1)

(a)What did Rav Safra do with the equivalent of his share of the money which his father left him and his brothers?

(b)What did Rava rule when Rav Safra's brothers claimed a share in the profits?

(c)What is the basis for this ruling?

(d)Seeing as he invested the money, why was it not considered 'Machmas Atzman', in which case, according to Rava, he was entitled to take all the profits anyway?

1)

(a)Rav Safra - took the equivalent of his share of the money which his father left, from the kitty, and invested it in a business venture.

(b)When Rav Safra's brothers claimed a share in the profits, Rava ruled - that Rav Safra was entitled to all the profits.

(c)The basis for this ruling is - the fact that, seeing as Rav Safra was a great man (who spent most of his time learning Torah), it was obvious that he would not have given up his precious learning time so that his brothers should make money. Consequently, he must have meant to it on his own behalf (even though he did not specifically say so).

(d)Despite the fact that he invested the money, it was not considered 'Machmas Atzman' (in which case, according to Rava, he would have been entitled to take all the profits anyway) - because what he did was relatively easy and did not involve much bother.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah ascribed to a woman who improved the estate, the same Din as the older brothers in the Reisha. Since when does a woman inherit together with the heirs?

(b)How might this even apply to a wife inheriting her husband?

(c)In that case, why did the Tana find it necessary to mention it? Why might a woman be different than a man in this regard?

2)

(a)Our Mishnah ascribed to a woman who improved the estate, the same Din as the older brothers in the Reisha - in a case where she too was an heir (such as where she inherited her father's portion in his father's property (like the B'nos Tzlofchad) or a daughter among only daughters.

(b)This might even apply to a wife inheriting her husband - there where he appointed her an heir together with her children.

(c)The Tana finds it necessary to mention this case, to teach us - that all the heirs share the profits, even though it is uncommon for a woman to work on the estate in this way. Consequently, we might have assumed that she meant to work only for herself (even though she did not specifically say so).

3)

(a)What is then the problem with the Seifa 'Im Amrah Re'u Mah she'Hini'ach li Ba'ali ... '?

(b)How does the Seifa then be speaking?

(c)Under which condition will her stipulation be effective?

(d)Why is this ruling not then obvious? Why might we have thought otherwise?

3)

(a)The problem with the Seifa 'Im Amrah Re'u Mah she'Hini'ach li Ba'ali ... ' is - what that has to do with the case in the Reisha?

(b)Consequently, the Seifa must be speaking - about a woman whose husband did not leave sufficient funds for her Kesubah, and where she then stipulated 'Re'u ... ', and Beis-Din and the heirs were lax in making her swear that she had not received her Kesubah.

(c)Her stipulation will only be effective - if she is not being sustained from the estate; otherwise, whatever she produces, goes to the heirs.

(d)This ruling is not obvious, because we might have thought - that since people will praise her for working on behalf of the Yesomim, she will forego her initial stipulation and work on the Yesomim's behalf, too.

4)

(a)Rebbi Chanina rules that the oldest son acquires the room in which his father married him off, provided four conditions are met. Two of them, that he must be the oldest son and that he must have married a virgin. What are the other two?

(b)In which case will the son not acquire the room even if all of the above conditions were met?

4)

(a)Rebbi Chanina rules that the oldest son acquires the room in which his father married him off, provided four conditions are met. Two of them, that he must be the oldest son and that he must have married a virgin; the other two - that she is his first wife and that he is the first to marry.

(b)The son will not acquire the room, even if all of the above conditions were met - where his father does not own another residence in that town (as we learned in Gitin).

5)

(a)We take for granted that the Kinyan does not extend to the attic that is situated above the one in which the son married (even though his father designated it for the marriage together with the room). How about the sun-porch that adjoins it?

(b)On what basis do we ask about a second room within the first one? What will we then assume regarding the previous She'eilah?

(c)What is the conclusion to these She'eilos?

5)

(a)We take for granted that the Kinyan does not extend to an attic that is situated above the one in which the son married (even though his father designated it for the marriage together with the room). The Din regarding the sun-porch that adjoins it - is cited in the form of a She'eilah.

