About this episode
Rav and Shmuel differ on the case referred to in the Mishna regarding a minor who refuses. Is it referring to a minor who actually refused ( mi'un ) or is it referring to a minor who could potentially refuse? Shmuel said it is one who actually refused, which is consistent with a statement he made elsewhere which lists halachic differences between a minor who refused and a minor who was divorced. Why was it necessary to make that list if those differences can be derived from our Mishna (according to Shmuel's version) and another Mishna (Yevamot 108a)? Shmuel added one new issue that wasn't mentioned in either place and therefore mentioned the others as well. A suggestion is made that the debate between Rav and Shmuel is also a subject of debate among tannaim. However, the suggestion is rejected. The worn clothing does not go to "her" according to the Mishna. Which "her" is it referring to, meaning, which case in the Mishna? When it says in the Mishna that they do not receive their ketuba, to which part/s of the ketuba is this referring? If there are rumors about a woman that she was with another man, does she lose her worn clothing? If a man married an aylonit or a kohen gadol married a widow and he knew beforehand that she was an aylonit/widow, does she lose her ketuba anyway? Is there a distinction in this regard between the case of an aylonit and the case of the widow with a kohen gadol? Can we derive an answer to this question from the language of our Mishna? If a woman got married and made an agreement with her husband that he would support her daughter (from her previous marriage) for five years, and they get divorced, he still needs to continue to support her. This is even true if she remarries and makes her new husband commit the same. They both need to provide the support – one gives it in the form of food and the other gives the value of what he would have spent on her food. If the daughter gets married, her husband provides the food and the other two provide her with money at the value of the food they committed to her mother. She also has an advantage over the mother's husband's heirs as she is a creditor and can therefore collect her money from liened property whereas they can only collect it from unliened property. A debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is brought regarding one who says to another "I owe you (a certain amount of) money." Can we collect based on that statement alone or not? Can we bring support for one of the opinions from our Mishna?