1)

(a)Rav Avina asked Rav Sheshes - whether a girl whose father died and who is fed by her brothers, must give them what she produces, in the same way as she has to give her father whilst he is alive.

(b)The reason that it might not is - because it is not from their property that she is fed but from his (as a result of a condition of Beis-Din in the Kesubah of their mother [as we shall see later]).

(c)Rav Sheshes resolved the She'eilah with a Mishnah in the eleventh Perek, where the Tana rules - that a widow is fed from the property of the Yesomim and that whatever she produces belongs to them.

(d)Rav Avina rejected Rav Sheshes' proof from there that the same would apply to a daughter - on the grounds that it is the husband who spells out the condition, and, although a man does not generally want his wife to be pampered, he does want his daughter to (in which case she may well retain what she produces).

2)

(a)We query this however, from a Rebbi Aba Amar Rebbi Yosi, who rules that when a man dies leaving behind ...

1. ... sons and a widow, and Nechasim Mu'atim (insufficient property to provide for both) - the daughter is fed from the property, and the sons must go begging if need be (because the shame of a woman is greater than that of a man).

2. ... a widow and a daughter, and Nechasim Mu'atim - then it is the widow who is fed, and the daughter who has to go begging.

(b)True, Rav Avina just said that, when it is a matter of priority, a man prefers his daughter to live comfortably rather than his widow. But when it comes to something degrading (such as begging) - he is more concerned about the dignity of his wife.

(c)Rav Yosef extrapolates from the previous Mishnah, which stated that what a girl produces or finds, goes to her brothers after her father dies, even though she has not yet claimed them - that what she produces after her father's death belongs to herself. On the assumption that the Tana is speaking when she is being fed by them (a Kashya on Rav Sheshes.

(d)We refute Rav Yosef's proof - by establishing the Mishnah when she is not fed by the brothers.

3)

(a)We query the previous answer however, from a ruling permitting saying to one's Eved Kena'ani 'Work for me but I will not feed you' but not to one's Eved Ivri (in connection with whom the Torah writes "Imach")(and the brothers may certainly not say it to their sister).

(b)The problem that this creates with our Mishnah, which, to answer Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rav Sheshes, we just established when the daughter is not being fed by her brothers is - that if a master cannot say to his Eved Ivri 'Work for me but I will not feed you', then how much more so can the brothers not say it to their sister!

(c)The Chidush cannot be the statement itself (that what she produced during her father's lifetime belongs to her brothers in the event of his death) - because, seeing as it is pure Mamon (and not Kenas), that too, is obvious.

4)

(a)To answer Rav Yosef's Kashya, Rabah bar Ula establishes our Mishnah by Ha'adafah - meaning what she produces over and above what she needs for her livelihood.

(b)The Chidush now lies in the inference (that whatever she produces after her father's death belongs to herself) - that they cannot claim Ha'adafah (leaving her with the basics).

(c)We might otherwise have thought - that the brothers inherit their father's rights in their sister.

(d)The problem that Rava has with this answer - is precisely the fact that it is so straightforward, since it is not therefore feasible that Rav Yosef would not have overlooked such an obvious answer.

5)

(a)So Rava relearns Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rav Sheshes. The problem that Rav Yosef had with our Mishnah, is with the statement 'Ma'aseh Yadehah u'Metzi'asah, Af Al Pi she'Lo Gavsah ... '. Since when does a person need to claim something that they find?!

(b)Rav Yosef interprets the Tana's words to mean - that what she produces after her father's death, like what she finds then, belongs to her (proving Rav Sheshes wrong).

(c)It is obvious that what a girl finds after her father's death does not belong to her brothers - because even during her father's lifetime it is only to avoid strife (with her father) that they instituted that it belongs to him, and even then, only if she is eating at his table (seeing as min ha'Torah, he is not obligated to feed her).

6)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav also learns like Rav Yosef, though, according to Rav Kahana, his source is the Pasuk "v'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem Achareichem" (written in connection with Avadim Kena'anim) - from which he extrapolates "Osam li'Veneichem" 'v'Lo Benoseichem Achareichem'.

(b)Rabah disagrees with Rav Yosef and with Rav. He interprets the Pasuk "v'Hisnachaltem Osam ... " - with regard to Kenas, Pituy and damages, but not with regard to what their sister produces (which goes to her brothers, like Rav Sheshes).

(c)The reason that the latter goes to the brothers is - because it is common and because correspondingly, they are losing the sustenance that they have to pay her.

(d)Rebbi Chanina citing a Beraisa - corroborates what Rabah says.

