The Gemara continues its discussion of various enactments, known as Takkanot, established by the Sanhedrin during their time in Usha. Rabbi Elah taught that in Usha, the rabbis of the Sanhedrin established a rule for those who give charity: a person should not give more than a fifth of their assets. This means no more than 20% should be given, lest the giver himself become needy and dependent on the community. This measure protects the giver from becoming a recipient of charity.
A Baraisa supports this ruling: a person who gives charity should not give more than a fifth, lest they become dependent on others. The Gemara recounts a story of an individual who wished to give more than a fifth, but his friend prevented him. This friend's intervention was based on the understanding that one should not give more than 20%. This limit is derived from the verse regarding Jacob's vow, where he said that from all that God would give him, he would give a tenth, and then another tenth. This implies a total of 20%.
The Gemara questions this calculation, noting that the second tenth is not truly 10% of the original amount, but rather 10% of the remaining 90%. For example, if one has 10 items, the first tenth is 1. One is left with 9. The second tenth would then be 10% of 9, which is 0.9, making the total less than 20%. The Gemara clarifies that Jacob's vow meant he would give the first 10%, and the second 10% would be equivalent to the first 10%, not 10% of the remainder. Thus, the total would indeed be 20% of the original amount.
The Gemara then provides a mnemonic for remembering three statements made by Rabbi Elah concerning the Takkanot of Usha. These statements "descend" in the number of rabbis involved in their transmission. The first Takkanah, concerning a father's obligation to support his children, was stated by Rabbi Elah in the name of Reish Lakish, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Hanina—three rabbis. The second Takkanah, that if a person transfers all his assets to his children, the children must still support their parents, was stated by Rabbi Elah in the name of Reish Lakish—two rabbis. The third Takkanah, that one should not give more than a fifth in charity, was stated by Rabbi Elah himself—one rabbi. The mnemonic is: "The first was 'much' (many rabbis), the second 'less,' and the third 'one.'"
The Gemara discusses the proper approach to a child's Torah study. Until the age of 12, a child who refuses to study Torah should be encouraged gently and softly. After 12, however, if he still refuses, a harsher approach is warranted, including physical discipline or withholding food, to compel him to study.
The Gemara raises a contradiction with a teaching by Rav to Rav Shmuel Bar Shilat, a schoolteacher. Rav instructed not to accept a child into Yeshiva if he is less than six years old, as he is too young. Once he reaches six, he should be accepted and "stuffed with Torah like an ox." This implies a forceful approach from age six, contradicting the earlier statement that a gentle approach should be used until age 12. The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between different forms of compulsion. From age six, a child should be "stuffed" with Torah, meaning he should be made to learn diligently. However, harsh punishments like hitting or withholding food should only begin at age 12 if he still refuses to learn. This distinction applies to the study of Mikra (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). The Takkanah in Usha, which suggests a gentle approach until age 12, refers specifically to the study of Mishnah, which is more complex and requires greater maturity.
Abaye, who was an orphan and referred to his nurse as "mother," stated that at six years old, a child should begin learning Mikra. At ten, he should begin learning Mishnah. At 13, he should be trained to fast a full day on Yom Kippur. This means that from 12 years and one day (entering his 13th year), he has an obligation to fast the entire day as part of his training, even though the Torah obligation only applies at 13. Girls, however, should begin fasting a full day on Yom Kippur from 11 years and one day (entering their 12th year). The explanation given is that girls have more physical strength than boys, as they are not obligated to study Torah, which is believed to weaken a person.
Abaye continues with medical advice: if a six-year-old child is bitten by a scorpion, he will not survive past the day he completes his sixth year unless given a specific medicine. This medicine is the gall (or spleen) of a white bird called a daya, mixed with beer and given to the child to drink. Similarly, if a one-year-old child (in his first year) is bitten by a hornet, he will not survive past the day he completes his first year unless given a specific medicine. This medicine involves taking a certain type of grass that grows at the bottom of palm trees, called a sieve, mixing it with water, smearing it on the child, and giving it to him to drink.
