Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where Reuven and Shimon divided their inheritance, and their father's creditor came and claimed Reuven's portion, Rav says 'Batlah Machlokes', and Shmuel says 'Viter'. Rav's ruling is based on the S'vara that brothers are Yorshin, meaning - that each one receives his own portion, in which case the obligation to pay their father's debts rests equally on each one of them. Consequently, in the event that the creditor takes from one of them, the original division becomes invalid, and they are obligated to redistribute the property.

(b) The basis for Shmuel's ruling is - that he considers brothers to be (not Yorshin, but) Lekuchos, as if they had bought the exclusive rights to their respective portions from each other. Consequently, the one is not responsible for the other.

(c) Shmuel considers them Lekuchos without Achrayus - because, he assumes, the doesn't want his portion to be Meshubad to his brother either. 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer' (which teaches us that we insert Achrayos in a Sh'tar, even if it was not stipulated) - is confined to a Sh'tar Mecher, where the purchaser paid for the field, and doesn't want his money to go 'down the drain'.

(d) Seeing as the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Yesh B'reirah' (Rav) or 'Ein B'reirah' (Shmuel), the other ramifications of this Machlokes - concern whether they need to redistribute the property after each Yovel (Shmuel) or not (Rav).

(a) Rav Asi is not sure whether brothers are considered Yorshin or Lekuchos. Consequently - he authorizes Reuven to reclaim a quarter of Shimon's field (half his claim), either in land or in cash, because, he can argue, that is what he would have given the creditor, had he claimed his debt from *him*.

(b) Alternatively, we might interpret Rav Asi's Safek to be - whether brothers are Yorshin, in which case Shimon must pay Reuven half the field in Karka, or Lekuchos with Achrayus, in which case, he may pay in cash ...

(c) ... and 'Revi'a be'Karka, u'Revi'a be'Ma'os' will then mean - half of each (to accommodate both opinions).

(d) We reject this explanation however - on the grounds that usually, in a triple Machlokes of this nature, the third opinion's doubts are based on the opinions of the first two disputants and is not a third opinion (see also Tosfos DH 've'Rav'), and remember that Shmuel considers brothers Lekuchos *without* Achrayus.

(a) Rav Papa rules in the above cases (where after they divided their father's property, a third brother arrived from overseas, or their father's creditor claimed his debt from one of them) 'Mekamtzin'. This ruling - considers brothers who inherit Yorshin (like Rav, though Rav holds 'Batlah Machlokes').

(b) But we rule like Ameimar, who follows the opinion of Rav.

(c) Included in Ameimar's ruling is the case - where the brothers erred and included in the division a field which their father had stolen.

(d) If the father's creditor claims only half of one of the brother's portion, the Din will be - no different than if he claimed the whole field ('Batlah Machlokes').

(a) The Beraisa discusses a case where the three members of Beis-Din differ in their assessment of the property that they are assessing. The purpose of their assessment is - to sell a field belonging to Yesomim in order to feed the Almanah and her daughters (their mother and sisters).

(b) If two out of the three assess a field at a Manah, and the third assesses it at two Manah, or vice-versa - we follow the majority opinion.

(c) The source for this ruling is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Acharei Rabim Lehatos".

(a) According to the Tana Kama, if one Dayan gives the value as a Manah, the second as twenty Sela'im and the third as thirty Sela'im, the field is sold at a Manah, which contains ...

1. ... twenty-five Sela'im.
2. ... a hundred Dinrim.

(b) The Tana Kama's reason is - because on the one hand, the lowest assessor and the middle assessor agree that the price is not more than a Manah, and on the other, the highest assessor agrees with the middle assessor that the price is not less than a Manah, turning both the one who says more and the one who says less a minority opinion.

(c) If, according to the Tana Kama, the highest assessment is twenty-eight Sela'im (and not thirty), the Din will remain the same, and the field will be sold for a Manah.

(a) The basis for Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok's opinion, that the field is sold for ninety Dinrim - is that we take the average between the two lowest assessments and assume that each one erred by ten Dinrim.

(b) We object to this reasoning however. on the grounds that if that were so - why would we not take the average between the two higher assessments and say that the field is really worth a hundred and ten Dinrim, and each one erred by ten Dinrim.

