibit his wife with a Neder from deriving any pleasure from him, and as a result he becomes unable to provide his wife with Mezonos, financial support. The Mishnah says that he may instead appoint a 'Parnas' (benefactor) to support his wife.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that the husband should not be able to prohibit himself with a Neder from providing his wife with Mezonos, since he is obligated to provide her with Mezonos and he cannot remove that obligation.
</p><p>
The Gemara gives a number of answers. Among them, the Gemara says that the Mishnah is referring to a case where the husband made the Neder during Erusin, prohibiting his Arusah from deriving any pleasure from him. The Mishnah earlier (57a) teaches that an Arusah is entitled to receive Mezonos after twelve months have passed. The Mishnah here is teaching that the husband's Neder can override his obligation to provide the Arusah with Mezonos after twelve months.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains why the husband's Neder is able to override the obligation to give Mezonos to his Arusah after twelve months. He explains that during Erusin, the obligation to support her is only mid'Rabanan, and since a Neder takes effect mid'Oraisa, it overrides the obligation mid'Rabanan to give Mezonos to the Arusah. Rashi is implying that after Nisu'in, the obligation to feed one's wife is mid'Oraisa, and that is why a Neder cannot override his obligation to give her Mezonos after Nisu'in.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand.
</p><p>
(a) The Gemara earlier (47b) cites an opinion that the obligation to provide Mezonos to a Nesu'ah is only mid'Rabanan. Many Rishonim rule in accordance with this view, because Rav Huna in the name of Rav (58b) is following this view when he rules that a woman is entitled to say, 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah' -- 'I decline the right to receive the Mezonos [from my husband], in order not to have to give him my Ma'aseh Yadayim,' and the Halachah follows Rav Huna's ruling. According to Rashi, though, who says that whenever a Neder is made against a Chiyuv d'Rabanan, the Neder which is d'Oraisa overrides the Chiyuv d'Rabanan, then even after the Nisu'in the husband should be able to prohibit himself with a Neder from feeding his wife, because the Chiyuv of Mezonos even for a Nesu'ah is only mid'Rabanan!
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara (70a) says that if a woman makes a Neder prohibiting to her husband anything she produces, the Neder does not take effect because of the Shi'abud (obligation) to give her Ma'aseh Yadayim to her husband. However, this Shi'abud of the woman to her husband is certainly only mid'Rabanan. Why, then, should a Neder d'Oraisa not be able to override it?
</p><p>
(c) The Gemara earlier (59b) teaches that Hekdesh and Konamos (Neder) override a Shi'abud. As Rashi explains, if a person designated an object as a lien ('Apotiki') for the repayment of a loan, and then he made that object Hekdesh, the Shi'abud to the creditor is removed and there is no longer a lien on that object for the loan. According to Rashi here who says that a Neder cannot override an obligation that is mid'Oraisa, than Hekdesh also should not be able to override a Shi'abud d'Oraisa, because the Gemara there compares the two! Why, then, should Hekdesh be able to override a lien for a debt? The lien is a Chiyuv d'Oraisa since he specifically designated it as a lien for the debt! 
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> suggests a simpler explanation for the Gemara. When the Gemara mentions that the husband is obligated to support his wife after twelve months of Erusin have passed, it is referring to a case where the husband made the Neder <i>before</i> twelve months passed. Once twelve months have passed, the Neder takes effect to exempt him from paying Mezonos, because the Neder <i>preceded</i> his obligation of Mezonos. This is exactly the logic that the Gemara suggests in the answer that follows, when it says that a man can prohibit his wife from deriving pleasure from him when he makes the Neder when she is an Arusah and then he marries her, making her a Nesu'ah. Since the Neder preceded the marriage and the obligations of the marriage, it can override those obligations. The only reason the Gemara rejects this answer is because in such a case, when the woman agrees to get married she is accepting upon herself that she is not going to receive Mezonos either, as she goes into the marriage willingly. But when the date marking twelve months arrives, the woman did not do anything to imply that she is ready to lose the Mezonos, and therefore she should not lose the Mezonos and the husband's Neder remains in force; he must appoint a Parnas.
</p><p>
Tosfos' explanation seems to be the most straightforward way of explaining the Gemara. Why does Rashi not explain that way?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Rashi seems to have a different approach (from that of the other Rishonim) to how a Neder overrides a Shi'abud. The source for what Rashi says, that a Neder (konam) overrides an obligation only when the obligation is d'Rabanan, seems to be the Gemara earlier (59b), where the Gemara asks why a woman cannot prohibit her Ma'aseh Yadayim to her husband if a Neder usually overrides a Shi'abud. The Gemara there answers that the Rabanan strengthened the Shi'abud that a husband is entitled to receive from his wife. Rashi explains that this means that the husband is deemed more than just a creditor to the wife, someone to whom the wife owes money, but that he is considered to be a buyer, and what she produced is considered as if it was actually sold to him so that he has the status of a buyer. 