7)

(a)Rabah included 'Chavalos' in his list of things that the father does not pass on to his sons. But surely - 'Chavalos' are considered personal injury, which does not go to her father in the first place!

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina establishes Rabah when the assailant wounded her in the face - making her ugly and causing her value to depreciate. This is also a direct loss to her father, who will obtain less should he sell her, which explains why he is entitled to this Chavalah.

(c)When Rav Masna quoted Rav like Rav Yehudah did on the previous Amud, Rav Avimi bar Papi commented that Shakud said it. 'Shakud' is a nickname of Shmuel, who was 'diligent' to issue statements regarding money matters that were Halachically correct, which is why the Halachah is like him in areas of Mamon (see also the Aruch, quoted by the Mesores ha'Shas).

8)

(a)Neherda'i and Rav Ashi dispute whether the Halachah is like Rav Sheshes or like Rav. The final conclusion is like Rav - that the produce of the hands of a girl who is fed by the brothers belongs to herself (like the ruling of Rav Ashi).

9)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a father who arranged the betrothal of his daughter twice: initially, and again after her divorce. Finally, her second 'husband' died, leaving her still a Na'arah or a Ketanah. This Tana holds - that a betrothed girl is eligible to receive a Kesubah.

(b)It is - the father who receives both Kesuvos.

(c)If she was already married to her second husband before he died however, then both Kesuvos belong to the girl herself - because we go after the time that the woman claims her Kesuvah, not after the time that the Kesuvah was written.

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah - the first Kesubah goes to her father (this will be explained in the Sugya).

(e)Amru Lo disagree, According to them - the moment a woman gets marries, her father has no more jurisdiction over her (this too, will be explained in the Sugya).

10)

(a)The Tana presents the case of a girl who was divorced once and widowed once, and not when she was widowed twice - because then she would be called a 'Katlanis' (a woman who causes her husbands to die, who is forbidden to marry a third time), and where it can be avoided, the Tana prefers to avoid speaking about cases of 'punishment'.

(b)Our Mishnah is a Stam Mishnah like Rebbi - who says in Yevamos that a woman has a Chazakah (of being a Katlanis) already after two times (and not after three, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(c)According to Rabah and Rav Yosef's initial explanation of Rebbi Yehudah says in our Mishnah that it is the girl's father who receives the first Kesubah - because the Chasan became obligated to pay her a Kesubah from the time of betrothal, and it is from then on that her father already acquires the rights over it.

(d)Nevertheless, he does not receive the second Kesubah, too - because the moment that she married the first husband, his rights over her dissolved.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa concedes - that where the father arranged his daughter's betrothal, but she married after she became a Bogeres, he does not receive the Kesuvah.

(b)If, as Rabah and Rav Yosef maintain, the father already receives the rights over the Kesubah from the time of the betrothal (according to Rebbi Yehudah), why should he not argue with the Rabanan in this case too?!

(c)The real criterion according to them, is - the time that the Kesubah is written.

(d)The Kesubah is written - at the time of the marriage.

12)

(a)When we ask from when the Kesubah is claimed - we mean from which point on is the father permitted to claim the Kesubah from Meshubadim (people who bought fields from her husband any time after that).

(b)According to Rav Huna, he may claim the Manah (of a widow) and Masayim (of a Besulah) from the time of betrothal - because it is a Tenai Kesuvah (giving it the power of a documented debt), and the Tosefes, from the time of writing - since it is voluntary (resembling any other oral debt).

(c)Rav Asi says that he may only claim both from the time of writing - because the girl foregoes the earlier right to claim (once the document is written at the time of marriage).

13)

(a)Rav Huna speaks about a woman who produces two Kesuvos, one of two hundred Zuz, the other, of three - the former one is dated first.

(b)Rav Huna rules - that if the woman wants, she can claim from the buyers with the first Kesuvah from the earlier date; whereas if she prefers, she can claim with the second Kesuvah, but from the later date.

(c)We counter the Kashya that, according to Rav Huna's ruling in the previous question, she ought to be able to claim two hundred from the first date and one hundred frm the second date - by arguing that, in that case, she ought to be able to claim five hundred Zuz, two hundred from the first date, and three hundred, from the second.

(d)Ad the reason that she cannot claim ...

1. ... the full five hundred in Rav Huna's second ruling is - because by not specifying that he was adding the second Kesuvah to the first, her husband indicated that he was only giving her the option of using whichever Kesuvah she preferred.

2. ... the full three hundred in his first ruling is - for the same reason: because, by not specifying that he was adding the second Kesuvah to the first - he indicated that she had the choice of either claiming from the first Kesuvah from his property exclusively, or from the second Kesuvah from Meshubadim.