Explanation: Rashi explains that (we let her receive food support as) there is nothing to suspect. If we would suspect that she seized her food support monies, she will anyway want to collect her Kesuvah and she will then have to swear that she did not hold back any of the orphan's monies.

The Gemara now wants to suggest that they (Rav and Shmuel) argue regarding a case where there was not a clear rumor that her husband died. The argument would be whether or not she deserves support without having to take an oath. If she were to take an oath, why wouldn't we give her support?

Question: This is incorrect. The Gemara asks, the argument (of Chanan and the sons of the Kohanim Gedolim) is only regarding an oath. However, both would hold she certainly should receive support! This question on Shmuel implies that the Gemara assumes Shmuel holds that she does not receive support at all, even with an oath.

Answer: It appears to Rebbi that everyone agrees that when it is heard that her husband has died she receives support. There is no proof that the woman has seized her support monies, or that her husband had previously arranged with her that she would keep her earnings instead of him having to give her food support.

However, if they did not hear that he died, Shmuel says that she does not receive support. This is because it is apparent from his absence that is purposely staying away from her. This would mean that according to Rav Zvid there is suspicion she seized monies and according to Rav Papa there is suspicion he previously arranged with her that she would keep her earnings in exchange for him having to support her. Therefore, she is not even believed with an oath (according to Shmuel).

Question: "My heart stutters" (expression of having difficulty accepting) at this explanation. The Gemara asks nearby from the Beraisa regarding someone who went abroad, and his wife claimed food support. The sons of the Kohanim Gedolim says she must swear etc. and if he later comes and claims that he had set aside food for her, he is believed. The Gemara answers that the case must be where they heard that he had died (which is why they gave her food support according to Shmuel, who holds that otherwise she would not receive food support). It is difficult to answer that the Gemara means that the husband came back after he was known as dead, and the entire rumor that he was dead was in fact a lie.

The Gemara could just as easily have answered that they had not heard he had died. The case was where the ferries stopped transporting (to his town), or some other accident caused that he was unable to return on time. Shmuel would agree in such a case that she should receive support as now there is no proof (that she should have had monies for the duration of his absence).

Answer: Rebbi answered to me that this is not a common thing that some accident should happen or the river will stop him from crossing for more than one or two days (therefore the Gemara did not say that the Beraisa was talking about such a case).

Observation and Proof: It appears to Rebbi that when the Gemara (at this point) states that the case is when they heard he died, it is when two witnesses said he died. This is apparent from the Gemara later that establishes the case is when they heard he died through one witness. This implies that until now we assumed the case was where two witnesses stated he died.

Refutation of Suggested Explanation: It is not possible to say that the case is referring to a mere rumor. This is indicated by the Gemara's question later (on Shmuel) regarding a woman who went with her husband overseas. She later came back (before Beis Din) and said that her husband had divorced her. She can be supported from his property until she reaches the amount of her Kesuvah. The Gemara answers that the case is when they heard he died. This means, that they heard he died before she claims to have been divorced.

Explanation of the Gemara: The Gemara asks, why only give her until the amount of her Kesuvah? She should be supported forever! If the case the Gemara has established is referring to a rumor that her husband had died, what is the Gemara asking? Could the Gemara possibly be suggesting that we should believe a rumor against her claim that she was divorced and he didn't die (before divorcing her)?

Clarification: This is incomparable to the case in Bava Metzia (38b) of a captive. Rav states that a relative is not sent to take care of his properties, and Shmuel says that he is. The Gemara establishes that when they heard the captive died, everyone agrees that we tell his relative to take care of his properties.

Clarification: The case there where they heard he died is when there was one witness testifying that he died. If there were two witnesses, there is nothing novel in this statement, as his relatives inherit him when he dies!

Question: If you will ask, how could we let a relative take care of his property because of the testimony of one witness? Doesn't the Mishnah state in Yevamos (116b) that a woman who claimed that her husband died does not enable the brothers of that man to inherit his property? If she is not believed, why should we believe a witness?

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara in Yevamos (ibid.) is referring to letting the brothers inherit him and sell his property (for their share of his inheritance). The Gemara in Bava Metzia (38b) is merely talking about letting a relative take care of the property, not enabling him to sell it, as is apparent from the context of the Gemara there.

Question #2: The Beraisa later states that Beis Din "goes down" (accesses) to his property and gives food and support to his wife, but not to his sons and daughters. The Gemara establishes that the Beraisa is talking about a case where one witness testified that he died. The Gemara says that being that his sons and daughters cannot access the property with one witness, they also cannot be supported through one witness.

Answer: The Gemara there is also discussing selling the property (for the benefit of the sons and daughters). However, they can eat the fruit that is in their father's field.