</p><p>
We find elsewhere (see Rashi 50a, DH ha'Ba'al) this concept that the husband is considered to have bought the various items of his wife to which he is entitled. However, we never find the converse -- that what the wife is entitled to receive from the husband is considered to have been bought from him. Why, then, does the Gemara assume in many places that the man cannot prohibit himself from giving her the Mezonos or the other Shi'abudim that he has to her (such as Tashmish) because of his obligation (Rashi 61b, DH ha'Madir, see Insights there)? He should be able to prohibit those things to his wife!
</p><p>
Because of this, Rashi understands that a Neder can only override a Shi'abud that is mid'Rabanan, such as the Shi'abud that a woman has to her husband (if not for the fact that the Rabanan strengthened that Shi'abud). However, a Shi'abud that the man has to his wife cannot be removed by a Neder, because his Shi'abudim to provide her with Mezonos and Tashmish are mid'Oraisa. The Gemaras that say that he cannot make a Neder to override his obligation to provide her with Mezonos hold that Mezonos is a Chiyuv d'Oraisa, like the opinion of the Tana on 47b.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> points out that if Rashi is ruling here that Mezonos is mid'Oraisa, he is in agreement with the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 12:2), who rules like this as well. The Rashba explains that according to Rashi and the Rambam, it could be that a woman may still say 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah' and exempt her husband from giving her Mezonos and keep her Ma'aseh Yadayim to herself, because the Rabanan removed his Chiyuv mid'Oraisa of Mezonos in such a case.
</p><p>
(b) The reason the wife cannot prohibit her Ma'aseh Yadayim to her husband even though it is only a Shi'abud d'Rabanan is because the Rabanan strengthened the Shi'abud that a woman has to her husband, like the Gemara says earlier (59b). (<b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
(c) RAV ELYASHIV (in <b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES KESUVOS</b>) says that Rashi might hold that the Gemara that says a Neder overrides a Shi'abud is following the opinion that all Shi'abudim are mid'Rabanan.</p><p> Even when a person designates a certain object to be a lien for a loan, he cannot create a Shi'abud mid'Oraisa, according to the opinion that says that all Shi'abudim are mid'Rabanan. (This is in contrast to the view of the <b>RITVA</b> in Kidushin 14b, who writes that when one <i>specifies</i> that an object is to be used as a lien, it is indeed a Shi'abud d'Oraisa according to all opinions).
</p><p>
(d) Regarding why Rashi does not give the same explanation as Tosfos and say that the husband made the Neder and removed the Shi'abud before the twelve months arrived, Rashi might hold that since the husband accepted upon himself the obligation to support the woman after twelve months of Erusin, the Shi'abud to support her <i>preceded</i> the Neder, even though the actual payments do not precede the Neder. Therefore, this cannot be compared to the man who prohibits his wife before Nisu'in, since before Nisu'in he never accepted upon himself any of the Shi'abudim of Nisu'in. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rav Huna taught that a wife can tell her 
          husband 'do not feed me and I will keep my earnings.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rav Huna, when she says 'What I produce 
               is Konam to your mouth', why doesn't he need to 
               annul this? It should be as if she says 'do not feed 
               me and I will keep my earnings!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he explicitly said 'use your earnings 
          to feed yourself.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why does he need someone to feed 
               her?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Her earnings do not suffice to feed her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If her earnings do not suffice, the 
               question returns! (He must supply the deficit, so 
               his vow should not take effect!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Her earnings suffice for big 
               things, but not for small things.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What kind of small things are these?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she is used to them, he must supply them!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If she is not used to them, why must he have 
                    someone supply them to her?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> She was used to them in her father's house, 
               but not with her husband.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  She tells him 'Until now, with you, I could 
                    manage without them. Now that you vowed, I need 
                    them.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does someone else supply these things 
               only for 30 days?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Until 30 days people do not know she is 
               being supplied, so there is no disgrace. After 30 
               days people hear that she is being supplied, and she 
               is disgraced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> He vowed during Eirusin (before he was 
          obligated to feed her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why must he have someone supply her 
          needs? He has no obligation!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The designated time for Chupah came, and he did 
          not do Nisu'in.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If the time came and they did not have 
               Nisu'in, she eats his food, and (if he is a Kohen) 
               she eats Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does this apply only until 30 days?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A Shali'ach fulfills his mission for 30 
               days, but no longer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Answer #4 He vowed during Eirusin, and then had Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If she knew about the vow and did Nisu'in 
          anyway, she accepted the vow! (Why must he divorce her 
          and pay a Kesuvah?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She says 'I thought that I could endure it. Now I 
          see that I cannot.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We say so only regarding Mumim. Would we say 
          it regarding food?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rather, we must answer like Answer #2 or 
          Answer #3.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FEEDING ONE WHO MAY NOT GET BENEFIT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Until 30 days, he has someone feed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This person is like the husband's Shali'ach 
          (agent! It should be forbidden, as if the husband himself 
          is feeding her!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> He said 'whoever feeds her will not 
          lose.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Also this is like Shelichus!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If someone cried from a pit 'whoever 
               hears my voice should write a Get to my wife' people 
               who hear this may write and give a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is different, for he instructed (whoever 
          hears him) to write. Here, he did not instruct to feed, 
          he just said that whoever feeds will not lose.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Ami taught that regarding a fire (on 
          Shabbos), one may say 'Whoever extinguishes will not 
          lose.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is permitted regarding a fire, but 
               not in our case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is permitted regarding a fire, but not 
