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.

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

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).

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.

Our Mishnah ascribes 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 (if for example, she inherited her father's portion in his father's property [like the B'nos Tzlofchad) or a daughter among only daughters.

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

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).

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?

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.

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

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.

Rebbi Chanina rules that the oldest son acquires the room in which his father marries him off, provided three additional conditions are met 1. he married a virgin - 2. she is his first wife and 3. he is the first of the brothers to marry.

The son will not acquire the room, even if all of the above conditions are met - where his father does not own another residence in that town (as we learned in Gitin [See Mesores ha'Shas).

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.

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).

The conclusion to these She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.

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

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

... but not the room itself.

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.

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.

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.

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

... 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.

... (or Rav Huna Amar Rav) says - that in a case of Ma'amad Sheloshtan (where, 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 the third person (Levi) acquires it immediately.

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.

When our Mishnah says 'ha'Achin ha'Shutfin she'Nafal Echad meihen le'Umnus, Nafal le'Emtza', it 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 ...

... 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).

The income of any other job, trade or profession that he obtains personally - goes to his own pocket.

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).

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).

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

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 the family, and not because of his ability, the money is shared.

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

One may have thought that his location would not make any difference, and that they must provide 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).

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

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.

The Pasuk means that - "Colds ensnare the stubborn person, whereas someone who looks after himself keeps well away from them".

Others translate "Pachim" as - 'overheating'.

This affects our Mishnah - inasmuch as it is only when the sick brother catches a cold (or dresses too warmly] 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 he therefore takes from the kitty.

The Tana 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.

Our Mishnah states that if a father sends 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).

And when he 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.

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 (since he did not also eat there [because participating in the wedding feast is an integral part of Shushbinus]).

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 must be returned to him personally (and not to all the brothers).

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 when he got married, 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.

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).

Consequently, the wording of the Mishnah ...

... 'ha'Achin she'Asu Miktzasan Shushbinus ' we will need to amend - to read ha'Achin she'Asu le'Miktzasan Shushbinus ' (meaning to one of them), and ...

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

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 designated one of them.

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.

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 the Torah calls a Yavam 'a B'chor'; and as we have already learned, a B'chor does not inherit Ra'uy.

Another Beraisa rules that whether or not, the family of a Kalah who died is obligated to return the money of Kidushin to the Chasan - depends upon what the local Minhag is.

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).

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.