1)

(a)In the case of a woman who seized a silver cup as part of her Kesubah and then claimed Mezonos - Rava accepted her claim and obligated the Yesomim to pay, seeing as nobody rules like Rebbi Shimon (who, as we learned, above, holds 'Miktzas Kesef k'Chol Kesef').

2)

(a)Rabah brei d'Rava asked Rav Yosef whether or not, an Almanah who sells outside Beis Din requires a Shevu'ah - that she has not claimed more than she admits to having received.

(b)Rabah brei d'Rava did not ask him whether, if she sold fields without first announcing them (for sale), her sale would be valid - because, he believed (mistakenly, as we shall see), that Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman considers such a sale to be definitely valid.

(c)When Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman ruled that an Almanah's assessment of the Yesomim's property for her Kesubah is invalid, Rabah brei d'Rava assumed that he could not have been referring to when she first announced them - because, if he was, on what grounds would her assessment be invalid?

(d)Consequently, in order to justify himself - Rabah brei d'Rava deduced from there, that it is only when it is for her personal needs that assessing the property without having first announced it is invalid, but when she does so in order to sell, it will be valid (the source of his ruling that when an Almanah sells her property without first announcing it, her sale is valid).

3)

(a)Rava disagrees with his son however. He establishes Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman where she did announce the property. And the reason that the assessment is ...

1. ... not valid when it is for her own needs (for her Kesubah) is - because the property is still in the possession of the Yesomim, who can issue her with the challenge 'Who assessed the field for you?' (see Tosfos DH 'd'Amri Lah ... ').

2. ... valid when it is to sell for Mezonos is - because Chazal gave her permission to sell, and what she has sold is no longer in the possession of the Yesomim.

(b)There was a case of a man whom they gave animal fodder belonging to orphans, and who assessed it to the value of four hundred Zuz and then took it for himself in payment of what the Yesomim's father owed him. The value of the fodder subsequently rose to six hundred Zuz - making him particularly keen to have acquired it.

(c)'Kista d'Yasmi' might also mean - coral.

(d)Rebbi Ami ruled there - that the man had not acquired the fodder, because of the argument 'Who assessed it for you?'

4)

(a)According to the Halachah, we rule that the property of Yesomim - does require a Shevu'ah, but does not require announcing before assessing it.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a woman whose Kesubah was Masayim, and who sold property worth ...

1. ... a Maneh for two hundred Zuz - has received her Kesubah.

2. ... two hundred Zuz for a Maneh - has received her Kesubah, too.

(b)The Tana also rules that, if a woman whose Kesubah was one Maneh sold property worth a Maneh and a Dinar for a Maneh - her sale is a false sale, and is Batel ...

(c)... even if she agrees to repay the extra Dinar.

6)

(a)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, her sale is valid (and she remains obligated to return the extra Dinar) - unless the excess property that she sold comprised an area of nine Kabin (or if the Yesomim were left with a field of that area, with which the extra piece that she sold would have combined to make up nine Kabin) ...

(b)Nine Kabin is considered the minimum size field ...

(c)... and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reasoning is - because the Yesomim can claim that they do not agree with her selling a field that belonged to them, thereby nullifying the sale.

7)

(a)The Shi'ur Ona'ah of a garden that would render her sale invalid in the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, according to Tana Kama is half a Kav - a quarter of a Kav, according to Rebbi Akiva.

(b)In the case of a woman whose Kesubah is four hundred Zuz, and who sells a Maneh's-worth to one buyer, a Maneh's worth to another, and to a third buyer, a Maneh and a Dinar's-worth for a Maneh, our Mishnah rules - that the first two sales are valid, but the third one is not.

(c)We just learned in the Mishnah that even though a woman who sells a field worth Masayim for a Maneh, loses the second Maneh, she does not, by the same token, gain a Maneh, when she sells a field worth a Maneh for Masayim. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah ascribes this to a principle (that Rebbi is teaching us here) - that whenever a Shali'ach comes back with a bargain, it is the owner of the money, and not the Shaliach, who benefits.

