Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Daniel bar Ketina Amar Rav Huna, the Almanah would sell her husband's property once a year. According to Rav Yehudah - once every six months.

(b) They both agree though, on the manner of payment. The purchaser would pay her in monthly installments, to enable her to purchase her Mezonos month by month.

(c) Each of them has the support of a Beraisa. Ameimar however, ruled like Rav Yehudah. When Rav Ashi quoted him Rav Huna - he replied that he did not hold like him.

(a) They asked Rav Sheishes - whether an Almanah who sold property (with responsibility) for Mezonos would then be permitted to claim it back from the purchaser for her Kesuvah.

(b) Had a third person claimed the field from him - the purchaser would have turned to the Yesomim, who are ultimately responsible for the Almanah's Kesuvah.

(c) Rav Yosef, who asked the same She'eilah as the B'nei Yeshivah asked Rav Sheishes, explained the She'eilah like this. Perhaps the Almanah would not be able to claim her Kesuvah from the purchaser - because the Yesomim can counter that it is only when *a third person* claims from the buyer that they accept responsibility (so that the Almanah will be able to receive her Kesuvah), but when *she* is the claimant, why should *they* accept responsibility for her actions?

(a) Rav Sheishes resolves the She'eilah from the Mishnah that permits her to sell the property up to the amount of her Kesuvah, so that she will be able to claim her Kesuvah later ('ve'Samach Lah she'Tigbah K'suvasah min ha'Sha'ar') - implying that if, rather than leaving the property for her Kesuvah with the Yesomim, she sells it, she will not be able claim it later.

(b) We reject the suggestion that the Mishnah is merely giving good advice, so that the woman should not cause herself to be labelled as someone who sells and then retracts - on the basis of the final words of the Mishnah 've'Samach Lah she'Tigbah K'suvasah min ha'Sha'ar', which clearly means that that is what she is entitled to, but not to sell it and reclaim it.

(a) They asked whether - someone who sells a field because he needs the money, will be permitted to retract when he discovers that he no longer needs the money.

(b) There is no proof from Rav Papa, who returned a field that he had bought under exactly those circumstances - because Rav Papa went 'Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din' (beyond the letter of the law).

(c) When, on one occasion, everyone sold their mansions because of a terrible draught which resulted, in turn, in an acute shortage of food, Rav Nachman permitted everyone to retract - when a shipload of wheat arrived, saving them from starvation.

(d) They could not resolve the She'eilah from Rav Nachman's ruling - because it transpired that the boat was already on the way when the sales took place, only the swell of the river caused the sailors to take a roundabout route. Had the sellers known then that the boats were already on the way, they would never have sold their mansions, rendering the sale a false one.

(a) We prove our previous statement from the discussion between Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Nachman. When Rami bar Shmuel told Rav Nachman that on his account, the residents of Neherda'a would no longer agree to purchase houses - he replied that draughts in Neherda'a were hardly common occurrences (that one had to worry that people might react so strongly).

(b) Rami bar Shmuel retorted - that they certainly were common, and that his fear was therefore justified.

(c) This proves that Rav Nachman's ruling must have been a question of the boats being delayed and was therefore a false sale - because if it was a question of wheat appearing suddenly out of the blue, or that it might arrive only on behalf of the sellers, leaving them with no more need for the money, that would again be uncommon, and would have given Rav Nachman the last word.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, both an Almanah min ha'Eirusin and an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in have the authority to sell outside of Beis-Din (without their specific authority). Rebbi Shimon says - that an Almanah min ha'Eirusin may only sell in Beis-Din (with their permission).

(b) The reason for this is - because an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in only sells outside Beis-Din because she needs Mezonos (and Chazal do not expect her to wait until Beis-Din have time to deal with her), but there is no reason (according to Rebbi Shimon) for an Almanah min ha'Eirusin, who only receives a Kesuvah, but no Mezonos, to sell outside Beis-Din.

7)

(a) According to Ula, the reason that the Tana Kama permits an Almanah min ha'Eirusin to sell outside Beis-Din is because of 'China' - meaning that it will encourage her to re-marry (in the knowledge that she will be able to sell her Kesuvah freely).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Tana Kama on the grounds that a man wants to spare his wife the embarrassment of going to Beis-Din. According to him, this concession will not extend to a divorcee, whose husband no longer really cares about her embarrassment - whereas according to Ula, it will apply to a divorcee no less than to an Almanah.

(c) Ula establish the next Mishnah, which forbids a Gerushah to sell the property outside Beis-Din - like Rebbi Shimon (who does not hold of Chi'na by an Almanah, either), but according to the Rabbanan, a Gerushah, will be permitted to sell the property outside Beis-Din, just like an Almanah, as we just explained.

