1)

(a)According to Rebbi Daniel bar Ketina Amar Rav Huna, an Almanah sells her husband's property once a year. According to Rav Yehudah - once every six months.

(b)They both agree though, on the manner of payment. The purchaser pays her in monthly installments, to enable her to purchase her Mezonos month by month.

(c)Each of them has the support of a Beraisa. Ameimar however, ruled like Rav Yehudah. When Rav Ashi quoted him Rav Huna - he replied that he did not hold like him.

2)

(a)They asked Rav Sheshes - whether an Almanah who sold property (with Achrayus) for Mezonos would then be permitted to claim it back from the purchaser for her Kesubah.

(b)Had a third person claimed the field from him - the purchaser would have turned to the Yesomim, who are ultimately responsible for the Almanah's Kesubah.

(c)Rav Yosef, who asked the same She'eilah as the Bnei Yeshivah asked Rav Sheshes, explained the She'eilah like this. Perhaps the Almanah would not be able to claim her Kesubah from the purchaser - because the Yesomim can counter that it is only when a third person claims from the buyer that they accept responsibility (so that the Almanah will be able to receive her Kesubah), but when she is the claimant, why should they accept responsibility for her actions?

3)

(a)Rav Sheshes resolves the She'eilah from the Mishnah that permits her to sell the property up to the amount of her Kesubah, so that she will be able to claim her Kesubah later ('v'Samach Lah she'Tigbah Kesuvasah min ha'Sha'ar') - implying that if, rather than leaving the property for her Kesubah with the Yesomim, she sells it, she will not be able claim it later.

(b)We reject the suggestion that the Mishnah is merely giving good advice, so that the woman should not cause herself to be labeled as someone who sells and then retracts - on the basis of the above-quoted statement, which clearly means that it is Halachah, and not just sound advice.

4)

(a)They asked whether someone who sells a field because he needs the money - will be permitted to retract when he discovers that he no longer needs it, or not.

(b)There is no proof from Rav Papa, who returned a field that he had bought under exactly those circumstances - because Rav Papa may have gone 'Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din' (beyond the letter of the law).

(c)When, on one occasion, everyone sold their mansions because of a terrible draught which resulted, in turn, in an acute shortage of food, Rav Nachman permitted everyone to retract - when a shipload of wheat arrived, saving them from starvation.

(d)They did not resolve the She'eilah from Rav Nachman's ruling - because it transpired that the boat was already on the way when the sales took place, only the swell of the river caused the sailors to take a roundabout route. Had the sellers known then that the boats were already on the way, they would never have sold their mansions, rendering the sale a false one.

5)

(a)We prove our previous statement from the discussion between Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Nachman. When Rami bar Shmuel told Rav Nachman that due to his ruling, the residents of Neherda'a would no longer agree to purchase houses - he replied that draughts in Neherda'a were hardly common occurrences (that one had to worry that people might react so strongly).

(b)Rami bar Shmuel retorted - that they certainly were common, and that his fear was therefore justified.

(c)This proves that Rav Nachman's ruling must have been a question of the boats being delayed and was therefore a false sale - because if it was a question of wheat appearing suddenly out of the blue, or that it might arrive only on behalf of the sellers, leaving them with no more need for the money, that would again be uncommon, and would have given Rav Nachman the last word.

(d)he outcome of our She'eilah is - that if one no longer needs the money, one is permitted retract.

6)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, both an Almanah min ha'Erusin and an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in have the authority to sell her Kesubah outside of Beis Din (without their specific authority). Rebbi Shimon says - that an Almanah min ha'Erusin may only sell in Beis Din (with their permission).

(b)The reason for this is - because an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in only sells outside Beis Din because she needs Mezonos (and Chazal do not expect her to wait until Beis Din have time to deal with her), but there is no reason for an Almanah min ha'Erusin, who only receives a Kesubah, but no Mezonos, to sell outside Beis Din.

7)

(a)According to Ula, the reason that the Tana Kama permits an Almanah min ha'Erusin to sell outside Beis Din is because of 'China' - meaning that it will encourage her to remarry (in the knowledge that she will be able to sell her Kesubah freely).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan explains that it is because a man wants to spare his wife the embarrassment of going to Beis Din. According to him, this concession will not extend to a divorcee, whose husband no longer really cares about her embarrassment - whereas according to Ula, it will apply to a divorcee no less than to an Almanah.

(c)Ula establish the next Mishnah, which forbids a Gerushah to sell the property outside Beis Din - like Rebbi Shimon (who does not hold of China by an Almanah, either), but according to the Rabanan, a Gerushah, will be permitted to sell her Kesubah property outside Beis Din, just like an Almanah, as we just explained.

