Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN A WIFE FORFEITS HER LIEN (cont.)

(a) Reuven divided his property among his wife and sons, but there was one date tree he did not command about.
(b) (Ravina): She can only collect (the rest of her Kesuvah) from the date tree.
(c) Objection (Rav Yemar): If she cannot collect from what the sons received (because she forfeited her lien), then she cannot collect from the date tree either (she also accepted that the sons will inherit it)!

1. Rather, just as she did not forfeit her lien from the date tree, she did not forfeit her lien from what the sons received!

(a) (Rav Huna): Reuven was about to die, he wrote all his property to Ploni: if Ploni is fitting to inherit him, he receives it like an inheritance; if Ploni is not fitting to inherit him, he receives it like a gift.
(b) Rav Nachman: Why do you say this in your own name, as if all agree to it?!

1. Your law is like R. Yochanan ben Berokah - you should say, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Berokah!
2. Suggestion: Perhaps you discuss the following case: Reuven was about to die, they asked him 'Who should receive your property - Ploni?' and he answered 'Who else?'

i. In this case, you said that if Ploni is fitting to inherit him, he receives it like an inheritance; if not, he receives it like a gift.

(c) Rav Huna: Yes, I discuss that case.
(d) Question: What difference does it make if he receives it like an inheritance or a gift?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): If it is like an inheritance, his widow is fed from the property; if it is like a gift, she is not.
(f) Objection (Rava): If it is like an inheritance, Ploni acquires mid'Oraisa, Reuven's widow is fed from the property - if it is like a gift, Ploni acquires through the Rabbinical enactment of a gift of a dying man, all the more so the widow is fed!
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): It makes a difference in Rav Acha's case.

1. (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avya): According to R. Yochanan ben Berokah, 'My property is to you (Shimon), and after you to Ploni' - if Shimon is fitting to inherit the giver, Ploni does not get anything, 'to you' is not a language of a gift, rather of inheritance, and one cannot stipulate after inheritance.

(h) Question (Rava): But he did stipulate after inheritance!
(i) Answer (Rav Nachman): He thought that one can stipulate after inheritance; the Torah says, he cannot.

(j) Reuven said 'My property is to you (Levi), and after you to Ploni', and Levi was fitting to inherit Reuven. Levi died; Ploni came to claim the property.
(k) (Rav Ilish): Ploni gets it (Rashbam; R. Gershom - he divides it with Levi's heirs).
(l) Rejection (Rava): No, this is like Rav Acha's case, one cannot stipulate after inheritance.

1. Rav Ilish was embarrassed. Rava consoled him - "B'Itah Achishenah" (Hash-m saves Tzadikim in due time (i.e. before you gave a mistaken ruling).

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven wrote all his property to others, he did not leave any for his sons - it takes effect, but Chachamim are displeased with this.
(b) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if his sons were acting improperly, Reuven is praised for this.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Do Chachamim argue with R. Shimon ben Gamliel?
(d) Answer #1 (Beraisa): Yosef ben Yo'ezer had a son who was acting improperly. Yosef had a vessel full of coins; he made it Hekdesh. His son married the daughter of the man who made crowns for Yanai ha'Melech; he bought a fish for her (after she gave birth) and found a pearl inside.

1. His wife: Do not take it to the king, he will appraise it cheaply -- rather, take it to the Gizbarim (overseers) of Hekdesh;
2. Do not appraise it yourself, for what a person says to (give or sell) to Hekdesh is an acquisition -- rather, let them appraise it.
3. They appraised it for 13 vessels of coins, but told him that Hekdesh only has seven.
4. The son: Give me the seven, the other six is my gift to Hekdesh.
5. Version #1: They wrote down: Yosef ben Yo'ezer brought one vessel of coins to Hekdesh, his son gave six.
6. Version #2: They wrote down: Yosef ben Yo'ezer brought one vessel of coins to Hekdesh, his son took seven from Hekdesh. (End of Version #2)
7. Culmination of answer: Since they wrote (according to Version #1) that his son also gave to Hekdesh, this shows that they were (also) pleased with Yosef, i.e. Chachamim agree with R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
8. Rejection: According to Version #2, since they wrote that his son took from Hekdesh, this shows that they were (also) displeased with Yosef, i.e. Chachamim argue with R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

(e) Conclusion: The two versions contradict one another, we cannot settle our question from here.
(f) Answer #2: Shmuel told Rav Yehudah 'Do not be party to a father who transfers inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son, all the more so from a good son to a bad son! (We must say that Chachamim argue, and Shmuel holds that the Halachah follows Chachamim.)
(g) (Beraisa): A case occurred, Reuven's sons were acting improperly; he wrote his property to Yonason ben Uzi'el;

1. Yonason ben Uzi'el sold a third of it, made a third Hekdesh, and returned a third to Reuven's sons.
2. Shamai thought that the return of the property was invalid, because Reuven was adamant that his sons not get it.
3. Yonason: You have no more ability to undo this than the sale and Hekdesh - if you cannot undo them, the return also stands. 4. Shamai: You refuted me.