Talking Talmud

3 mishnayot, the first with a statement by Hanan, and the following 2 with statements by Admon. First, if a man supports a woman whose husband is overseas and then asks that husband upon his return to pay him back - should he get it back or not? #2 - Someone who dies and leaves behinds both sons and daughters, the sons inherit and the daughters are provided with mezonot. But the daughters come first, if the estate is small. #3 - When one is said to owe another person jugs and oil, and says he only owes the jugs - and never had the oil. This is a case of "modeh ba-miktzat" (a key halakhic concept), which may mean this borrower needs to take an oath.

A case of a husband who goes overseas and a wife who wants "mezonot" while he's gone - and the question is whether the court will award her the funds for sustenance from his estate - it's a dispute between Rav and Shmuel, with a daf of challenges to Shmuel's opinion. Though if he dies overseas, there's no dispute, and she would be awarded the mezonot. Plus, a difference of approach between the judge Hanan and the Bnei Kohanim Gedolim regarding whether an oath need be taken. Plus, different kinds of vessels, as per R. Zvid, and the impurity of some, vs. the effect of glaze.

In the context of disqualifying judges for bias, Rav Anan turns down a gift AND sitting on the gift-giver's case. Plus, the case of bikkurim and Elisha. The discussion addresses how slight a shift in process can bias the proceedings. Also, Elijah the Prophet and his teaching of Rav Anan. Plus, during years of famine, a request for prayers for mercy by R. Yosef leads to another discussion of Elisha. And the drama of 2,200 students. Plus, the massive population of sages and students in Babylonia - and the "orphans" who remained at the end of the sessions. Also, parallels to Shekalim.

A new mishnah, starting the final chapter of Ketubot, 13, with mishnayot organized according to the statements of specific ancient judges, with some question regarding exactly when they lived. Which introduces the case of a wife whose husband has gone overseas, and she petitions for sustenance (mezonot), and then she would take an oath regarding her ketubah if he were to die overseas - with a dispute whether she'd need an oath to get the mezonot too. Also, the severity of bribery for judges - why that is the case, and what judges must do in the face of potential bias.

More on R. Yehudah HaNasi, his illness, the prayers on his behalf, and his death. Also, the final mishnah of the perek - how long can a woman claim her ketubah? And what if she's gone home to her father's house? Plus, a real-life application of the mishnah in the lives of the sages, and how an appeal to the courts by a woman trying to collect her ketubah pans out.

A mishnah on a widow and how the heirs of her husband provide for her. And then the application of the halakhah to the widow of R. Yehudah HaNasi or his message to his heirs before he dies, which accommodates her - and the honor that is due her. Also, note the role he plays in handling his death, his memory, and his succession. Plus, a bat kol praising those who went out for his funeral.

How do we each financial agreements? Do they need to be written down? Can we write them down? How can we prove their terms if they're not written? Plus, a prooftext for this discussion, apparently for both writing and speaking, from the "sharp ones," who make the condition of only providing for the wife's daughter as long as the couple stays together. Also, who should raise a daughter, the mother and her family or the father and his family? There's a story of a case that took place that illustrates the Gemara's approach here as an example of very dark self-interest.

The Gemara wants to understand why there is a repeat of a discussion that appears in Yevamot. Amud bet starts a new perek with a Mishnah that discusses a husband’s responsibility to continue to feed his wife’s daughter even after they divorce.

The mishnah from 99 - assessments of property made by judges that may or may not be accurate. What happens when their assessment is off, as compared to market value? How do judges compare to the widow here, in terms of assessing the property? Plus, what is the role of a shaliach in this kind of transaction? Also, how these cases compare to other rabbis' handling them in practice. Plus, the mishnah at the end of 100 - a reprisal of Yevamot, with a list of women who don't get a ketubah.

Making sense of yesterday's impossible mishnah. Specifically, what it means that she's sold property for less than it's worth, and why that's such a problem. Also, when you appoint a shaliach, an agent, to sell property in your behalf, and the shaiach doesn't listen to your instructions. What happens then? How specific do the instructions need to be to be considered official or binding?