וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים וְהָא אִיכָּא שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שִׁנּוּי וֶסֶת תְּחִלַּת חוֹלִי And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Is it so that all the days of the poor are terrible? But aren’t there Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor enjoy their meals and rest? Rather, explain this in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: A change of regimen [veset] causes the onset of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the good.
כְּתִיב בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים בֶּן סִירָא אוֹמֵר אַף לֵילוֹת בִּשְׁפַל גַּגִּים גַּגּוֹ מִמְּטַר גַּגִּים לְגַגּוֹ בְּרוּם הָרִים כַּרְמוֹ מֵעֲפַר כַּרְמוֹ לִכְרָמִים: It is written in the book of ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. Ben Sira says: The nights as well. His roof is at the lowest point of the roofs; the rain of roofs go onto his roof. His vineyard is at the height of the mountains; the soil of his vineyard goes onto other vineyards.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ סִבְלוֹנוֹת לְבֵית חָמִיו שָׁלַח שָׁם מֵאָה מָנֶה וְאָכַל שָׁם סְעוּדַת חָתָן אֲפִילּוּ בְּדִינָר אֵינָן נִגְבִּין לֹא אָכַל שָׁם סְעוּדַת חָתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִגְבִּין שָׁלַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת מְרוּבִּין שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ עִמָּהּ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִגְבִּין סִבְלוֹנוֹת מוּעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ אֵין נִגְבִּין: MISHNA: With regard to one who sends presents [sivlonot] to his father-in-law’s house following his betrothal, even if he sent there the sum of ten thousand dinars and subsequently ate there a groom’s feast even worth the value of a single dinar, if for any reason the marriage is not effected, the presents are not collected in return by the formerly betrothed man. If he did not eat a groom’s feast there, the presents are collected, as they were not an unconditional gift. If he sent many presents with the stipulation that they return with her to her husband’s house, i.e., to his own house, after the wedding, these are collected if the marriage is not effected. If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא דַּוְקָא דִּינָר אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִדִּינָר לָא פְּשִׁיטָא דִּינָר תְּנַן מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִדִּינָר וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי דִּינָר אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן GEMARA: The mishna states that if the betrothed man ate food worth even a single dinar at his father-in-law’s house, the presents are not returned. Rava says: This applies specifically to the value of a dinar, but if he ate food worth less than the value of a dinar, it is not so. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as we learned the halakha in the mishna with reference to the value of a dinar? The Gemara answers: It is stated lest you say that the same is true even in the case of less than a dinar, and the reason that the mishna teaches the halakha with reference to a dinar is that it teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, and one does not usually eat less than that. Rava therefore teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise; the mishna is not referring to the value of less than a dinar.
אָכַל תְּנַן שָׁתָה מַאי הוּא תְּנַן שְׁלוּחוֹ מַאי שָׁם תְּנַן שִׁגֵּר לוֹ מַאי § The Gemara asks: We learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a betrothed man who ate at his father-in-law’s house. What is the halakha if he drank there? We learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a case where he, the betrothed, ate there. What is the halakha if his agent ate there? We learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a case where the betrothed man ate there, at his father-in-law’s house. What is the halakha if his father-in-law sent him a feast to his home?
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁגֵּר לְבֵית חָמִיו מֵאָה קְרוֹנוֹת שֶׁל כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְשֶׁל כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְשֶׁל כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וְשֶׁל כְּלֵי זָהָב וְשֶׁל כְּלִי מֵילָת וְרָכַב בְּשִׂמְחָתוֹ וְהָלַךְ וְעָמַד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית חָמִיו וְהוֹצִיאוּ כּוֹס שֶׁל חַמִּין וְשָׁתָה וּמֵת The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof concerning one these matters, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving one man who sent to his father-in-law’s house one hundred wagons full of jars of wine and of jars of oil, and one hundred wagons full of silver vessels, and one hundred wagons full of gold vessels, and one hundred wagons full of garments of fine wool [milat]. And he rode over in his state of joy and went and stood by the entrance to his father-in-law’s house. And they brought out to him a cup of hot drink and he drank it, and he subsequently died.
וְזוֹ הֲלָכָה הֶעֱלָה רַבִּי אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים לְאוּשָׁא וְאָמְרוּ סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת אֵין נִגְבִּין וְשֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת נִגְבִּין שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ שָׁתָה The question arose as to whether the presents must be returned to the betrothed’s heirs. And Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira raised this halakha before the Sages in Usha, and they said: Presents that are typically consumed are not collected, and those that are not typically consumed are collected. One can conclude from this incident that even if the betrothed only drank, some of the presents cannot be reclaimed.
שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִדִּינָר אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּלָא שָׁחֲקִי לֵיהּ מַרְגָּנִיתָא דְּשָׁוְיָא אַלְפָּא זוּזֵי וְאַשְׁקְיֻהּ שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ שִׁגְּרוּ לוֹ דִּלְמָא כׇּל פֶּתַח בֵּית חָמִיו כְּבֵית חָמִיו דָּמֵי The Gemara asks: Can you learn from this incident that the presents cannot be claimed even if he ate or drank less than the value of a dinar, since a cup of hot drink is not worth a dinar? Rav Ashi said: Who shall say to us that they did not grind a pearl worth one thousand dinars and serve it to him to drink? The Gemara asks: Can you learn from this incident that even if they sent the feast to him the presents cannot be claimed, as he drank at the entrance and did not enter inside? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Perhaps the entire entrance of his father-in-law’s house is considered as his father-in-law’s house.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּשׁ שֶׁבַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת מַהוּ כֵּיוָן דְּאִי אִיתַנְהוּ לְדִידֵיהּ הָדְרִי בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ שְׁבוּח אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִי אָבְדִי אוֹ מִגַּנְבִי בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּידַהּ שְׁבוּח תֵּיקוּ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Rava states that if the betrothed man ate less than the value of a dinar at his father-in-law’s house, and the marriage is not effected, he can collect the presents he sent. What is the halakha concerning whether he must divide the value of the presents, and claim only part of the value, in proportion to the amount he ate? And what is the halakha concerning the enhancement of the value of the presents? Does one say that since the halakha is that if they are extant they are returned to him, therefore they were enhanced under his ownership? Or perhaps, since the halakha is that if they are lost or stolen, the betrothed woman’s family is required to repay him, therefore they were enhanced under her ownership. The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רָבָא סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת וְלֹא בָּלוּ מַהוּ תָּא שְׁמַע וְזוֹ הֲלָכָה הֶעֱלָה רַבִּי אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּאוּשָׁא וְאָמְרוּ סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת אֵין נִגְבִּין וְשֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת נִגְבִּין מַאי לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא בָּלוּ לָא דְּבָלוּ Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to presents that are typically consumed, but were not consumed? The Gemara replies: Come and hear a proof: And Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira raised this halakha before the Sages at Usha, and they said: Presents that are typically consumed are not collected, and those that are not typically consumed are collected. What, is it not referring to presents that are typically consumed even though they were not consumed? The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to presents that were actually consumed.
תָּא שְׁמַע סִבְלוֹנוֹת מוּעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ אֵין נִגְבִּין תַּרְגְּמַהּ רָבָא בְּיֵיבָא וּסְבַכְתָּא The Gemara replies: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he sent a few presents for her to use while she is in her father’s house, they are not collected. This indicates that they cannot be collected in any event, irrespective of whether they were used or not. Rava interpreted the mishna as referring to a snood or hairnet, which are insignificant items that the betrothed man sends without any intention of later collecting them.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁגֵּר לְבֵית חָמִיו יַיִן חָדָשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן חָדָשׁ וּכְלֵי פִּשְׁתָּן חָדָשׁ בַּעֲצֶרֶת מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא חֲשִׁיבוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דְּאִי טָעֵין טַעַנְתֵּיהּ טַעֲנָה § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving one man who sent new wine, and new oil, and new linen garments to his father-in-law’s house at the time of Shavuot. The Gemara asks: What is this incident teaching us? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that it teaches us the importance, i.e., the greatness, of Eretz Yisrael, where there is new wine, oil, and linen already available at the time of Shavuot. And if you wish, say instead that it teaches that if the betrothed man claims that he sent these items at the time of Shavuot, his claim is a plausible claim, and there is no reason to question it.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹתְרָנִית הִיא וְנִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ לְחוּרְבָּה לְבוֹדְקָהּ אָמַר לָהּ רֵיחַ צְנוֹן אֲנִי מֵרִיחַ בַּגָּלִיל Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving one man who was told that his wife, i.e., his betrothed, was one whose sense of smell was impaired, and he followed her into a ruin, carrying a date with him, to check her to see if she could correctly identify the smell. He said to her: I smell the scent of radish in the Galilee.