Question: Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah agree that she does not eat. What difference does it make what the reason is?

Answer: They argue in the following cases:

The husband accepted her, even if she has a Mum (the only concern is feeding siblings);

Version #1 (Rashi): The father gave her to the husband's Sheluchim, or Sheluchim of the father went with her and with the husband's Sheluchim (the only concern is a Mum).

Version #2 (Tosfos Kidushin 11a DH Kibel). The father gave her to the husband's Sheluchim and Sheluchim of the father went with her. (We are not concerned for a Mum, for her husband checks her first through relatives, but we are concerned lest she feed Terumah to her father's Sheluchim.)

(Mishnah - R. Tarfon): He may give to her only Terumah...

(Abaye): They argue about a Kohen who married a Bas Kohen (she is used to guarding Terumah and selling it), but all agree that a Bas Yisrael receives half Chulin.

(Abaye): They argue about an Arusah (who lives with her father, who can sell Terumah for her), but all agree that a Nesu'ah receives half Chulin (it is undignified for her to go out to sell).

Support (for both laws - Beraisa - R. Tarfon): He may give to her all Terumah;

R. Akiva says, he gives to her half Chulin.

This applies to a Bas Kohen Mekudeshes to a Kohen. If she is a Bas Yisrael, or Nesu'ah, all agree that she receives half Chulin.

R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, she receives two thirds Terumah and a third Chulin;

Note: Maharshal - a typical woman sees [monthly] blood for three days, and immerses only after counting seven clean days, so she is Tamei for a third of the month. (Rebbi's enactment (Nidah 66a) proves that the custom to count seven clean days before immersing did not yet apply. R. Yehudah ben Beseira was before Rebbi! Perhaps the custom already applied in R. Yehudah ben Beseira's locale; Rebbi enacted elsewhere. I do not understand Chasam Sofer's objection to Maharshal, nor his answer, that we discuss a Nesu'ah living with her husband. The Beraisa says that they argue only about an Arusah! Rav Elyashiv questioned Maharshal's source that she normally sees for three days. Perhaps it is from Tur YD 196 'if she sees two or three days...' How does Maharshal explain why 10 days of Chulin suffice? Also on day 11, when she immerses, she is a Tevul Yom and may not eat Terumah! Perhaps (a) half the time, she sees for two days, and half the time, for three days; (b) on the average, the first day she sees, she already ate half her food for that day. - PF)

R. Yehudah says, he may give to her only Terumah, and she sells it to buy Chulin;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, whenever he gives Terumah, he gives double the quantity.

Question: What do R. Yehudah and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue about?

Answer: They argue about whether (she gets 'extra' Terumah, so she can sell it easily at a discount (R. Shimon), or if she must toil to sell it (at the market price of Terumah to obtain the Chulin she needs (R. Yehudah)).

(Mishnah): A Yavam does not permit a Shomeres Yavam to eat Terumah.

"His (a Kohen's) monetary acquisition" eats. She is the acquisition of his brother.

(Mishnah): If she was an Arusah for six months (... or for a full year less one day and Shomeres Yavam for one day, or vice-versa, she may not eat).

Question: If her husband does not permit her to eat (even if she was an Arusah almost a full year), It need not teach that (in a similar case) the Yavam does not permit her!

Answer: Correct! The Mishnah taught this (a year less one day Shomeres Yavam), even though it can be learned from the previous law.

(Mishnah): This is the Mishnah Rishonah (the original version...)

Question: Why is the Mishnah Acharonah (the revision) more stringent?

Answer (Ula; alternatively, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah): We are concerned lest she has a Mum.

Question: Granted, if Ula said this, the Mishnah Rishonah was concerned lest she share her Terumah with her siblings, and the Mishnah Acharonah is concerned for a Mum.

But if Rav Shmuel said this, this is just like he explained the Mishnah Rishonah! (Why did the law change?)

Answer: They argue about whether or not we rely on his relatives to check her for Mumim;

The first Mishnah relies on this (he will not feed her until he checks her through relatives). The Mishnah Acharonah does not rely on this (until he himself checks her).

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish his wife's earnings, she may eat what she earns (it is not Hekdesh);

R. Meir says, if he was Makdish her extra earnings (more than the Mishnah (64b) requires), it is Hekdesh;

R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, it is Chulin.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): A wife can tell her husband 'do not feed me, and I will not work for you.'

He holds that the primary enactment was that she should be fed. He receives her earnings to avoid resentment;

If she wants, the enactment does not apply.

Question (Beraisa): It was enacted that he feed her in exchange for receiving her earnings.

Answer: It should say that the enactment was that he receives her earnings in exchange for feeding her.

Support (for Rav Huna - Mishnah): If one was Makdish his wife's earnings, she may eat what she earns.

Suggestion: The case is, he offers to feed her (but she declines, so he has no rights to her earnings)!

Rejection: No, the case is, he does not (have the means to) feed her.

Question: If so, the law is obvious!

Even the opinion that allows one to force his slave to work for him without feeding him, says so only about a Kena'ani slave.

Regarding a Yisrael slave it says "with you" (he eats like you). All the more so, one may not take his wife's earnings unless he feeds her!

Answer: Indeed, the entire Mishnah was taught for the sake of the Seifa:

(Seifa - R. Meir): If she makes extra money, it is Hekdesh;

R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, it is Chulin.

Rav Huna disagrees with Reish Lakish.

(Reish Lakish): R. Meir's reason (why her extra earnings are Hekdesh) is not because he holds that one can make Hekdesh something that is not yet in the world. Rather, since he can force her to work, it is as if he said 'your hands are Hekdesh to their Maker'.

Question: He didn't say that!

Answer: Since R. Meir holds that a person does not speak in vain (about Hekdesh), he certainly meant this.

Question: R. Meir holds that a person can be Makdish something not in the world!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): In the following cases, a woman becomes Mekudeshes (in the proper time):

John was Mekadesh Lisa to take effect after he or she converts, after he or she is freed (from being a Kena'ani slave), or after her husband or her sister (John's current wife) dies, or after she does Chalitzah.

(Even though he cannot Mekadesh her now, it takes effect when it is possible. Likewise, one may transfer ownership or be Makdish something not yet in the world, to take effect when it comes to the world!)

Answer: Indeed, that Beraisa proves that R. Meir says so. Reish Lakish teaches that our Mishnah is not a proof.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): The extra is Hekdesh.

Question: When does it become Hekdesh?

Answer #1 (Rav and Shmuel): It is Hekdesh after she dies.

Answer #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): It is Hekdesh (even) in her lifetime.

Question (Rav Papa): What is the case?

If he is feeding her and giving her a Ma'ah (a coin, a sixth of a Dinar) every week for other needs, Rav and Shmuel should agree that it is Hekdesh in her lifetime!

If he is not feeding her and giving a weekly Ma'ah, why does Rav Ada say that it is Hekdesh during her lifetime?