1)

(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that a woman who inherits property (See Tos. Yom-Tov) before she becomes betrothed - is permitted to sell it ...

(b)... even after her engagement, but not after her marriage.

(c)Beis Shamai permit her to sell it even if she inherits it after the engagement; Beis Hillel - do not (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Beis Shamai Omrim' & 'u'Beis Hillel Omrim').

(d)Both agree however that in the event that she did sell it - the sale is valid.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah quoted the Chachamim, who asked Rabban Gamliel, regarding the previous case, where she sold what she inherited during her betrothal - that, seeing as her Chasan acquires her, why should he not also acquire her property?

(b)To which Rabban Gamliel's replied - that the ruling permitting a husband to claim the property that his wife sold after they were married ('ha'Chadashim') was embarrassing enough, and that issuing the same ruling with regard to property that she sold whilst they were still engaged ('ha'Yeshanim') would be going too far!

(c)Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree however - that the husband has the right to claim any property that his wife inherits and sells after they are married.

3)

(a)Rabban Gamliel ruled that if a married woman sells property that she inherited before she married - the sale is valid.

(b)The Chachamim quoted by Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva asked him - why, seeing as her Chasan acquires her, he should not also acquire her property (as we learned earlier).

(c)To which he replied - 'al ha'Chadashim Anu Boshin ... ' (as he answered there).

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon draws a distinction between property - that the husband knows about and property that he does not ...

(b)... the former - he can claim, the latter - he cannot.

(c)Some commentaries define the two categories as Karka and Metalt'lin, respectively. Others place both of these under the category of - property that he know about ...

(d)... and they define 'property that is not known to the husband' as - property that she inherited in a different country.

5)

(a)The Halachah, regarding a married woman who sells property that she inherited, irrespective of whether she inherited it ...

1. ... before she was engaged or ...

2. ... during her engagement is that - the husband has the right to claim it from the purchaser ...

(b)... to eat the Peiros - during her lifetime, but to take ownership of the actual field, after her death.

(c)The Halachah with regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan is - like Rebbi Shimon.

6)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if a married woman inherits ...

1. ... money or ...

2. ... fruit - one buys with them Karka, of which the husband eats the fruit.

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, if the fruit is still attached to the tree, one assesses the difference between the value of the land with the tree including the fruit and what it is worth without the fruit, and - with the balance, the husband buys Karka, the fruit of which he is permitted to eat.

(c)This is based on the premise - that the fruit that grew on the tree before the marriage is Keren (part of her property), whereas what grows after the marriage is considered Peiros.

7)

(a)The Chachamim agree with the previous ruling regarding fruit that is detached. But regarding fruit that a wife inherits that is still attached, they hold - belongs to him ...

(b)... because, despite the fact that the fruit did not grow under his jurisdiction - the Chachamim gave it a Din of Peiros, since the land belongs to her (See Tiferes Yisrael).

(c)The Halachah is like - the Chachamim.

8)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon says that where a husband's rights over his wife's property are ...

1. ... strong when they are married, they are weak in the event that he divorces her, he means that - the same attached fruit that belongs to him whilst they are married goes to her in the event that he divorces her.

2. ... weak when they are married, they are strong in the event that he divorces her he means that - the same detached fruit that belongs to her whilst they are married - goes to him in the event that he divorces her.

(b)Regarding the previous Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim (with regard to attached fruit) - he holds like the Chachamim.

(c)The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Shimon - with regard to the former case; in their opinion attached fruit goes to the husband even after he divorces her (since it grew in his domain [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

(d)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Shimon.

9)

(a)The Tana Kama rules that if a woman or her husband want to sell old slaves or maidservants that she inherits - may do so (See Tos Yom-Tov), even if the other one objects objects.

(b)With the proceeds - they purchase land from which the husband may eat the fruit.

(c)And he repeats exactly the same ruling with regard to aged olive-trees or vines which she inherited and that either of them want to sell.

(d)Both ...

1. ... Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH Rebbi Yehudah) regarding the former ruling and ...

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) regarding the latter ruling object - on the grounds that it is 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah' (a family heirloom) which she has a right to retain.

(e)The Halachah in ...

1. ... the former ruling is - like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and in ...

2. ... the latter ruling - like Rebbi Yehudah.

10)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if someone who spends ...

1. ... a large sum of money on his wife's property, and eats only a little - whatever he spent he spent and whatever he ate he ate, and the same will apply to where he spends ...

2. ... a small sum of money and eats a lot.

