Based on the Pasuk in Tzefanyah "Yom Evrah ha'Yom ha'Hu", what does Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learn from the Lashon of the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito"?
(b)
How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, where the father gives one Manah for a boy, but two for a girl? What does 'le'Inyan Harvachah' mean?
(c)
According to Shmuel, our Mishnah is talking about a firstborn daughter, like Rav Chisda said. What did Rav Chisda say?
(d)
One reason for that is because she helps to look after her baby brother. What is the other reason?
(e)
If Rav Chisda was not referring to a firstborn child, what did he mean when he said that he preferred daughters to sons?
1)
(a)
Based on the Pasuk in Tzefanyah "Yom Evrah ha'Yom ha'Hu", Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns from the Lashon of the Pasuk "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito" that - Hash-m is angry with someone who dies without leaving behind a son.
(b)
Nevertheless, the father in our Mishnah gives one Manah for a boy, but two for a girl - because it is more important to provide generously ('le'Inyan Harvachah') for a girl (for whom begging is more degrading than for a boy).
(c)
According to Shmuel, our Mishnah is talking about a firstborn daughter, like Rav Chisda, who said that - the birth of a daughter first is a good sign for the sons that follow ...
(d)
... because she helps to look after him or - and because she prevents the Ayin ha'Ra from affecting the son (as would happen if he was the B'chor [see Agados Maharsha]).
(e)
Assuming that he was not referring to a firstborn child, when Rav Chisda said that he preferred daughters to sons he meant that - he looked forward to the birth of another daughter, because he was used to having daughters but no sons.
2)
(a)
Alternatively, we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, explains the Pasuk in Chayei Sarah "va'Hashem Beirach es Avaham ba'Kol" to mean that Avraham did not have a daughter. One reason for this is because a daughter requires special protection. What is the other reason?
(b)
How does Rebbi Yehudah explain this Pasuk?
(c)
Why can this not be the Rebbi Yehudah that we are now searching for?
2)
(a)
Alternatively, we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, explains the Pasuk in Chayei Sarah "va'Hashem Beirach es Avraham ba'Kol" to mean that Avraham did not have a daughter, a B'rachah because a daughter requires special protection, and besides - who would she have married?
(b)
According to Rebbi Yehudah - the B'rachah was that Avraham had a daughter, whose name was Bakol.
(c)
This cannot be the Rebbi Yehudah that we are now searching for - because this Pasuk only teaches us that Avraham did not even lack a daughter (but not that it is better to have a daughter than a son).
3)
(a)
We therefore cite Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir says that it is a Mitzvah to sustain one's daughters, 'Kal va'Chomer' one's sons. Why is it a 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(b)
And it is like Rebbi Yehudah there, who argues with Rebbi Meir, that we establish our Mishnah. What does he say?
(c)
What is his reason for that?
(d)
We query this from the Beraisa 'Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, ha'Zachar Notel Shishah Dinrim'. The Tana there says that if the man's wife gave birth to a boy and a girl, the boy receives six (golden) Dinrim. How much is that in ...
1.
... Manim?
2.
... Zuzim (or Dinrim)?
(e)
How much does the daughter receive?
3)
(a)
We therefore cite Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir says that it is a Mitzvah to feed one's daughters, 'Kal va'Chomer' one's sons - because they study Torah.
(b)
And it is like Rebbi Yehudah there, who says that - if it is a Mitzvah to sustain one's sons, then 'Kal va'Chomer' one's daughters ...
(c)
... to encourage would-be suitors to marry them.
(d)
We query this from the Beraisa 'Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, ha'Zachar Notel Shishah Dinrim'. The Tana there says that if the man's wife gave birth to a boy and a girl, the boy receives six (golden) Dinrim, which is equivalent to ...
1.
... one and a half Manah ...
2.
... a hundred and fifty Zuzim (or Dinrim) ...
(e)
... hereas the daughter receives - two Dinrim (half a Manah).
4)
(a)
How much will each one receive if the daughter is born first?
(b)
When Rav Ashi presented this Sugya to Rav Kahana, the latter established the Beraisa by Mesares. What does 'Mesares' mean?
(c)
He stipulated that if the son was born first, he would receive two Manah and the daughter, nothing. How much would each one receive in the event that the daughter was born first?
(d)
In fact, they were not sure which one was born first. How do we then explain the six and two Dinrim respectively, that each one receives according to the Beraisa?
4)
(a)
If the daughter is born first, then each one receives - one Manah.
(b)
When Rav Ashi presented this Sugya to Rav Kahana, the latter established the Beraisa by 'Mesares' - where the father switched the condition, as we shall now see.
(c)
He stipulated that if the son was born first, he would receive two Manah and the daughter, nothing. In the event that the daughter was born first - each one would receive one Manah.
(d)
In fact, they were not sure which one was born first. Consequently - the son takes four Dinrim (one Manah) either way, and the remaining Manah, they split (because of the principle 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin' [money which is in doubt, and over which neither has a Chazakah], is divided). This explains why the son takes six Dinrim, and the daughter, two.
5)
(a)
Another Beraisa says 'Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, Ein lo Ela Manah'. Ravina establishes this Beraisa like yet another Beraisa. What does the Tana there rule in the case where the husband declares 'ha'Mevasreini ba'Meh Niftar Rachmah shel Ishti; Im Zachar, Yitol Manah; Im Nekeivah, Titol Manah; Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, Ein lo Ela Manah'?
(b)
How can the Tana conclude like that, when the husband himself did not mention this possibility?
(c)
Why does the Tana conclude 'Ein lo Ela Manah'? How much might we have thought the Mevaser receives in this case?