          regarding other Isurim of Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah - Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah 
          (forbidden by a vow from benefiting) from Shimon, and 
          lacks food, Shimon may tell a grocer he frequents 'Reuven 
          cannot get benefit from me. I don't know what to do for 
          him'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The grocer gives to Reuven, and collects the money 
               from Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is allowed, but not saying 'Anyone 
               who feeds...'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, also this is allowed. The Mishnah teaches a 
          greater Chidush;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Not only 'whoever feeds...' is allowed, in which he 
               does not address a particular person. In the Mishnah 
               he is frequent by the grocer, and he tells him his 
               plight- It is as if he tells him to feed him, and 
               still, it is allowed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah from Shimon and 
          lacks food, Shimon may tell a grocer he frequents 'Reuven 
          cannot get benefit from me. I don't know what to do for 
          him'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The grocer gives to Reuven, and collects the money 
               from Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  If Reuven needed to build his house or a fence, or 
          harvest his field, Shimon tells workers 'Reuven cannot 
          get benefit from me. I don't know what to do for him'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The workers work for Reuven, and collect their wages 
               from Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  If they were walking on the road and Reuven lacks food, 
          Shimon gives a gift to David, and Reuven may take from 
          David;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If no one else is there, Shimon puts the food on a 
               rock or fence and says 'It is Hefker for whoever 
               would like it.' Reuven may take it and eat it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Yosi forbids due to a gift like the case in 
          Beis Choron (someone gave a 'gift' to evade the Isur of a 
          Mudar Hana'ah, but he did not truly intend that it is a 
          gift).
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN MUST THE HUSBAND DIVORCE HIS WIFE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A Yisrael keeps his wife for one 
          month.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The first Tana said the same!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> True! R. Yehudah comes merely to teach 
          about a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The first Tana says allows a full month 
          of 30 days. R. Yehudah allows only a short month of 29 
          days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses when he specified the 
          duration of his vow. If he did not specify, he divorces 
          her immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Even if he did not limit the duration, he 
          delays divorcing her. Perhaps he will find a Pesach to 
          annul his vow!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel already argued about this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If one vowed and forbade 
               Bi'ah with his wife, up to two weeks he may stay 
               married.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, up to one week.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> They argue about a vow of specified duration. 
               All agree about a Stam (unlimited) vow, that he must 
               immediately divorce her and pay a Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> Even regarding a Stam vow he waits (one or 
               two weeks), in case he will find a Pesach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel needed to argue in both cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only there, we would have said that 
               there Rav obligates him to divorce her immediately 
               (regarding a Stam vow) since no one can have Bi'ah 
               with her in his place, but here, he would agree with 
               Shmuel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only here, we would have thought 
               that here Shmuel allows waiting (since a third party 
               can finance her), but there he would agree with Rav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one forbade any type of produce to 
          his wife through a vow, he divorces her and pays her 
          Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for Rav. In the Reisha he 
               specified a time, so he need not divorce her 
               immediately. Here he set no limit, so he divorces 
               her immediately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But according to Shmuel, why does he divorce her 
               right away?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, she vowed and he affirmed the vow. 
          R. Meir holds that it is his fault.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah):</font></b> If a woman 
          vowed to be a Nezirah and her husband heard and did not 
          annul it, it is her fault. If he wants, he may annul. If 
          he does not want a wife who vows, he may divorce her 
          without paying her Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi and R. Elazar blame him. If he wants, he may 
               annul. If he does not want a wife who vows, he may 
               divorce her but must pay her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We switch the opinions. R. Meir and R. Yehudah 
          blame him, and R. Yosi and R. Elazar blame her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Yosi does not blame her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> He divorces a poor woman if he 
               did not limit the duration of the vow. For a rich 
               woman, the Shi'ur is 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, R. Meir and R. Yosi blame him, and R. 
          Yehudah and R. Elazar blame her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Yosi does not blame her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A Yisrael keeps his wife for 
               one month. (Past this, he must divorce her and pay a 
               Kesuvah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, R. Meir, R. Yehudah and R. Yosi blame 
          him, and R. Elazar blames her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4:</font></b> Alternatively, we can say that two Tana'im 
          argue against two. R. Meir and R. Elazar blame her, and 
          R. Yehudah and R. Yosi blame him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Stam Mishnah is unlike R. Meir.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>VOWS OF AFFLICTION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> He divorces a poor woman if he did 
          not limit the duration of the vow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> (She vowed, and) he could have annulled the 
          vow (so he is blamed for not doing so).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are vows of 
          affliction that a husband can annul: 'I will (or will 
          not) wash'; 'I will (or will not) use cosmetics';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, these are not vows of affliction. Vows 
               of affliction are not to eat meat, drink wine, or 
               wear colored clothing.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'NEDER' PROHIBITING A WOMAN FROM GOING TO HER FATHER'S HOME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses the Halachah regarding a man who makes a Neder prohibiting his wife from going to visit her father.