The Gemara states that anyone who sends his son to Yeshiva before the age of six will find himself "chasing him." This means the child will be weak, constantly needing care and nourishment, and the father will be unable to keep up with the demands, as Torah study weakens a person. The child will not be able to endure the strain of learning. Some interpret "chasing him" differently: if a father sends his child to Yeshiva before age six, the child will gain such a head start in Torah that his friends will "run after him" but never reach his level. The Gemara concludes that both interpretations are true: the child will be physically weak from starting young, but he will also be exceptionally sharp and learned.
Rabbi Yosef Bar Hanina states that in Usha, a Takkanah was made regarding Nikhsei Milog. These are assets a wife brings into the marriage, where she retains ownership of the principal, but her husband enjoys the "fruits" or income. Normally, if she dies before him, the husband inherits the Nikhsei Milog. The Takkanah addresses a case where a wife, during her husband's lifetime, sells the principal of her Nikhsei Milog to a third party. If she then dies before her husband, he would ordinarily inherit the property, invalidating the sale. The Takkanah in Usha established that such a sale is valid, and the husband cannot reclaim the property from the buyers. This means the sale is effective, and the husband's claim is superseded.
Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Yosef found Rabbi Abahu walking with a crowd in Usha. Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Yosef asked who was the author of all these Takkanot made in Usha, whose statements are cited. Rabbi Abahu replied that it was Rabbi Yosef Bar Hanina, the master of the statements of Usha. Rabbi Abahu repeated this statement 40 times to ensure he would remember it perfectly, as if he had it in his pocket.
The Gemara then quotes a verse: "Fortunate is the person who keeps justice and does charity at all times." It asks how it is possible for a person to do charity at all times. The Gemara offers two explanations. First, it refers to someone who supports his minor children. According to the strict letter of the law, a father is not obligated to support his minor children; therefore, doing so is considered an act of charity. Second, it refers to someone who raises an orphan boy and an orphan girl in his home and then marries them off. This is also considered charity, as he is not obligated to support them.
Another verse from Psalms is brought: "Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness stands forever." This is interpreted in two ways. First, it refers to someone who not only learns Torah but also teaches it to others. The "wealth in his house" is the Torah he learns, and his "righteousness standing forever" is the Torah he teaches to others, from which he loses nothing but gains eternally. Second, it refers to a person who writes a Sefer Torah, Prophets, or Writings, and lends it to others to use. The written Torah remains his permanent possession, and by lending it, he performs an act of charity, sharing it with others.
The Gemara then quotes the verse, "May you see children of your children, peace upon Israel." It explains that when one's children have children, it automatically brings peace to Israel. This is because if a man dies without children, his wife might require halitza or yibum (levirate marriage). Halitza can be contentious, involving the widow spitting in the brother-in-law's face. Yibum might be against her will. However, if the deceased already has children, neither halitza nor yibum is necessary, thus preventing potential disputes and ensuring peace. Furthermore, when children have children, there is peace among the judges of Israel because there will be no disputes among relatives over inheritance, as children always take precedence.
The Gemara refers to a Mishnah that discusses two Takkanot included in every Ketubah (marriage contract). The first is Benin Dekhrin, which ensures that if the wife dies, her sons inherit her Ketubah rights. The second is the provision for daughters to be supported from their father's estate until they become adults (bogrot, 12.5 years old) or get married, if the father dies. Rabbi Elazar taught that just as the law of Benin Dekhrin applies after the husband's death, so too the law of supporting daughters applies only after the father's death, with the estate then obligated to care for the daughters. Both Takkanot apply posthumously.
Rav Yosef was sitting before Rav Menona, who stated: "Just as sons only inherit real estate, so too daughters are only supported from real estate." This statement caused confusion, as it seemed to imply that children only inherit real estate, not movable property, which contradicts basic inheritance law. Rav Yosef clarified that Rav Menona was not referring to regular inheritance, where children inherit everything. Rather, he was referring specifically to the two Takkanot written in the Ketubah: the inheritance of the mother's Ketubah by the sons (Benin Dekhrin) and the support of the daughters. In these specific cases, payments are exacted only from real estate, not from movable property. Rav Menona confirmed that Rav Yosef had correctly understood his intention. This was Rav Menona's unique contribution: these two rabbinic Takkanot, enshrined in the Ketubah, are payable only from real estate.