(b)And we ask about a second room within the first one - on the assumption that in the previous She'eilah, the son does acquire it (since a sun-porch is more part of the room than a second room within it).

(c)The conclusion to these She'eilos is -'Teiku'.

6)

(a)We query Rebbi Chanina from a Beraisa. What does the Tana there rule with regard to ...

1. ... the household articles that were in the room which the father designated for the oldest son's marriage?

2. ... the room itself which he designated?.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah reconciles the Beraisa with Rebbi Chanina by establishing the Beraisa where the father was still using it as a storehouse. According to the Neherda'i, it will suffice if he is still using it for his dovecotes. What do Rav Yehudah and Rav Papi say?

(c)When Mar Zutra married off his oldest son, he hung up a pair of shoes in the room, to prevent his son from taking possession of it. What did Rav Ashi hang up in the room?

6)

(a)We query Rebbi Chanina from a Beraisa, which rules that the son ...

1. ... acquires the household articles that were in the room which his father designated for his marriage ...

2. ... but not the room itself.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah reconciles the Beraisa with Rebbi Chanina by establishing it when the father was still using it as a storehouse. According to the Neherda'i, it will suffice if he is still using it for his dovecotes, whereas according to Rav Yehudah and Rav Papi - even if the room contains a pot-full of fish fried in oil belonging to the father it will prevent the son from acquiring it.

(c)When Mar Zutra married off his oldest son, he hung up a pair of shoes in the room, to prevent his son from taking possession of it. Rav Ashi hang up a cupful of oil.

7)

(a)The Halachah that we have just been discussing is one of three Halachos which Chazal decreed without any Halachic justification. Why did they institute it?

(b)The second is a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, and the third, a statement of Rav (or Rav Huna Amar Rav). What did ...

1. ... Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about someone who writes all his property to his wife?

2. ... Rav (or Rav Huna Amar Rav) say about 'Ma'amad Sheloshtan'? What is Ma'amad Sheloshtan'?

(c)Chazal instituted the second Halachah (concerning someone who gives all his property to his wife), due to the fact that we are witnesses ('Anan Sahadi') that a man would not negate the Torah-institution of Yerushah. Why did they institute the third Halachah (concerning 'Ma'amad Sheloshtan')?

7)

(a)The Halachah that we have just been discussing is one of three Halachos which Chazal decreed without Halachic justification, and the reason that they instituted it was - in honor of the Chasan, because it would not be nice for him to get married without a roof over his head.

(b)The second is a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, and the third a statement of Rav (or Rav Huna Amar Rav). Rav ...

1. ... Yehudah Amar Shmuel said that if someone writes all his property to his wife - he merely means to make her an Apotropus over all his property.

2. ... (or Rav Huna Amar Rav) says - that if, in the presence of Levi, Reuven instructs Shimon to give the money he owes him (or that he is holding as a deposit) to Levi, then Levi acquires it immediately.

(c)Chazal instituted the second Halachah (concerning someone who gives all his property to his wife), because we are witnesses ('Anan Sahadi') that a man would not negate the Torah-institution of Yerushah. And they instituted the third Halachah (concerning 'Ma'amad Sheloshtan') - to circumvent the need for a Kinyan, because it is a common occurrence among businessmen.

144b----------------------------------------144b

8)

(a)What does our Mishnah mean when it says 'ha'Achin ha'Shutfin she'Nafal Echad Meihen le'Umnus, Nafal le'Emtza'?

(b)What is the reason for this?

(c)Would the Din be the same with regard to any other job, trade or profession that he obtained personally?

(d)Who pays the medical expenses in the event that one of the brothers falls ill?

8)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'ha'Achin ha'Shutfin she'Nafal Echad Meihen le'Umnus, Nafal le'Emtza', he means - that if the king appoints one of the brothers to the post of tax-collector (a well-paid job), they all share the income ...

(b)... because it was customary to appoint someone from each family on a monthly rota system. Consequently - the choice was on the merit of their father (in his capacity as the previous head of the family).

(c)The income of any other job, trade or profession that he obtains personally - goes to the incumbent's pocket.

(d)In the event that one of the brothers falls ill - the medical expenses come out of his own pocket (though this stands to be qualified in the Sugya).