(d)
Seeing as the Mevaser receives a Manah in all the cases, what is the point of mentioning them all? What is the husband coming to exclude?
5)
(a)
Another Beraisa says 'Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, Ein Lo Ela Manah'. Ravina establishes this Beraisa like yet another Beraisa, where the husband declares 'ha'Mevasreini ba'Meh Niftar Rachmah shel Ishti; Im Zachar, Yitol Manah; Im Nekeivah, Titol Manah', and where the Tana rules - 'Yaldah Zachar, Notel Manah; Yaldah Nekeivah, Notel Manah; Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, Eino Notel Ela Manah' (in fact, the previous Beraisa is probably the Seifa of this one).
(b)
Seeing as the Tana concludes like this - we have to amend the Reisha and insert 'Im Zachar u'Nekeivah, Yitol Nami Manah'.
(c)
The Tana concludes 'Ein lo Ela Manah' - because we might otherwise have thought that he receives two.
(d)
Despite the fact that the Mevaser receives a Manah in all the cases, the husband mentions them all - to preclude there where his wife gives birth to a Nefel (a still-born baby).
141b----------------------------------------141b
6)
(a)
What did Rav Huna rule in the case of a man who ddeclares that his property should go to the baby with whom his wife is pregnant?
(b)
Why is that?
(c)
How did Rav Nachman query Rav Huna from our Mishnah
(d)
What did Rav Huna reply?
(e)
Seeing as Rav Nachman too, holds 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah', why does he have no problem with our Mishnah?
6)
(a)
In the case of a man who declared declares that his property should go to the baby with whom his wife is pregnant, Rav Huna ruled - 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar Lo Kanah' ...
(b)
... because he is not yet in the world.
(c)
Rav Nachman queried Rav Huna from our Mishnah - 'ha'Omer, Im Yaldah Ishti Zachar, Yitol Manah, Notel Manah', which clearly holds that he is Koneh ...
(d)
... to which Rav Huna replied - that he did not know who the author of the Mishnah was.
(e)
True, Rav Nachman holds 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah', but he holds that - once the Ubar is born, the Kinyan takes effect, in which case our Mishnah does not pose a problem.
7)
(a)
To dispense with the Kashya on Rav Huna, we try to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Bo le'Olam' (and like whom Rav Huna actually holds). On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?
(b)
So we try to establish it like Rebbi Yossi. What does Rebbi Yossi mean when he says (in the Mishnah in Yevamos) ...
1.
... 'Ubar Posel'?
2.
... 've'Eino Ma'achil'?
(c)
What do we try to prove from there?
(d)
On what grounds do we reject this suggestion too?
7)
(a)
To dispense with the Kashya on Rav Huna, we try to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Bo le'Olam' (and like whom Rav Huna actually holds). We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that even Rebbi Meir agrees that one cannot be Makneh to someone who is not yet in the world.
(b)
So we try to establish it like Rebbi Yossi, who says in the Mishnah in Yevamos ...
1.
... 'Ubar Posel' - which means that, if a Kohen dies, leaving his wife (who is a bas Yisrael) pregnant but without any other children, the Ubar disqualifies the wife's Avadim from eating Terumah (even though he is not yet in the world).
2.
... 've'Eino Ma'achil' - which means that - on the other hand, he does not enable the wife to eat Terumah (like he will do once he is born).
(c)
We try to prove from here - that the Ubar inherits the Avadim, even though he is not yet in the world.
(d)
We reject this suggestion too however, on the grounds that - Yerushah, which comes automatically (and does not require a Kinyan), is different.
8)
(a)
Next we try to establish the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. What does he say about bequeathing all one's property to one of his sons?
(b)
On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that he is the one who holds that one can be Mezakeh on behalf of someone who is not yet born, and that he will therefore be the author of our Mishnah?
(c)
And on what grounds do we then reject the suggestion that maybe Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah also holds like Rebbi Yossi ('ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar Koneh'), and is actually speaking in that case?
8)
(a)
Next we try to establish the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who rules that - a father has the authority to bequeath all his property to one of his sons (like we learned in the previous Perek).
(b)
We reject the suggestion that he is the one who holds that one can be Mezakeh on behalf of someone who is not yet born, and that he will therefore be the author of our Mishnah, on the grounds that - Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (like Rebbi Meir) is talking about something that is not yet in the world, but not about someone who is not.
(c)
And we also reject the suggestion that maybe Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah also holds like Rebbi Yossi ('ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar Koneh'), and is actually speaking in that case - because there is no reason to suggest that he is.
9)
(a)
How do we then refute the suggestion that our Mishnah is speaking in a case ...
1.
... of 'Mevasreni' (like the Beraisa earlier), where he is giving money, not to the Ubar, but to the one who gives him the news?
2.
... where the baby has already been born?
(b)
And why can we not establish it where the husband specifically stipulates that the baby will only receive the money after he is born?
9)
(a)
We then refute the suggestion that our Mishnah is speaking in a case ...
1.
... of 'Mevasreni' (like the Beraisa earlier), where he is giving money, not to the Ubar, but to the one who gives him the news - because how would we then explain the Seifa 've'Im Ein Sham Yoresh Ela Hu, Yoresh ha'Kol'. What turns the harbinger of good news into an heir?
2.
... where the baby has already been born - because then the Tana ought to have concluded (not 'Kol Mah she'Yaldah Ishti', harei Zeh Yitol', but) ... 'Kol Mah she'Teiled Ishti ... '?
(b)
Neither can we establish it where the husband specifically stipulates that the baby will only receive the money after he is born - because Rav Huna holds 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah', even after the baby is born (as we learned earlier).
