A WIDOW'S RIGHT TO FOOD
Question: How much does a widow sell at one time for food?
Answer #1 (Rav Huna): She sells for 12 months at a time. The buyer gives to her money for a month's food at a time
Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): She sells for six months at a time. The buyer gives to her money for a month's food at a time.
Support (for Rav Huna - Beraisa #1): She sells for 12 months at a time. The buyer gives to her money for a month's food at a time.
Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa #2): She sells for six months at a time. The buyer gives to her money for a month's food at a time.
(Ameimar): The Halachah is, she sells for six months at a time. The buyer gives to her money for a month's food at a time.
Question (Rav Ashi): This is unlike Rav Huna!
Ameimar: I disagree with Rav Huna.
Question: If a widow sold land for food, can she take the land from the buyers to collect her Kesuvah?
This question pertains to Rav Yosef's law.
(Rav Yosef): If a widow sold land, the Acharayos (to compensate the buyer if it is taken) is against the orphans. The same is true when Beis Din sells the orphans' land.
Do we say that since the Acharayos is on the orphans, she can take the land?
Or, even though she is not responsible if others take the land, she is responsible if she herself takes it!
Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): She sells land (for food), and leaves a remnant on which she can rely to collect her Kesuvah.
This shows that she must leave over land. She cannot take what she sold for food!
Rejection: Perhaps she can take it, but the Beraisa counsels her not to, lest people call her a wavering person.
Objection - Question: If so, it would have said that she collects from the rest. Why does it say that she leaves a remnant on which she can rely?
Answer: This teaches that if she did not leave over, she cannot collect from what she sold.
ONE WHO SOLD AND DID NOT NEED THE MONEY
Question: If a man sold land because he needed money, then found that he did not need the money, can he retract the sale?
Answer #1: A man sold land to Rav Papa, because he needed to by oxen. In the end, he did not need the oxen. Rav Papa returned the land to him.
Rejection: Perhaps Rav Papa was not required to do so. He went beyond the letter of the law.
Answer #2: There was an inflation in Nehardai. Everyone sold their houses. In the end, wheat came;
(Rav Nachman): The Halachah is, everyone gets his house back.
Rejection: There, the sale was a mistake. Ships with wheat had already come (but were not in the standard part of the river, so people did not know about them).
Version #1 (Rashi) Support: This explains Rami bar Shmuel's objection (this is prone to happen again).
Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: If so, how do we understand Rami bar Shmuel? (This is a rare case!) (end of Version #2)
Rami bar Shmuel (to Rav Nachman): Your ruling will prevent people from buying in the future!
Rav Nachman: Are famines everyday occurrences?
Rami bar Shmuel: In Nehardai they are!
The Halachah is, if one sold and in the end he did not need the money, he may retract the sale.
MUST A WIDOW SELL PROPERTY IN BEIS DIN?
(Mishnah): A widow, whether from Eirusin or Nisu'in, may sell outside of Beis Din;
R. Shimon says, a widow from Nisu'in may sell outside of Beis Din. A widow from Eirusin, she must sell in Beis Din;
This is because from Eirusin she is not fed, and anyone who is not fed must sell in Beis Din.
(Gemara) Question: Granted, a widow from Nisu'in may sell outside of Beis Din for food (she cannot wait to go to Beis Din when she needs to eat).
But why do Chachamim permit a widow from Eirusin to sell outside Beis Din?
Answer #1 (Ula): This is to encourage marriage.
Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): A man does not want his wife to be disgraced by having to go to Beis Din.
These answers argue about a divorcee;
If we want to encourage marriage, we should be lenient regarding a divorcee as well.
If the husband wanted to spare his wife disgrace, he is concerned only for his widow, not for a woman he divorced.
Question (Seifa (the coming Mishnah)): A divorced woman must sell in Beis Din.
This is like R. Yochanan. He is not concerned for disgrace of his ex-wife.
But according to Ula, we should be lenient regarding a divorcee as well, to encourage marriage!
Answer: The Seifa is R. Shimon.
Question: But R. Shimon already taught that a widow from Eirusin must sell in Beis Din (and the same applies to a divorcee)!
Answer: One might have thought that there is more need to encourage marriage regarding a divorcee, and she may sell outside of Beis Din. The Seifa teaches that this is not so.
Question (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Anyone who is not fed must sell in Beis Din.
Suggestion: This is to include a divorcee!
Answer: No, it includes a woman who is doubtfully divorced. (Rashi - she is not feed from the orphans after her husband dies; Tosfos - she receives food in her husband's lifetime, and may sell outside of Beis Din.)
(R. Zeira): Wherever Chachamim said that 'She is divorced and not divorced', the husband must feed her.
Question (Beraisa): Just like she sells outside of Beis Din, also her heirs who inherit her Kesuvah may sell outside of Beis Din.
This is like the opinion that her husband wanted to spare his wife disgrace. He is also concerned for her heirs.
But according to the opinion that it is to encourage marriage, we need not be lenient for her heirs!
Answer (Ula): The case is, her daughter or sister inherited her. (Rashi - if it is humiliating for her heir to collect, her heir will not want to marry.)
ONE WHO SOLD PART OF HER KESUVAH
Mishnah: In the following cases a woman may sell to collect the rest of her Kesuvah only in Beis Din:
She sold her Kesuvah, or part of it;
She gave her Kesuvah for collateral, or part of it;
She gave her Kesuvah as a gift, or part of it.
Chachamim say that she may sell even four or five times, and she may sell outside of Beis Din for food, and she writes 'I sold this for food'.
A divorcee must sell in Beis Din.
(Gemara): The Mishnah is like R. Shimon.
(Beraisa - R. Meir): If she sold her (entire) Kesuvah, or gave her Kesuvah for collateral, or designated her Kesuvah to repay a loan, she is not fed;
R. Shimon says, even if she sold or gave for collateral only half her Kesuvah, she forfeits being fed.
Inference: Chachamim say that (being owed) part is like (being owed) the entire amount, and R. Shimon disagrees.
Question: They hold the opposite!
(Beraisa - R. Meir): "(A Kohen Gadol) will marry a woman bi'Vsuleha (with her tokens of virginity)" - this excludes a Bogeres, whose Besulim are (partially) depleted;
R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit a Bogeres.
Answer: There, they argue about how to expound the verse;
Answer: R. Meir says that 'Besulah' connotes having some Besulim. 'Besulehah' connotes having all of them. "Bi'Vsuleha" connotes virginity in the place of normal Bi'ah, but not necessarily in the place of Lo k'Darkah (the anus);
R. Elazar and R. Shimon say that 'Besulah' connotes all the Besulim. 'Besulehah' connotes even some. "Bi'Vsuleha" mandates virginity even in the place of Lo k'Darkah.