Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chisda too, establishes the middle case of the Beraisa ('Beinonis ve'Ziburis, Nizakin u'Ba'al Chov be'Beinonis') when the borrower had Idis at the time of the debt. We attempt to prove this from a second Beraisa 'Beinonis ve'Ziburis, Nizakin be'Beinonis, Ba'al Chov u'Kesuvas Ishah be'Ziburis' - which clearly speaks when he did not have Idis at the time of the debt (thereby resolving the discrepancy between the two Beraisos). Both Beraisos however, agree - that 'be'Shelo Hein Shamin'.

(b) Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos ...

1. ... when the borrower did not have Idis. In that case - both Beraisos hold 'be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin', and the first Beraisa speaks when the borrower's Beinonis was not on a par with the world's Idis, whereas the second Beraisa speaks when it was.
2. ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt, and in addition, his Beinonis was on a par with that of world - the Tana of the first Beraisa now holds 'be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin', the Tana of the second, 'be'Shelo Hein Shamin'.

(c) And an alternative text to the final suggestion is that both Beraisos speak when his Beinonis was on a par with the world's Idis and when he had Idis at the time of the debt - the first Beraisa now holds 'be'Shelo Hein Shamin', whereas the second Beraisa holds be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin'.

(a) According to Ravina, the two Beraisos argue over Ula, who learns from the Pasuk "ba'Chutz Ta'amod, ve'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yotzi Eilecha es he'Avot" - that a debtor only needs to pay Ziburis (because that is what one would expect him to bring out to the bailiff).

(b) Ula then adds - that the Rabbanan changed the creditor's Din to Beinonis because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (so as not to close the door on future debtors, as we explained earlier).

(c) Ravina now explains the Machlokes between the two Beraisos - establishing the first Tana like Ula, who authorizes the creditor to claim Beinonis, whereas the second Tana does not hold of the Takanah of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (even if the debtor had Idis, too.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa rules in the event that the debtor sold his fields to one person, or to three people simultaneously - that the purchasers re-place the debtor, and the Nizak, the creditor and the woman all claim their respective dues.

(b) If he sold the three fields to three different people on three different occasions - they all claim from the last one.

(c) The reason for this is - because each of the first two purchasers can say 'I left you property from which to claim'(This in turn, is based on the principle that one can never claim from Meshubadim when there are B'nei Chorin).

(d) The Reisha cannot be speaking when the debtor sold the purchaser the three fields in one Sh'tar - because since the Tana then goes on to teach this same Din by three people, it would not have been necessary to insert the same Din by one person (which is obvious).

(a) In the previous case, had he purchased the Ziburis last - he could have forced them all to claim from Ziburis (as we just explained).

(b) The Tana says 'Kulan Nichnesu Tachas ha'Ba'alim' - because the Beraisa speaks when he purchased Idis last.

(c) And the reason that they cannot all claim from Idis is - because he can argue that unless they are silent, he will return the Sh'tar Ziburis to the seller, and they will be forced to take Ziburis.

(a) The purchaser would be able to force the Nizak to take Beinonis using the same argument.

(b) The reason that the Tana authorizes the Nizak to take Idis is - because he is speaking when the debtor is no longer alive. Consequently - the purchaser can no longer threaten the Nizak with 'I Shaskas Shaskas ... ', because Yesomim who purchase land after their father's demise, are not obligated to pay their father's debts'. Consequently, the Shibud remains on the purchaser.

(c) And as for the Kashya that we asked earlier (Why can all three not claim from Idis, seeing as that was the last field that he purchased?) the answer is - because (on the grounds that this Takanah was instituted for the benefit of the subsequent purchasers) the current purchaser can argue that he, as the subsequent purchaser, he does not want the Takanah.

(d) The right to forgo a Takanas Chachamim that as instituted for one's benefit, is taught by Rava, who was referring to the case stated by Rav Huna - who said that a woman has the right to decline being sustained by her husband so that she will not be obligated to give him the work that she produces (because Chazal instituted this Takanah on her behalf).

6)

(a) If the man who bought all three fields (and the Idis last) subsequently sold the Beinonis and the Ziburis - all three claimants receive Idis.

(b) Abaye thought that, in the event that he sold Idis, leaving himself with Beinonis and Ziburis, they would all claim from Idis. Rava's objection to this ruling was - that the seller always sells all the rights that he has in the object to the purchaser together with the object. In our case, one of those rights was the right to give the claimants the Beinonis and the Ziburis (even though he purchased the Idis last). Consequently, the second purchaser receives that right too.

(a) In a case where Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon then sold one field to Levi - Rava ruled that Reuven's creditor is permitted to claim from whichever of the two he chooses.

(b) We qualify Rava's ruling - by confining it to where Levi bought Beinonis, but in the event that he bought Idis and Ziburis, he can say to Reuven's creditor 'That's why I made a point of buying Idis and Ziburis (fields to which you have no claim), so that you should not claim from me'.

(c) The same ruling will apply even if he purchased Beinonis - provided he left some Beinonis with Shimon, because then he can say to him 'I specially left some Beinonis with Shimon for you to claim'.

(a) Abaye rules that if Reuven sold Shimon a field with Acharayus (the undertaking to reimburse him should his creditor claim it from him), Reuven is permitted to appear in Beis-Din to assist Shimon to ward off the his creditor, should he indeed claim the field. We might have thought otherwise - because the creditor can argue 'You are not my disputant! It's none of your business!'

(b) He is permitted to do so - because he can counter that it is very much his business, due to the fact that, if Shimon loses the field, he will have to reimburse him.

(c) Others permit it even if he sold him the field without Acharayus - because he can say that he doesn't want Shimon to hold it against him.