(b)In the event that he spent more than the value of the fruit that subsequently grows - he swears (a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa) that he spent as much as what grew and claims it (and the rest he loses).

(c)If he ate nothing at all - he swears (a Shevu'ah that is akin to a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa) as to how much he spent and claims it (See Tiferes Yisrael & Tos.Yom-Tov).

(d)The latter ruling applies to where the husband divorced his wife. But if he issued her with a divorce because she rebelled against him - then irrespective of whether he ate or not, he swears how much he spent, and claims the equivalent from what grew (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(e)He takes all that grew in any event - from Nechsei Tzon Barzel (property that was inserted in the Kesubah on which the huband accepts full responsibility).

11)

(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel both agree that if a Shomeres Yavam inherits property - she is permitted to sell it.

(b)The Mishnah now discusses what happens to her property if she dies. Her Kesubah incorporates - the Kesubah itself (Manah, Masayim), the Tosefes and the Nidunya (the Nechsei Tzon Barzel)

(c)'Property that comes in and goes out with her'- is synonymous with 'Nechsei Milug' (which is not inserted in the Kesubah).

(d)According to Beis Shamai - the heirs of the husband and her father's heirs divide the latter equally (See Tiferes Yisrael). Beis Hillel hold that ...

1. ... Nechsei Tzon Barzel - are divided between the two (See Tiferes Yisrael).

2. ... the Kesubah itself - goes to the husband's heirs and ...

3. ... Nechsei Milug - go to the father's heirs.

12)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if a Yavam whose brother dies, leaving him an inheritance consisting of ...

1. ... money or ...

2. ... fruit - one buys with it Karka, of which the husband eats the fruit.

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, if the fruit is still attached to the tree, one assesses the difference between the value of the land with the tree including the fruit, and what it is worth without the fruit, following which - the husband buys Karka with the excess money, whose fruit he eats ...

(c)... because whatever grew in the domain of the deceased husband was Meshubad to her Kesubah.

13)

(a)The statement that, according to the Chachamim, fruit that is attached belongs to the husband (she'lo) is wrong - since all Karka is Meshubad to her Kesubah.

(b)We therefore amend the statement to read - 'she'lah'.

14)

(a)Regarding fruit that is detached, the Chachamim hold that - whoever gets it first, may keep it.

(b)If she gets it first however - they must be used to purchase Karka, from which he is them permitted to eat the fruit.

(c)To be considered hers, she must take it - during the life-time of her husband.

(d)It is not hers automatically, despite the fact that it is Meshubad to her Kesubah - since that ruling is confined to Karka, but not to Metalt'lin (inles she takes it).

(e)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.

15)

(a)In the current case, should the Yavam perform Yibum with her - she is his wife in all regards.

(b)We learn this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei - "u'Lekachah lo le'Ishah".

(c)The ramifications of this ruling are - 1. that a Get will suffice to sever their connections; 2. that if he divorces her, he is permitted to take her back.

(d)We would otherwise have thought that ...

1. ... a Get will not suffice to break his ties with her - since the Torah writes "Veyibmah", she will require Chalitzah to remove the Yibum (which lingers on).

2. ... once he divorces her he is forbidden to remarry her - because, having performed the Mitzvah that is required of him, the Isur Eishes Ach remains (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

16)

(a)The Yevamah claims her Kesubah - from her fist husband's property.

(b)The Mishnah precedes this ruling with the word 'u'Bilevad' (provided) - because it is the sole exception to the aforementioned principle 'that she is his wife in all regards (See Tiferes Yisrael).

17)

(a)The Mishnah rules that a Yavam who wants to designate cash for his Yevamah's Kesubah - is forbidden to do so ...

(b)... because all the property that he inherited from his deceased brother are Meshubad towards the Yevamah's Kesubah (See Tiferes Yisrael).

(c)The same ruling applies to a regular husband (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)The ramifications of the current ruling are - that all the property that the Yavam inherits from his brother must be available for the Yevamah to claim from should the Yavam die or divorce her.

(e)If he divorces her - she only receives her Kesubah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

18)

(a)In the event that the Yavam subsequently divorces her and takes her back - she is like any other woman who claims her Kesubah from the property of the husband who divorced her.

(b)We might have thought otherwise - because, bearing in mind that a husband who divorces his wife and takes her back has in mind the initial Kesubah, in this case too, it was not he who wrote her initial Kesubah, but her first husband, and it is from his property that she ought to claim.

(c)And when the Tana concludes that she is only entitled to her Kesubah, he means that - she cannot claim two Kesuvos, one from her first husband's property and one from the Yavam's.