1)

(a)In a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, the Tana explains that She'er comes to preclude from the practice of the Persians - who used to be intimate with their wives fully-clothed.

(b)Rav Huna says - that someone who insists on being intimate with his wife whilst they are both fully-clothed must divorce her (should she demand it) and pay her Kesuvah.

2)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah obligates a man to bury his deceased wife. Rebbi Yehudah adds to that two obligations - a minimum of two flautists and a woman who laments (sings dirges).

(b)If this was normal practice, then it would be obligatory even according to the Tana Kama, and if it was not, then even Rebbi Yehudah would not obligate him. They are therefore arguing in a case - where it is his custom to do so, but not hers.

(c)Their Machlokes is connected to the Din of 'Olah Imo v'Eino Yoredes Imo', which means - that she raises her standards to match his, but is not obligated to lower them to match his.

(d)In that case, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama is - whether the first half of the principle applies even after her death (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (the Tana Kama).

3)

(a)Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva rules ...

1. ... like Rebbi Yehudah - that 'Olah Imo v'Eino Yoredes Imo' applies even after her death.

2. ... that one sustains the wife and children of someone who went out of his mind from her husband's property.

(b)The Beraisa says that if someone went overseas ...

1. ... one sustains his wife from his property ...

2. ... but not his (older) children - seeing as a man is obligated to sustain his wife, but not his older children (from the age of six).

(c)The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Zanin' - is feeds.

2. ... 'Mefarnesin' - clothes.

4)

(a)Rav Ashi resolves the apparent discrepancy between the Din of the father who has gone out of his mind (whose children one does sustain from his property) and the one who has gone overseas (whose children one does not) - on the grounds that, whereas we presume that the former would want his children to be fed from his property, we cannot presume the same of the latter, because then the father should have indicated this before he left.

(b)The Tana adds 'Davar Acher' to the Din of sustenance. According to Rav Chisda, this means ornaments - according to Rav Yosef, it means 'Tzedakah' (that they give her money to distribute to Tzedakah).

(c)Assuming that they refer to the Beraisa (which rules 'v'Lo Davar Acher'), Rav Yosef will agree that she always receives ornaments - because we assume that her husband would not wish her to look ugly (i.e. to lose her prettiness).

(d)In the case of Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva - both will agree that she receives both ornaments and Tzedakah.

5)

(a)According to our current understanding of the Machlokes between Rav Chisda and Rav Yosef, they agree that a woman whose husband went out of his mind receives money for Tzedakah, but argue over one whose husband went overseas. Alternatively, they are referring to Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva (where the husband went out of his mind - and not to the Beraisa), in which case - they are arguing about Tzedakah, which according to Rav Yosef she receives, but according to Rav Chisda, she does not.

(b)They will both agree however, that, in the case of the Beraisa, where he could have left instructions but did not - his wife receives neither Tzedakah nor ornaments.

6)

(a)Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna rules that if a man goes overseas and his wife dies, Beis-Din bury her in accordance with his Kavod, a ruling to which we object however - because it implies 'in accordance with his Kavod, and not with hers' (when in fact, even those who hold 'Ein Olin Imo' after her death, agree that we do not say 'Yordin Imo').

(b)So we amend the statement to - ' ... Beis-Din bury her in accordance with his Kavod, too'.

(c)We learn from Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna's ruling - that the Halachah is that, even after her death, not only do we say 'Ein Yordin Imo', but that we also say 'Olin Imo' (like Rebbi Yehudah).

7)

(a)Rav Masna rules that if a dying man orders his children not to bury his wife with funds from his property, they are permitted to obey his instructions. There is no obligation to bury her from his property after his death - because then the onus will fall upon whoever inherits her Kesuvah.

(b)What is then strange about Rav Masna's ruling is - that, in that case, why do we need his instructions to arrive at this Halachah? The children are not obligated to bury her from their father's property anyway (seeing as she will have already claimed her Kesuvah - Tosfos Rid).

(c)We therefore amend it to read - that if he instructs them not to bury him with funds from his property but from Tzedakah, they are not permitted to obey his instructions ...

(d)... because a man is not permitted to enrich his children at the expense of the community.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses a girl who leaves her father's domain. A girl (who is not yet a Bogeres) remains under her father's jurisdiction - until she goes under the Chupah.

(b)Apart from the money issues involved, this restricts a girl who becomes betrothed - inasmuch as a bas Yisrael who is marrying a Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah.

(c)If her father ...

1. ... handed her over to the Chasan's Sheluchim to take her to the Chupah - she enters the domain of her husband.

2. ... or his Sheluchim accompanied the Chasan's Sheluchim - she remains in the domain of her father.

3. ... handed her to his Sheluchim, who in turn, handed her over to the Chasan's Sheluchim - she enters the domain of her husband.