</p><p>
The Mishnah says that when her father lives in the same city, she must remain married to her husband when he makes the Neder prohibiting her from visiting her father for only one month. If he makes a Neder prohibiting her from visiting her father for two months, then he must divorce her and give her the Kesuvah.
</p><p>
If her father lives in a different city (and she usually goes to visit her father on Yom Tov, at the time of each Regel), then when the husband's Neder prohibits her from going for only one Regel, then she must remain married, but if his Neder prohibits her from going for three Regalim, then he must divorce her and give her the Kesuvah.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that the Mishnah contradicts itself. The Mishnah first says that if the husband's Neder prohibits her from going to her father's house for one Regel, then she must remain married to him, implying that if the Neder prohibits her for <i>two</i> Regalim, she may demand a divorce. The Mishnah then says that if the Neder prohibits her from going to her father's house for three Regalim, she may demand a divorce, implying that if the Neder prohibits her for <i>two</i> Regalim, she must remain married!
</p><p>
Abaye answers that the wife of a Yisrael may demand a divorce if her husband, the Yisrael, prohibits her for just two Regalim, while the wife of a Kohen may only demand a divorce if her husband, the Kohen, prohibits her for three Regalim (in order for them to have time to appease each other, since they cannot get remarried once they get divorced). Thus, when the Mishnah says that she must remain married to her husband when his Neder prohibits her from going to her father's house for one Regel, implying that if the Neder prohibits her for <i>two</i> Regalim, she may demand a divorce -- it is referring to the wife of a Yisrael. When the Mishnah then says that if the Neder prohibits her from going to her father's house for three Regalim, she may demand a divorce, implying that if the Neder prohibits her for <i>two</i> Regalim, she must remain married -- it is referring to the wife of a Kohen.
</p><p>
Rabah bar Ula gives a different answer. He says that if the woman is Redufah -- that is, if she has an urge to go to her father's house, then a Neder prohibiting her for just two Regalim is grounds for divorce. If, though, she is not Redufah and does not long to go to her father's house, then she must remain married until he makes a Neder prohibited her from going to her father's house for three Regalim.
</p><p>
According to both Abaye and Rabah bar Ula, why does the Mishnah allude to this additional Halachah (either the wife of a Kohen (Abaye), or one who is not Redufah (Rabah bar Ula)) only in the second case, where the father is not in town and the husband prohibits her from going to her father during the Regel? The Mishnah could have, and should have, alluded to this Halachah in the first case as well, where the father is in the same town, and the husband prohibits her from going to visit him! (<b>RASHI MAHADURA KAMA</b> -- a commentary attributed recently to the <b>RIVAN</b> -- quoted by the Shitah Mekubetzes, asks this question, but his answer there is not clear, as the Shitah Mekubetzes points out.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi) gives two answers. The first answer, though, applies only to Abaye's explanation of the Mishnah and not to Rabah bar Ula's explanation.
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes explains that in the previous Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah states that when a woman's husband prohibits her from benefiting from him for two months, she may demand a divorce if her husband is a Yisrael. If her husband is a Kohen, though, she must stay married, and she may demand a divorce only if her husband prohibits her for three months. It stands to reason that this difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen applies whenever a Neder is made prohibiting her for two months, and therefore the Mishnah here does not have to repeat that difference in the Reisha.
</p><p>
The Halachah of demanding a divorce when one's husband makes a Neder for two <i>Regalim</i>, though, was not discussed in any previous Mishnah. Therefore, the Mishnah here must teach that with regard to Regalim there is also a difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen.
</p><p>
According to Rabah bar Ula, though, who says that the Mishnah is not teaching anything about the difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen, but rather it is teaching the difference between a woman who is Redufah and one who is not Redufah, the question remains. Why does the Gemara not teach the difference in the first case of the Mishnah?
