1)

(a)Our Mishnah requires someone who forbids his son-in-law Hana'ah, and who then wishes to give his daughter money, to stipulate that her husband is to have no jurisdiction over it. What must he add to that?

(b)Why is this necessary? Why will the initial condition not suffice?

(c)Is there any way that he is permitted to give her clothes?

(d)Why does the Tana then present the case of a father giving his daughter money with which to buy food, and not about giving her food directly?

1)

(a)Our Mishnah requires someone who forbids his son-in-law Hana'ah, and who then wishes to give his daughter money, to stipulate that her husband is to have no jurisdiction over it, and to then add - that she will only acquire it after she buys with it food and places it in her mouth ('Ela Mah she'At Nose'es v'Nosenes b'Fich').

(b)The reason for this is - because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, who holds that the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband, in which case the first condition of the father is meaningless, and it is only when the food is already in her mouth that it is possible to prevent him from acquiring it.

(c)Consequently - there is no way to give her clothes that will prevent her husband from acquiring them (see last answer on the Daf).

(d)And the reason that the Tana speaks about money with which to buy food, and not the food itself is - because then the husband would not acquire it (seeing as even if she were to hold back some of the food that she received from her husband, she would be entitled to keep it, certainly food that she receives from others!)

2)

(a)What normally happens to money that a father gives his married daughter?

2)

(a)Under normal circumstances, money that a father gave his daughter - is used to purchase land, which the daughter owns, but from which her husband may eat the Peiros.

3)

(a)Rav confines the Tana's concession to when the father added 'Ela Mah she'At Nose'es v'Nosenes l'Fich', but not to when he said 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi'. Why is that?

(b)What does Shmuel say?

(c)Bearing in mind that our Mishnah says 'Ela Mah she'At Nose'es v'Nosenes l'Fich', and not 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi', What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d)What will Shmuel therefore say in a case where the father only said 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yehei l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen'?

3)

(a)Rav confines the Tana's concession to when the father added 'Ela Mah she'At Nose'es v'Nosenes l'Fich', but not to when he said 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' - because there is no more reason for her husband not to acquire the money there, than when he just said 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yehei l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen' (which is invalid).

(b)According to Shmuel however - even if he said 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi', her husband will not acquire the money.

(c)Bearing in mind that our Mishnah says 'Ela Mah she'At Nose'es v'Nosenes l'Fich', and not 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' - Rav rules like our Mishnah (Rebbi Meir), whilst Shmuel holds like the Rabanan, who do not agree that the hand of a woman is like that of her husband.

(d)In a case where the father only said 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yehei l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen' - Shmuel will therefore hold that his daughter will acquire the money.

88b----------------------------------------88b

4)

(a)The courtyards surrounding a Mavoy arrange a Shituf Muva'os by placing a barrel of wine and declaring that it is on behalf of all the members of the Mavoy. Is one permitted to transfer it to them via one's...

1. ... Jewish servants?

2. ... grown-up children?

3. ... wife?

(b)Why will this pose a Kashya on Rav?

(c)How does Rava resolve this problem?

4)

(a)The courtyards surrounding a Mavoy arrange a Shituf Muva'os by placing a barrel of wine and declaring that it is on behalf of all the members of that Mavoy. One is permitted to transfer it to them via one's ...

1. ... Jewish servant ...

2. ... grown-up children or ...

3. ... wife, because they all have a Yad to acquire.

(b)This will pose a Kashya on Rav - who said that whatever a woman acquires goes straight to her husband.

(c)Rava resolves this problem - by drawing a distinction between a third person who gives a woman a gift (in which case her husband acquires it immediately), and her husband, who automatically withdraws his ownership when he gives it to her.

5)

(a)Another Beraisa informs us that the person arranging the Eruv is not permitted to transfer it to the residents of the courtyard via his small children, his Eved Kena'ani or his Shifchah Kena'anis. Why not?

(b)Whom else does the Tana include in this list, which appears to contradict what the Tana of the previous Beraisa taught us (and negate Rava's answer)?

(c)To resolve this discrepancy, Rav Ashi establishes the first Beraisa when the woman possessed her own courtyard in that Mavoy. How did she acquire the courtyard without her husband having any rights in it?

(d)But surely, her husband only withdrew from her personal rights, and not from what she would acquire on behalf of others?

5)

(a)Another Beraisa informs us that the person arranging the Eruv is not permitted to transfer it to the residents of the courtyard via his small children, his Eved Kena'ani or his Shifchah Kena'anis - because they do not have a Yad to acquire.

(b)The Tana includes the man's wife in his list, which appears to contradict what the Tana of the previous Beraisa taught us (that the man's wife is eligible to acquire on behalf of the residents of the Mavoy - and negate Rava's answer).

(c)To resolve this discrepancy, Rav Ashi establishes the first Beraisa when the woman possessed her own courtyard in that Mavoy., which she acquired without her husband having any rights in it - by virtue of the fact that he specifically withdrew his rights from it in her favor whilst they were still betrothed.

(d)Granted, her husband only withdrew from her personal rights, and not what she would acquire on behalf of others. Nevertheless - since ('Migo') the Chatzer acquires on her own personal behalf, it will also acquire for her when she acquires on behalf of others.

6)

(a)When Rav argues with Shmuel, like whom is the Halachah when they argue in ...

1. ... matters of Isur?

2. ... money-matters?

(b)Considering that their Machlokes here (whether a man may give his daughter, who has forbidden Hana'ah on her husband, money, on the exclusive condition that her husband is to have no jurisdiction over it or not) concerns Nedarim, which falls under the category of Isur, why do Rav Amram Gaon and the Ramban nevertheless rule like Shmuel?

(c)What other good reason do they have to rule like Shmuel (besides the fact that in other places in Shas, Shmuel's opinion is cited)?

(d)Rabeinu Tam however, as well as the Ra'avad, rule like Rav. Why is that?

6)

(a)When Rav argues with Shmuel, the Halachah, when they argue in ...

1. ... matters of Isur - is like Rav.

2. ... money-matters - is like Shmuel.

(b)Despite the fact that their Machlokes here (whether a man may give his daughter, who has forbidden Hana'ah on her husband, money, on the exclusive condition that her husband is to have no jurisdiction over it or not) concerns Nedarim, which falls under the category of Isur, Rav Amram Gaon and the Ramban nevertheless rule like Shmuel - because their basic Machlokes concerns money-matters (whether 'Yad Ishah k'Yad Ba'alah' or not).

(c)Another good reason to rule like Shmuel (besides the fact that in other places in Shas, Shmuel's opinion is cited) - is that Rav rules like Rebbi Meir, whereas Shmuel roles like the Chachamim.

(d)Rabeinu Tam however, as well as the Ra'avad, rules like Rav - because here, they are arguing over Isur, as we explained earlier.

7)

(a)The Rambam rules like Shmuel, yet he holds that 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' only helps in conjunction with 'Ein l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen'. How does he explain the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel? Do they hold like Rebbi Meir or the Rabanan?

(b)We explained earlier that 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' does not appear to add anything to 'Ein l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen' (which, according to our Mishnah, is certainly ineffective). How does the Rambam circumvent this Kashya?

7)

(a)The Rambam rules like Shmuel, yet he holds that 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' only helps in conjunction with 'Ein l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen' - because, according to him, Rav and Shmuel both follow the opinion of our Mishnah (Rebbi Meir). What they are arguing about is whether 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' helps in conjunction with 'Ein l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen' (in place of 'Ela Mah she'At Nose'es v'Nosenes l'Fich' [Shmuel]) or not (Rav).

(b)We explained earlier that 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi' does not appear to add anything to 'Ein l'Ba'alech Reshus Bahen' (which, according to our Mishnah, is certainly ineffective). The Rambam however, explains that when her father said 'Mah she'Tirtzi Asi', he meant that the money will only become hers in the event that she spends it on herself. Note: In that case, it ought to be effective even with regard to clothes (and not specifically food), as we explained in our Mishnah.

8)

(a)We hardly require a Pasuk to teach us that the Nedarim of a widow or a divorcee stand (seeing as there is neither a father nor a husband to annul them). So how does the Tana explain the Pasuk "v'Neder Almanah u'Gerushah Yakum Alehah" (in a case where she undertakes to become a Nezirah)?

(b)And what will be the Din if a married woman undertakes to become a Nezirah in thirty days time, and the husband annuls her Neder immediately, but divorces her or dies within thirty days?

8)

(a)We hardly require a Pasuk to teach us that the Nedarim of a widow or a divorcee stand (seeing as there is neither a father nor a husband to annul them). So the Tana explains the Pasuk "v'Neder Almanah u'Gerushah Yakum Alehah" - when the widow or divorcee undertakes to become a Nazir after thirty days, but got married before the thirty days elapsed.

(b)And if a married woman undertakes to become a Nezirah in thirty days time, and the husband annuls her Neder immediately, and then divorces her or dies within thirty days - her Neder is annulled, because we always go after the time that she declares the Neder, not when it is due to come into effect.

9)

(a)If a married woman makes a Neder, and her husband divorces her and remarries her, all on the same day, why is her husband not permitted to annul her Neder?

(b)Assuming that her husband only betrothed her the second time, is he permitted to annul her Nedarim in conjunction with her father?

(c)Why is that?

(d)May a father annul Nedarim that his daughter declared in the morning, after she got married in the afternoon?

9)

(a)If a married woman makes a Neder, and her husband divorces her and remarried her all on the same day, her husband is not permitted to annul her Neder - because a husband cannot annul Nedarim that his wife made before they were married (even if she made them during their first marriage).

(b)Assuming that her husband only betrothed her the second time - he is not permitted to annul her Nedarim in conjunction with her father ...

(c)... because when he married her the first time, her father lost jurisdiction over her, permanently.

(d)Once his daughter marries, a father loses his rights over her, and is forbidden to annul any of her Nedarim - even those that she declared in the morning, before she got married (or even betrothed).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF