Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Papa establishes the first Mishnah in the Perek by both Chakirus and Kablanus, since all the arguments of the owner and the Mekabel regarding cutting or uprooting will apply equally to both. About ...

1. ... the current Mishnah ('Yavesh ha'Mayan'), he says - the same thing, since if the Mekabel specifically stipulated that he wants that particular field, and it subsequently dries up, he will certainly be entitled to deduct from the percentage that he would normally give to the owner, no less than a Choker deducts from his dues.
2. ... the subsequent Mishnahs in the Perek, he says - that each case pertains either to a Mekabel or to a Choker, but never to both, as we shall see.

(b) The Beraisa discusses a case where Reuven tells Shimon that he is selling him a Beis Kur of earth, a vineyard or an orchard, the sale goes through and Shimon discovers that there is only a Lesech of earth, no vines in the 'vineyard' and no pomegranates in the 'orchard'. A Lesech is half a Kur (which is thirty Sa'ah).

(c) The Tana rules - that the sale is nevertheless valid ...

(d) ... because, assuming that the owner happens to call them 'Beis Kur', 'vineyard' and 'orchard', he only sold them according to what he referred to them as, even though that is not what they really are.

(a) Our Mishnah 'Chakor Li Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin Zu O Sadeh Beis ha'Ilan Zeh, ve'Yavesh ha'Mayan ve'Niktzatz ha'Ilan, Menakeh Lo min Chikuro' is different - because there it is the Choker who made the statement, and *he* was certainly referring to a proper long-lasting Beis ha'Shalachin and Sadeh Ilan.

(b) Ravina establishes our Mishnah even where the owner was the one to stipulate. Nevertheless, we assume him too, to mean a proper long-lasting Beis ha'Shalachin and Sadeh Ilan - because there he said 'Beis ha'Shalachin *Zu*' or 'Beis ha'Ilan *Zeh*', implying that he was standing in the field at the time. Consequently, had he not really meant to reinforce the Mekabel's rights, he would have said simply 'Sadeh Zu'.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that if a Mekabel leaves the field fallow - then we assess how much the field ought to have yielded, and force the Mekabel to pay that to the owner.

(b) The Tana can only be talking about an Aris - who pays a percentage of the field (and who therefore causes the owner a loss by not tilling the field), A Choker, on the other hand, pays a fixed amount, irrespective of the annual yield.

(c) The source of this ruling is - the customary wording on the contract, which includes a clause to the effect that should the Mekabel leave the land fallow and not till it, he will pay from the best.

(d) When we say 'Rebbi Meir Hayah Doresh Lashon Hedyot' - we mean that he gave legality to the colloquial language used in documents.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah too Darshened Lashon Hedyot, and so did Hillel, and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah. Based on the Lashon that was customarily inserted in the Kesuvah, Rebbi Yehudah rules - that if the husband is rich, he must bring the Korban Yoledes and Metzora of a rich man, on behalf of his wife (even though she herself might well be poor).

(b) This Halachah is not confined to those two Korbanos - but extends to all Korbanos that are priced according to one's means.

(c) Once he divorces her, his obligation to pay even for the Korbanos that she was already obligated, falls away - on the basis of the receipt that she writes him upon receiving her Kesuvah, where she absolves him from all such obligations.

(a) It seems to have been common occurrence in Alexandria - to come and snatch brides from under the Chupah.

(b) The Chachamim considered the children who were subsequently born to be Mamzerim - because they presumed the bride to have been already betrothed to the Chasan (and to all intents and purposes [other than actually living together], a betrothed woman is considered a wife).

(c) Hillel ha'Zaken disillusioned them however - by pointing out the wording on the Kesuvah, which indicated that the 'bride' would only be considered married under the Chupah (and not before). Nor is this 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' - because this stipulation also indicated that the validity of the Kidushin was delayed until the Chupah had taken place.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah Darshened the Lashon that debtors tended to insert in the Sh'tar Chov 'Tashlimta de'Is Lach Alai Kol K'veil Dichi' - meaning that the debtor undertook to pay his debt from the value of the Mashkon) ...

(b) ... from which he extrapolated - that the creditor did not have the right to take a Mashkon that was worth more than the debt?

(c) In the case of a debtor who died after the creditor had returned the Mashkon, Rebbi Yochanan permits the latter to take the Mashkon from off the backs of the heirs - even though he cannot claim other Metaltelin, because the Metaltelin of Yesamim are not Meshubad to the creditor.

(d) In spite of the fact that the creditor can claim the Mashkon anyway, they would insert this clause in the Sh'tar - to cover the contingency of the value of the Mashkon depreciating, which, due to this insertion, they were able to make up by claiming other Metaltelim.

7)

(a) When Rebbi Yossi said ...

1. ... 'Makom she'Nahagu La'asos Kesuvah Milveh', he meant - that where the Minhag is to write the exact value of the Nidunyah in the Kesuvah (in which case, that is what his daughter will claim in the event that her husband dies or divorces her) ...
2. ... 'Govah Milveh' - the Chasan initially claims the full amount from his father-in-law.
3. ... 'Li'chepol' - where the Minhag is to write double in the Kesuvah (in which case his daughter will claim only half of the recorded amount) ...
4. ... 'Govah Mechtzah' - then the Chasan too, may only claim half the amount.

(b) The Neherbela'i (who, it seems, would triple the amount in the Kesuvah) would allow the Chasan to claim a third. Despite the fact that the Minhag in Mereimar's town was to double the amount in the Kesuvah - he used to claim the full amount.