(d)Despite the fact that Rebbi Shimon has already taught us that he does not hold of the concept of China in the Reisha, where he forbade an Almanah min ha'Erusin to sell the property outside Beis Din, he needs to repeat it in the Seifa, by a Gerushah - seeing as she has been married, and has experienced Chibas Bi'ah. Perhaps there, he would concede that 'China' applies.

8)

(a)In the Seifa of our Mishnah 'v'Chol she'Ein Lah Mezonos, Lo Timkor Ela b'Veis Din', Rebbi Shimon is not coming to teach us that even a Gerushah may not sell her ex-husband's property - but that a Gerushah v'Einah Gerushah (which we will now explain) may not do so.

(b)Rebbi Zeira said - that as long as the 'Megureshes v'Eino Megureshes' (a Safek Megureshes [e.g. a woman to whom her husband threw a Get, and we are not sure whether it landed closer to her or closer to him]) and her husband are still married, he remains obligated to feed her.

(c)We can deduce from Rebbi Zeira's statement - that after her husband's death, she is no longer fed from his property.

(d)The reason for this distinction is - that whereas after his death, a 'Megureshes v'Eino Megureshes' will no longer receive Mezonos, because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah', during his life he will remain obligated to feed her, seeing as it his continued marriage to her that prevents her from remarrying.

9)

(a)The Beraisa states that the Almanah's heirs, like the Almanah herself, are permitted to sell the property outside Beis Din - which conforms with Rebbi Yochanan's explanation, that her husband would not have wanted her to be embarrassed in Beis Din, as this would apply equally to his heirs; but how would Ula's reason of China, extend to the Almanah's heirs?

(b)Ula reconciles the Beraisa with his explanation - by establishing 'her heirs' to mean her daughter or her sister, who need 'Chen' just like she does.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama forbids an Almanah to sell the rest of her Kesubah for Mezonos, once she has sold part of it, given part of it to her creditor as collateral or given it away as a gift. According to the Chachamim - she may sell it in as many installments as she pleases.

(b)The Tana Kama is Rebbi Shimon - who says that even if a woman sells or gives as collateral just half of her Kesubah, she loses her rights to Mezonos.

(c)The Seifa of our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a woman who sells her deceased husband's property for Mezonos outside Beis Din - is advised to record into the document of sale that she sold the field for Mezonos.

2. ... a Gerushah who sells her ex-husband's property - may only sell with the sanction of Beis Din.

(d)According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan ('Ein Adam Rotzeh she'Tisbazeh Ishto b'Veis Din') - this final statement is unanimous.

2. ... Ula (China) - the author is Rebbi Shimon.

11)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, the moment the Almanah has sold some of the property, she loses her Mezonos (even though some of her Kesubah is still owing); according to the Rabanan, she does not (precisely because it is). The basis of their Machlokes is, that according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon - we do not consider some of the money like the whole sum ('Miktzas Kesef k'Chol Kesef').

2. ... the Rabanan - we do ('Miktzas Kesef k'Chol Kesef').

(b)We query this from a Beraisa however, where Rebbi Meir forbids a Kohen Gadol to marry a Bogeres - and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon permit it.

(c)Initially - we explain that Rebbi Meir does not consider partial Besulim like Besulim (with regard to a Kohen Gadol marrying a Besulah); whereas Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon does (an apparent contradiction to their opinions in our Mishnah (assuming the Rabanan in our Mishnah to be Rebbi Meir).

(d)We basically reconcile the Beraisa with our Mishnah - by establishing their opinions as being based on Pesukim (which in turn are based on their very opinions in our Mishnah, as we shall now see).

12)

(a)Based on the fact that Rebbi Meir interprets "Besulah" to mean a partial Besulah, he learns from ...

1. ... "Besulah" "Besulehah" - that a Kohen Gadol can only marry a woman whose entire Besulim still remain (but not a Bogeres, who is only a partial Besulah).

2. ... "bi'Vesulehah" - that if she only lost her Besulim through an unnatural Bi'ah, a Kohen Gadol is still permitted to marry her.

(b)On the other hand, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon interpret "Besulah" to mean a full Besulah. Consequently, they learn from ...

1. ... "Besulah" "Besulehah" - that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to marry a Bogeres (a partial Besulah).

2. ... "bi'Vesulehah" - that he is not permitted to marry a woman who lost part of her Besulim through an unnatural Bi'ah.