</p><p>
Rashi explains that a Redufah is a woman who always wants to go to her father's house. If her father is in the same city, then she wants to go to him every day. If her father is not in the same city, then she longs to go only for the Regel, when the opportunity arises. If she is not Redufah, she is able to restrain herself from going to her father's home for two Regalim. When her father is in the same city, though, and a Redufah could go every day, then after thirty days the woman may demand a divorce. Even though both a Redufah and a woman who is not Redufah are able to restrain themselves for thirty days, after 30 days have passed then even a woman who is not Redufah may demand a divorce, because she has been forced to restrain herself for so many times. Therefore, the difference between a Redufah and one who is not Redufah does not apply in the case of the Reisha. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> offers a second answer. After the Mishnah presents the second case (where the father is not in the same city), it says, 'Sheloshah -- Yotzi,' which literally means, 'for three -- he must divorce her.' The simple reading is that it means 'for three <i>Regalim</i>' and is referring to the case mentioned immediately before. However, it could be that the words 'Sheloshah -- Yotzi' refer not only to Sheloshah Regalim, but also to Sheloshah Chadashim -- three <i>months</i>, and it is referring back to the first case in the Mishnah as well! The Mishnah is saying that there is a case where the woman may demand a divorce only when the Neder prohibits her from going to her father's house, in the same city, for <i>three months</i>. Hence, when the Gemara explains the apparent contradiction in the Mishnah, it is referring to the Reisha as well, and thus the difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen (Abaye) or the difference between a woman who is Redufah and one who is not Redufah (Rabah bar Ula) is indeed expressed in the Reisha as well.
</p><p>
(c) We may offer a simple answer to this question. Not only does the Seifa have contradicting connotations regarding a period of ambiguity (i.e. two Regalim), the Reisha also leaves a period of ambiguity -- from the end of the first month until the end of the second month (day 31 to 60)! The Mishnah says that if a man prohibits his wife from going to her father's home for one month, then she must stay married to him, but if he prohibits her for two months, she may demand a divorce. What about the days between one month and two months? In that period of time, too, we can say that if she is the wife of a Yisrael, then she may demand a divorce, and if she is the wife of a Kohen, she may only demand a divorce if he prohibits her for a full two months. Likewise, according to Rabah bar Ula, if she is Redufah, then she may demand a divorce if he prohibits her for any amount of time more than one month, and if she is not Redufah, she may demand a divorce only if he prohibits her for two full months.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara not ask its question on the first case of the Mishnah, since the Mishnah there also has contradicting connotations regarding the time between one month and two months? The answer is that the Mishnah does not state clearly that he must divorce her if he prohibits her for <i>sixty days</i>. Rather, it says 'two months,' which might mean that the Neder prohibits her <i>into</i> the second month (that is, he prohibits her only for thirty-one days), and then he must divorce her! If that is what the words 'two months' mean in the Reisha, then there is no contradicting connotation in the Reisha! In contrast, the Seifa is a clear contradiction, and that is why the Gemara asks its question on the Seifa. The answers that Abaye and Rabah bar Ula give, though, might apply equally to the case in the Reisha.
</p><p>
This seems to be the intention of the Ritva, and it might also be the intention of Rashi in the Mahadura Kama. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) LIKE A KALAH WHO WAS FOUND TO BE COMPLETE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan explains the verse, 'Then I was in His eyes one who has found peace (k'Motz'es Shalom)' (Shir ha'Shirim 8:10), to be comparing the Jewish people to a Kalah who was 'found to be whole' ('k'Motz'es Shalom') by her new husband, and she is running to her father's home to boast of her praise. In what way was she 'found whole' that she finds it necessary to boast about it to her parents?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RASHI MAHADURA KAMA</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explains that the Gemara is discussing Ta'anas Besulim, the husband's right to claim that he did not find his wife to be a Besulah. Throughout the wedding preparations, the Kalah is worried that after the wedding, her Chasan will claim that she is a Be'ulah and not a Besulah. When the Chasan finds her to be whole, that is, he finds her to be a Besulah, then the Kalah rests assured that they will live happily together (<b>TOSFOS</b> 4a, DH Be'ilas Mitzvah).
</p><p>
This explains why she runs to tell her father of her praise. Her father, after working for so many months in preparation for the marriage, is also worried for his daugher that the Chasan will claim that she is a Be'ulah and divorce her. This is why it very much interests the father to hear from the Kalah that she was found to be a Besulah.
</p><p>
Rashi (Mahadura Kama) mentions that this quality of 'Motz'es Shalom' is the same quality referred to in the Gemara in Berachos (6a), which says that they used to ask a Chasan after he was married whether his wife is a 'Matza' or a 'Motza.' It seems that they were asking whether he found her to be a Besulah ('Matza' -- 'he found'), or whether he found that her Besulim was already removed ('Motza' -- 'removed [already]'). When the verse in Shir ha'Shirim says 'l'Motz'es Shalom,' it means that the husband found her to be a Besulah and therefore he is at peace with his wife.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan here is discussing a Kalah who is eager to return to her father's home to boast of her praise, as we have explained. The Gemara earlier, in explaining the Mishnah, also discusses a woman who is Redufah -- she is eager to return to her father's home at the time of the Regel. Rashi there explains that when the Mishnah refers to a woman who is Redufah, it is referring to any woman and not specifically to a Kalah, a newly married woman. It means an entirely different type of Redufah -- a wife who is trying to get away from her husband and seeks refuge by her father often. However, <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (cited by Tosfos) explains that both the Gemara earlier and Rebbi Yochanan are referring to the same type of woman -- a Kalah who is Redufah and who wants to report to her parents about her husband's contentment with her. In keeping with the Rashi Mahadura Kama's explanation, the <b>PISKEI RID</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) says that according to Rabeinu Chananel, the Mishnah is discussing a Kalah who wants to run to tell her parents 'that she was found to be a Besulah.'
