We have already learned that the Kesubah of a Besulah is two hundred Zuz, and of an Almanah, one hundred (a Manah). The Tana mentions this in connection with an Arusah (a betrothed woman), despite the fact that one does not normally write a a Kesubah for an Arusah - because he is speaking about a case when the Chasan volunteered to write her one.

Rebbi Nasan then says that whether or not, a woman is obligated to return her Kidushin money or not, depends upon local Minhag. What is strange about Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi's subsequent statement ('be'Emes Amru ... ') is - that it seems to mimic what Rebbi Nasan just said.

After we have amended the Beraisa, Rebbi Nasan rules that - where the Kalah dies (the Kidushin must be returned), whereas if it is the Chasan who died, the Kalah is permitted to retain it.

Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi - maintains that either way, where the Minhag is to return the money, she too must return it.

The basis of their Machlokes is now - whether the Kalah can claim 'T'nu li Ba'ali ve'Esmach Imo' ('Give me my husband and I will gladly rejoice with him!' [Rebbi Nasan]) or not (Rebbi).

We refute this suggestion however. On the assumption that both Tana'im agree that the woman can say 'T'nu li Ba'ali ve'Esmach Imo' (like Rav Yosef bar Aba ... Amar Shmuel) they argue - in a case where specifically the Kalah died.

And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Kidushin le'Tivu'in Nitnu' (a Chasan gives the Kidushin money unconditionally, even in the eventuality that the Kalah dies and the money has been wasted [Rebbi]), or only on condition that they eventually marry (Rebbi Nasan).

When the Tana says 'Makom she'Nahagu Lehachzir' - he is referring to Sivlonos, the trinkets that the Chasan sends the Kalah after the Kidushin which (even Rebbi Nasan concedes), he gives her unconditionally.

And we connect this Machlokes with a Machlokes Tana'im in another Beraisa, where, in a case where a man betrothed a woman with a Kikar - twenty-five Manah, Rebbi Meir says that if she is a Besulah, she will claim two hundred Zuz for her Kesubah, and if she is an Almanah, a Manah (over and above the Kidushin-money, which she is not obligated to return ...

... because 'Kidushin le'Tivu'in Nitnu'.

Rebbi Yehudah rules - that the woman claims her Kesubah out of the Kikar and returns the rest, because he holds 'Kidushin La'av le'Tivu'in Nitnu'.

The Beraisa cannot be speaking where ...

... the Kalah died - because then she would lose her Kesubah.

... the Chasan died - because, having just concluded that everyone agrees that she is not then required to return the Kidushin money, why does Rebbi Yehudah say that she is.

The Tana must therefore be speaking about a Kalah who committed adultery. He cannot however, be referring to to the wife of a Yisrael who ...

... committed adultery - because then she would lose her Kesubah (so why do the Tana'im permit her to claim it?)

... was raped - because then, she would be permitted to return to her husband, and there would be no justification to force her to return the Kidushin.

We finally establish the Beraisa - by the wife of a Kohen who was raped.

Rebbi Yossi is cited as a third opinion in the Beraisa. According to him, in a case where her husband betrothed her with ...

... twenty Shekalim (eighty Zuz or Dinrim) - he must now give her thirty half-Shekalim (sixty Zuz).

... thirty Shekalim (a hundred and twenty Zuz) - he must give her twenty half-Shekalim (or forty Zuz).

Assuming that we are speaking about an Almanah, the significance of these amounts is - that they comprise the balance of the Kesubah of an Almanah after she has returned half the Kidushin money.

Rebbi Yossi's reasoning is - based on his Safek whether 'Kidushin le'Tivu'in Nitnu (like Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi) or not (like Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nasan).

According to the Neherda'i, when Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman said that Bavel is a place where the Minhag is for the Kalah to return the Kidushin money - he was referring to Neherda'a.

As far as the rest of Bavel is concerned, Rabah and Rav Yosef hold 'Mohari Hadri, Kidushi Lo Hadri'. 'Sivlonos' constitutes - the gifts that a Chasan sends the Kalah after the Kidushin, whereas 'Mohari' - comprises the money that he sends her at the time of the Kidushin, with the intention that it should be written into the Kesubah (which is why it is called 'Mohari' [another name for Kesubah]).

Rav Papa rules that, irrespective of which of them dies, Mohari must be returned, and the same will apply if either of them retracts. The difference between the Chasan retracting and the Kalah is that - in the former case, the Kalah does not need to return the Kidushin-money, whereas in the latter case, she does.

Ameimar disagrees with the final ruling of Rav Papa. In his opinion - the Kalah never returns the Kidushin-money, in case this will cause people to jump to the conclusion that the Kidushin was annulled and permit the Chasan to marry the Kalah's sister (in her lifetime).

Rav Ashi tries to refute Ameimar's ruling - based on the fact that the Get precludes such a possibility.

We conclude however, that Rav Ashi is a joke - because of the people who were present when the Kalah returned the Kidushin, but not when the Chasan gave her the Get.

The Beraisa lists five specifications pertaining to Shushbinus. The first three are; that it can be claimed in Beis-Din; that it must be repaid in its time and that it is not subject to Ribis; and the other two - that Sh'mitah does not negate it (even though it is a loan) and that a B'chor does not take double (as we learned earlier in the Sugya).

It can be claimed in Beis-Din, because it is considered a loan, and a B'chor cannot claim double, because it is Ra'uy, as we already learned. The reason that it is not subject to ...

