Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa discusses Reuven, a very sick man, who declares that he thought that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, but now that this is not the case, he gives all his property to Shimon. The basis of his mistake was - information that his son had died or that his wife had a miscarriage.

(b) In the event that we subsequently discover that his son is still alive or that his wife is indeed pregnant, the Tana rules - that his gift is void.

(c) We refute the suggestion that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya (of the previous Beraisa) - on the grounds that in this case, where the man specifically referred to his son's death and to his wife's miscarriage, even the Rabbanan will agree that the gift is invalid.

(d) The reason that we initially tried to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya is - because we thought that Reuven only mentioned his son and the miscarriage, as a form of lament, but not as a condition for the gift to be valid.

(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "*ve'Ha'avartem* es Nachalaso le'Vito" (which is superfluous) - that there is another case of someone passing over an inheritance from the rightful heir to a third party, indicating that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera acquires without a Kinyan.

(b) This can be explained - either with regard to where he bequeaths part of his property, but specifically mentions his imminent death, or where he bequeaths everything, even where he doesn't.

(c) The Limud cannot be from ...

1. ... the word "es" - since Rebbi later will specifically learn it from "ve'Ha'avartem".
2. ... the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Ha'avartem" and not 'u'Nesatem', like it writes regarding the other heirs - because the word "u'Nesatem" is just as much superfluous as "ve'Ha'avartem" is, as we will see there.

(d) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learns it from "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Echav". Rebbi Zeira does not agree with this, because he considers this to be a regular Lashon. Rav Nachman on the other hand, disagrees with Rebbi Zeira because he learns "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso" like Rebbi, who learns from there - that only a daughter passes her inheritance from one tribe to another (as we learned in 'Yesh Nochlin').

(a) Rav Menashya bar Yirmiyah learns from the Pasuk (when Yeshayah said to Chizkiyah) "Koh Amar Hashem *Tzav le'Veischa Ki Meis Atah"* - that a Metzaveh Machmas Miysah acquires with the command alone (even though no Kinyan was made [and the same applies to a Shechiv-Mera]).

(b) Rami bar Yechezkel learns the same thing from a similar Lashon in a Pasuk in Shmuel 1. It was - Achitofel who saddled his donkey, and after 'commanding his house', strangled himself and died.

(c) The Beraisa describes how before he died, Achitofel advised his children that if Shevu'os was clear, they should sow wheat. He also left in his will two other pieces of advice - that they should refrain from getting involved in Machlokes and that they should not rebel against David Melech Yisrael (both of which he would have done well to adhere to, himself).

(d) Mar Zutra replaces 'Yom-Tov shel Atzeres Barur' with 'Balul', meaning cloudy. The Neherda'i make a sort of compromise. They explain that neither is Barur absolute, nor is Balul. A cloudy day (Balul), only the north-wind disperses the clouds, is also included in 'Balul'. This is based on a Pasuk in Iyov, who praised the north-wind when he said (with reference to the north-wind) "From the north, gold comes".

(a) Rebbi Aba told Rav Ashi that they preferred the signs of a good year presented by Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. According to him - the people would watch the smoke of the Ma'arachah on the Mizbe'ach on Motza'ei Sukos (because that is when the world is judged for water).

(b) If the smoke drifted towards ...

1. ... the north, the poor were happy, and the rich sad - because that meant that the south-wind would be prevalent, which in turn, heralded a lot of rain, in which case the corn could not be stored for long (because it would rot), and had to be sold cheaply.
2. ... the south, the rich were happy and the poor sad - because that meant that the north-wind would be prevalent, which in turn, heralded little (if blessed) rain, in which case the corn could be stored for long periods of time, and could be sold at a high price.
3. ... towards the east, everybody was happy - because the west-wind tended to create a bumper harvest; the fruit was basically cheap, but could be stored for long periods.
4. ... towards the west, everybody was sad - because the east-wind produced little rain, causing draught, which was to nobody's advantage.

(c) The Beraisa however, states that the east-wind is always good, whereas the west-wind is always bad. The north-wind, the Tana says further, is good for wheat that has grown a third, but bad for olives that have blossomed, and the south-wind - is bad for wheat that has grown a third, but good for olives that have blossomed

(d) When Rav Yosef (or Mar Zutra or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) gives a Si'man as the table in the north and the Menorah in the south, he means - that by bearing in mind that the table containing *wheat*-bread stood in the north, whereas the Menorah, which was kindled with olive-*oil*, which stood in the south, served as a sound reminder as to which wind which was good for which.

(a) We reconcile the statement of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi (according to whom the west-wind is good for the crops and the east-wind is bad) with the Beraisa, which says the opposite - by establishing the former with regard to Eretz Yisrael, which, due to its height, needs a lot of rain, and the latter, in Bavel, which is deep, and which becomes flooded when there is too much rain.

(b) Aba Shaul in a Beraisa says that, when Shavu'os is clear - it is a good sign for the whole year.

(c) And Rav Z'vid says that a year where Rosh Hashanah is hot - is a sign that the coming year will be a hot one, and when it is cold - it is a sign that a cold year will follow.

(d) The reason that we need to know whether the year will be a hot year or a cold one - is for the Kohen Gadol to know for what to Daven on Yom Kipur when he enters the Kodesh Kodshim.

6)

(a) According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, a Matnas Shechiv-Mera is not min ha'Torah at all. The Rabbanan instituted - that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera acquires even without a Kinyan.

(b) The Rabbanan's reason for instituting it cannot have been due to the fear that, by the time they fetch witnesses for the Kinyan, the Shechiv-Mera will die - because that is no reason for concern. There is nothing wrong with a Shechiv-Mera's property going to his heirs.

(c) The Rabbanan instituted - out of concern that if the Shechiv-Mera's wishes are not fulfilled, we are afraid that the ensuing aggravation will hasten his death.

(d) According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, the various Pesukim in Nevi'im, which imply that there is such a thing as a will by means of the dying man's word alone - refer to information that does not require a Kinyan (such as by whom his property is deposited). The Pasuk however, refers to both things that do require a Kinyan and those that don't, and the Navi is coming to teach us that it is a good idea to leave a last will and testament, with or without a Kinyan.

(a) The grounds on which ...

1. ... a person can sell a Sh'tar Chov (which is after all, no more than a piece of paper) - are either by adding 'K'ni Lach Iyhu ve'Chol Shibudeih'; or according to the ruling in Perek 'ha'Mocher Sefinah' that 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'.
2. ... Shmuel rules that if one did, he can still be Mochel the debtor, and absolve him from having to repay his loan - are the fact that even after having sold the Sh'tar-Chov, he still retains the Shibud ha'Guf, only selling what he ultimately receive. Consequently, since he will now not receive anything, the sale is automatically invalid.

(b) He is however, obligated to compensate the purchaser - because of the Din of 'Garmi' (the obligation to compensate for direct cause of loss).

(c) In fact, he even permits the creditor's heirs to be Mochel - because the heirs inherit all their father's rights, and if he only sold the purchaser whatever *he* receives, so too, did he only sell him what his heirs will receive.

(a) Rav Nachman said however (with regard to Shmuel's ruling) - that once the Shechiv-Mera gives a Matnas Shechiv-Mera, he can no longer be Mochel.

(b) The problem with explaining that Rav Nachman is speaking even in a case where he is Metzaveh Machmas Miysah (where he only gave away part of his property) is - that in that case, it has a Din of a Matnas Bari, and Reuven has the right to be Mochel.

(c) Despite the fact that, strictly speaking, a Matnas Shechiv-Mera is only effective mi'de'Rabbanan, nevertheless, the Rabbanan gave it the Din of a d'Oraysa - for fear that if the Kinyan is absolute, the Shechiv-Mera will succumb, as we explained a little earlier.

(a) Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules that if a Shechiv-Mera declares that so-and-so should live in one of his rooms, or that he should eat the fruit of one of his trees - the beneficiary is not Koneh.

(b) This ruling is based on the principle - that, with the exception of the fact that a Shechiv-Mera does not require a Kinyan, whatever is not Koneh in the case of a Bari is not Koneh in the case of a Shechiv-Mera either.

(c) In the case of a Bari, Shimon is not Koneh if Reuven declared that he should ...

1. ... live in one of his rooms - because a Kinyan does not take effect on something that is abstract.
2. ... eat the fruit of one of his trees - because it is a 'Davar she'Lo Ba Le'Olam'.