1)

(a)We conclude that both Rav and Rebbi Nasan go after Umdena. Nevertheless, one of them rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, and not like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who assesses the Chasan's intentions (to only give his betrothed Masayim Zuz once they are married) - because a Kesuvah of Masayim Zuz is based on the assessment of the closeness that a man feels towards his wife who is a Besulah. The Tana Kama too (this opinion holds), assessed that this closeness begins already with the betrothal.

(b)'Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi Mishum Rabeinu, Halachah k'Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah' - Rabeinu refers to Rav (see Tosfos DH 'Amar').

(c)Rav and Shmuel (among others) rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Rav Nachman among others, not only rules like the Tana Kama - but actually pronounces a curse against those who rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

(d)The Halachah is nevertheless like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

2)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Erusin does not acquire the Kesuvah of Masayim. Ravin is not sure then what does acquire it - whether it is the love of Chupah or the love of Bi'ah.

(b)We try to prove from the Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, which states that he only writes the Kesuvah because of 'the love of the first night' - that it must be the love of Chupah that acquires, because if the Tana meant Bi'ah, since when is Bi'ah confined to the first night (and not to subsequent nights)?!

(c)We counter this however, from the Tana's reference to night - which suggests that he is referring to Bi'ah, since Chupah can just as well take place in the day, which Bi'ah generally does not (despite the concession of performing Bi'ah by day in a dark room).

(d)We refute this latter proof - by establishing the norm to perform Chupah too, at night, seeing as Stam Chupah is for the purpose of Bi'ah.

(e)In any event, the outcome of Ravin's She'eilah is that it is the love of Chupah that acquires the Kesuvah of Masayim.

3)

(a)Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the woman becomes a Nidah during the Chupah - because even though we just concluded that, according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah it is the love of Chupah that is Koneh, perhaps he requires a Chupah that leads to Bi'ah, but not a Chupas Nidah.

(b)The She'eilah - remains unresolved.

4)

(a)In a Mishnah in Bava Basra, Rebbi Yosi holds that, if someone pays part of a debt, the creditor writes him a receipt. According to Rebbi Yehudah - they tear up the original document and write him a new one for the balance. He does he like the idea of writing a receipt, since it forces the debtor to guard it against mice.

(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu resolves the apparent contradiction between Rebbi Yehudah in Bava Basra and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (who permits the woman to write her husband a receipt for part of her Kesuvah) - by establishing that the receipt in our Mishnah is actually written into the Kesuvah itself, and not in the form of an independent document.

(c)Abaye establishes Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah by a regular receipt. He maintains that it is in Bava Basra that Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Yosi - because there the debtor definitely paid, and to write a receipt places him in jeopardy of having to pay again; whereas in our Mishnah, where the husband has not actually paid anything, we are not so concerned that he might lose the receipt and have to pay. On the other hand, should the creditor wish to avoid this happening, he has the option of looking after the document carefully.

(d)It is easy to understand why Abaye declines to learn like Rebbi Yirmeyahu, seeing as the Tana in our Mishnah does not speak about writing the receipt into the Kesuvah. Rebbi Yirmeyahu on the other hand, declines to learn like Abaye - because he maintains that Chazal decreed the one because of the other.

5)

(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa says that if a man betroths a woman on condition that he is exempt from feeding her, clothing her or from performing his marital obligations - the woman is betrothed and his condition is invalid, because any condition that undermines the Torah's instructions, is invalid.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah - monetary conditions are valid. Consequently, if a man betroths a woman on condition that he is exempt from feeding or clothing her, his condition is valid.

(c)We extrapolate from the Lashon of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah 'Im Ratzah, Kosev li'Besulah Shtar ... '

(d)We reconcile this with the Beraisa, where he holds (in connection with Kidushin) that a verbal condition will suffice - by establishing his opinion as being that Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan, and that the Rabanan are more stringent in Rabbinical issues than they are in Torah ones.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah says in a Mishnah later, that unless a man writes that he relinquishes his rights over his wife's property, the Peiros and the Peirei Peiros forever, he may continue to eat Peirei Peiros. 'Peirei Peiros' mans - that one sells the Peiros, to buy with the proceeds land in order to eat its fruit.

(b)Although Rebbi Yehudah explicitly says 'writes' there - we have a tradition that he really means that he says it verbally.

(c)In spite of what we just said with regard to our Mishnah, where the condition needs to be written because it is mid'Rabanan - Abaye justifies Rebbi Yehudah's latter ruling in view of the fact that Nichsei Milug are not common, and the Rabanan did not see fit to extend their decrees to that are not common.

7)

(a)We query Abaye's answer however, from a Mishnah in Demai, where the Tana Kama says that if two ass-drivers arrive in town, and one of them declares his own produce to be Chadash - (fresh [inferior] produce) and un'Ma'asered, whereas his friend's is Yashan (old [superior]) and Ma'asered, he is not believed.

(b)Chadash and Yashan cannot be understood literally - a. Because the answer that Chazal were lenient by Demai will not apply to the Isur of Chadash, and b. because we do not find anywhere that Amei ha'Aretz are not believed with regard to the Isur of Chadash.

(c)The ass-driver is not believed - because an Am ha'Aretz is never believed on Ma'asros, and even though he declares his own produce un'Ma'asered, that is only a ruse to encourage people to believe him on his friend's produce.

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah - the ass-driver is believed.

8)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah in this Beraisa, in view of his opinion in our Mishnah (where he required the condition there to be in writing) is - that Demai is also mid'Rabanan, so why is he not strict there too?

(b)Abaye answers that it is only by a Vadai d'Rabanan that Rebbi Yehudah is stringent, but not by a Safek. Rava explains - that he is lenient by Demai, because even compared to other cases of Safek d'Rabanan, Demai is more lenient, because it was only a minority of Amei ha'Aretz who did not separate Ma'asros.

9)

(a)We infer from the words of Rebbi Meir, who says in our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Poches li'Besulah mi'Masayim ... Harei Zu Be'ilas Zenus' (and not 'Kol Besulah she'Ein Lah Masayim ... ') - that his condition is nullified and that, in fact, she receives Masayim.

(b)What turns all their Bi'os into Bi'os Zenus - is the fact that the woman no longer expects to receive two hundred Zuz (she marries expecting not to receive a Kesubah).

(c)We can infer from Rebbi Meir who holds 'Kol ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Batel' - that 'mid'Rabanan, Tena'o Kayam' (with regard to Rabbinical issues, his condition remains intact).

(d)In our Mishnah, he holds that in the case of Kesubah, his condition is Batel, as we just explained - because, it is Rebbi Yehudah who holds that Kesubah is mid'Rabanan. He holds that it is mid'Oraisa .

10)

(a)We just discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (regarding the woman foregoing her Kesuvah). Rebbi Yosi in a Beraisa maintains - that she may forego part of her Kesuvah, even orally.

(b)The Tana Kama in another Beraisa forbids a man to designate Metaltelin for his wife's Kesuvah - in case they get lost or depreciate.

(c)In order to establish their Machlokes, we explain that they argue when the husband accepted responsibility for them - in which case, the Tana Kama will permit it seeing as her Kesuvah is safeguarded against loss.

(d)Rebbi Yosi nevertheless argues however - on the grounds that acceptance of responsibility may well safeguard her against loss, but it will not safeguard her against the fluctuating price of Metaltelin, which will sometimes cause her to suffer a big loss.

(e)The Tana Kama however - is concerned about loss, but not about depreciation.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yosi in the previous Beraisa, holds that when a wife is willing to forego part of her Kesuvah, her Mechilah is effective - because there, the amounts involved are known, whereas in this Beraisa, they are not (in which case she is not Mochel with a full heart).

12)

(a)When Rav Ivya's wife (the sister of Rami bar Chama) lost her Kesubah, Rav Yosef quoted them a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who said that even though Rebbi Meir considers every Bi'ah performed with a woman who does not posses a Kesubah of Manah or Masayim, a Bi'as Zenus, the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Meir, and permit them to live together even for two or three years without a Kesuvah.

(b)Abaye objected to Rav Yosef's ruling however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - who said that the Halachah is always like Rebbi Meir in his decrees (wherever he claims that Chazal decreed regarding Isur and Heter, to add a stringency on to Torah law).

(c)Rav Yosef responded - by ordering the husband to write his wife a Kesubah.

(d)We learned in the previous Perek that if a man did not write his wife whom he married a Besulah, a Kesuvah, she nevertheless receives Masayim; whereas if he married her an Almanah, she receives a Manah. We could reconcile that ruling with our Sugya by establishing it in a place where it is customary not to write a Kesuvah. Alternatively, we might explain - that indeed when the time to claim falls due, she receives her Kesuvah. All her Bi'os until then however, are Bi'os Zenus.