(c) In spite of what we just learned, Mereimar did so - due to the fact that the two parties had made a Kinyan.

(d) Ravina assessed his daughter's Nidunyah at double its value. When they asked him whether he wanted to make a Kinyan with his son-in-law, he replied - that either they must assess the Kesuvah at double its price or make a Kinyan, but not both (because the combination would then force him to give his son-in-law twice the Nedunyah that he had in mind to give him).

(a) When a dying man asked those present to write four hundred Zuz for his daughter's Nedunyah, Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya sent to Rav Ashi a She'eilah - whether the father meant that his daughter should receive four hundred Zuz, which they would insert in her Kesuvah as eight hundred, or that they should write four hundred Zuz in her Kesuvah, in which case, she would only receive two hundred.

(b) Rav Ashi replied - that it depended on the wording of the father; if he said 'li'Kesuvasah', then he meant to give her four hundred, whereas if he said 'bi'Kesuvasah', then that is what he wanted entered in the Kesuvah.

(c) We conclude however 've'Lo Hi!' - that either way, he intended them to enter four hundred Zuz into the Kesuvah, because if he wanted her to receive four hundred Zuz, he would have omitted the word altogether, and just said 'Havu Lah Arba Me'os Zuz'.

(d) The reason for inflating the price in the Kesuvah - because it raised the prestige of the Kalah's family in the Chasan's eyes.

(a) In a case where the Mekabel of a field stipulated that if he left it fallow, he would pay the owner a thousand Zuz, and he left a third of the field fallow, the Neherda'i were on the verge of ruling - that he was obligated to pay the owner three hundred and thirty-three and a third Zuz.

(b) Rava corrected them however, on the grounds - that it is an 'Asmachta', and the Mekabel wad therefore Patur from paying altogether.

(c) Our Mishnah, where the Mekabel's stipulation 'Im Ovir ve'Lo A'avid, Ashalem mi'Meitva' is valid, differs from this case - inasmuch as there, the Mekabel did not exaggerate, like he did here.

(a) A Mekabel sowed wheat instead of sesame-seeds. Sesame-seeds are generally more expensive than wheat, the disadvantage of planting them is - that they weaken the soil more than wheat does.

(b) When the wheat harvest turned out to be as lucrative as that of sesame-seeds, Rav Kahana was on the verge of ruling - that the owner deducts the gain (of his field not weakening) from his share of the crops.

(c) Rav Ashi corrected him however, on the grounds - that the owner would rather that his field lost a little of its potency, than cut short the food supply of his family, and that they go hungry.

(d) In a similar case, but where the price of wheat rose dramatically, to the point that they where worth even more than sesame seeds, Ravina was on the verge of ruling that the owner takes only what the sesame seeds would have brought in. Rav Acha mi'Difti corrected him however, on the grounds - that the success of the wheat was at least partially due to the owner's field (and if the Mekabel would have planted sesame sees, they too, would have prospered in the same way). Consequently, he obligated the Mekabel to share the profits with the owner.

(a) 'Iska' is - goods that Reuven gives Shimon, which Shimon then takes to a more expensive location and sells for a profit, which they share.

(b) The Neherda'i add - that it is half loan, half Pikadon (so that both parties benefit from the transaction).

(c) Each party accepts the responsibility for his half of the goods, should an O'nes occur.

(d) Rava disagrees with the Neherdai, who, based on the fact that it is a half loan, permit the borrower to use his half to purchase beer for his family - based on the owner's argument that he called it Iska, so that the borrower should invest the entire stock (because he figured that once the borrower is working to increase his own half, he will work on his half too), but not for him to buy beer.

(a) According to Rav Idi bar Avin, if the borrower dies, his heirs are permitted to keep their father's half of the goods - because of the principle 'Metalteli de'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi le'Ba'al-Chov'.

(b) Rava disagrees. According to him - this case is not comparable to regular Metaltelin de'Yasmi, since unlike there, the borrower has no right to spend the goods for his own use (as we just explained), and the owner relies on them like Karka.

(c) The owner accepts - half the losses, but only a third of the gains, because otherwise, the fact that the Mekabel looks after the half Pikadon looks as if he is doing this as payment for the loan, which would be Ribis.

(a) Rava subsequently says, in a case where ...

1. ... one Iska consists of two bundles, that should they write a separate document for each bundle - it is the owner who will lose out.
2. ... they amalgamate two Iskas (one Manah's-worth one day, and one, the next) onto one Sh'tar - then it is the borrower's loss.

(b) In the first case, assuming that each bundle was originally worth half a Manah and that one of the bundles lost five Dinrim and the other one gained fifteen ...

1. ... then, had they amalgamated both halves of the Iska on to one Sh'tar - the owner would have gained three and a third Dinrim (a third of the total gains).
2. ... now that they wrote a separate Sh'tar for each bundle - he only gains two and a half (the difference between a third of fifteen Dinrim and half of five).

(c) And in the second case, assuming the same five Dinar loss to have occurred in the case of the one Iska, and the same ten Dinar gain to the other ...

1. ... had they written out two Sh'taros - the borrower would have gained almost six Dinrim (the difference between half of a fifteen Dinrim gain and a third of a five Dinar loss).
2. ... now that they amalgamated the two Iskas into one Sh'tar - he only gains five Dinrim (half of the difference between a fifteen Dinar gain and a five Dinar loss).

(d) Rava is coming to teach us - that it is best to write one Sh'tar for one Iska and two Sh'taros for two, because this reflects the real gains and losses involved.