Explanation: She accepted this (arrangement), and exempted him (from supporting her). He is therefore exempt, even if now she does not have enough to support herself (from her work).

Question: If you will ask, being that she has enough money to support herself, why doesn't Beis Din say to her take your work money instead of your support? Why should they instead seize assets from his property, according to the opinion that we would otherwise suspect she seized her food monies (a suspicion that is inapplicable by a minor)?

If she does not make enough money to support herself (now, but she did when her husband left, see Maharsha), how would she possibly have waived the support money according to the opinion that we suspect she waived her support money in exchange for her earnings? A minor is unable to waive anything!

Answer (#1): It is possible to answer that she only has enough money for big things, not small things. The small things she can waive.

Answer (#2): Alternatively, it is referring to a young woman whose sale is a sale and her gift is a valid gift.

Question: This is difficult. According to Shmuel (that the case is when they heard he died), what is the reasoning of the sons of the Kohanim Gedolim? What does it make a difference if he died in his house or if it became known that he died through two witnesses?

It does not appear correct to say the case is when they heard he died through one witness (see second Tosfos above).

Answer: It appears that even if he dies in his house the sons of the Kohanim Gedolim indeed argue. [The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that they hold that we do not rely on the oath she takes when she collects her Kesuvah, as perhaps she will die before then or she will continue to be supported and will not collect her Kesuvah.]

Implied Question: The case stated is that he went overseas. [Why does the Beraisa give this case if the Halachah is the same if he died in his house?]

Answer: The Beraisa is being inclusive (even in a case where he went overseas). This is because one might think that we have such a strong suspicion that she hid her support monies (which she only would have gotten because her husband was going on a trip overseas) that we will not even allow her to collect with an oath. [The Beraisa therefore gives a case of him going overseas in order to show that she would still be able to collect in such a case, albeit with two oaths.]

Rashi's Opinion: Rashi explains that this even means that he can take away from her what Beis Din gave her due to her oath. This is implied by the fact that this statement of the Beraisa is addressing her oath (according to the opinion of the sons of the Kohanim Gedolim). The reason why he is believed against her oath is because a person usually leaves support money (for his wife when going on a journey). Therefore, we take the money away from her if he makes an oath to this effect.

Rebbi's Opinion: It seems to Rebbi that she should have to take an oath, and with that oath she could collect whatever she borrowed and ate. If not, noone will lend her money, as they are scared that they will lose the money (as her husband will deny that she needed it). However, now that she can swear and collect the money people are not scared to lend her money, as they know that she can simply swear. [The Maharsha explains that the argument between Rashi and Rebbi hinges on whether this statement is referring to the opinion of the sons of the Kohanim Gedolim or Chanan.]

Implied Question: [How can he claim retroactively that she should have used her earnings?] This means that he claims that if she borrowed and ate I will not pay. This is because if people would not have lent her money, she would have pushed herself to work to make enough money even though she normally would not do so.

Implied Question: The Gemara later discusses a case where she borrowed, ate, and then stood up and did Mi'un (he does not have to give her support). The Gemara infers that he does not have to pay because she did Mi'un, implying that if she did not do Mi'un he would have to pay.

Answer: The case there is when Beis Din gives her the support money.

Question: This is difficult to Rebbi. Indeed, it is normal that a regular person would make sure his wife is supported through a third party because he is obligated to support her, as opposed to his sons and daughters whom he is not obligated to support!

Answer: Rabeinu Shimshon explains the Gemara in the following manner. "If so, his sons and daughters as well" should be interpreted in the following way. If you will say it is understandable that the Mishnah is not talking about support through a third party, but rather that his wife and sons are supported by him directly, it is reasonable why his wife must be supported. Being that he is obligated to support her, Beis Din will not refrain from supporting her if he is not present just because of the suspicion that she seized her support money.

However, it does not make sense to say that his assets should be seized in order to support his sons and daughters whom he is not obligated to support. Here there is a greater suspicion that he gave them support money, leaving them enough to support themselves until he came back. However, now that the case is that he usually supports them through a third party, there is no suspicion at all that he left them money to support themselves.[Accordingly, they should also be given support.]

The Gemara's answer is that the case is when his wife is supported through a third party, but the sons are supported directly by him and not through a third party. This is why it is understandable that they should still be suspected of hiding their support monies.

The Gemara's question is, "what kind of difference is this?" This is because it is not a common arrangement (see Tosfos ha'Rosh) that a person would support his wife through a third party, but he would support his sons directly.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): In Yevamos (41b), Rashi explains that this is specifically if the potential Yavam runs away. If he falls ill or she falls ill, Rashi implies that this fine does not apply.

