Talking Talmud

A new mishnah! With more on the bridal gifts -- she received gifts after kiddushin, and before nisuin, so they were sent to her father's house, because she hadn't yet been fully married and moved to her husband's house. But then the gifts are not collected in the event that they never reach nisuin. But if the groom eats with the bride's family, the groom gives up his claim on the gifts (even if nisuin doesn't happen). Without that meal with the purported "in-laws," he would still have the claim on them. And not if he said she should be using them still in her parents' house. All of these are things that lose value over time. The Gemara cites cases where issues did creep in between bride and groom. For example, a groom who sent new wine, new oil, and linen in the run-up to Shavuot, in praise of the land of Israel. And another case of a woman who had lost her sense of smell, and who dies before nisuin. Also, coming back to define the bridal gifts and the groomsmen gifts. Plus, another new mishnah - with the case of a person on his deathbed, who gives away all of his property. When does he mean to divest of his possessions even if he gets better, and what must he do to condition the gift on his actual death?

What happens to gifts that are given in advance for an upcoming wedding, and then either bride or groom dies? (or perhaps less dramatically, if wedding is called off for other reasons - but the Gemara's case is death). Plus, what about returning bridal gifts - the kiddushin money, for example. Also, on the groom/groomsmen gifts - the reciprocity is presumed for each wedding, but that also depends on the location of the groom in his expected presence at his groomsmen's weddings, for example. Plus, different kinds of scholars of Torah - with their various strengths and skills.

If one leaves heirs some of whom are minors and some of whom are of age - with various stipulations - what is the halakhah? Plus, if one married a child off in a "wedding house" - the son acquires the house, at least under the right conditions. Also, if one writes his estate over to his wife, she is then an administrator of the estate - with other halakhot which are each established according to the tradition. Also, a new mishnah - brothers who are partners in business, and then they are "called up" -- in service to the Romans (or Persians), with a key historical backdrop for this halakhah - how does that service pay for what all of them owe, or how doees earnings from such service reach all of them? Likewise, if a brother takes ill.... and the level of responsibility is spread out among the brothers (or not). And another mishnah: Groomsmen who give gifts to the groom, and his reciprocal gifts back to them.

When one doesn't respond to a stipulation of inheritance that would go to a person and a donkey... To understand this case, a somewhat parallel case is introduced of five women, two of whom were sisters, who were to be betrothed with a basket of figs - and those two sisters cannot be betrothed in this way, because, as sisters, they cannot be betrothed to the same person. But are the other three betrothed, and if so, why? (Which is then lined up with the donkey in the first case). Plus, the case of one who sent silks to his home, some for his sons, some for his daughters, and maybe daughters-in-law. And the case of one who bequeaths his belongings to his sons (when he had only one, but also a daughter) - is that an error or intentional? Similarly, if one seems to call his grandson "son," is that effective or an error? Also, a new mishnah! With complications of family dynamics and estate-planning.

More on the powers of acquisition (or lack thereof) of a fetus. What is the timing of a person trying to bequeath property to a fetus, when that person than dies? And most importantly, what changes once the baby is born and is only one day old? Also, given the conclusion that a fetus cannot inherit, the Gemara's focus shifts to the nature of the dispute and the hierarchy of the sages responding (including pinning authority to age-order, at least briefly).

When a man commits to giving an unborn child a set amount of money - regardless of the gender of the child, which apparently makes a difference in terms of the amount given - what is the halakhah? If a girl is supposed to get double the amount than the son, is she more valued than he would be? But the Gemara indicates that one who fathers only daughters is not in God's good graces. At the end of the day, providing for one's daughters in inheritance is upheld before one provides for one's sons. Also, one who is transferring ownership to a fetus is not successful in the transfer. Even though one can acquire goods on behalf of someone else, when one is not a fetus. Plus, a discussion of how various opinions line up with each other or don't - in this case, specifically probing that of Rabbi Meir.

A new chapter! Chapter 9 -- with a mishnah from the previous daf (as the beginning of the chapter) and a second mishnah on this daf as well. Firstly, the case of a man who dies and leaves both sons and daughters -- depending on the size of the estate, either the sons or the daughters take priority in terms of getting that inheritance. [Who's Who: Admon]. Secondly, the case of a man dies and leaves behind sons and daughters and a "tumtum." The value of the estate matters in this case too, but the Gemara addresses this case to determine the halakhic nature of a tumtum -- and whether a tumtum inherits, with or without separate stipulation of gifts. Plus, an investigation into how many genders there are (a very "modern" take that is built into the halakhic system).

A new mishnah (from the bottom of 138): A father who gives his land to his son, while retaining the rights to the produce for himself, until after his own death. Plus, once the produce is detached from the ground, it is the father's, while I still attached, it's "part of the land," and owned by the son who owns the land. Note that funds that are held for minors cannot be used to provide for the adults, and vice versa. The same applies for adult and minor daughters, with one key caveat that is a difference between the sons and daughters in this capacity. Also, the case of a woman who borrows money, uses it, and gets married -- what accrues to her? And what rights might the husband have? Is the husband like a buyer or like an heir?

More on deathbed requests, as presented in a series of beraitot. How much attention must be given to the wording of such requests? What happens when debt factors in to those gifts from the deathbed? Also, when one on his deathbed claims someone owes him money -- the statement alone is not proof of the debt.

If one person gives another person an etrog, and that the recipient should pass it along to another person after his own death, then there's a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as to the degree of ownership by that first recipient. He has to pass it on, so he can't use it in all ways, like an outright owner. Can he sell it, for example? Also, a story about a woman who owned a date palm that was planted in the property of Rav Bibi bar Abaye - and he was regularly upset when she came to harvest the fruit. The Gemara works to figure out what was really upsetting him.