The Gemara then presents stories of how various Amoraim dealt with supporting daughters. The statement by Rav Menona was that daughters are supported only from real estate, not from movable property. Rav Yosef bar Hiyya stated that when girls came before Rav seeking sustenance after their father died without leaving real estate, Rav told them they could take shittim from the aliyah. Shittim refers to wheat, which is movable property. The question arose: what did Rav mean? Was he referring to Parnassah, a dowry-like sum for wedding expenses, which by rabbinic decree can be taken even from movable property, and ma'aliyah refers to the generosity of the father (meaning the amount would be estimated based on how generous the father was assumed to be)? Or was he referring to actual sustenance (mezonot), and ma'aliyah refers to a specific ruling made in the aliyah (attic), a common place for rabbinic assemblies?
Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Yosef taught that in the aliyah, the rabbis established that girls indeed receive their sustenance from movable property, even though the general rule is that they only receive it from real estate. So the question remained: when Rav said to give them shittim min aliyah, was it for Parnassah (dowry) based on the father's generosity, or for mezonot (sustenance) based on the special ruling made in the aliyah?
To resolve this, the Gemara brings a story: Rabbi Banai, brother of Rabbi Hiyya Bar Abba, had movable property belonging to orphans. The orphans' sisters came before Shmuel, asking for support. Shmuel instructed them to "go and give them sustenance." The Gemara suggests this proves Shmuel held that orphan girls receive sustenance even from movable property, aligning with the ruling made in the aliyah. Therefore, Rav likely also followed this ruling when giving shittim for mezonot.
However, the Gemara rejects this proof, arguing that Shmuel might have been giving them Parnassah (dowry) for their weddings, which is indeed taken from movable property, and the amount would be estimated according to the father's generosity. This aligns with Shmuel's own reasoning in other contexts.
The Gemara brings another story: In the city of Nehardea, orphan girls sought sustenance from their father's movable assets. The judges of Nehardea ruled in their favor, allowing them to take from movable property. Similarly, in Pumbedita, orphan girls sought sustenance, and Rabbanit Bar Bizna also took money from the orphans' movable property to support the girls. However, Rav Nachman told these judges to return the money to the orphans, stating that they were not allowed to take from movable property, as the Halakha dictates only real estate. He warned them that if they did not return the money, he would seize their houses, as their actions were unlawful. This clearly shows Rabbi Nachman held that orphan girls are not supported from movable property.
The Gemara recounts that when Rabbi Yaakov Bar Idi and Rabbi Elazar were in charge of a case involving orphan girls, they considered giving them food from the movable property left by their father. Rabbi Yaakov Bar Idi said that even the general public (am ha'aretz) would not rule to give movable property to orphan girls, so they should not do so. Rabbi Elazar also considered giving movable property, but Rabbi Yochanan told him, "I know you are not doing this because it is the law, but out of compassion." He expressed concern that students observing Rabbi Elazar's actions might misunderstand and conclude that taking from movable property is the Halakha, thereby causing a stumbling block. Thus, even acts of compassion must be carefully executed to avoid misinterpretation.
Finally, the Gemara tells of an orphan girl who came before Rabbi Yosef, seeking sustenance from her father's estate. Rabbi Yosef instructed her brothers to give her dates that had fallen onto a mat from the palm tree (budya). These dates, once fallen, are considered movable property. Abaye challenged Rabbi Yosef, arguing that even a creditor, who has a stronger claim and can place a lien on real estate that has been sold, cannot collect from movable property. How much more so should an orphan girl, whose claim is weaker than a creditor's, not be able to take from movable property?
Rabbi Yosef clarified that he meant dates that were ripe enough to fall onto the mat but were still attached to the tree. He explained that these dates, while ripe, still needed to remain on the tree for further growth or benefit. Therefore, they were still considered attached to the ground (karka) and not yet movable property. This allowed him to follow the Halakha that orphan girls are only supported from real estate. The Gemara concludes that this specific type of date, while ripe, still derived benefit from the tree, thus retaining its status as real estate, and therefore Rabbi Yosef's ruling was consistent with the Halakha.