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We discuss cosmetics that affect Bi'ah (e.g. 
          to remove hair in that area).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that a husband can 
          annul such matters. According to the opinion that he 
          cannot annul such matters, how can we answer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> A husband can annul matters between him 
               and her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> He cannot annul them. He can 
               had Bi'ah with her, and the lack of these cosmetics 
               will not harm him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> She vowed 'the pleasure of Bi'ah with you is 
          forbidden to me if I use cosmetics.' This is like Rav 
          Kahana:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Kahana):</font></b> If a wife vowed 'the pleasure of Bi'ah 
               with me is forbidden to you', her husband may force 
               her to have Bi'ah (the vow is void);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she vowed 'the pleasure of Bi'ah with you is 
               forbidden to me' he should annul this, since (it 
               forbids her, and) we do not feed to a person what is 
               forbidden to them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Why must he divorce her?) She will avoid 
          cosmetics, and she will be permitted to him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If she refrains from using cosmetics, people will 
          say that she is repulsive.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should use cosmetics, and become forbidden 
          to him for two weeks according to Beis Shamai, or one 
          week according to Beis Hillel! (Why must he divorce her 
          immediately?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We wait a week or two only when he vowed. She 
          reasons that he vowed when he was angry, and now his mind 
          is settled;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When she vowed and he did not annul it, she infers 
               that he hates her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> He divorces a poor woman if he did 
          not limit the duration of the vow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Up to) how much is a limit?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is (up to) 12 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is 10 years.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is one festival, because Benos 
          Yisrael use cosmetics on the festivals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Regarding a rich wife, the limit is 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is special about 30 days?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> An important woman enjoys the scent of 
          her cosmetics for 30 days.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO FORBADE HIS WIFE FROM GOING PLACES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one vowed to forbid his wife from going to 
          her father's house, if her father is in their city, for 
          one month he keeps her. For two months, he divorces her 
          and pays her Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If her father is in a different city, for one 
               festival he keeps her. For three festivals, he 
               divorces her and pays her Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If one vowed to forbid her to go to a house of mourning, 
          or a banquet hall, he divorces her and pays her Kesuvah, 
          because he puts a barrier in front of her. He may do so 
          if he claims that this is due of another matter (this 
          will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he said to her 'on condition that you say to Ploni 
          what you said to me, or what I said to you, or that you 
          fill and pour in the garbage dump' he divorces her and 
          pays her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah contradicts itself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It permits keeping her for one month. This implies 
               that for two months he must divorce her and pay her 
               Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It says that for three months he must divorce her 
               and pay her Kesuvah. This implies that he may keep 
               her for two months!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The Seifa refers to a Kohen's wife, 
          according to R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah bar Ula):</font></b> If she constantly runs to her 
          father's house, he keeps her for one month. If she does 
          not constantly run there, he keeps her two months.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'I was in his eyes like one who finds 
               Shalom' - this is like a Kalah who is found 
               Sheleimah (perfect) in her father-in-law's house, 
               and is constantly running to tell her praise in her 
               father's house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> '... Hash-m says, you will call Me Ishi 
          (my husband after Nisu'in), and you will not call Me 
          Ba'ali (my Arus) any more', like a Kalah in her 
          father-in-law's house, not like a Kalah in her father's 
          house.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT A HUSBAND MAY IMPOSE ON HIS WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one vowed...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, forbidding her to go to banquet halls 
          is a barrier in front of her (Simchah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why is forbidding her to go to a house of mourning a 
               barrier?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa) Version #1:</font></b> When she will die, no one 
          will come to eulogize her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> When she will die, no one will come to bury 
          her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> 'It is better to go to the house of 
          Aveilus than to the banquet hall, since it is the end of 
          every man, and <i>the living will put to his heart</i>' - this 
          refers to matters of death;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One who eulogizes will be eulogized. One who buries 
               will be buried. One who wails will be wailed over. 
               One who accompanies a Mes will be accompanied. One 
               who carries a Mes will be carried.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He may do so if he claims that this is due of 
          another matter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is this other matter?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Licentious people are found there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This is only if they are known to be 
               there. If not, he cannot forbid her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he says, on condition that you tell...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Why must he divorce her and pay a Kesuvah?) 
          She can tell!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> He asked her to tell shameful 
          things.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Or, you must fill...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Why must he divorce her and pay a Kesuvah?) 
          She can do this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> He asked her to remove his semen 
          after Bi'ah to prevent pregnancy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> He asked her to fill 10 jugs of 
          water and spill them at the dumping site.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav Yehudah, we understand why he 
          must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But according to the Beraisa, what difference does 
               it make to her? She can do what he says!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It would make her appear 
          like a lunatic.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> If one vowed that his wife may not borrow 
          nor lend a sifter, mill or oven he must divorce her and 
          pay her Kesuvah, since this gives her a bad reputation 
          among her neighbors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one vowed that his wife may not 
          borrow nor lend a sifter, mill or oven he must divorce 
          her and pay her Kesuvah, since this gives her a bad 
          reputation among her neighbors;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Similarly, if she vowed that she will not borrow nor 
               lend a sifter, mill or oven, and will not weave nice 
               clothes for his children, he may divorce her without 
               paying her Kesuvah, since this gives him a bad 
               reputation among his neighbors.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN WHO FORFEIT THEIR 'KESUVOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are divorced and do not receive 
          a Kesuvah: one who transgresses Das Moshe (Torah law) or 
          Das Yehudis (the ways of Benos Yisrael);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Transgressing Das Moshe is feeding him untithed 
               food, having Bi'ah with him when she is Nidah, not 
               separating Chalah, or vowing and transgressing her 
               vows;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Transgressing Das Yehudis is going out with her head 
               uncovered, spinning in the market, or talking with 
               every man.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Aba Sha'ul says, it is even one who curses his 
               ancestors in front of him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Tarfon says, it is even a loud-voiced woman.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is one who can be heard by neighbors when 
                    she speaks in her house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the case of feeding him 
          untithed food?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he knows that it is untithed, he should not eat 
               it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he does not know that it is untithed, how does he 
               know that she fed him untithed food?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She said that Ploni separated the tithes. He 
          asked Ploni, and found that she lied.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She has Bi'ah with him when she is Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he knows that she is Nidah, he should refrain!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he does not know that she is Nidah, he should 
               believe her that she was not a Nidah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chinena bar Kahana):</font></b> 'She will count seven 
                    days' teaches that she counts to herself (and 
                    is believed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> She said that Ploni declared that the blood 
          she saw does not make her Nidah. He asked Ploni, and 
          found that she lied.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is like Rav Yehudah taught:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a woman was established to be a 
               Nidah among her neighbors, her husband is lashed for 
               having Bi'ah with her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She does not separate Chalah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he knows that it was not separated, he should not 
               eat!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he does not know that it was not separated, how 
               does he know that she did not separate?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She said that Ploni the kneader separated the 
          Chalah; he asked Ploni, and found that she lied.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She vows and transgresses her vows.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  This is grounds to divorce her and not pay her Kesuvah, 
          since children die due to vows of the parents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Don't let your mouth diminish your flesh...(and 
               destroy your handiwork)' - the handiwork of man is 
               his children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'In vain I struck your children' - 
               for matters of vain (oaths).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> One who knows that his wife vows and 
          transgresses her vows should impose vows on her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This will not help!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, he should anger her so she will vow 
          in front of him and he can annul the vows;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, a man cannot live with a snake in a basket 
          (he divorces her and does not pay a Kesuvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One who knows that his wife does 
          not separate Chalah should separate it himself;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, a man cannot live with a snake in a 
          basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah counsels to stay married to a wife who does 
          not separate Chalah. All the more so, he counsels to keep 
          a wife who transgresses her vows (like R. Meir, above);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir counsels to keep a wife who transgresses her 
               vows, but he would counsel divorcing one who doesn't 
               separate Chalah, lest he forget and eat.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WAYS OF 'BENOS YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Das Yehudis... she goes out with her hair 
          uncovered...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Uncovered hair is mid'Oraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'He will uncover her hair' 
               warns (married) Benos Yisrael that they should not 
               go out with uncovered hair.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: DIVORCING ONE'S WAYWARD WIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah describes the situations in which a woman is divorced without a Kesuvah. The Mishnah says that a woman is divorced without a Kesuvah when she transgresses 'the law of Moshe and the law of Yehudis (the Jewish woman).' The Mishnah gives examples of transgressions that fall into each of those two categories. For example, a woman who feeds her husband fruit from which Ma'aser has not been separated transgresses 'the law of Moshe' and she is divorced without a Kesuvah. 'The law of Yehudis' ('Das Yehudis') includes a woman who goes out of her home with her hair uncovered.
</p><p>
(a) If a man does not mind that his wife goes out with her hair uncovered, is he permitted to remain married to her?
</p><p>
(b) If he is permitted to remain married to her and he chooses not to divorce her, does she still lose her Kesuvah (upon his death, or if he decides to divorce her for another reason)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) This is actually the subject of a question of the Gemara in Sotah (25a), where the Gemara asks whether a man may choose to remain married to his wife who sins. It is not clear from the Gemara whether the question is resolved. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Rosh, Rashba, and Ran) writes that the question remains unanswered, and out of doubt we do not force a man to divorce his wife. The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> and others maintain that the Gemara itself answers that we do not force a husband to divorce his wife.
</p><p>
The Rishonim agree that in practice we do not force a man to divorce his wife, but it is nevertheless a <i>Mitzvah</i> for him to do so. The source for this Mitzvah, as the <b>MORDECHAI</b> writes, is the Gemara in Gitin (90a-b) that says that if a man sees that his wife transgresses the law of Yehudis such as by going out with her hair uncovered he should divorce her, and if he remains married to her he is acting with 'Midas Adam Ra.' (It would seem that the same applies to a wife who causes her husband to sin by eating untithed food etc.) 
</p><p>
Similarly, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 24:16) rules that we do not force the husband to divorce his wife, but nevertheless there is a Mitzvah for him to do so (Hilchos Gerushin 10:22). (The <b>CHELKAS MECHOKEK</b> EH 115:18, however, says that the wording of the Rambam in Hilchos Ishus implies that there is not even a Mitzvah for the husband to do so, and that the Rambam in Hilchos Gerushin might be referring to a woman who is acting exceedingly licentious.)
</p><p>
(b) The question whether or not she loses her Kesuvah if her husband chooses to stay married to her depends on the reason why she loses the Kesuvah for being sinful in the first place, as will be explained.
</p><p>
1. The <b>ROSH</b> writes that he may only divorce her without a Kesuvah when her transgressions <i>affect him</i>, such as the cases mentioned in the Mishnah. If she sins just between herself and Hash-m, she is still entitled to receive her Kesuvah. The reason for this is that her loss of the Kesuvah when she sins against her husband is not a <i>punishment</i> for sinning. Rather, she loses her Kesuvah because there is no obligation for a man to give his wife a Kesuvah when <i>she</i> is the cause of the divorce. When she is causing him to sin, it is impossible for him to live with her, and thus she is the cause of the divorce and he has no obligation to give her the Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Therefore, if he chooses to remain married to her, since her sins did not cause him to divorce her, when he dies or divorces her for a different reason she should be entitled to receive her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Another consequence of this logic is that in a case where the husband also willfully transgresses those Aveiros mentioned in the Mishnah, his wife does not lose her Kesuvah upon her divorce. Since, when he divorces her, it is clear that he is not divorcing her because she is causing him to sin but rather he is divorcing her for some other reason, he must give her the Kesuvah -- since it is not her sinning that is at fault for the divorce (<b>MORDECHAI</b> quoted by <b>HAGAHOS ASHIRI</b> 6:9).
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> in a Teshuvah (#193) discusses a case where a woman refuses to immerse in a Mikvah and her husband knows about it and remains silent. The Rambam rules that if the husband divorces her, he is exempt from giving her the Kesuvah in order for her not to gain by sinning -- 'she'Lo Yehei Choteh Niskar.' It is not clear why this principle should prevent her from getting her Kesuvah; she does not receive her Kesuvah <i>because</i> she sinned, she receives it because she is getting divorced! Perhaps the Rambam is discussing a case where the husband divorces his wife at the insistence of the Chachamim (as the Rambam says in an earlier Teshuvah that a man who willfully lives with his wife who is a Nidah is put in Cherem for remaining married to her). Hence, it is indeed her sin that is causing her to be divorced, and thus she should not profit by receiving her Kesuvah. (The Mordechai and Rosh cited above might agree that she loses her Kesuvah in such a case.)
</p><p>
2. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 24:16) writes that even when the man chooses to remain married to her, she <i>loses</i> her Kesuvah. If the husband decides to divorce his wife for a different reason, or if he dies, she still does not receive her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
The Rambam reasons that the whole purpose of the Kesuvah was to discourage a husband from impulsively divorcing his wife at whim. In the case of a wife who sins and tries to cause her husband to sin, we do not care if her husband divorces her at whim. On the contrary, we would prefer that he divorce her (as mentioned in (a), above)!
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> writes that most Rishonim do not accept this reasoning of the Rambam, and they rule that a woman does receive her Kesuvah if the husband does not divorce her because of her sin (like the Mordechai).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 115:4) rules that a man may remain married to his sinful wife if he so desires, but it is a Mitzvah to divorce her.
</p><p>
Regarding whether she loses her Kesuvah if he remains married to her, the Poskim (Chelkas Mechokek loc. cit., and Beis Shmuel EH 115:19) cite the Rambam who says that she <i>does</i> lose her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Nowadays, however, when we do not have the power to force a man to divorce his wife, <b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> (Igros Moshe EH I:114) rules that she does not have to lose her Kesuvah even if he wants to divorce her for not following the Mitzvos, because it is up to her to willingly accept the divorce and thus she can demand from her husband any sum that she wants for the divorce -- including the sum written in the Kesuvah.
</p><p>
In addition, Rav Moshe writes that if the husband knew before the marriage that his wife would be lax in her observance of the Mitzvos of Das Yehudis and despite that knowledge he still married her, he showed that he accepted that flaw in her and he is obligated to give her the Kesuvah, like the Mordechai said. For this reason, he rules that if the husband did not specifically tell his wife before the marriage that he wants her to cover her hair, he cannot assume that there is a Chazakah that she will cover her hair (because many women today do not cover their hair), and thus it is as if he knew that she  might not cover her hair and she does not lose her Kesuvah.
</p><p>


