Question: What does Shmuel teach? We know all of these laws from (our Mishnah and) another Mishnah!

(Mishnah): A Mema'enes is permitted to her ex-husband's relatives, and he is permitted to hers. She remains permitted to Kehunah;

If he divorced her, she is forbidden to his relatives, and he is forbidden to hers, and she is disqualified from Kehunah.

Answer: Shmuel teaches that if he divorced her she must wait three months before remarrying. This was not taught in a Mishnah.

Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): The actions of a minor are void. Her husband does not receive her Metzi'os or earnings, he cannot annul her vows, he does not inherit her, and he does not become Tamei to engage in her burial;

The rule is, she is not like his wife in any respect, except that she must do Mi'un to leave him.

R. Yehoshua says, a minor's actions take effect. Her husband receives her Metzi'os and earnings, he can annul her vows, he inherits her, and he becomes Tamei to engage in her burial;

The rule is, she is like his wife in all respects, except that she can do Mi'un.

Suggestion: Rav holds like R. Eliezer and Shmuel holds like R. Yehoshua.

Rejection: Granted, Shmuel cannot hold like R. Eliezer, but Rav can hold like R. Yehoshua;

R. Yehoshua said only that her husband receives things from her as if she is his wife. He did not say that she receives anything from him!

(Mishnah): She does not receive Bala'os (remnants or compensation for depreciation of her property).

(Rav Kahana): This applies only to Melug property (i.e. for which her husband took no Acharayos). She receives Bala'os of Tzon Barzel (property for which the husband must compensate her for any decrease in its value, and if it increases he keeps the gain).

Question (Rav Papa): Which case does he discuss?

Answer #1: He discusses a Mema'enes.

Rejection: If the remnants are around, she receives them in either case (Melug or Tzon Barzel property, for there is no reason to fine her). If the remnants are not around, she is not compensated in either case (for he did not divorce her. Perhaps he would have inherited her!)

Answer #2: He discusses an Ailonis.

Rejection: If the remnants are around, she receives them in either case (we do not fine her);

If they are not around, the law should be the opposite! Melug property was in her jurisdiction, he (should be fined for consuming it and) should compensate her for it. Tzon Barzel was in his jurisdiction, he (was entitled to use it and) should not need to compensate her for it!

Answer #3: Rather, he discusses a Sheniyah;

Version #1 (our text, Rashi): Chachamim fined her to lose what she should have received from him (Kesuvah, Peiros, food, and Bala'os of Nichsei Melug). They fined him to compensate for what he should have been exempt (Tzon Barzel).

Version #2 (R. Chananel): Chachamim fined him (to pay for) what is his (Tzon Barzel, it is in his Reshus). They fined her with what is hers (Nichsei Melug).

(Rav Simi bar Aba): From Rav Kahana, we learn that if she brings clothing in as Tzon Barzel, it is considered principal, and she does not wear it until it wears out! (Rather, it is sold to buy land, and he eats the Peiros.)

Question: Rav Nachman said that it may be worn!

Answer: Rav Nachman argues with Rav Kahana.

(Mishnah): They have no Kesuvah.

(Shmuel): This only to the basic Kesuvah (100 or 200). They receive Tosefes (additions to the Kesuvah).

Support (Beraisa): When Chachamim said 'she has no Kesuvah', such as a Mema'enes and the accompanying cases, she does not receive 100 or 200, but she receives Tosefes;

When they said 'she leaves without a Kesuvah', such as one who transgresses Das (Moshe or Yehudis) and accompanying cases, she does not receive Tosefes, all the more so not 100 or 200.

One who is divorced due to ill repute (Znus) receives what remains (of her Melug property).

This supports Rav Huna, who said that one who was Mezanah does not lose the intact remnants.

A reciter of Beraisos: If she was Mezanah, she lost the intact remnants.

Objection (Rav Nachman): If she had adultery, did her property have adultery?!

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Rather, the text should say that she does not lose the intact remnants.

Answer #2 (Rabah bar bar Chanah): (The text need not be changed.) The Stam Beraisa is like R. Menachem, but Chachamim say that if she was Mezanah, she does not lose the intact remnants.

(Mishnah): If he initially married her (aware that she is an Ailonis)...

(Rav Huna): An Ailonis is sometimes a wife, sometimes not. A widow (who married a Kohen Gadol) is always a wife.

An Ailonis is a wife only if he knew that she was an Ailonis.

A widow is a wife whether or not he knew she is a widow, and she has a Kesuvah.

(Rav Yehudah): Both an Ailonis and a widow (to a Kohen Gadol) are sometimes married, sometimes not.

She has a Kesuvah only if he knew her status.

Question #1 (against Rav Huna - Beraisa #1): If he married her with this Chazakah (she told him that she is a widow), and she was found to be so, she has a Kesuvah.

Inference: If he married her Stam, she has no Kesuvah!

Answer: No, we infer that if he married her with the Chazakah that she is not a widow, and she was found to be a widow, she has no Kesuvah.

Question: You hold that if he married her Stam, she has a Kesuvah;

If so, why does it say 'if he married her with this Chazakah, and it was found to be true, she has a Kesuvah'? Rather it should say that if he married her Stam she has a Kesuvah, and we would know all the more so if she had told him!

Question #2 (against Rav Huna - Beraisa #2): If he married her knowing (that she is a widow), and she was found to be so, she has a Kesuvah. If he married her Stam (and she was found to be a widow), she has no Kesuvah.

Rav Huna is refuted.

The Mishnah caused Rav Huna to err.

Regarding an Ailonis the Mishnah distinguishes whether or not he knew her status. It did not distinguish regarding a widow. Rav Huna inferred that a widow has a Kesuvah in either case.

This is wrong. The Mishnah teaches that a widow has a Kesuvah, i.e. in the same case as an Ailonis (when he knew her status when he married her).

(Mishnah): If Levi married Leah and agreed to feed her daughter Dinah for five years, he must feed her for five years. If Leah married David (after Levi divorced her) and made the same arrangement with the new husband, Levi must still feed Dinah.

He cannot say 'I will only feed her as long as her mother is married to me.' Rather, he sends food to where her mother is.

Similarly, Levi and David cannot say 'we will feed her together.' Rather, one feeds her, and the other pays her the monetary equivalent.

If Dinah married, her husband feeds her, and Levi and David pay her the monetary equivalent.

If Levi and David die, their own daughters are fed from Bnei Chorin. Dinah is fed even from property sold (after they accepted to feed her), because she is like a creditor.

Clever men would write 'I will feed your daughter as long as you are married to me.'

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): If Reuven tells Shimon 'I owe you 100', he must pay;

Reish Lakish says, he need not.

Question: What is the case?

If Reuven said (to witnesses) 'you are witnesses against me', why would Reish Lakish exempt?

If Reuven did not say 'you are witnesses against me', why would R. Yochanan say that he must pay?

Answer: He did not say this. Rather, he said (wrote) 'I owe to you 100' (and gave it to him, without signing it)';

R. Yochanan says, the matter of a document is potent. It is as if he said 'you are witnesses against me';

Reish Lakish says, the matter of a document is not potent.

Question (against Reish Lakish - Mishnah): If a man married a woman and agreed to feed her daughter for five years, he must feed her for five years.

Suggestion: The case is like above (he gave her an unsigned document).