Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where the house fell on a man and his wife, and we do not know for sure who died first. The bone of contention between the man's heirs and his wife's is - who inherits a. the wife's Kesuvah, b. her Nechsei Milug and c. her Nechsei Tzon Barzel.

(b) The difference between Nechsei Milug and Nechsei Tzon Barzel is - that the former are not inserted in the Kesuvah, nor does the husband accept responsibility on them, whereas the latter are, and he does.

(c) The Tana must be speaking when they no common children - because, if they had, *he* would inherit his mother's property, and not her father's heirs

(a) When Beis Shamai say 'Yachloku', they are referring to - all of the above (though some say in Yevamos that even according to Beis Shamai, the Kesuvah remains in the Chazakah of the Yorshei ha'Ba'al).

(b) It is the ...

1. ... husband's heirs - who inherit the woman's Kesuvah.
2. ... the father's heirs - who inherit the Nechsei Milug.

(c) When Beis Hillel say 'Nechasim be'Chezkasan', they are referring to - the Nechsei Tzon Barzel.

(a) Rebbi Elazar explains 'be'Chezkasan' of Beis Hillel to mean in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs. According to Rebbi Yochanan, it means - in the Chazakah of the father's heirs.

(b) Their bone of contention is - that, on the one hand, it is the property belonging to the wife, that she brought with her from her father's house, whereas on the other, it belongs to her husband, inasmuch as he took responsibility for it.

(c) Resh Lakish in the name of bar Kapara - rules 'Yachloku'.

(d) The Beraisa cited by bar Kapara says - 'since each one comes to inherit (with a valid argument), Yachloku'.

4)

(a) Our Mishnah now discusses a case where the house fell on Yosef and his mother Rachel, and again, it is not clear who died first. It is Rachel's heirs (e.g. her paternal brothers) and her husband's heirs (e.g. his son [Reuven]), who are now arguing over who died first.

(b) According to the Tana Kama, even Beis Hillel concede here that 'Yachloku' - since, due to the fact that Ya'akov, Rachel's husband died before her, both sets of heirs come with an equal claim (not like in the previous case, where one comes as an owner, and the other, with a Sh'tar, claiming that the property is Meshubad to him).

(c) If Rachel had another son [Binyamin] from another man, who was now arguing with Reuven over who died first - Binyamin would inherit the disputed property and not Reuven, because he is a Vaday Yoresh (all the property, if Ya'akov died first, and half the property if Rachel died first), whereas Reuven is only a Safek (Yosef's portion, in the event that Rachel died first) and we have a principle 'Ein Safek Motzi Midei Vaday'.

(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that here too, Nechasim be'Chezkasan'. Despite the fact that he has not spoken earlier in this Sugya, he says 'Modeh Ani' - because the Tana Kama used the same expression.

(b) Following Rebbi Akiva's statement, ben Azai commented - that he was already upset that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the previous Mishnah, disagreed. And now, when Rebbi Akiva's colleagues at last found a case where they agreed, he had to come along and convert even that into a Machlokes!

(a) Rebbi Ila interprets 'be'Chezkasan' of the Tana Kama to mean 'be'Chezkas Yorshei ha'Eim'. Rebbi Zeira holds - 'be'Chezkas Yorshei ha'Ben'.

(b) The reasoning of ...

1. ... Rebbi Ila is - the fact that, once the husband died, the property entered the Chazakah of the tribe of his wife's father, and that is where it ought to remain.
2. ... Rebbi Zeira - because, once the husband died, his son automatically stood to inherit his father's property, before his wife's family, and so, it is his Yorshim who ought to inherit it.

(c) Rebbi Zeira change his mind, to hold like Rebbi Ila - after he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, which prompted him to declare that the very air of Eretz Yisrael made a person wise.

8)

(a) They sent from Eretz Yisrael 'Ben she'Lavah be'Nechsei Aviv be'Chayei Aviv, u'Meis, B'no Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos'. The problem with this statement is - if a father borrows from his father, why is the son claiming anything, and besides, how does the purchaser come into the picture?

(b) We therefore amend it - by changing 'Lavah' to 'Machar'.

(c) This statement does not belong in this Sugya? It really belongs - earlier after the Mishnah of 'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'Al Aviv', which we will shortly cite in connection with it.

(d) The basis of this ruling is - the fact that the son sold the field in his father's lifetime, when it was still Ra'uy, and just as one cannot be Meshabed something that is Ra'uy, so too, can one not sell it.