Previous daf

1)

(a) In a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, the Tana explains that She'er comes to preclude from the practice of the Persians - who who be intimate with their wives fully-clothed.

(b) Rav Huna says - that someone who insists on being intimate with his wife whilst they are both fully-clothed must divorce his wife (should she demand it) and pay her Kesuvah.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah obligates a man to bury his wife. Rebbi Yehudah adds to that two obligations - a minimum of two flautists and a woman who laments (sings dirges).

(b) If this was normal practice, then it would be obligatory even according to the Tana Kama, and if it was not, then even Rebbi Yehudah would not obligate him. Where they argue is - when it is his custom to do so, but not her's.

(c) 'Olah Imo ve'Eino Yoredes Imo' means - that she raises her standards to match his, but does not lower them to match his.

(d) In that case, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama is - whether the first half of the principle applies even after her death (see 6c.); Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does; the Tana Kama holds that it does not.

(a) Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva rules like Rebbi Yehudah - that 'Olah Imo ve'Eino Yoredes Imo' applies even after her death.

(b) Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva also says - that one sustains the wife and children of someone who went out of his mind from her husband's property.

(c) The Beraisa says that if someone went overseas ...

1. ... one sustains his wife from his property ...
2. ... but not his (older) children - seeing as a man is obligated to sustain his wife, but not his older children (from the age of six).

(d) The meaning of ...

1. ... Zanin - is feeds.
2. ... Mefarnesin - clothes.

(a) Rav Ashi resolves the apparent discrepancy between the Din of the father who went out of his mind (whose children *one does sustain* from his property) and the one who went overseas (whose children *one does not*) - on the grounds that, whereas we presume that the former would want his children to be fed from his property, we cannot presume the same of the latter, because then the father should have indicated this before he left.

(b) The Tana adds 'Davar Acher' to the Din of sustenance. According to Rav Chisda, this means ornaments - according to Rav Yosef, it means 'Tdedakah' (that they give her money to distribute to Tzedakah).

(c) Assuming that they refer to the Beraisa (which rules *'ve'Lo* Davar Acher'), Rav Yosef will agree that she always receives ornaments - because we assume that her husband would not wish her to look ugly (i.e. to lose her prettiness).

(d) In the case of Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva - both will agree that she receives both ornaments and Tzedakah.

(a) Alternatively, Rav Chisda and Rav Yosef are referring to Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva (where the husband went out of his mind - and not to the Beraisa, where he travelled overseas). They argue over 'Tdedakah' - which according to Rav Yosef she receives, but according to Rav Chisda, she does not.

(b) They will both agree however, that, in the case of the Beraisa, where he could have left instructions but did not - his wife receives neither Tzedakah nor ornaments.

(a) Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna rules that if a man goes overseas and his wife dies, Beis-Din bury her in accordance with his Kavod, a statement we cannot accept - because it implies 'in accordance with *his* Kavod, and not with *her's'* (when in fact, even those who hold 'Ein Olin Imo' after her death, agree that we do not say 'Yordin Imo'?)

(b) So we amend the statement to - ' ... Beis-Din bury her *also* in accordance with his Kavod'.

(c) We learn from Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna's ruling - that the Halachah is that, even after her death, not only do we say 'Ein Yordin Imo', but that we also say 'Olin Imo' (like Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) Rav Masna rules that if a dying man orders his children not to bury his wife with funds from his property, they are permitted to obey his instructions. There is no obligation to bury her from his property after his death - because then the onus falls upon whoever inherits her Kesuvah.

(b) What is then strange about Rav Masna's ruling is - that, in that case, why do we need his insructions to arrive at this Halachah? The children are not obligated to bury her from their father's property anyway (seeing as she will have already claimed her Kesuvah - Tosfos Rid)?

(c) We therefore amend it to read - that if he instructs them not to bury *him* with funds from his property, they are not permitted to obey his instructions.

(d) His children are forbidden to obey his instructions - because a man is not permitted to enrich his children at the expense of the community.

8)

(a) A girl (who is not yet a Bogeres) remains under her father's jurisdiction - until she becomes a Bogeres.

(b) Apart from the money issues involved, this restricts a girl who becomes betrothed - inasmuch as a bas Yisrael who is marrying a Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah.

(c) If her father ...

1. ... handed her over to the Chasan's Sh'luchim to take her to the Chupah - she enters the domain of her husband.
2. ... or his Sh'luchim accompanied the Chasan's Sh'luchim - she remains in the domain of her father.
3. ... handed her to his Sh'luchim, who in turn, handed her over to the Chasan's - she enters the domain of her husband.

