What does our Mishnah say about a Chasan who sends Sivlonos worth a hundred Manah to his future father-in-law's house? When does he have the right to reclaim them, and when not?
(b)
Which party died or retracted?
(c)
What sort of Sivlonos is the Tana referring to? Under which circumstances does our Mishnah not differentiate between whether the Chasan ate at his future in-law's or not?
(d)
If the specific value of the Sivlonos that he sent is not the criterion to the Mishnah's ruling, then what is?
1)
(a)
Our Mishnah rules that if a Chasan sends Sivlonos worth a hundred Manah to his future father-in-law's house he may reclaim them - provided he did not eat a Se'udah there (but not if he did).
(b)
This ruling applies - irrespective of which party died or retracted (see also end of Sugya).
(c)
The Tana is referring specifically to - a significant stock of gifts, which he expects his future wife to transfer to their house after they are married. If there is only a small amount of gifts, of which he expects nothing to remain by the time they marry, he cannot reclaim them whether he ate by his in-laws or not.
(d)
It is not the specific value of the Sivlonos that he sends that is the criterion to the Mishnah's ruling, but - the fact that he stipulated that he expects his betrothed to transfer what is left (which is more likely when the value of gifts is higher).
2)
(a)
In the basic Halachah, the Reisha refers to the Chasan having eaten a Se'udah worth a Dinar. What if he ate a fraction less?
(b)
We ask three She'eilos based on the Lashon of our Mishnah 've'Achal Sham Se'udah'. We ask what the Din will be if the Chasan did not eat but drank, and if it was his Shali'ach, and not he, who ate. What is the third She'eilah?
(c)
And we answer with an incident cited by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. What did the Chasan there send his Kalah?
(d)
What did they serve him at the entrance of the house?
(e)
How did the incident end?
2)
(a)
In the basic Halachah, the Reisha refers to the Chasan having eaten a Se'udah worth a Dinar. If he ate a fraction less he will still be able to reclaim the Sivlonos.
(b)
We ask three She'eilos based on the Lashon of our Mishnah 've'Achal Sham Se'udah'. We ask what the Din will be if the Chasan did not eat but drank, if it was his Shali'ach, and not he, who ate - and what the Din will be if he did not eat at his future in-law's house, but they sent the Se'udah to him.
(c)
And we answer with an incident cited by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, where the Chasan sent his Kalah - a hundred wagon-loads of wine and oil, of silver and golden vessels and of silks, where ...
(d)
... they served him a hot drink (see Rabeinu Gershom) at the entrance of the house and where ...
(e)
... he died before the wedding.
3)
(a)
What distinction did Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah bring before the Chachamim in Usha, that determined which of those Sivlonos had to be returned and which did not?
(b)
What do we try to prove from there?
(c)
How did Rav Ashi refute the second proof from there that ...
1.
... even less than a Dinar's worth will suffice to prevent the Chasan from retracting?
2.
... even if they sent him the Se'udah to his house, he can no longer reclaim the Sivlonos?
3)
(a)
Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah brought before the Chachamim in Usha a distinction between Sivlonos that got used up (which the Chasan could not claim), and those that did not (which he could). This determined which of those Sivlonos had to be returned, and which did not.
(b)
We try to prove from there that - even if the Chasan drank without eating, even if he ate less than a Dinar's-worth it is defined as a 'Se'udah' (in this regard), and even if they sent him the Se'udah to his house, he cannot claim the Sivlonos. .
(c)
Rav Ashi however, refuted the proof that ...
1.
... even less than a Dinar's worth will suffice to prevent the Chasan from retracting - since who is to say that they did not grind a jewel 'worth a thousand Zuz' into the drink that they served him.
2.
... even if they sent him the Se'udah to his house, he can no longer reclaim the Sivlonos - because perhaps the entrance of his father in-law's house was considered his (father-in-law's) house in this regard.
4)
(a)
What do we mean when we ask whether Sh'vach Sivlonos must be returned together with the Sivlonos or not?
(b)
What are the two sides of the She'eilah? Why might the Sivlonos be considered to be ...
1.
... in the Chasan's domain?
2.
... the Kalah's domain?
(c)
What is the outcome of the She'eilah?
4)
(a)
When we ask whether Sh'vach Sivlonos must be returned together with the Sivlonos or not we mean that - if, for example, the Chasan sent the Kalah a cow, and it gave birth to calves, whether he may reclaim the calves together with the cow.
(b)
The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether we consider the Sivlonos to be ...
1.
... in the Chasan's domain - because if they are still available, he can reclaim them.
2.
... in the Kalah's domain - because if they get lost or stolen, she is obligated to replace them (in which case they are considered hers since they save her from having to pay).
(c)
The She'eilah - remains unresolved (Teiku).
