1)

(a)We just learned that an Almanah is not given any leeway at all (when selling the Yesomim's property for her Kesubah), and Dayanim, up to a sixth. Rava Amar Rav Nachman compares a Shali'ach to Dayanim (rather than to an Almanah) - because, unlike an Almanah, both are not selling for themselves, but on behalf of others.

(b)Rav Shmuel bar Bisna Amar Rav Nachman on the other hand, compares him to an Almanah - because, unlike Dayanim, they are both individuals.

(c)The Halachah is - that the Shali'ach is like an Almanah, like Rav Shmuel bar Bisna.

(d)We reconcile this ruling with the Mishnah in Terumos, which validates the Terumah of a Shali'ach, even though he gave a tenth more or a tenth less than the average - because in that case, it is not really a mistake, seeing as there are people who give a fortieth or a sixtieth. Consequently, the Shali'ach has the right to say that that he is how he assessed the owner.

2)

(a)Rav Huna bar Chanina Amar Rav Nachman rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah (who invalidates the mistaken sale of the Beis Din). Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that if Beis Din appointed Apotropsin (administrators, one for each child), and who then grew-up - any one of them is entitled to revoke the Apotropus' decisions and to request a re-distribution of the property.

(b)Rav Nachman himself says 'Im Ken, Mah Ko'ach Beis Din Yafeh' - which appears to clash with his previous ruling like the Tana Kama, who does not hold of 'Mah Ko'ach Beis Din Yafeh'.

(c)We reconcile the latter ruling with the former one - inasmuch as the administrator did not err in his decisions; whereas when he ruled earlier like the Tana Kama, who does not hold of 'Mah Ko'ach Beis Din Yafeh', that is because their sale was made in error.

(d)Even though the administrator did not err, the Yesomim might wish to retract - concerning the location of the field that he received (e.g. he might wish to receive his portion on another side, next to property that he already owns).

3)

(a)Rav Dimi cited Rebbi who also ruled like the Chachamim. When Rebbi Elazar ben Perata countered 'Im Ken, Mah Ko'ach Beis Din Yafeh' - Rebbi agreed with the Sevara, and retracted from his previous ruling.

(b)Rav Safra's version of the same incident is - that Rebbi had intended to rule like the Chachamim, but changed his mind when Rebbi Elazar ben Perata countered 'Im Ken, Mah Ko'ach Beis Din Yafeh'.

(c)We initially explain that Rav Safra holds of the principle 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer' (despite the fact that the Chachamim also appear in the Mishnah. However, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gives a sound reason, which Rebbi agrees, must render his opinion, Halachah). Rav Safra however maintains 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Eino Chozer', and it is only because he had not yet issued a ruling that Rebbi retracted.

(d)We reject this contention however. In fact, we conclude, everyone agrees with the principle 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer. Their Machlokes in that case - is simply as to what happened (whether Rebbi had already issued his ruling or not), and has no Halachic ramifications.

4)

(a)Rav Yosef states that if a widow sells fields for Mezonos, the Yesomim take responsibility for the sale (as we have already learned) - and the same applies to property which the Beis Din sold.

(b)'Takes responsibility' means - that if the field was stolen or Meshubad to their father's creditor, and is subsequently claimed by one of the two, the Yesomim are obligated to reimburse the purchaser.

(c)The former case is not a Chidush. Rav Yosef's Chidush lies in the latter case - where we might have thought that, seeing as when Beis Din sell property, they always announce it first, the purchaser who buys it, is certain that if there were claimants, they would step forward and claim it there and then ...

(d)Consequently, he buys it without any Achrayus at all (and the Yesomim are Patur from reimbursing him).

5)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah maintains that the sale of the Beis Din is valid even if they erred by a sixth. Rav Huna bar Yehudah Amar Rav Sheshes rules - that he permits up to a half.

(b)Rav Sheshes' statement is substantiated by a Beraisa, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel himself states - that if Beis Din sold property worth two hundred Zuz for a hundred or vice-versa, their sale is valid (implying, but not more).

6)

(a)Ameimar said in the name of Rav Yosef that if Beis Din sold the property of Yesomim without first announcing it, it is as if they erred in a Devar Mishnah and they must revoke their sale. The problem with this statement is - the expression 'as if ' (suggesting that it is not an actual Devar Mishnah), whereas the obligation to announce the property before selling it is an explicit Mishnah (as we shall now see).

(b)If we did not say 'Chozrin' - then the sale would be valid and they would have to reimburse the Yesomim for any losses out of their own pockets.

(c)Based on the Mishnah in Erchin, the period of announcement with regard to ...

1. ... the property of Yesomim - is thirty days.

2. ... Hekdesh - is sixty days.

(d)They would announce it - twice daily, every morning and every evening.

7)

(a)To answer the previous Kashya on Rav Yosef, we point out that the Mishnah specifically mentions the Din of announcing with regard to the Beis Din's Shali'ach, whereas Rav Yosef is speaking about the Dayanim themselves (whom the Tana does not mention).

(b)We can infer from our Mishnah 'Shum ha'Dayanim she'Pachsu Shetus ... Michran Batel' - that if they sold it for the right price, the sale is valid, which we think speaks when they did not announce it (for the reason that will become clarified immediately), a Kashya on Rev Sheshes.

(c)So we try to answer this by establishing the Mishnah when they announced the property first. The problem with this from the Seifa ('Im Asu Igeres Bikores ... ') is - that since the Seifa speaks when they announced the property, it is clear that the Reisha speaks when they did not.

(d)So we establish the Reisha when they did not announce the property first, and the Tana is referring specifically to the three things that Beis Din do not normally announce - Avadim, Metaltelin and Shetaros.

8)

(a)Beis Din do not announce ...

1. ... Avadim - because they may get wind of the impending change in their situation, and take the opportunity to run away.

2. ... Metaltelin and Shetaros - because due to the many people who will come to inspect them, they can easily get stolen.

(b)Alternatively, our Mishnah can even speak with regard to regular property, which, under normal circumstances, they would announce. Nevertheless, the sale of Beis Din is valid here (according to Rav Sheshes), despite the fact that they did not - because the Tana is speaking about a specific situation when it was customary not to announce the sale (as we shall now see).

(c)The Neherda'i list three occasions when Beis Din sell the property of Yesomim without prior announcement ...

1. ... 'le'Karga' - when a head-tax is being claimed);

2. ...'li'Mezoni' - when it is for the Mezonos of the Almanah or the daughters of the deceased;

(d)The third is - 've'li'Kevurah' (to obtain money for the burial requirements of the deceased) ...

(e)... all of which must be sold quickly (so Chazal dispensed with the announcement).

9)

(a)The third possible way of explaining our Mishnah according to Rav Sheshes is - that our Mishnah is speaking in a place where it was not customary to announce the sale.

(b)Rav Nachman cites Neherda'a - as an example of this custom.

(c)The reason that we initially ascribe to this custom - is because they were such experts in price assessments that the prior announcement of the sale (which was done mainly to obtain a good assessment of the property) was superfluous).

(d)The real reason, says Rav Yosef bar Minyumi as told to him by Rav Nachman himself, is - because the purchasers, who were really taking advantage of the Yesomim (who were being forced to sell their father's inheritance by claimants, and who had to therefore sell it cheap), were looked upon with contempt and referred to as 'people who ate the property that was announced'.

10)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, Beis Din assess the Metaltelin of Yesomim, and sell them immediately - before they have a chance to go bad.

(b)In the opinion of Rav Chisda Amar Avimi, one waits for the next market-day. There is no Machlokes here - only the former speaks when market-day is close, the latter, when there is still a long time to wait.

(c)Rav Kahana nevertheless waited for the next Yom Tov before selling beer belonging to Rav Mesharshaya bar Chilkai the Yasom, even though it was turning sharp - because, according to his assessment, the beer would hold out until Yom Tov, at which point he would make a large profit on the sale.

11)

(a)Ravina asked Rav Ashi about taking wine belonging to Ravina Zuti his nephew, on a ship together with his own. The problem was - that the ship might sink, and he was afraid that he would be held responsible for causing his nephew a big loss.

(b)To which Rav Ashi replied - that it was not necessary to pay more attention to the deposited wine that to his own (so that if he was willing to risk his own wine on the ship, he was also permitted to risk that of Ravina Zuti), and he would not therefore, be held responsible.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Mema'enes, a Sheniyah and an Aylonis do not receive a Kesubah or Peiros ...

1. ... Mezonos or Bela'os (the worn out clothes of Nichsei Tzon Barzel that his wife brought into the marriage and entered into the Kesubah, and that he subsequently wore).

2. ... which can mean - either the equivalent of Peiros (Pirkunah - meaning that her husband is not obligated to redeem her in the event of her capture), or that she cannot reclaim the Peiros of the Nichsei Milug which her husband ate after they were married.

(b)The reason in the case of ...

1. ... a Mema'enes - is because she was the one to walk out of the marriage.

2. ... a Sheniyah - because she sinned by marrying her husband (and we assume that she was the one who, with nothing to lose [as we shall see shortly], talked him into marrying her, despite the Isur).

3. ... an Aylonis - because it is a false sale (had he known that she was an Aylonis, he would never have married her).

(c)An Aylonis will nevertheless receive her Kesubah - if he married her knowing that she was an Aylonis.

13)

(a)Besides an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol, a Gerushah va'Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot and a Mamzeres and a Nesinah l'Yisrael, the two women our Tana includes in the list of women who receive their Kesubah, despite the fact that they entered into a Pasul marriage are - a bas Yisrael to a Mamzer or a Nasin.

(b)This group of women receive their Kesubah - because they or their children stand to become Pasul as a result of this marriage, in which case, it is more likely to have been their husbands who talked them into the marriage - whereas a Sheniyah does not, because she was probably the one who talked her husband into the marriage, seeing as neither she, nor her daughter, become Pasul through the marriage.

14)

(a)Shmuel conforms with our version of the Mishnah, which includes a Mema'enes among the three women who do not receive a Kesubah. Rav's version is - 'Ketanah Yotzah b'Get Ein Lah Kesubah' (and 'Kal va'Chomer' a Mema'enes). By 'Ketanah' - he is referring to one who was married off by her mother or her brothers.

(b)Shmuel draws three distinctions between a Mema'enes and a Ketanah who is divorced: one, regarding receiving a Kesubah, as we just explained; another, inasmuch as a Mema'enes is not forbidden to marry her original husband's brothers or a Kohen, whereas a Ketanah who is divorced is, and the third regard is - concerning the Din of waiting three months before remarrying, which a Ketanah who is divorced is obligated to do, but not a Mema'enes.

(c)We have learned the first two of the three distinctions in a Mishnah in Yevamos - and Shmuel is coming to teach us the third.