(d) Rebbi Shimon has already taught us that he does not hold of the concept of Chi'na in the Reisha, where he forbade an Almanah min ha'Eirusin to sell the property outside Beis-Din. Nevertheless, he needs to repeat it in the Seifa, by a Gerushah, seeing as she has been married, and has experienced Chibas Bi'ah. Perhaps there, he would concede that 'Chi'na' applies.

(a) In the Seifa of our Mishnah 've'Chol she'Ein Lah Mezonos, Lo Timkor Ela be'Veis-Din', Rebbi Shimon is not coming to teach us that even a Gerushah may not sell her ex-husband's property - but that a Gerushah ve'Einah Gerushah may not do so.

(b) Rebbi Zeira said - that as long as the 'Megureshes ve'Eino Megureshes' (a Safek Megureshes [e.g. a woman to whom her husband threw a Get, and we are not sure whether it landed closer to her or closer to him]) and her husband are still married, he remains obligated to feed her.

(c) We can deduce from Rebbi Zeira's statement - that after her husband's death, she is no longer fed from his property.

(d) The reason for the distinction is - that whereas after his death, a 'Megureshes ve'Eino Megureshes' will no longer receive Mezonos, because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah', during his life he will remain obligated to feed her, due to the fact that it his continued marriage to her, prevents her from remarrying.

(a) The Beraisa states that the Almanah's heirs, like herself, are permitted to sell the property outside Beis-Din - which goes well with Rebbi Yochanan's explanation that her husband would not have wanted her to be embarrassed in Beis-Din, as this would apply equally to his heirs; but how would Ula's reason of Chi'na, extend to the Almanah's heirs?

(b) Ula succeeds in reconciling the Beraisa with his explanation - by establishing 'her heirs' to mean her daughter or her sister, who need 'Chein' just like she did.

(a) The Tana Kama forbids an Almanah to sell the rest of her Kesuvah for Mezonos, once she has sold part of it, or given part to her creditor as collateral or given it away as a gift. According to the Chachamim - she may sell in as many installments as she pleases.

(b) The Tana Kama is Rebbi Shimon - who says that even if a woman sells or gives as collateral just half of her Kesuvah, she loses her rights to Mezonos.

(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah says that ...

1. ... a woman who sells her deceased husband's property for Mezonos - outside Beis-Din - is advised to record into the document of sale that she sold the field for Mezonos.
2. ... a Gerushah who sells her ex-husband's property - may only sell with the sanction of Beis-Din.

(d) According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan ('Ein Adam Rotzeh she'Tisbazeh Ishto be'Veis-Din') - this final statement is unanimous.
2. ... Ula (Chi'na) - the author is Rebbi Shimon.

(a) Rebbi Shimon says that the moment the Almanah has sold some of the property, she loses Mezonos (even though some of her Kesuvah is still owing), whereas the Rabbanan say that she does not (precisely *because* it is). The basis of the reasoning of ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon - is that he does not consider some of the money like the whole sum ('Miktzas Kesef ke'Chol Kesef').
2. ... the Rabbanan - is because they hold 'Miktzas Kesef ke'Chol Kesef'.

(b) Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, forbids a Kohen Gadol to marry a Bogeres - Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon permit it.

(c) Initially - we explain that Rebbi Meir does not consider 'Miktzas Besulim like Besulim (since a Kohen Gadol may only marry a Besulah); whereas Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon hold 'Miktzas Besulim ki'Besulim' (an apparent contradiction to their opinions in our Mishnah (assuming the Rabbanan in our Mishnah to be Rebbi Meir).

(d) We basically reconcile the Beraisa with our Mishnah - by establishing their opinions as being based on Pesukim (which in turn are based on their very opinions in our Mishnah, as we shall now see).

(a) Based on the fact that Rebbi Meir interprets "Besulah" to mean a partial Besulah, he learns from ...

1. ... "Besulah" *"Besulehah*" - that a Kohen Gadol can only marry a woman whose entire Besulim still remain (but not a Bogeres, who is only a partial Besulah).
2. ... "*bi*'Vesulehah" - that if she only lost her Besulim through an unnatural Bi'ah, a Kohen Gadol is still permitted to marry her.

(b) Based on the fact that Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon interpret "Besulah" to mean a full Besulah, they learn from ...

1. ... "Besulah" *"Besulehah*" - that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to marry a Bogeres (a partial Besulah).
2. ... "*bi*'Vesulehah" - that he is not permitted to marry a woman who lost part of her Besulim through an unnatural Bi'ah.