Question: This is difficult. If so, why is the Gemara asking a question (on Shmuel that we see the Beraisa states she is supported from her husband if he goes overseas)? This support is mandated because of a fine (not because of regular laws of support)!

Answer: It is possible to answer that if we indeed suspect that she hid her food monies as Shmuel apparently holds (according to Rav Zvid earlier, 107a), we should not give such a fine to the potential Yavam.

Opinion #2 (Rach): The Rach says that he found that in the Yerushalmi in Yevamos it states (in the beginning of chapter Af Al Pi) that not only a potential Yavam who runs away must pay, but even if he falls sick she is supported from his assets.

Question: Don't we say that if he or she fell ill he does not have to support her, at least according to the text that if the time came and he did not marry her (he must support her, see 2a)?

Answer: It is possible to answer that our case is different, as the potential Yavam should have done Yibum immediately after the three months he had to wait were finished. However, there the case is when his sickness started before the date that he was supposed to marry her. Accordingly (he does not have to support her due to his sickness), what was he supposed to have done?

Question: However, this is difficult. If when the potential Yavam is sick he has to support her, why do we say later in the Gemara that she does not owe her work (earnings) to him?

Answer: It is possible to answer that when he is sick we also fine him for not marrying her right after the three months and after she had already given him an ultimatum before Beis Din to either do Yibum or Chalitzah.

Question: You could ask a question on Rashi's opinion that he only must support her if he runs away but not if he falls sick. In the Gemara earlier (12a), the Gemara asks what is the law regarding a sick person. Why didn't that Gemara extrapolate from our Gemara regarding a Yavam that only if the potential Yavam runs away does he have to support her, not if he falls ill?

This is actually a Kal v'Chomer. In our Gemara she receives no support at all, even though the Yavam was somewhat negligent as he should have married her right away after he was given the ultimatum before Beis Din to either perform Yibum or Chalitzah. However, there (2a) the groom became sick before he was supposed to marry her. What was he supposed to do? This must be the case, as if he fell sick afterwards obviously she should not lose out from being supported!

Answer: It is possible to answer that a potential Yevamah is different, as she is not so bound to her potential Yavam like a regular betrothed woman is to her groom. She is not so ready to be married (as a betrothed woman), and therefore the potential Yavam is not as obligated in her support (as he would be to his betrothed).

Question: However, there is a difficulty according to Rashi. It must be that the case where the potential Yavam is running away is where he does so not because people are chasing him, but because of her. Otherwise, this is akin to him becoming sick (and he is an Ones).

If so, why does our Gemara ask a question on the opinion that a woman does not receive support? Here there is no reason to think that she would have seized monies, as he is running away from giving her support money!

Implied Question: [What are "Mani d'Kunya?"] Rashi explains that they are earthenware vessels that have a lead coating inside of them.

Question #1: This does not appear correct according to Rabeinu Tam. In Zevachim (54a), regarding making the Mizbe'ach, the Beraisa states that he should bring plaster and Kunya, and spread them and spill them. [If Kunya was indeed lead] The Beraisa should have used the word "Aiver," which is the common term used in a Beraisa when referring to lead.

Question #2: Additionally, Rebbi states, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (33b) and in Pesachim (30b) concludes that they have Tzrif mixed in them, which is called alum in Laz.

Explanation #2 (Aruch): Therefore it appears that the correct explanation is like that of the Aruch, that Kunya are earthenware vessels that are coated with a coating of glass. This is why the Gemara there says that they contain alum, because glass is created from sand, and the sand contains alum. This makes it absorb.

Rabeinu Tam indeed rules that our vessels that have lead poured in them do not become forbidden by wine poured for Avodah Zarah more than other earthenware vessels.

Rabeinu Tam deduced this by stating further that even if the entire vessel was made out of lead it would not be forbidden, so if it only has a little lead it would certainly not be forbidden! However, if glass is poured inside it is understandable, as even if the entire vessel was made out of glass it would not become forbidden. This is because it becomes cooked well and does not absorb. However, Kunya (which means that the glass is only a coating on an earthenware vessel) does not get so cooked, and therefore absorbs more.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this is regarding Chametz (vessels) on Pesach, the scalding of the vessels of Nochrim, and wine poured for Avodah Zarah.

Rashi does not mention this because he needs to point out that we rule like this statement of Rav Zvid regarding Chametz (vessels) on Pesach.

This is evident as Mereimar argues on Rav Zvid and permits the green vessels only regarding wine poured for Avodah Zarah. However, he admits that they are forbidden regarding Chametz on Pesach, as are the white ones, as is explicitly stated in Avodah Zarah (33b). The Gemara there explains that this is because they are used with hot things. [Accordingly, Rashi is certainly not pointing out that Rav Zvid is issuing a novel ruling regarding Pesach.]