1)

(a)The Anshei Galil used to write in their Kesuvos 'At Tehei Yasvas b'Veisi u'Miszana mi'Nechasai Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusech'. In place of 'Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusech' - the Anshei Yehudah used to write 'Ad she'Yirtzu ha'Yorshin Liten Lach Kesuvasech'.

(b)The implications of the Anshei Yehudah's text are - that at any time, they have the right to pay the Almanah her Kesubah, and to absolve themselves from the obligation of feeding her any longer.

2)

(a)This will help explain the She'eilah whether the correct text in our Mishnah is 'Almanah Nizones min ha'Achin', or 'Almanah ha'Nizones min ha'Achin' - because if it is 'Almanah Nizones min ha'Achin' (implying an obligation) then the Tana will conform with the Minhag of the Anshei Galil; whereas if the correct text is 'Almanah ha'Nizones min ha'Achin' (implying that it is only if they choose to feed her - by not paying her Kesubah), then he will follow the Minhag of the Anshei Yehudah.

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a statement of Rebbi Zeira Amar Shmuel - who says that the findings of a widow go to herself.

(c)We initially think that Shmuel's statement fits better with the text 'Almanah ha'Nizones ... ' - because, based on the fact that her husband is the one who feeds her, what a woman finds generally belongs to him. Consequently, if the Yesomim were obligated to feed her, then they ought to receive her findings. But if we read 'Almanah ha'Nizones', our Mishnah will speak when the Yesomim chose to feed her, whilst Shmuel speaks when they did not.

(d)We conclude however, that Shmuel might well have had the text 'Almanah Nizones ... ', and in spite of that, the Yesomim are not obligated to feed her - because it is only to the husband that Chazal obligated her to give her findings, to prevent strife in the home, but this is not applicable here, seeing as the Yesomim are forced to feed her (in which case there is no cause for strife).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says that any Melachah that a woman was obligated to do for her husband, she is obligated to do for his heirs, except for three - pouring out the wine, making his bed and washing his hands, face and feet, which are conducive to creating love between husband and wife, but which have no place in the case of a widow and her husband's heirs.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that any Melachah that a slave is obligated to do for his master, a Talmid is obligated to do for his Rebbi except for one - untying his shoes, which he forbids, in case people think that he is a slave.

(c)Rava permits even that one in a place where the Talmid is known. Rav Ashi permits it even where he is not known - if he is wearing Tefilin at the time, because it is unusual for a slave to wear Tefilin ...

(d)... though it is not forbidden for him to do so.

4)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk in Iyov "la'Mas me'Re'eihu Chesed" - that a Rebbi who stops his Talmid from serving him, withholds from him Chesed.

(b)Based on the phrase that follows it "v'Yir'as Shakai Ya'azov" - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak adds that he also prevents him from increasing his Yir'as Shamayim.

5)

(a)Rebbi Elazar says that if an Almanah, whose claim for Mezonos is confined to Karka , seized Metaltelin - Beis Din cannot take it away from her.

(b)Rebbi Elazar's ruling is substantiated by a Beraisa and by Rav Dimi, who testified that - when the daughter-in-law of Rebbi Shabsi seized a leather sack-full of money, the Chachamim did not have the authority to take it away from her.

(c)According to Ravina, this concession does not extend to a woman who claimed her Kesubah from Metaltelin. Mar bar Rav Ashi however, objects to Ravina's ruling - on the grounds that seeing as the initial Din of the one is Karka just like that of the other, why should their Dinim differ. Consequently, the Din of Kesubah is equivalent to that of Mezonos; and in both cases, she is permitted to keep what she seized.

(d)The Halachah is generally like Mar bar Rav Ashi. However in this case - Rav Yitzchak bar Naftali Amar Rava corroborated Ravina's ruling.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yosi ben Zimra said - that an Almanah who waited two or three years before claiming her Mezonos from her husband's heirs - loses her rights to them.

(b)Having said that she loses it after two years, he nevertheless mentions three, because there might be a difference between a wealthy woman and a poor one - meaning that if a poor woman does not claim within two years, we assume that she has foregone her claim. A wealthy woman, on the other hand, might be able to manage on her own resources for a longer period before claiming her dues. Consequently, we do not assume that she has been Mochel her rights until three years.

(c)Alternatively - three years pertains to a woman who is reserved, two years, to one who is more forceful.

(d)When Rava distinguishes between past and future, he means - that not claiming past Mezonos in time does not prevent her from claiming Mezonos from then on.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan asked what the Din will be if the Yesomim claims that they paid the Almanah's Mezonos for the current year, and she counters that she did not receive it, whether the property is in the Yesomim's possession - and the onus lies on her to prove that it has been paid, or in the possession of the Almanah - in which case it is up to them to prove that it has not.

(b)Assuming the former side of the She'eilah to be correct - to prove her claim, the Almanah will have to bring witnesses that the Yesomim admitted in their presence that she had not yet received her Mezonos.

(c)The property might be considered to be in the possession of the Almanah - on the grounds that Mezonos is a Tenai Beis Din.

(d)We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa quoted by Levi, where the Tana draws a distinction between the period before the Almanah remarries - when he places the onus on the Yesomim to prove that she received Mezonos, and afterwards - when he places it on her ...

(e)... because the property is in her possession up to the time that she remarries.

8)

(a)Based on another Beraisa, Rav Shimi bar Ashi suggests that this is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Yehudah requires an Almanah who sells some of her deceased husband's property to record all the details of her sales in writing: 'These I sold for Mezonos and these for my Kesubah'. According to Rebbi Yosi - she has the authority to sell Stam, and, what's more he adds, this works to her advantage.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to connect this Beraisa with our current She'eilah - Rebbi Yehudah holds that the property is in the possession of the Yesomim; whereas according to Rebbi Yosi, it is in the possession of the Almanah.

(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah, if she fails to write the details of her sales - when she comes to claim her Kesubah and her Mezonos, the Yesomim will claim that what she sold was for her Kesubah, and that, as far as her Mezonos is concerned, they gave her Metaltelin to cover that on an ongoing basis.

(d)According to Rebbi Yosi, not writing down the details of her sales will be to her advantage - because she will now be able to claim that what she sold was for Mezonos, enabling her to then claim her Kesubah from her husband's buyers (which, due to the principle 'Ein Motzi'in l'Mazon ha'Ishah v'ha'Banos mi'Nechasim Meshubadim', she could not have done were she to be claiming Mezonos).

9)

(a)We reject this proof however, on the grounds that even Rebbi Yehudah might agree that the property is in the possession of the Almanah, and the reason that he requires her to write down all the details of what she sold - is (not because it is an obligation, but) in the form of sound advice, to prevent people who see her selling all her husband's property, from suspecting her of greed, making it extremely difficult for her to find a Shiduch when she decides to remarry.

(b)We support this explanation from the Mishnah later in this Perek, which writes 'Mocheres li'Mezonos she'Lo b'Veis Din, v'Koseves, "Eilu li'Mezonos Macharti" '. Now why did Rebbi Yochanan not resolve his She'eilah from that Tana - who seemingly holds that the property is in the possession of the Yesomim (like Rebbi Yehudah), unless we say that he is only supplying the Almanah with good advice.

(c)This proof is stronger than the one from Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa - because whereas it is feasible that Rebbi Yochanan had not been aware of the Beraisa, we take for granted that every Amora was conversant with every Mishnah.

10)

(a)Alternatively, even Rebbi Yosi might hold that the property is in the possession of the Yesomim, only he holds like Abaye Keshisha, who said that if a man on his death-bed orders his heirs to give two hundred Zuz to his creditor - the creditor has the choice of accepting the money as payment of his debt or as a gift.

(b)Taking the money as a gift - would leave him the option of claiming his debt from Meshubadim (which he could not do in the case of a gift).

(c)Similarly, in our case, even if the property is considered to be in the possession of the Yesomim - not writing down the details of her sales will leave the Almanah the option of declaring only what she sold for Mezonos, and what she is still owed, thereby enabling her to claim her Kesubah from Meshubadim (from which she could not have claimed Mezonos, as we just explained according to Rebbi Yehudah).

(d)Even if Rebbi Yosi holds that the property is in the possession of the Yesomim, and they actually counter that what she sold, she sold for her Kesubah (in which case, she will lose her Mezonos, as we just explained), that is only as long as she does not bring witnesses to substantiate her claim.