8)

(a)Tana'im argue over the above principle (see Tosfos DH 'Kan Shanah Rebbi ... '). According to Rebbi Yehudah, if the seller adds one item to the sale, it is the Shali'ach who benefits. Rebbi Yosi says - that the sender and the Shali'ach divide the extra item.

(b)Rami bar Chama reconciles this ruling with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi holds that it is exclusively the owner of the money who benefits - by establishing that Beraisa by an article that does not have a fixed price (such as articles of clothing or vegetables), whose price tends to fluctuate, to which we ascribe the fact that the seller gave more than the Shali'ach thought he paid for; whereas Rebbi Yosi here is speaking about an article whose price is fixed (such as legumes sold in a store), in which case Rebbi Yosi assumes the extra item to be a gift, and, and since we do not know to whom the seller meant to give it, they divide it.

(c)Despite Rami bar Chama's answer to reconcile Rebbi Yosi, Rav Papa nevertheless found it necessary to issue the same two rulings (differentiating between something which has a fixed price and something which has not) - to teach us that Rami' bar Chama's answer is a reliable one.

9)

(a)The Bnei Yeshivah asked whether - if a Shali'ach who was instructed to sell a Lesech (half a Kur), went and sold a Kur (thirty Sa'ah), his transaction is valid, and the purchaser only needs to return the excess, or whether the entire transaction is nullified (since the Shali'ach did not follow his instructions), and the owner may demand his field back.

(b)The Mishnah in Me'ilah discusses someone who mistakenly asks a Shali'ach to spend Hekdesh-money. If ...

1. ... the Shali'ach performs his Shelichus as instructed - the sender transgresses Me'ilah.

2. ... he does not - then the Shali'ach transgresses Me'ilah.

(c)The Tana there citing a case where someone instructed his Shali'ach to give the guests one piece of meat, the Shali'ach then invites them to take two, but they take three, rules - that all three of them transgress Me'ilah (the owner on the first piece, the Shali'ach on the second and the guests on the third).

10)

(a)Rebbi Yakov from Nehar Pakud tries to resolve the Bnei Yeshiva's She'eilah from the Seifa of the above Mishnah - because, if, whenever a Shali'ach adds to his Shelichus, the Shelichus is invalid, then the owner ought not to transgress Me'ilah (as the Reisha of the Mishnah explicitly states).

(b)We refute his proof however - by establishing the case in the Mishnah where the Shali'ach instructed the guests to take two pieces of meat, one from the owner and one from himself, in which case, the Shali'ach did in fact, perform his Shelichus, and merely added something of his own to it.

11)

(a)We then try to resolve the She'eilah from the case in our Mishnah 'Hayesah Kesuvasah Maneh, u'Machrah Shaveh Maneh v'Dinar b'Maneh, Michrah Batel'. In order to prove that when one adds, the sale becomes invalid - we try and interpret 'Shaveh Maneh v'Dinar b'Maneh' to mean that she sold a Maneh and a Dinar's-worth for a Maneh and a Dinar (and the sale is invalid because she sold a field to the value of a Maneh and a Dinar, albeit for the correct price, instead of one for a Maneh, which is what she was entitled to sell) ...

(b)... and when the Tana says 'Shaveh Maneh v'Dinar b'Shaveh Maneh ... ' - he means for the Maneh that she is entitled to.

(c)And when the Almanah volunteers to return the Dinar to the heirs - she means to buy back the extra Dinar's-worth of land that she sold.

12)

(a)Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua refutes the proof from there - by establishing our Mishnah quite literally when the Almanah sold land to the value of a Maneh and a Dinar for a Maneh ...

(b)... and the reason that the sale is invalid is - because she did not sell the land for the correct price.

(c)We query this however, from the Seifa 'Hayesah Kesuvasah Arba Me'os Zuz ... ul'Acharon Yafeh Maneh v'Dinar b'Maneh ... ', from which we already know that.

(d)We conclude however, that both cases speak where she undercharged the purchaser. And the reason that the Tana saw fit to repeat the ruling in the Seifa to teach us - that it is specifically by the last Maneh, where the loss is on the Yesomim, that her sale is invalid, but not by the earlier sales, where the loss is on her.