1)

(a)Rav Papa married off his son to the daughter of Aba Sura'a. She was already his sister-in-law, seeing as he too, was married to a daughter of Aba Sura'a.

(b)Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar was hesitant to accompany him when he went to negotiate the Kesubah, on the basis of a statement made by Shmuel, who instructed Rav Yehudah - not to join the ranks of those who transfer the inheritance even from a bad son to a good one, and certainly not from a son to a daughter. And that is what he suspected that he was about to do.

(c)He continued to decline even after Rav Papa assured him that ...

1. ... based on the previous Sugya, it was perfectly legitimate to write a dowry for his daughter - because, he said, that was only if the father did so willingly, but not if it meant forcing him.

2. ... he did not intend to force his father-in-law to give his daughter a dowry - on the grounds that his very presence would serve to twist Aba Sura'a's arm.

(d)Rav Papa convinced him to go with him under protest. Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar tried to avoid his fears from materializing - by remaining silent.

2)

(a)The latter's fears turned out to be justified however - when, Aba Sura'a, misconstruing his silence for anger at his not having given his daughter a sufficiently large dowry, gave her just about everything he owned.

(b)When Aba Sura'a saw that he remained silent - he commented that if he gave her any more, he would have nothing left on which to live!

(c)When, after Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar had explained the reason for his silence, Aba Sura'a offered to retract - he concluded that this was not what he had intended (because a person should always keep his word).

3)

(a)Rav Yeimar Saba asked Rav Nachman whether the Takanah of Kesuvas Benin Dichrin would apply to a woman who sold her Kesubah to her husband. Perhaps it should not apply - because the Din of inheritance that pertains to Kesuvas Benin Dichrin has been removed (and it now comes entirely from the husband, and not from the wife).

(b)When Rava asked him why he did not ask from the more common case of a woman who was Mochel (forewent) her Kesubah - he replied that now that he had doubts about a woman who sold her Kesubah to her husband and who might have done so because she needed the money (and was therefore an Ones), it was obvious that the same doubt would apply in the case of a woman who was Mochel her Kesubah (where there is no money involved).

4)

(a)Rava maintains that a woman who ...

1. ... sold her Kesubah to others - (for a cheap price on the understanding that they will only receive it should her husband divorce her or die before her) - certainly does not lose her right to Kesuvas Benin Dichrin (because she is considered an Ones).

2. ... was Mochel her Kesubah to her husband - certainly does (because she is not an Ones).

(b)Rava then asks whether a woman who sold her Kesubah to her husband - is comparable to the woman who sold it to someone else or to the woman who was Mochel her Kesubah to her husband, which is worse than selling it to someone else, seeing as he already has the money (and it is similar to being Mochel him).

(c)Rava resolved his own She'eilah - by comparing a woman who sold her Kesubah to her husband to one who sold it to someone else (in which case she does not lose her rights over 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin').

5)

(a)The Mishnah in Yevamos rules - that if a woman who married a second husband on the basis of the testimony of one witness, died after the return of her first husband, neither her heirs from her first husband nor those from her second husband inherit her Kesubah.

(b)'Kesubah' here means - Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. It cannot be understood literally - because the Tana has already taught us that she does loses her Kesubah.

(c)Rav Idi bar Avin asks from there on Rava - that, seeing as Rava has just stated that a woman's need for money renders her an Ones, in which case her sons inherit her Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, why do we not also consider her marriage to the second man an Ones, caused by the natural urge for a woman for a woman to be married (as Chazal have said).

(d)We answer - that the Mishnah in Yevamos is different, seeing as Chazal there penalized the woman for not ensuring that her husband was dead before remarrying (Ones or not).

6)

(a)Ravin bar Chinena mi'Shemei d'Rebbi Elazar taught in front of Rav Chisda that a woman who is Mochel her husband from paying her Kesubah - loses her right to Mezonos when she becomes a widow, because Tenai Kesubah is like the Kesubah itself.

(b)Rav Chisda reacted to this statement - by quoting a Pasuk in Mishlei that someone who repays bad for good is in for trouble. In other words, it is not because a woman is Mochel her husband her Kesubah, that he should repay her by withholding Mezonos from her. Consequently, he said, if not for the fact that Ravin bar Chinena quoted a great man (Rebbi Elazar), on the basis of this Pasuk he would have ruled that she still receives her Kesubah.

7)

(a)Rav Nachman and Ula ... instructed that man whose Arusah had died - to either bury her or to pay her Kesubah to her heirs ...

(b)... because they interpreted the ruling 'Kevurah Tachas Kesubah' (that we learned earlier in the Perek) to mean that the husband has the option of burying his wife in lieu of Manah u'Masayim (see Tosfos DH 'she'Ein').

(c)Rav Chiya bar Ami proved them wrong however, from a Mishnah, which discusses the Dinim of a betrothed couple one of whom dies. The Tana rules that a man neither practices Aninus nor is Metamei for his betrothed. If he is the one who dies - then she neither practices Aninus nor is she Metamei for him.

8)

(a)She will be permitted to be Metamei for him - even if she is a Kohenes, even though he will not be permitted to be Metamei for her if he is a Kohen (unless they are married) ...

(b)... because only Kohanim are forbidden to become Tamei Mes, not Kohanos.

(c)The Tana rules that if she dies, he does not inherit her. In the event that he dies however - she claims her Kesubah ...

(d)... Manah, Masayim & Tosefes, assuming that he wrote her a Kesubah.

9)

(a)Chiya bar Ami extrapolates from the Beraisa's latter statement 'Mes Hu, Govah Kesuvasah' - that if she died, she would not receive her Kesubah (incorporating Kevurah [a Kashya on Rav Nachman & Ula ...).

(b)Rav Oshaya ascribed this to the Lashon written in the Kesubah 'le'che'she'Tinas'i l'Acher, Titli Mah she'Kasuv Lechi' - which only applies after he either died or divorced her (but not when she died).

(c)The Beraisa 'Kevurasah Tachas Kesuvasah' refers specifically - to a married couple, and what the Tana means is that the husband is obligated to bury his wife against the inheritance that he receives when she dies (which only comes into effect after they are married).

(d)When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael and quoted Resh Lakish who said that an Arusah who died is not entitled to her Kesubah - Abaye commented that this information was useless, since Rav Oshaya had already explained it in Bavel.

10)

(a)Rav's text in our Mishnah regarding the Takanah of 'Benan Nukvan' conforms with ours: 'ad d'Tilakchun l'Guvrin'. Levi's version of the text is - 'ad d'Tibagrun'.

(b)This does not mean that according to ...

1. ... Rav, a Bogeres who is not yet married will still receive Mezonos - because everyone agrees that a Bogeres leaves her father's domain.

2. ... Levi, a Na'arah who marries still receives Mezonos - because everyone agrees that a married woman leaves her father's domain.

(c)In fact, they argue about a Na'arah who becomes betrothed - Rav interprets 'ad d'Tilakchun l'Guvrin' to mean until they become betrothed (even though they are still Na'aros); whereas according to Levi's text, a betrothed girl still remains in her father's domain until she becomes a Bogeres.

(d)We amend the Beraisa quoted by Levi 'ad d'Tebagrun v'Yimti Zemaneihon d'Insavun' (meaning ' ... until your time comes to get married') to read 'ad d'Tebagrun O Yimti Zemaneihon d'Insavun' (i.e. either or, not both).

11)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states 'ad Masai ha'Bas Nizonis, ad sheTe'ares' - Rebbi Elazar holds 'ad she'Tebager'.

(b)Rav Yosef too, cites a Beraisa which says 'ad d'Tehavyan', though we are not sure whether this means - until they become betrothed or married, a She'eilah which remains unresolved.

(c)According to the first Lashon, when Rav Chisda asked Rav Yosef whether an Arusah receives Mezonos, he replied that he had not heard anything about it. However ...

1. ... he reckoned that she ought not to receive it any longer - because her Chasan, not wanting to see her degrading herself by begging, will feed her himself.

2. ... Rav Chisda himself thinks that she ought to receive it - because, in his opinion, her Chasan will not spend money on his Kalah as long as he is not certain that he will marry her (a likelihood that exists as long as he does not know that she has no blemishes - as we shall see in Perek af-al-pi).

(d)According to the second Lashon - they simply switch their opinions. Rav Yosef maintains that an Arusah ought to receive Mezonos, whereas Rav Chisda believes that she ought not to receive it.

12)

(a)They asked Rav Sheshes whether a Mema'enes receives Mezonos from the Takanah of 'Benan Nukvan' - because on the one hand, her Mi'un uproots the marriage (so she ought to return to her previous status); on the other, it may well be that, once she marries, she loses her rights to be fed from her father's estate for good.

(b)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that a widow, a divorcee and a Shomeres Yavam in her father's house all receive Mezonos. By a widow and a divorcee - he can only mean after Erusin (because once she marries, everyone agrees that she leaves her father's domain for good).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah says that as long as she is in her father's house, she receives Mezonos ... . Rav Sheshes explains - that their Machlokes concerns a Mema'enes, who, according to the Tana Kama, receives Mezonos (because he automatically compares her to the other cases, since she too, is not married); whereas Rebbi Yehudah says that it is only as long as she is in her father's house that she receives Mezonos, but not from the moment she gets married.

13)

(a)Resh Lakish asks whether the daughter of a Yevamah receives Mezonos. She should ...

1. ... not receive it - because initially, her claim on the Kesubah is on the estate left by her first husband (the Yavam's brother), and not on the Yavam.

2. ... nevertheless receive it - because, in the event of there not being sufficient funds in her husband's estate, she receives her Kesubah from the estate of the Yavam.

(b)This She'eilah too - remains unresolved.

(c)Rebbi Elazar asked whether the daughter of a Sheniyah receives Mezonos (Tenai Kesubah). Despite the fact that her mother does not receive a Kesubah, she might receive it - because, whereas her mother sinned, she did not.

(d)The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos v'Ibayos).