9)

(a)And what does the Beraisa say about one of the brothers who is appointed a Gabai or a Pulmustus?

(b)What might 'Pulmustus' mean besides a policeman?

(c)Why is this not obvious?

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if one of the brothers is appointed a Gabai or a Pulmustus - it depends whether this is on the merit of the family (in which case, the income is shared by all the brothers) or on his own merit (when the income will go to his own pocket).

(b)Besides meaning 'a policeman', 'Pulmustus' might also mean - some kind of soldier.

(c)This is not obvious - because the Tana is speaking even when the brother who is chosen is particularly gifted in that field; yet, if we know that he was chosen as a member of that family, and not because of his ability, the money is shared.

10)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about one of the brothers who took two hundred Zuz from the kitty (this is incidental to the case) to go and study Torah or to learn a trade? What can they say to him should he then come and claim Mezonos?

(b)One may have thought that his location would not make any difference, and that they should give him Mezonos wherever he resides. The reason that they do not is based on a statement of Rav Huna. What did Rav Huna say about the blessing of the house?

(c)Then why don't they at least give him Mezonos proportionately (deducting the assessed loss caused by his absence)?

10)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if one of the brothers who took two hundred Zuz from the kitty (incidental to the case) to go and study Torah or learn a trade, then comes to claim Mezonos, the brothers can say to him - that he will only receive his quota of Mezonos as long as he is living with them, but not if he chooses to live elsewhere.

(b)One may have thought that his location would not make any difference, and that they should give him Mezonos wherever he resides. The reason that they do not is based on a statement of Rav Huna, who said - that the blessing of the house increases according to the numbers (i.e. when a group of people pool their resources, they save money).

(c)In fact - they do give him Mezonos proportionately (deducting the assessed loss caused by his absence).

11)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if one of the brothers becomes ill, the medical expenses must come out of his own pocket. Ravin in the name of Rebbi Ila'i qualifies this ruling, citing Rebbi Chanina. What does Rebbi Chanina say about 'Tzinim Pachim', based on the Pasuk in Mishlei?

(b)What does the Pasuk mean?

(c)How will this now affect our Mishnah?

11)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if one of the brothers becomes ill, the medical expenses must come out of his own pocket. Ravin in the name of Rebbi Ila'i qualifies this ruling, citing Rebbi Chanina, who, based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tzinim Pachim be'Derech Ikesh, Shomer Nafsho Yirchak Meihem", states - that whatever befalls a person is by Divine Providence, with the sole exception of colds, which are the result of one's own negligence in not keeping oneself warm.

(b)The Pasuk means that - "Colds ensnare the stubborn person, whereas someone who looks after himself keeps well away from them". Others however, translate "Pachim" as meaning 'too hot'.

(c)This affects our Mishnah - inasmuch as it is only when the sick brother catches a cold (which, as we just explained, is the result of his own negligence) that he pays out of his own pocket, but not for other illnesses, which are not his fault, and which are therefore paid for from the kitty.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses Shuchbinus. What is 'Shushbinus'?

(b)What does the Tana say about a case where a father sent one of the siblings on Shushbinus to a friend's wedding?

(c)What does the Tana mean when he says 'she'ha'Shushbinus Nigvis be'Veis-Din'?

(d)The Tana concludes that if Reuven sends Shimon gifts, this is merely an act of kindness and does not warrant repayment. Does this apply even if he sent the gifts on the occasion of Shimon's wedding?

12)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses 'Shushbinus' (the Arama'ic for friendship) - with reference to the Minhag to participate at a friend's wedding and to give him presents, and in return, the friend is obligated to reciprocate on the occasion of his marriage.

(b)Our Mishnah states that if a father sent one of the siblings on Shushbinus to a friend's wedding - when the friend reciprocates, the presents must go into the kitty (and not just to the brother whom the father sent).

(c)When the Tana says 'she'ha'Shushbinus Nigvis be'Veis-Din', he means - that if the friend fails to reciprocate of his own accord, then he can demand his rights in Beis-Din.

(d)The Tana concludes that if Reuven sends Shimon gifts, this is merely an act of kindness and does not warrant repayment - even if he sent the gifts on the occasion of Shimon's wedding (provided that he did not also eat there [since participating in the wedding feast is an integral part of Shushbinus]).

