Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Hini'ach Banim Gedolim u'Ketanim, Ein ha'Gedolim Misparnesin al-Yedei ha'Ketanim, ve'Lo ha'Ketanim al-Yedei ha'Gedolim'. 'Misparnesin' - refers to clothes (a higher priority among the older sons); and 'Nizunin' - to food (a higher priority with the younger ones).

(b) The sons then distribute their father's property - equally (irrespective of their individual needs).

(c) When the Tana says ..

1. ... 'Nas'u Gedolim, Yis'u Ketanim', he means - that if the older sons get married, and pay their wedding expenses from the money in the kitty, then the younger ones are entitled to claim an equal amount from the kitty to do likewise.
2. ... 've'Im Amru Ketanim, Harei Anu Nos'in ke'Derech she'Nasatem Atem, Ein Shom'in Lahem', he means - that if the father paid the wedding expenses of the older sons during his lifetime, the younger brothers have no claim to the money in the kitty to pay for their weddings as compensation.

(d) The equivalent rulings will apply if the deceased left older and younger daughters. When the Tana concludes 'Zeh Chomer be'Banos mi'be'Banim ... ', he means - that whereas, when there are sons, they are obligated to sustain their sisters from the property of their father, there is no such Halachah when there are only daughters (as we just explained).

(a) Rava rules that if the oldest of the brothers wears smart clothes from the kitty - the other brothers are not allowed to take clothes to compensate this.

(b) The reason for this concession (which is only Bedieved) is - because the oldest brother acts as their representative, and it is to their benefit that he looks smart.

(c) Our Mishnah, which forbids the older brothers to take more clothes than the younger ones - is speaking about one of the other brothers, who do not benefit his siblings by wearing nice clothes.

(d) Despite the fact that there is no real reason to permit it, the Tana finds it necessary to forbid it - because we might otherwise have thought that the brothers want each other to look respectable.

(a) Avuhah bar Geniva asked Rava whether, in a case where a single woman borrowed money and then got married, the creditor had the right to claim from her husband's property or not. The criterion for being able to claim is that - a husband must be considered an heir (from whom a creditor may even claim an oral loan), and not a purchaser (from whom he is only permitted to claim a written one).

(b) Rava tried to resolve Avuhah's She'eilah from our Mishnah. We have already explained 'Nas'u Gedolos, Yis'u Ketanos'. He interpret it to mean - 'Nas'u Gedolos le'Ba'al' (if the older daughters were sustained from the kitty and then got married), 'Yis'u Ketanos mi'Ba'al' (the younger daughters may claim their dues from the husbands property).

(c) We know that Rava's interpretation of the Mishnah is right - because Rebbi Chiya quoted a Beraisa to that effect.

(d) We nevertheless refute Rava's proof, on the grounds that Parnasah is different than Parnasah - because due to the Kol that accompanies it (which is not the case by Mezonos), it is considered like a written loan.

(a) Rav Papa brings a support for Rava's opinion from a letter sent by Ravin from Eretz Yisrael. The letter stated that if a man died leaving an Almanah ...

1. ... and a daughter - the Almanah is sustained from her husband's estate.
2. ... and a daughter who then got married (bringing her father's property into her husband's domain) - the Almanah continues to be sustained from her husband's estate.

(b) When a case came before Rav Yehudah, nephew of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, where the daughter had died, and the husband had inherited her (father's) property, he ruled - that there too, the Almanah continues to be sustained by the daughter's husband.

(c) The Almanah continues to be fed from her deceased husband's estate - either until she marries, or until she either claims her Kesuvah or the Yorshin decide to pay it.

(d) Rav Papa proves his point - from the fact that the Almanah is permitted to claim Mezonos from the daughter's husband. Now if he was a Loke'ach, this would not be the case, because of the principle 'Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos Lo Torfi mi'Meshabdi' (though from the Yorshin, she may).

(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros rules that the Cheilek Bechorah does not go back into the kitty in the Yovel - because it is a Matanah (as we learned earlier), which does not go back in the Yovel.

(b) The Tana there - says the same about a husband who inherits his wife.

(c) By citing this Mishnah, Abaye means to ask - why Rav Papa needs to cite Ravin to prove that a husband is a Yoresh. Why can he not learn this from the Mishnah in Bechoros, who would certainly require the husband's property to revert to the owner, if he considered a husband a Loke'ach.

(d) Rava retorts by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who cites in turn, Takanas Usha 'ha'Ishah she'Machrah mi'Nechsei Milug be'Chayei Ba'alah, u'Meisah, ha'Ba'al Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos' - which indicates that a husband is a Loke'ach (the first Loke'ach, to boot), and not a Yoresh (who certainly has no right to claim from the Lekuchos). Consequently, says Rava, we remain with the dilemma with which we began, is a husband a Yoresh or a Loke'ach.

6)

(a) Rav Ashi therefore concludes that the Chachamim issued the husband with a dual status - sometimes he is considered a Yoresh, and sometimes, a Loke'ach.

(b) This Takanah is basically to his advantage, like we find in the case of ...

1. ... Yovel, where his status as a Yoresh exempts him from having to return the property when Yovel arrives.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, where his status as the first Loke'ach enables him to claim his wife's property from subsequent Lekuchos.

(c) The one exception is the case of Ravin, where the fact that he is considered a Yoresh obligates the daughter's husband to sustain his father-in-law's Almanah - in order to safeguard the Almanah, whose husband undertook to sustain her for the period concerned.

(d) They did not consider him a Yoresh in the case of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina however, to safeguard the rights of the Loke'ach - because (unlike the father's Almanah, who was entirely blameless), the Lekuchos have only themselves to blame, for purchasing the property from a woman that was Meshubad to her husband.

7)

(a) Our Mishnah teaches that if a man dies, leaving behind sons and daughters and a large estate, his sons inherit the property, but remain obligated to sustain their sisters - until they either become Bogros (six months after they attain puberty), or get married.

(b) If he leaves only a small estate - then the daughters are sustained, and the sons must go begging.

(c) Raban Gamliel however, agrees with Admon, who says - that it is not fair for a male to lose his inheritance simply because he is a male (this will be explained in the Sugya).

(d) In Kesuvos - we rule like Admon in all the cases where Raban Gamliel agrees with him.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, 'a large estate' constitutes sufficient to sustain them all for twelve months. When, after Rav's death, Rav Yehudah came to learn by Shmuel, he told him - that this was the opinion of Raban Gamliel bar Rebbi, but that, according to the Chachamim, it had to be enough to feed the girls until they reached the age of Bagrus (because that is how long their father undertook to feed them for).

(b) Ravin (or Rabah bar bar Chanah) Amar Rebbi Yochanan - also ruled like the Rabbanan of Raban Gamliel bar Rebbi.

(c) This does not mean that the daughters then take all the property and the sons have to go begging for alms, Rava concludes - but that whatever is needed to sustain the daughters until they attain Bagrus, and their brothers take the remainder. And it is when that runs out, that they will need to go begging for alms.