Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah states that if a Chasan sent Sivlonos to the tune of a hundred Manah to his future father-in-law's house - he may reclaim them, but only if he did not eat a Se'udah there (even if it only a Dinar's worth) ...

(b) ... and irrespective of which party died or retracted (see also end of Sugya).

(c) The Tana is referring however - specifically to a significant stock of gifts, which he expects his future wife to transfer to their house after they are married. If there is only a small amount of gifts, of which he expects nothing to remain by the time they marry, he cannot reclaim them, irrespective of whether he ate by his in-laws or not.

(d) In the previous case - the amount of Sivlonos is not crucial to the case. What is crucial, is the fact that he stipulated that he expects her to transfer what is left (which is more likely when the amount of gifts is large).

(a) In the basic Halachah, the Reisha refers to the Chasan having eaten a Se'udah worth a Dinar. If he ate even a fraction less - he will able to reclaim the Sivlonos.

(b) We ask three She'eilos based on the Lashon of our Mishnah '*ve'Achal Sham* Se'udah'. We ask what the Din will be if the Chasan did not eat, but drank, if it was his Sheli'ach, and not he, who ate by his future in-law's - and what the Din will be if he did not eat at his future in-law's house, they sent the Se'udah to him.

(c) We answer with an incident that is cited by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. the Chasan there sent his Kalah - a hundred wagon-loads of wine and oil, of silver and golden vessels and of silks.

(d) They served him - a hot drink (see Rabeinu Gershom) at the entrance of the house - and he died before the wedding.

(a) Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah brought before the Chachamim in Usha a distinction - between Sivlonos that get used up (which the Chasan cannot claim), and those which do not (which he can). This will determine which of those Sivlonos had to be returned, and which did not.

(b) We prove from here - that even if the Chasan drank without eating, it is defined as 'Se'udah' (in this regard).

(c) Rav Ashi however, refutes the proof from here that ...

1. ... even less than a Dinar's worth will suffice to prevent the Chasan from retracting - since who is to say that they did not grind a jewel 'worth a thousand Zuz' into the drink that they served him.
2. ... even if they sent him the Se'udah to his house, he can no longer reclaim the Sivlonos - because perhaps the entrance of his father in-law's house is considered his in-law's house in this regard.

(a) When we ask whether Sh'vach Sivlonos must be returned together with the Sivlonos or not - we mean that if, for example, the Chasan sent the Kalah a cow, and it gave birth to calves, whether he may reclaim the calves together with the cow.

(b) The two sides of the She'eilah are whether we consider the Sivlonos to be ...

1. ... in the Chasan's domain - because if they are still available, he can reclaim them
2. ... in the Kalah's domain - because if they get lost or stolen, she is obligated to replace them (in which case they are considered hers since they save her from having to pay).

(c) The She'eilah remains - unresolved.

(a) Rava queries the status of Sivlonos that one would expect to wear out but did not. We refute the proof from the Beraisa that we just quoted, where Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah rules 've'she'Ein Asuyin Libalos, Nigvin', which implies even if they did not actually wear out - by nevertheless establishing it when they did.

(b) We try and resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah's concluding statement 'Sivlonos Mu'atin she'Tishtamesh Bahen be'Veis Avihah, Ein Nigvin', by establishing it - when they were expected to wear out, but did not.

(c) In order to refute the proof, we might have established the Mishnah - when the Sivlonos actually wore out (like we did the previous proof).

(d) We established the Beraisa that way - because the Tana is talking about 'Sivlonos ha'Asuyin Libalos', (suggesting that they actually wore out); whereas our Mishnah, which says S'tam 'Sivlonos Mu'atin', does not imply that they wore out.

(a) When Rava establishes the Mishnah by 'Bayva u'Sevachta', he means - that the Tana is talking about cheap Sivlonos such as various types of scarves, which the Chasan is automatically Mochel, whether they tend to wear out or not, whereas we have been discussing more valuable Sivlonos.

(b) Following a text that we do not have, Rabeinu Chananel discusses the Sh'eilah, based on our Mishnah, which presents the case of the Kalah's family acquiring Sivlonos worth a hundred Dinar after eating a Se'udah worth a Dinar - whether, if he ate half a Dinar's worth, they would acquire half the gift.

(c) This She'eilah too, remains unresolved.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav tells of a man who sent his father-in-law wine, oil and linen garments (all freshly-made) on Shavu'os. When we say that the object of the story is to teach us the praise worthiness of Eretz Yisrael - we are referring to the fact that the above products were ready so early in the year (bearing in mind that the ripening season for fruit normally only begins on Shavu'os, the Chag ha'Bikurim).

(b) Alternatively, Rav might be coming to teach us - that it is feasible for fruit to be ready so early, and that consequently, if a man claims that he sent such products to his father-in-law's house, we believe him.

(c) That man followed his wife into a ruin - to check whether his wife really possessed a blemish (inasmuch as she had an illness that impaired her sense of smell), of which he had been unaware. Because if that was so, the marriage would have been a false sale, and would automatically be dissolved.

(d) He had hidden in his clothes one of two things. Some say it was a radish, others say - a Koseves (a large date).

(a) When he said to his wife that he could smell the smell of a radish in Galil, she replied - how she wished that someone would give her a Koseves from Yericho.

(b) According to those who maintain that he took with him ...

1. ... a radish - he wanted to see whether she would agree that there was such a smell in the vicinity, to which she (realizing that he was testing her), answered jokingly ... (because it was indeed customary to eat sweet dates together with radishes, to neutralize their sharp taste).
2. ... a large date - he wanted to see if she would correct him (in which case, the rumors that he had heard about her would be proved false).

(a) When the ruin fell on the poor woman and killed her, Chazal ruled - that her husband could not inherit her ...

(b) ... because he had entered the ruin with the intention of testing her, and of possibly giving her a Get.

(c) We learn from here - that if a woman dies following a quarrel, without her and her husband having made up, her husband does not inherit her (as we learned in Gitin).

(d) We know that the couple were married and not just engaged - because had they only been engaged, he would not have inherited her even if he had been intimate with her, as long as they had not entered the Chupah (see Tosfos DH 'Nichnas').

10)

(a) If the Chasan retracts, then, as we have already learned, S'tam (where he made no stipulation), the Sivlonos that last 'Sivlonos Merubin') must be returned, but not those that wear out or that one expects to be eaten ('Sivonos Mu'atin'). The Kalah must return even Sivlonos Mu'atin however, if it was the Kalah who retracted.

(b) Sivlonos that the Kalah and her family ate are not assessed at their full value, says Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, but 've'Shamin Lahen D'mei Basar be'Zul' - which, in practical terms, means two thirds of their full value.

(c) This is based on the principle - that anything that a person eats with justification, and later discovers that he has to pay, he only needs to pay the value of the cheap meal that he would have purchased instead, had he known that he would later be obligated to pay for what he ate.

(a) Our Mishnah makes a distinction between a Shechiv-Mera who writes all his property to others but leaves one field for himself - who *cannot later retract* in the event that he recovers, and one who gives away everything - who *can*.

(b) It makes no difference whether he does this in writing or orally with witnesses.

(c) The reason for the ruling in the latter case mentioned in the Mishnah is - because we go after 'Umd'na' (the assessment of the Shechiv-Mera's mind, and it is obvious that a person does not give away everything, leaving himself a pauper, unless he was convinced that he was going to die. Consequently, should he live, his gift is void.

(d) This Din will apply - even if he made a Kinyan.

(a) In a case where someone's son went overseas, the father wrote all his property to others, when he heard that his son had died.

(b) In the event that the son (who is alive and well) subsequently returns, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa upholds the father's gift. Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya - declares it void.

(c) According to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya whose reason is based on 'Umd'na' (because it is obvious that, had he known that his son is alive, he would not have given away all his property), is the author of our Mishnah.

(d) Another Beraisa discusses someone who is being taken out to be killed, and who asks that they should write his wife a Get. The Tana rules there - that whoever hears his request should write a Get immediately and hand it to his wife.

(a) Chazal later incorporated in this Halachah - the case of someone issued the same instructions before embarking on an overseas trip on a long caravan journey.

(b) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds a third case - someone who very ill and who obviously wants to exempt his wife from Yibum.

(c) According to Rav Sheishes, the author of our Mishnah is - Rebbi Shimon Shezuri.

(d) Rav ...

1. ... Nachman does not establish Rebbi Shimon Shezuri as the author of our Mishnah - because he speaks when the husband specifically gave instructions to write the Get, whereas the Shechiv-Mera in our Mishnah said nothing.
2. ... Sheishes does not establish Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya as the author of our Mishnah - because the fact that the father said nothing whilst the son lived, makes his intentions far more obvious than the case in our Mishnah, seeing as most sick people recover, and we might assume that this Shechiv-Mera too, gave away his property in spite of that Rov.