1)

(a)An Almanah l'Kohen Gadol ...

1. ... receives a Kesubah ...

2. ... but not Mezonos and medication.

(b)This is because - whereas she receives the former when she goes out (which is what we want to encourage), she receives the latter whilst they are still married (which will only encourage her to remain with her husband - which is what we want to avoid).

(c)Abaye rules that if ...

1. ... an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol is captured - the Kohen Gadol is obligated to redeem her (because the Tenai Kesubah that he will return her to her country of origin applies).

2. ... a Mamzeres u'Nesinah l'Yisrael is captured - the Yisrael is not obligated to redeem her (because the Tenai Kesubah that he will take her back does not).

(d)When Rava says that whenever the captivity forbids her to her husband, he is obligated to redeem her, but whenever something else causes her to be forbidden, he is not - he means to argue with Abaye in the case of Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, who is forbidden, not because she was taken captive, but because of the Isur of Almanah l'Kohen Gadol. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol is not obligated to redeem her.

2)

(a)We suggest that Abaye & Rava is synonymous with a Machlokes in a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer obligates a man who made a Neder forbidding his wife to have benefit before she is captured to redeem her and to pay her Kesubah. Rebbi Yehoshua maintains - that he must pay her Kesubah, but is not obligated to redeem her.

(b)When Rebbi Nasan asked Sumchus whether Rebbi Yehoshua was speaking when the Neder preceded the capture or vice-versa - he replied that he had not heard the answer to this question from his Rebbes.

(c)He personally assumed however, that he was speaking when the Neder preceded the capture - because otherwise, his Neder was probably made purely to free himself from the obligation of redeeming his wife (which would render it invalid).

3)

(a)We initially presume that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua are speaking about the wife of a Kohen - because otherwise, seeing as the Neder forbids them to live together, the Tenai Kesubah of returning her to him as his wife would be inapplicable, and there would be no reason for Rebbi Eliezer to obligate him to redeem her!

(b)If they do indeed argue over the wife of a Kohen, Abaye will hold like Rebbi Eliezer, who obligates the Kohen to redeem his wife even though it is the Isur of Neder which forbids her to return to him and not the fact that she was captured; whereas Rava holds like Rebbi Yehoshua.

(c)We refute this explanation however, and suggest that their Machlokes is in a case where it was actually the woman who made the Neder, only her husband established it, in which case - the basis of their Machlokes would be whether he is to blame for upholding his wife's Neder (Rebbi Eliezer) or the fault lies with her (Rebbi Yehoshua) for making it in the first place.

(d)We reject this explanation too however, on the basis of two questions: one of them, if it is the woman who is at fault, why should she receive a Kesubah altogether? The other one queries Rebbi Nasan's She'eilah to Sumchus (whether Rebbi Yehoshua was speaking when the Neder preceded the capture or vice-versa) - a She'eilah which would be meaningless if it was the woman who was at fault (since either way, he should not be obligated to redeem her).

4)

(a)So we establish the Machlokes (as we did originally) when it was the man who made the Neder. According to Abaye, both Tana'im agree that in the case of 'Almanah l'Kohen Gadol', he is obligated to redeem her, whereas in that of 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah l'Yisrael', he is not (as we explained earlier). 'Madir Eshes Kohen' - is equivalent to 'Almanah l'Kohen Gadol', in which case they will both agree that he is obligated to redeem her.

(b)In fact, they argue over the case of 'Madir Eshes Yisrael'. The basis of their Machlokes will then be - whether we go after their initial relationship (seeing as, at the time when he wrote the Kesubah, she was permitted to him, in which case the Tenai Kesubah applies [Rebbi Eliezer]), or after the time when she was captured (when it does not [Rebbi Yehoshua]).

(c)According to Rava, they both agree that, in the case of 'Almanah l'Kohen Gadol', he is obligated to redeem her, whereas in that of 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah l'Yisrael' he is not (as we explained earlier) - they argue in the case of 'Madir Eshes Kohen' or ... Eshes Yisrael'.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we go after their initial relationship or after the time when she was captured (in the same way as we explained by 'Madir Eshes Yisrael' according to Abaye).

5)

(a)The Beraisa states that if a woman was captured before her husband died, the heirs are obligated to redeem her - provided her husband knew about her capture before his death.

(b)When Levi wanted to follow the ruling of this Beraisa - Rav quoted his uncle (Rebbi Chiya) who maintained that we do not rule like this Beraisa, but rather like another Beraisa ...

(c)... which maintains that the heirs are never obligated to redeem their mother after their father's death, seeing as the undertaking to take her back as his wife (which he wrote in the Tenai Kesubah, no longer applies).

6)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of yet another Beraisa, if a woman is captured and the captives demand as much as ten times her going price, he is nevertheless obligated to redeem her once. The second or third time - one may either redeem her or not, as one pleases.

(b)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - it is forbidden to redeem captives for anything in excess of the regular price, to discourage Nochrim from exploiting the sense of unity and Chesed to exhort exorbitant sums money from them.

(c)When Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel in another Beraisa, says that if the ransom demanded by the captors exceeds the Kesubah, he is Patur from redeeming her - he is merely adding an additional leniency, prohibiting her redemption even if the required sum is less than her going price.

(d)The Tana Kama of that Beraisa Maintains - that up to ten times the amount of her Kesubah, he is obligated to redeem her, but for a higher price than that, the choice is his.

7)

(a)In yet another Beraisa ...

1. ... the Tana classifies medication for an illness as 'Mezonos' with regard to claiming it from the orphans - since both enable one to live.

2. ... Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel classifies specifically an ongoing Refu'ah (with no specific time limit) as 'Mezonos' - because Mezonos too, is ongoing.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan considers blood-letting in Eretz Yisrael (where it was customary to practice it regularly) - like an ongoing Refu'ah.

(c)Concerning his stepmother who needed regular, daily Refu'ah - Rebbi Yochanan instructed the Beis Din to issue a ruling, requiring his father to prescribe the necessary medicines daily.

(d)Even though he initially ruled that the Pasuk "u'mi'Besarcha al Tis'alem" overrides the concept of acting like a lawyer (helping the Beis Din to arrive at their decisions), he later expressed remorse at what he did - because of the fact that he was an important personality, from whom people would learn to act like lawyers, even when it was not a matter of "u'mi'Besarcha al Tis'alem".

8)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses various conditions that are inserted in some Kesuvos The content of the Takanah of ...

1. ... 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin' is - that should their father survive their mother, then, when he dies, the children of each wife inherit their mother's Kesubah (over and above the remainder of their father's estate, which they share equally.

2. ... 'Benan Nukvan d'Yehavi Lechi Mina'i' is - that should he have daughters from his wife, then they will continue to live in his house and to be fed from his property after his death.

3. ... 'At Tehavi Yasvi b'Veisi' is - that his wife, like his daughters, will continue to live in his house after his death, and to be fed from his property for the duration of her widowhood.

(b)The ruling that pertains to all three of them is - that they apply even if they have not been inserted into the Kesubah.

(c)Regarding the latter Takanah, the men of Yerushalayim would insert the wording 'Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusech'. The wording of the Anshei Yehudah was - 'ad she'Yirtzu ha'Yorshin Liten Lach Kesuvasech', giving them the option of paying their mother her Kesubah and becoming exempt from feeding her.

(d)The men of Galil inserted - the same wording as that of the men of the Yerushalayim.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai gave as a reason for the Takanah of 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin' - to encourage a man to bequeath money to his daughters no less than to his sons.

(b)The problem with this is - that the Torah specifically gives the sons precedence in matters of inheritance. So how can the Chachamim contravene the Torah's wishes?

(c)We resolve this problem - with a Pasuk in Yirmeyahu, where the Navi instructed the people to marry, have children and find wives for their sons and give their daughters to men.

(d)This Pasuk cannot be understood literally - because it is the way of the man to look for a wife (as the Gemara explains in Kidushin), and not the reverse, so how could the Navi instruct the people to give their daughters to men?

(e)What the Navi must therefore have meant is - they should dress their daughters in pretty clothes and give them a sizeable dowry, to encourage the men to want to marry them

10)

(a)Abaye and Rava give the Shi'ur for a daughter's dowry as - up to one tenth of her father's property (which is the amount that each daughter receives should her father no longer be alive). Note, that each daughter receives a tenth of the money that remains, not one tenth of the original estate.

(b)Having just attributed the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin to the need to enable a father to find a suitable husband for his daughter, Chazal did not restrict the Takanah to the dowry that he provides, but included the part of the Kesubah that the husband provides - because otherwise, human nature being what it is, the father would not comply (i.e. he would refuse to give his daughter a dowry (based on the argument that 'If he doesn't give, why should I?').

(c)It nevertheless applies even to a Kesubah that does not contain a dowry - because of the principle 'Lo Plug' (Chazal's practice of making their decrees uniform), seeing as, in most cases, there is one.

(d)Only daughter (of their mother) do not inherit Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, when her husband has ...

1. ... sons from another wife (a fact that we know from the phrase Benin Dichrin [meaning 'sons']) because Chazal called this an inheritance, and daughters do not inherit where there are sons.

2. ... only daughters from another wife - because of 'Lo 'lug' (otherwise it would be a case of most daughters not inheriting Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, and some inheriting).

11)

(a)The sons' claim (to Kesuvas Benin Dichrin) is confined to ...

1. ... Karka (but not to Karka) - because Chazal gave it the Din of a Kesubah (which cannot be claimed from the Metaltelin of the orphans).

2. ... Bnei Chorin (but not Meshubadim) - because, as we see in the Mishnah, it is also considered an inheritance (which cannot be claimed from Meshubadim, although Kesubah can - according to some opinions).

(b)The Din of Kesuvas Benin Dichrin only applies, if over and above the two (or more) sets of Kesuvos belonging to the various wives, there is a minimum of one Dinar to distribute among all the children - because Chazal did not wish to completely uproot the Din of Yerushah d'Oraisa (where all of the father's sons inherit equally), by giving preference to Yerushah d'Rabanan (where the sons of each mother inherit differently).