(d)The Tana of our Mishnah said 'Le'olam Hi bi'Reshus Avihah ad she'Tikanes l'Chupah'. He used the expression 'Le'olam' - to preclude from the Mishnah Rishonah, which permits the girl to eat Terumah as soon as the twelve-month preparatory period (from the time that the Chasan requests the marriage) for a Besulah are over (provided the delay is due to the Chasan).

9)

(a)According to Rav, handing over his daughter to the Sheluchim of the Chasan renders her married in all respects except for that of being permitted to eat Terumah - because the reason that a betrothed girl cannot yet eat Terumah (mid'Rabanan, in case the Chasan finds a blemish that renders his sale invalid) still applies.

(b)Rav Asi permits her to eat Terumah, too - because, in his opinion, the reason that Chazal forbade a betrothed girl to eat Terumah is in case she hands a cup of Terumah-wine to her brothers and sisters, and that suspicion no longer applies, from the moment she leaves her father's house.

(c)Rav Huna or Chiya bar Rav queried Rav Asi from a Beraisa which states 'Le'olam Hi bi'Reshus ha'Av ad she'Tikanes l'Chupah' - implying that she remains forbidden to eat Terumah even after her father has handed her over to the Sheluchim of the Chasan.

(d)Rav was unhappy with the Kashya - because he explained 'ad she'Tikanes l'Chupah' (according to Rav Asi) to incorporate 'the handing over to the Sheluchim of the Chasan'.

10)

(a)Shmuel disagrees with both opinions. When he says (following the handing over to the Sheluchim of the Chasan) 'li'Yerushasah' - he means that should she die, it is the Chasan who inherits her dowry, and not her father (because her father automatically forewent it from the moment he saw that the Chupah was about to take place).

(b)It is not effective however - with regard to the eating of Terumah, nullifying her vows and her findings (in respect of which she remains in her father's domain).

(c)Resh Lakish says 'li'Kesuvasah'. Taken literally, he seems to be saying the same as Shmuel. Ravina therefore explains 'li'Kesuvasah' to mean - that, should her husband die, and someone else marries her, she is considered an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in, whose Kesuvah is only one Manah (and not two, as is that of an Almanah min ha'Erusin).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina - hold like Rav Asi, who says that handing over the girl to the Chasan's Shaliach is equivalent to Chupah in all respects.

11)

(a)A Beraisa elaborating on the Halachos of our Mishnah, concludes 'Ein ha'Ishah Ocheles bi'Terumah ad she'Tikanes li'Terumah' - posing a Kashya on all those who argue with Shmuel (and Rav, permitting her even to eat Terumah).

(b)We can infer from the Beraisa which states that if the Kalah went with the Chasan into ...

1. ... her Chatzer to stay overnight and she subsequently dies, then, even if her dowry is already with the Chasan, her father inherits it - that if they entered it Stam (without any particular intention), they are considered married (bearing in mind that Chupah basically entails the Chasan taking his Kalah into his domain for the sake of marriage).

2. ... his Chatzer for the purpose of marriage, then even if the dowry is still with the father, when she dies, her husband inherits it - that, if they entered it Stam, they are not married. (Note: It appears from here that Chupah does not need to be performed in the Chasan's domain, unless we assume that she lends him her domain for the occasion).

(c)These two inferences appear to contradict each other. Rav Ashi resolves this contradiction - by establishing that both Beraisos speak when they went Stam into their respective Chatzeros. When they went into her Chatzer, then Stam is considered as if they only had in mind to stay overnight, whereas when they went into his, then even Stam is considered as if they entered it for the sake of marriage.

12)

(a)The Beraisa sentences a woman who commits adultery whilst she is going with the Sheluchim of the Chasan - to Chenek (like a married woman).

13)

(a)Rav Ami bar Chama Darshens from the Pasuk "li'Zenos Beis Avihah" (written in connection with the Sekilah of a Na'arah Me'orasah) - to preclude a woman whose father already handed her to the Sheluchim of the Chasan, who will receive Chenek.

(b)Rava explains that the Pasuk cannot come to preclude only a woman who has already entered the Chupah (but not one who has only been handed to the Chasan's Sheluchim) - because that we already know from another Pasuk (as we shall now see).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk (written in connection with the punishment of Sekilah) "Ki Yiheyeh ...

1. ... Na'arah ... - to preclude a Bogeres'.

2. ... Besulah ... - to preclude a Be'ulah'.

3. ... Me'orasah" - to preclude a married woman, who has already entered the Chupah (even though she has not yet consummated her marriage).

(d)"Me'orasah" 'v'Lo Nesu'ah' cannot be understood literally - because then, it would mean the same as the previous Derashah (Besulah ... - 'v'Lo Be'ulah').