... Ribis is - because one is under no obligation to pay more, in fact if he wants to, he can pay less, only it is customary, due to the prevalent Simchah, to give generously (sometimes more than the amount that one received).

... cancellation in the Sh'mitah-year - because it is not due to be claimed before one's marriage, and whatever is not subject to "Lo Yigos" (due to be claimed before the Sh'mitah-year), is not subject to cancellation when it terminates.

Rav Kahana presents the rules of Shushbinus (with regard to reciprocation). If Reuven participated in Shimon's wedding, Shimon is obligated to reciprocate as long as he is in town. When Rav Kahana says 'Shama Kal Tivla, Iba'i leih le'Meisei', he means that - if he hears the sound of the wedding-bells (a Jewish Minhag in those days to inform people that the wedding is taking place), he should make his way to the wedding-hall to participate, and is therefore obligated to fulfill his reciprocation (by sending gifts) ...

... even if he did not hear the bells, he nevertheless remains obligated to send gifts, though he does have the right to complain to Reuven for not informing him of the time and date of his wedding.

If he was unaware that Reuven's wedding was taking place, he may deduct - one Zuz from the value of the presents, because a guest normally eats a Zuz-worth of food at a wedding.

That is the minimum however. He may deduct ...

... as much as half - if the value of the presents amounted to four Zuzim (because then, they would serve him more food).

... anything in between one and four Zuzim - depending on his status and the value of the gifts.

The Beraisa rules that, in a case where Shimon ...

... made a big wedding, and Reuven is now making a small one - Shimon is entitled to decline to reciprocate, seeing as Reuven did not arrange a big wedding like he did.

... married a Besulah, and Shimon is now marrying an Almanah - Reuven may decline (because, in both cases, he undertook to reciprocate only because he anticipated the same degree of Simchah as there was at his wedding).

... celebrated a second wedding whilst Reuven is now celebrating his first - he is entitled to decline to reciprocate at this wedding, because he does not like excessive Simchah.

... married one woman, and Reuven is now about to marry two (on two different occasions [see Tosfos DH 'Asah']) - he is not obligated to reciprocate more than once (even to give him two small presents instead of one big one), because of the extra trouble involved in attending two weddings.

The Beraisa continues 'Atir Nichsin, Atir Pumbi, Zeh hu Ba'al Hagados', by which he means that - by 'Someone who is rich in property and in publicity', Chazal are referring to a Ba'al Agadah (a Darshan), who Darshens everywhere (because his D'rashos do not require much depth), and everyone comes to listen to him.

An 'Atir Sil'in, Atir Tako'a' - is a banker (who makes his fortune by handling coins), with reference to a Ba'al Pilpul, who Darshens in depth.

Besides comparing such a person to someone who owns much property (like in the Pasuk "ve'Ya'akov Taka Ohalo") 'Atir Tako'a' might also - be a reference to oil (because Tako'a was the name of a place that was rich in oil).

When the Tana says 'Anshei Mashach Atir Kamas', he means - 'Men of measure, men of stores', with reference to people who own large stores of corn, which is measured and put away in storehouses (and not always put to use, like the ...

... Ba'al Shemu'os, who has valuable stores of knowledge which he does not always use.

And when he concludes 'ha'Kol Tzerichin le'Mari Chitaya', he means that - just like everybody needs the wheat-seller, so too, does everybody need the Ba'al Gemara (without whom one cannot understand the Mishnayos [the source of the oral teachings]).

Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav attributes the Pasuk in Mishlei "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" to the Ba'al Gemara - who has to toil to understand the Mishnah, and "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid" to the Ba'al Mishnah - who has an easy time with his shallow understanding of the Mishnah.

Rava reverses the D'rashos, to conform to Rav Mesharshaya, who explains the Pasuk in Koheles "Masi'a Avanim Ye'atzev bahem, Boke'a Eitzim Yisachen bam", which means - 'One who hews stones is hurt by them, whilst one who chops logs of wood is warmed by them'.

According to Rav Mesharshaya ...

... "Masi'a Avanim Ye'atzev bahem" - refers to the Ba'alei Mishnah ...

... "Boke'a Eitzim Yisachen bam" - to the Ba'alei Gemara ...

... because the Ba'alei Gemara understand what they learn and benefit from it, whereas the Ba'alei Mishnah derive no benefit from their half-baked knowledge of the Mishnah.

Rebbi Chanina attributes the Pasuk "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" to someone who has a bad wife, and Rebbi Yochanan, to a finicky person. They then interpret "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid" - to mean someone with a good wife and someone who is easy-going, who is not perturbed easily, respectively.

Rebbi Yochanan attributes "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" to someone who is excessively merciful, and "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid" to a cruelperson (whom nothing can move). The final explanation of this Pasuk is given by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who attributes "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" - to someone who is short-tempered, and "ve'Tov Leiv Mishteh Tamid"- to someone who is placid.

In spite of the fact that everyone has food for Shabbos and Yom-Tov (when the Gaba'ei Tzedakah provide the poor with their needs for the week), Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im" like Shmuel, who says - 'Shinuy Veses Techilas Choli' ('A change of routine is the beginning of illness').

Shlomoh Hamelech says "Kol Yemei Ani Ra'im", implying that at nighttime, they enjoy their rest and forget their suffering. ben Sira however, added - that even at night-time, the poor man suffers, when the water from his low-placed roof collects all the water dropping from everyone else's roofs, and the earth that he carried to his top-of-the-mountain vineyards is blown away.