What does our Mishnah say about a case where a man stipulates 'Harei At Mekudeshes li Al-Menas she'Etein Lach ...
1.... Masayim Zuz'?
2.... Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an v'ad Sheloshim Yom'?
(b)If he stipulated 'Al-Menas she'Yesh li Masayim Zuz', the Tana rules that she is betrothed if he has it. What does he say in a case where the man stipulated that he will show her two hundred Zuz? In which case will she not then be betrothed?
(c)According to Rav Huna, the woman is betrothed immediately, provided he gives her the two hundred Zuz, whenever that will be. What does Rav Yehudah say?
(d)What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah repeat their Machlokes with regard to Gitin. Why can the ramifications of this Machlokes not be in a case where she received Kidushin from another man before the condition on the Get has been fulfilled (like we learned by Kidushin)?
(b)Then what are its ramifications?
(c)Seeing as Rav Huna already argues with Rav Yehudah in the case of ...
1.... Kidushin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Gitin?
2.... Gitin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Kidushin?
The Beraisa cites a case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-Menas she'Titni li Masayim Zuz, Af-Al-Pi she'Niskara ha'Get O she'Avad'. What does the Tana rule there ...
1.... with regard to the validity of the Get?
2.... with regard to getting married on account of it?
(b)In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama rules that if, in the same case, the husband then dies before she has fulfilled the condition, she is subject to the Mitzvah of Yibum. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)The first Beraisa is clearly a support for Rav Huna. How can we extrapolate his opinion even from the second one?
How will Rav Yehudah reconcile his opinion with the two Beraisos that we just discussed (and both of which support Rav Huna)?
(b)When Rebbi Zeira lived in Bavel, he maintained that Rav Huna Amar Rebbi's statement 'Kol ha'Omer Al-Menas k'Omer me'Achshav Dami' was indeed the opinion of Rebbi alone, and that the Rabanan disagree with him. After he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, what did he learn from Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan?
(c)In which case do the Rabanan argue with Rebbi?
(d)What support do we bring for this opinion?
)According to Rav Yehudah, who maintains that the Chachamim also argue by 'Al-Menas', why does the Tana of the Beraisa only cite the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah'?
(b)Why does he not rather cite the case of 'Al-Menas' to teach us that even there, the Rabanan invalidate the Get?
(c)Why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us that if, in the case of 'Al-Menas she'Etein lach Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an v'Ad Sheloshim Yom', and he fails to fulfill the condition, the Get is not valid? Is this not obvious?
(d)And what does the Tana mean when he says ...
1.... 'Al-Menas she'Yesh li Masayim Zuz, Harei Zu Mekudeshes v'Yesh lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be Mekudeshes)? Why would we not suspect that he may possess two hundred Zuz, without our being aware of it (as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa)?
2.... 've'Im Her'ah lah Al ha'Shulchan, Einah Mekudeshes'? Is that not obvious?
1.... Masayim Zuz'?
2.... Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an v'ad Sheloshim Yom'?
(b)If he stipulated 'Al-Menas she'Yesh li Masayim Zuz', the Tana rules that she is betrothed if he has it. What does he say in a case where the man stipulated that he will show her two hundred Zuz? In which case will she not then be betrothed?
(c)According to Rav Huna, the woman is betrothed immediately, provided he gives her the two hundred Zuz, whenever that will be. What does Rav Yehudah say?
(d)What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah repeat their Machlokes with regard to Gitin. Why can the ramifications of this Machlokes not be in a case where she received Kidushin from another man before the condition on the Get has been fulfilled (like we learned by Kidushin)?
(b)Then what are its ramifications?
(c)Seeing as Rav Huna already argues with Rav Yehudah in the case of ...
1.... Kidushin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Gitin?
2.... Gitin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Kidushin?
The Beraisa cites a case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-Menas she'Titni li Masayim Zuz, Af-Al-Pi she'Niskara ha'Get O she'Avad'. What does the Tana rule there ...
1.... with regard to the validity of the Get?
2.... with regard to getting married on account of it?
(b)In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama rules that if, in the same case, the husband then dies before she has fulfilled the condition, she is subject to the Mitzvah of Yibum. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)The first Beraisa is clearly a support for Rav Huna. How can we extrapolate his opinion even from the second one?
How will Rav Yehudah reconcile his opinion with the two Beraisos that we just discussed (and both of which support Rav Huna)?
(b)When Rebbi Zeira lived in Bavel, he maintained that Rav Huna Amar Rebbi's statement 'Kol ha'Omer Al-Menas k'Omer me'Achshav Dami' was indeed the opinion of Rebbi alone, and that the Rabanan disagree with him. After he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, what did he learn from Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan?
(c)In which case do the Rabanan argue with Rebbi?
(d)What support do we bring for this opinion?
)According to Rav Yehudah, who maintains that the Chachamim also argue by 'Al-Menas', why does the Tana of the Beraisa only cite the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah'?
(b)Why does he not rather cite the case of 'Al-Menas' to teach us that even there, the Rabanan invalidate the Get?
(c)Why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us that if, in the case of 'Al-Menas she'Etein lach Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an v'Ad Sheloshim Yom', and he fails to fulfill the condition, the Get is not valid? Is this not obvious?
(d)And what does the Tana mean when he says ...
1.... 'Al-Menas she'Yesh li Masayim Zuz, Harei Zu Mekudeshes v'Yesh lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be Mekudeshes)? Why would we not suspect that he may possess two hundred Zuz, without our being aware of it (as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa)?
2.... 've'Im Her'ah lah Al ha'Shulchan, Einah Mekudeshes'? Is that not obvious?
שֶׁאֶתֵּן
שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