(d) The Tana of our Mishnah said '*Le'olam* Hi bi'R'shus Avihah ad she'Tikanes le'Chupah'. He used the expression 'Le'olam' - to preclude from the Mishnah Rishonah, which permits the girl to eat Terumah as soon as the twelve-month preparatory period (from the time that the Chasan requests the marriage) for a Besulah are over (provided the delay is due to the Chasan).

(a) According to Rav, handing over his daughter to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan renders her married in all rspects except for that of being permitted to eat Terumah - because the reason that a betrothed girl cannot yet eat Terumah (in case the Chasan finds a blemish that renders his sale invalid - because min'ha'Torah, she is permitted to do so) still applies.

(b) Rav Asi argues with Rav and says that she may eat Terumah, too - because, in his opinion, the reason that Chazal forbade a betrothed girl to eat Terumah is in case she hands a cup of Terumah-wine to her brothers and sisters, and that suspicion no longer applies, from the moment she leaves her father's house.

(c) Rav Huna or Chiya bar Rav asked on Rav Asi from a Beraisa which states 'Le'olam Hi bi'R'shus ha'Av ad she'Tikanes le'Chupah' - implying that she remains forbidden to eat Terumah even after her father has handed her over to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan.

(d) Rav was unhappy with the Kashya - because he explained 'ad she'Tikanes le'Chupah' (according to Rav Asi) to incorporate 'the handing over to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan'.

(a) Shmuel disagrees with both opinions. When he says (following the handing over to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan) 'li'Yerushasah' - he means that should she die, it is the Chasan who inherits her dowry, and not her father (because her father automatically forewent it from the moment he saw the Chupah imminent).

(b) It is not effective however - with regard to the eating of Terumah, nullifying her vows and her findings (in respect of which she remains in her father's domain).

(c) Resh Lakish says 'li'Ke'suvasah'. Taken literally, he seems to be saying the same as Shmuel. Ravina therefore explains 'li'Kesuvasah' to mean - that, should her husband die, and someone else marries her, she is considered an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in, whose Kesuvah is only one Manah (and not two, as is that of an Almanah min ha'Eirusin).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina - hold like Rav Asi, who says that handing over the girl to the Chasan's Sh'li'ach is equivalent to Chupah in all respects.

(a) A Beraisa elaborating on the Halachos of our Mishnah, concludes 'Ein ha'Ishah Ocheles bi'Terumah ad she'Tikanes li'Terumah' - posing a Kashya on all those who argue with Shmuel (and Rav, permitting her even to eat Terumah).

(b) We can infer from the Beraisa which states that if the Kalah went with the Chasan into ...

1. ... her Chatzer *to stay overnight* and she subsequently dies, then, even if her dowry is already with Chasan, her father inherits it - that if they entered it S'tam (without any particular intention), *they are considered married* (bearing in mind that Chupah basically entails the Chasan taking his Kalah into his domain for the sake of marriage).
2. ... his Chatzer *for the purpose of marriage*, then even if the dowry is still with the father, when she dies, her husband inherits it - that, if they entered it S'tam, *they are not married*. (Note: It appears from here that Chupah does not need to be performed in the Chasan's domain, unless we assume that she lends him her domain for the occasion).

(c) These two inferences appear to contradict each other. Rav Ashi resolves this contradiction - by establishing that both Beraisos speak when they went S'tam into their respective Chatzeiros. When they went into *her* Chatzer, then S'tam is considered as if they only had in mind to stay overnight, whereas when they went into *his*, then even S'tam is considered as if they entered it for the sake of marriage.

13)

(a) Rav Ami bar Chama Darshens from the Pasuk "li'Z'nos Beis Avihah" (written in connection with the S'kilah of a Na'arah Me'urasah) - to preclude a woman whose father already handed her to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan, who will receive Chenek.

(b) We know that the Pasuk does not come to preclude a woman who has already entered the Chupah (but not one who has only been handed to the Chasan's Sh'luchim) - because that we already know from another Pasuk (as we shall now see).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (written in connection with the punishment of S'kilah) "Ki Yih'yeh ...

1. ... Na'arah ... - 've'Lo Bogeres'.
2. ... Besulah ... - 've'Lo Be'ulah'.
3. ... Me'urasah" - 've'Lo Nesu'ah', who has already entered the Chupah (even though she has not yet consummated her marriage).

(d) "Me'urasah" 've'Lo Nesu'ah' cannot be understood literally - because then, it would mean the same as the previous D'rashah (Besulah ... - 've'Lo Be'ulah').