(c) We overrule this objection however - by applying the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta' (whenever there is a Safek concerning two figures, we adopt the lower figure, which is inevitably included in the higher one). Consequently here, where everyone agrees that the field is worth somewhere in the vicinity of a Manah, either a little more or a little less, we rather assume a little less.

7)

(a) When Acherim says 'Osin Shuma Beinehen u'Meshalshin', he means - that since three assessors argue over a margin of error that spans forty Dinrim (between eighty and a hundred and twenty Dinrim), we divide the discrepancy into three (thirteen and a third Dinrim) and add it on to the lowest figure, to sell the field at ninety-three and a third Dinrim.

(b) Following the same pattern as Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok, Acherim assumes that the two lower assessors will err by thirteen and a third Dinrim. The reason that the middle assessor did not price the field at a hundred and six and two thirds Dinrim (thirteen and a third Dinrim more that the real price) is - because he did not want to differ too much with the lower assessor (settling for a nice round Manah).

(c) We object to this however, (as we objected to Rebbi b'Rebbi Tzadok) - inasmuch as we ought then to assume the field to be worth a hundred and thirteen and a third, and the middle assessor erred by thirteen and a third Dinrim, and it is the higher assessor who really ought to have added thirteen and a third Dinrim more than the real price (and settles for thirty Sela'im).

(d) We overrule the objection however, as we overruled the previous one - by applying the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta ... '.

(a) The Tana Kama argues with the other two Tana'im - in that he prefers to render one of the assessors correct, even if it means widening the margin of error between each of the two assessors.

(b) Rav Ashi objected when Rav Huna ruled like Acherim - because, if his reasoning is not logical, how can we rule like him?

(c) Rav Ashi would have ruled like - the Tana Kama.

(d) Rav Ashi made the same comment when Rav Huna ruled like Daynei Golah (Shmuel and Karna). We do not query Rav Huna's need to issue two identical rulings - because it is obvious that Rav Huna really only issued one ruling, only we assume that he would have ruled the same with regard to the other, and Rav Ashi's objection would pertain equally.

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where Reuven sells Shimon half a field. He is obligated to build a wall around Shimon's newly-acquired property, and to build a Charitz (a ditch) and a ben Charitz - which is a small ditch that precedes the large one.

(b) The respective sizes of a Charitz and a ben Charitz - are six and three Tefachim wide respectively.

(c) The Tana teaches us this Halachah particularly in the case of where he sold him half a field - because in a case where he sold a field, he sells it as is, and there is nothing to add.

(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that the purchaser receives the weakest part of the field, he means - that the owner has the choice of giving him his half from whichever part of the field he chooses, because the purchaser always has the underhand.

(b) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba asked Rebbi Yochanan why the Mishnah then says 'Meshamnin Beinehen', he introduced his retort with the words 'a'de'Achlas Kafneyasa be'Bavel ... ', by which he meant - that the questioner had spent too much time in Bavel (from where he came) eating dates and general self-indulgence, instead of studying Torah diligently (though he had in the meantime become one of his star Talmidim).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan did not answer his question directly, but quoted him the Seifa of our Mishnah, which concludes 've'Notel Chetzyah be'Darom' (though there too, the Tana just said 'Meshamnin Beinehen') to prove that he was right, because having stipulated 'Chetzyah be'Darom', if we take the Mishnah literally, what sense does 'Meshamnin Beineihen' make.

(a) The Seifa is coming to teach us that if Reuven promised Shimon half his field in the south, he must give him half the value of the southern half of his field, in whichever part of the field he wishes.

(b) 'Meshamnin Beinehen' means - that the best will be between the two parties, which means practically that the onus lies with the claimant to prove that he has a right to it.

(a) The purpose of ...

1. ... the ditches is - to stop wild animals from entering the field.
2. ... the ben Charitz is - to prevent them from jumping into the ditch (which is wide enough for them to jump into, move to the back and take a running jump into the field.
3. ... the Charitz is - to prevent them from simply jumping over the ben Charitz into the field.

(b) The distance between the ben Charitz and the Charitz is - one Tefach.

Next daf