5)
(a)
Rava queries the status of Sivlonos that one would expect to wear out, but did not. How do we refute the proof from the Beraisa that we just quoted, where Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah rules 've'she'Ein Asuyin Livalos, Nigvin', which implies even if they did not actually wear out?
(b)
How do we try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah's concluding statement 'Sivlonos Mu'atin she'Tishtamesh bahen be'Veis Avihah, Ein Nigvin'? How do we initially establish the Mishnah?
(c)
How might we have established the Mishnah, in order to refute the proof?
(d)
Having established the Beraisa that way, why do we not establish our Mishnah that way, too?
5)
(a)
Rava queries the status of Sivlonos that one would expect to wear out but did not. We refute the proof from the Beraisa that we just quoted, where Rav Acha Sar ha'Birah rules 've'she'Ein Asuyin Livalos, Nigvin', which implies even if they did not actually wear out - by establishing it where they did in fact wear out.
(b)
We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah's concluding statement 'Sivlonos Mu'atin she'Tishtamesh bahen be'Veis Avihah, Ein Nigvin' - by establishing it where they were expected to wear out, but didn't.
(c)
In order to refute the proof, we might have established the Mishnah - where the Sivlonos actually wore out (like we did the previous proof).
(d)
We established the Beraisa that way because the Tana is talking about 'Sivlonos ha'Asuyin Livalos', (suggesting that they actually wore out) - whereas our Mishnah, which says Stam 'Sivlonos Mu'atin', does not imply that they wore out.
6)
(a)
What does Rava mean when, to refute the proof, he establishes the Mishnah by 'Bayva u'Sevachta'?
(b)
Following a text that we do not have, what She'eilah does Rabeinu Chananel discuss, with regard to our Mishnah, which presents the case of the Kalah's family acquiring Sivlonos worth a hundred Dinar after eating a Se'udah worth a Dinar? What does the Sugya extrapolate from there?
(c)
What is the outcome of this She'eilah?
6)
(a)
When Rava establishes the Mishnah by 'Bayva u'Sevachta', he means that the Tana is talking about cheap Sivlonos such as various types of scarves, which the Chasan is automatically Mochel, whether they tend to wear out or not, whereas we have been discussing more valuable Sivlonos.
(b)
Following a text that we do not have, Rabeinu Chananel discusses the She'eilah, based on our Mishnah, which presents the case of the Kalah's family acquiring Sivlonos worth a hundred Dinar after eating a Se'udah worth a Dinar whether, if he ate half a Dinar's worth, they would acquire half the gift.
(c)
This She'eilah too remains unresolved.
7)
(a)
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav tells of a man who sent his father-in-law freshly-made wine, oil and linen garments, on Shavu'os. What do we mean when we say that the object of the story is to teach us the praiseworthiness of Eretz Yisrael?
(b)
What else might Rav be coming to teach us?
(c)
Why did that man follow his wife into a ruin?
(d)
Some say he had hidden in his clothes a radish. What do others say?
7)
(a)
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav tells of a man who sent his father-in-law freshly-made wine, oil and linen garments, on Shavu'os. When we say that the object of the story is to teach us the praiseworthiness of Eretz Yisrael - we are referring to the fact that the above products were ready so early in the year (bearing in mind that the ripening season for fruit normally only begins on Shavuos, the Chag ha'Bikurim).
(b)
Alternatively, Rav might be coming to teach us that - it is feasible for fruit to be ready so early, and that consequently, if a man claims that he sent such products to his father-in-law's house, he is believed.
(c)
That man followed his wife into a ruin - to check whether his wife really possessed a blemish (inasmuch as she had an illness that impaired her sense of smell), of which he had been unaware. Because if that was so, the marriage would have been 'a false sale', and would automatically be dissolved.
(d)
Some say he had hidden in his clothes a radish; others say - a Koseves (a large date).
8)
(a)
What did his wife answer when he said to her that he could smell the smell of a radish in Galil?
(b)
How will we explain the sequence of his question and her answer, according to those who maintain that he took with him ...
1.
... a radish?
2.
... a Koseves?
8)
(a)
When he said to his wife that he could smell the smell of a radish in Galil, she replied - how she wished that someone would give her a Koseves from Yericho.
(b)
According to those who maintain that he took with him ...
1.
... a radish - he wanted to see whether she would agree that there was such a smell in the vicinity, to which she (realizing that he was testing her), answered jokingly ... (because it was indeed customary to eat sweet dates together with radishes, to neutralize their sharp taste).
2.
... a large date - he wanted to see if she would correct him (in which case, the rumors that he had heard about her would be proven false), which she did.
9)
(a)
What did Chazal rule (with regard to her husband inheriting her) when the ruin fell on the poor woman and killed her?
(b)
What is the reason for this ruling?
(c)
What major Halachah do we learn from here?
(d)
How do we know that the couple were married and not just engaged?