13)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about one of the siblings whose father had sent him on Shushbinus to a friend's wedding before he died?

(b)What does the Tana mean when he says 'Nishtalchah le'Aviv Shushbinus, ke'she'Hi Chozeres, Chozeres min ha'Emtza'?

(c)How does Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan establish our Mishnah ('Chazrah le'Emtza'), to reconcile it with the Beraisa?

(d)How will we then explain the wording of the Mishnah ...

1. ... 'ha'Achin she'Asu Miktzasan Shushbinus'?

2. ... 'ke'she'Chazrah Shushbinus'?

13)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if the father sent one of the siblings on Shushbinus to a friend's wedding before he died - then the Shushbinus is returned to him personally (and not to all the brothers).

(b)When the Tana says 'Nishtalchah le'Aviv, Shushbinus, ke'she'Hi Chozeres, Chozeres min ha'Emtza', he means - that if someone did Shushbinus with his father, then all the brothers (who are obligated to pay their father's debt out of his estate), are obligated to reciprocate out of the kitty.

(c)To reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa, Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes it where someone paid Shushbinus to their father, and now they are obligated to reciprocate (like the Seifa of the Beraisa).

(d)The wording of the Mishnah ...

1. ... 'ha'Achin she'Asu Miktzasan Shushbinus ' must be amended - to read ha'Achin she'Asu le'Miktzasan Shushbinus ' (meaning to one of them), and ...

2. ... 'Chazrah Shushbinus, Chazrah le'Emtza', to read 'Chazrah Lig'vos, Nigvis me'Emtza'.

14)

(a)Rebbi Asi himself (or Rav Asi) leaves our Mishnah intact. Then how does he establish our Mishnah and the Beraisa to resolve the discrepancy?

(b)According to Shmuel, the Shushbinus always goes to the son whom the father sent. What does he mean when, in order to resolve the discrepancy, he establishes our Mishnah by a Yavam? What is then the case?

(c)How does that explain our Mishnah? Why does the Yavam not inherit his brother's rights in the Shushbinus?

14)

(a)Rebbi Asi himself (or Rav Asi) leaves our Mishnah intact. To resolve the discrepancy, he establishes our Mishnah - where the father sent one of his sons without actually designating any specific one, whereas the Beraisa speaks - where he did.

(b)According to Shmuel, the Shushbinus always goes to the son whom the father sent. When, in order to resolve the discrepancy, he establishes our Mishnah by a Yavam, he means - that the son whom the father sent subsequently died, and the brother performed Yibum with his wife.

(c)The Yavam now claims the Shushbinus in place of his brother, and our Mishnah teaches us - that he is not entitled to it (and it goes to all the brothers), because it is Ra'uy and he is considered a B'chor; and as we have already learned, a B'chor does not inherit Ra'uy.

15)

(a)What does another Beraisa say about a woman returning the money of Kidushin, in the event that one of them dies?

(b)How does Rav Yosef bar Aba Amar Mar Ukva Amar Shmuel qualify this ruling? When will it not apply?

(c)How does Rav Yosef explain why the Shushbin in our Mishnah is obligated to fulfill his Shushbinus (to the brothers of the deceased Shushbin)? Why can he too, not say 'Give me my Shushbin, and I will gladly repay him!'?

15)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that whether or not, a woman is obligated to return the money of Kidushin, in the event that one of them dies - depends upon local Minhag.

(b)Rav Yosef bar Aba Amar Mar Ukva Amar Shmuel qualifies this ruling - by restricting it to where the Kalah died. In the event that the Chasan died, she can argue that if they would provide her with her husband, she would gladly go ahead with the marriage (in other words, it is unfair to penalize someone who is totally blameless).

(c)Nevertheless, says Rav Yosef, the Shushbin in our Mishnah remains obligated to fulfill his Shushbinus (to the brothers of the deceased). He cannot say 'Give me my Shushbin, and I will gladly repay him!' - because the Tana is speaking where he participated in the celebrations for the entire seven days, only before he had a chance to deliver the presents, his friend died, leaving him obligated to present them to the brothers.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF