Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED A LARGE ENOUGH ESTATE?

(a) Question: If there is less than this, do the girls get everything?!
(b) Answer (Rava): No, we separate enough money to feed the girls until Bagrus, the boys are fed from the rest.
(c) The following is obvious: If there was 'much' property, and then it became 'little', the boys already inherited (Rashbam - we calculate how much everyone was fitting to receive (at the time of death), everyone receives (proportionally) according to this - the boys will still have money after the girls consumed their portion; Rosh - all are fed until the property runs out);
(d) Question: If there was 'little' property, and then it became 'much', what is the law?

1. Do we say, the profit goes to the heirs (the girls are fed until Bagrus, the boys get the rest);
2. Or, do we say that inheritance does not apply here (we calculate what everyone should have received at the time of death, all receive accordingly, the girls keep the excess above what they will eat)?

(e) Answer (R. Asi): If there was little property and the boys sold it, the sale stands. (This says that they inherited, they keep the profit).
(f) Version #1 - Question #1 (R. Yirmeyah of R. Avahu; also, all the coming questions): In determining whether there is much or little property, do we consider that the widow is also fed from the estate?

1. Since she is also fed, we take this into consideration;
2. Or, since if she will remarry, she is no longer fed, we do not take this into consideration.

(g) Question #2: If you will say, since if she will remarry, she is no longer fed, we do not take her into consideration, do we take into consideration if the husband accepted to feed his wife's daughter (e.g. from a prior husband)?

1. Since she is fed even if she will remarry, we take this into consideration;
2. Or, since it is possible that she will not be fed the entire time (she might die), we do not take this into consideration.

(h) Question #3: If you will say, since she may die, we do not take her into consideration, do we take into consideration if the husband left a creditor?

1. Since even if he dies, the debt will be collected (by his heirs), we take this into consideration;
2. Or, since he has not yet collected the debt, we do not take this into consideration.

(i) Version #2 - Question #1: Do we take into consideration if the husband left a creditor? (The sides of the question are like above.)

(j) Question #2: (If you will say, since the debt will be collected even if he dies, we take this into consideration,) do we take into consideration if the husband accepted to feed his wife's daughter?
(k) Question #3: (If you will say, since she is fed even if she will remarry, we take her into consideration,) do we consider that the widow is also fed from the estate? (End of Version #2)
(l) Question: If there is not enough food to feed the widow and the daughter, which has precedence?
(m) Answer (to the last question -R. Avahu): A widow with respect to a daughter is like a daughter with respect to a son: if there is little property, the daughters are fed and the sons beg;

1. Likewise, the widow is fed and the daughter begs for her food.

(a) (Mishnah): Admon says, why should I lose, because I am a male?!
(b) Question: What does this mean?
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): Why should I lose, because I am a male and fit to learn Torah?!
(d) Objection (Rava): Will you say that only one who learns Torah should inherit?!
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, because I am a male and fit to inherit when there is much property, why should I lose when there is little property?!

(a) (Mishnah): A man died, leaving sons, daughters, and a Tumtum (one whose genitals are covered, we do not know his (or her) gender): if there is much property, the Tumtum does not inherit, the boys say 'you are with the girls';

1. If there is little property, the Tumtum is not fed (with the girls), they say 'you are with the boys'.

(b) If a (dying) man (or healthy man who asked someone else to acquire on behalf of his child to be born) said 'If my wife will give birth to a male, he should receive 100 Zuz' - we fulfill his words;

1. 'If she will give birth to a female, she should receive 200' - we fulfill this;
2. 'If she will give birth to a male, he should receive 100; if to a female, she should receive 200' - if she gave birth to both, each receives as stipulated;

i. If she gave birth to a Tumtum, he does not receive.
ii. If he said 'Whatever she will give birth to, the baby should receive' - even a Tumtum receives.

3. If there are no other children, a Tumtum inherits his parents.

(c) (Gemara) Inference: (If there is much property,) the Tumtum does not inherit, the boys say 'you are with the girls' - and he is fed like a girl.
(d) Contradiction (end of the Mishnah): If she gave birth to a Tumtum, he does not receive (because a Tumtum is neither male nor female)!
(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): The boys say 'you are with the girls' - but the Tumtum does not receive like a girl.
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): Indeed, the Tumtum is fed like a girl;

1. The end of the Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
2. (Mishnah): (An animal was about to give birth for the first time; the owner said 'If the fetus inside is a male, it is an Olah; if it is a female, it is a Shelamim'.) If it gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, it has no Kedushah.

(g) Question (Beriasa): A Tumtum inherits like a son and is fed like a daughter.

1. This is not difficult for Rava - a Tumtum inherits like a son when there is little property, he is fed like a daughter when there is much property.
2. But according to Abaye, he is never fed like a daughter!
3. Counter-question: Even according to Rava, what does it mean 'A Tumtum inherits like a son'? (This implies, even a large amount - according to Rava, he never receives more than the cost of food until Bagrus.)
4. Answer: We must say, it means he is *fitting* to inherit like a son, but he does not;

(h) Answer: Also here, he is *fitting* to be fed like a daughter, but he is not.