9)
(a)
When the ruin fell on the poor woman and killed her, Chazal ruled that - her husband could not inherit her ...
(b)
... because he had entered the ruin with the intention of testing her, and of possibly giving her a Get.
(c)
We learn from here that - if a woman dies following a quarrel, without her and her husband having made up, her husband does not inherit her (as we learned in Gitin).
(d)
We know that the couple were married and not just engaged - because had they only been engaged, he would not have inherited her even if he had been intimate with her, as long as they had not entered the Chupah (see Tosfos DH 'Nichnas').
146b----------------------------------------146b
10)
(a)
If the Chasan retracts, then, as we have already learned, Stam (where he made no stipulation), the Sivlonos that last ('Sivlonos Merubin') must be returned, but not those that wear out or that one expects to be eaten ('Sivlonos Mu'atin'). In which case must the Kalah return even Sivlonos Mu'atin?
(b)
Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua rules that Sivlonos which the Kalah and her family ate are not assessed at their full value, but 've'Shamin lahen D'mei Basar be'Zol'. What does this mean in practical terms?
(c)
Why do we do that? What principle is involved here?
10)
(a)
If the Chasan retracts, then, as we have already learned, Stam (where he made no stipulation), the Sivlonos that last ('Sivlonos Merubin') must be returned, but not those that wear out or that one expects to be eaten ('Sivonos Mu'atin'). However even them she is obligated to return even - if she is the one who retracted.
(b)
Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua rules that Sivlonos which the Kalah and her family ate are not assessed at their full value, but 've'Shamin lahen D'mei Basar be'Zol' which, in practical terms, means - two thirds of their full value.
(c)
This is based on the principle that anything that a person eats with justification, and later discovers that he has to pay, he only needs to pay the value of the cheap meal that he would have purchased instead, had he known that he would later be obligated to pay for what he ate.
11)
(a)
What distinction does our Mishnah draw between a Shechiv-M'ra who writes all his property to others but who leaves one field for himself, and one who gives away everything?
(b)
Will it make any difference whether he does this in writing or orally?
(c)
What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(d)
What if he made a Kinyan?
11)
(a)
Our Mishnah draws a distinction between a Shechiv-M'ra who writes all his property to others but who leaves one field for himself - who cannot later retract in the event that he recovers, and one who gives away everything - who can.
(b)
It makes no difference whether he does this in writing or orally, provided he has witnesses.
(c)
The reason for the latter ruling is - because we go after 'Umd'na' (the assessment of the Shechiv-M'ra's intention, and it is obvious that a person does not give away everything, leaving himself a pauper, unless he is convinced that he is going to die. Consequently, should he live, his gift is invalid ...
(d)
... even if he made a Kinyan.
12)
(a)
In a case where someone's son has gone overseas, what does the father hear that causes him to write all his property to others?
(b)
In the event that the son subsequently returns, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa upholds the father's gift. What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya say?
(c)
According to Rav Nachman, what does this have to do with our Mishnah?
(d)
Another Beraisa discusses someone who is being taken out to be killed, and who asks that they should write his wife a Get. What does the Tana say there?
12)
(a)
In a case where someone's son has gone overseas, the father writes all his property to others - when he hears that his son has died.
(b)
In the event that the son subsequently returns, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa upholds the father's gift. Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya - declares it invalid.
(c)
According to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya whose reason is based on 'Umd'na' (because it is obvious that, had he known that his son is alive, he would not have given away all his property), must be the author of our Mishnah.
(d)
Another Beraisa discusses someone who is being taken out to be killed, and who asks that they should write his wife a Get. The Tana rules there that - whoever hears his request should write a Get immediately and hand it to his wife.
13)
(a)
Which dual case did Chazal later incorporate in this Halachah?
(b)
Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds a third case. What is it?
(c)
Who is the author of our Mishnah, according to Rav Sheishes?
(d)
Why does Rav ...
1.
... Nachman not establish Rebbi Shimon Shezuri as the author of our Mishnah?
2.
... Sheishes not establish Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya as the author of our Mishnah?
13)
(a)
Chazal later incorporated in this Halachah - the case of someone who issued the same instructions before embarking on an overseas trip or on a long caravan journey.
(b)
Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds a third case - someone who is very ill and who obviously wants to exempt his wife from Yibum.
(c)
According to Rav Sheishes, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon Shezuri.
(d)
On the one hand ...
1.
... Rav Nachman does not establish Rebbi Shimon Shezuri as the author of our Mishnah - because he speaks where the husband specifically gave instructions to write the Get, whereas the Shechiv-M'ra in our Mishnah said nothing; whilst on the other ...
2.
... Rav Sheishes does not establish Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya as the author of our Mishnah - because the fact that the father said nothing whilst the son was alive, makes his intentions far more obvious than the case in our Mishnah, where, even though most sick people recover, not every sick person gives away his property thinking that he will die.
