Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A MAN THAT WAIVES RIGHTS TO HIS WIFE'S PROPERTY

(a) (Mishnah): A man that writes to his wife, 'I have no case or words in your property' - he eats the fruits of her property in her lifetime, and inherits her if she dies;

1. Question: If so, why does he write this?
2. Answer: If she sold it, the sale stands.

(b) A man that writes, 'I have no case or words in your property nor in its fruits' - he does not eat the fruits in her lifetime, but does inherit it if she dies;
(c) R. Yehudah says, he always eats the fruits of the fruits, unless he writes, 'I have no case or words in your property nor in its fruits nor in the fruits of its fruits ad infinitum'.
(d) 'I have no case or words in your property nor in its fruits nor in the fruits of its fruits, in your lifetime and after your death' - he does not eat the fruits in her lifetime, and does not inherit it if she dies;
(e) R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he inherits it, because he made a stipulation contrary to Torah, and anyone that makes a stipulation contrary to Torah, his stipulation is void.
(f) (Gemara - R. Chiya): The Mishnah applies (even) if he only said this.
(g) Question: Even if he wrote this - why should it take effect?

1. (Beraisa): A man that writes to his friend, 'I have no case or words in this field, I have no business in it, my hand is removed from it'- these words are void.

(h) Answer (d'Vei R. Yanai): The case is, he wrote to his wife during engagement.

1. This is as Rav Kahana's law.

i. (Rav Kahana): An inheritance which does not come to a man through his ancestors (e.g. inheriting his wife), he may stipulate not to inherit it.

2. This is also as Rava's law.

i. (Rava): One who says, 'I do not want Chachamim's enactment' - in a case like this, we heed him.
ii. Question: What case did Rava refer to?
iii. Answer: Rav Huna's law - A woman may tell her husband, 'Do not feed me and I will not work for you'.

(i) Question: If this is similar to the laws of Rav Kahana and Rava - it should apply, even if he wrote during Nesu'in!
(j) Answer #1 (Abaye): During Nesu'in, the husband is an equal partner with his wife in her property.
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): During Nesu'in, the husband has greater rights than his wife in her property.

1. The difference between Abaye and Rava is relevant to a Shomeres Yavam.

(l) Question: If he made a formal acquisition to waive his rights (Rashi - to the field, in the Beraisa; Tosfos - during Nesu'in), is this binding?
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): He only waived rights to words, but the property is still his!
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): He waived his rights to the field itself.

1. (Abaye): Presumably, Rav Yosef only said his law in a case when he immediately protested; but if he only protests later, he agrees that he waived his rights to the property.

2. (Ameimar): The law is, he waived his rights to the property.
3. Question (Rav Ashi): Is this when he protested right away, or if he only protested later?

i. The difference is, does Ameimar hold as Rav Yosef.

4. Answer (Ameimar): I do not hold as Rav Yosef.

(a) (Mishnah): If so, why did he write to her? ,,,
(b) Question: Let her tell him, you waived all your rights!
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): One holding a document has the lower hand (we say, he waived the smallest rights, i.e. that if she sold it, the sale stands).

1. Suggestion #1: Let us say, he waived the rights to the fruits!
2. Rejection (Abaye): It is better to have a small gourd now, than rights to a large one later (i.e. it is better to have fruit now, and to allow a future sale to take effect).
3. Suggestion: Let us say, he waived the rights to inherit her property!
4. Rejection (Abaye): A person waives his rights to something which is uncommon (that she will sell her property), and not to something common (that he will inherit her).

(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): He wrote, 'in your property' - and not in its fruit; 'in your property' - and not after her death.
(e) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, he always eats fruits of the fruits ...
(f) (Beraisa): If she brings in land and it yields fruits, these are fruits; if he sold the fruit and bought land, the produce of that land is called fruits of fruits.
(g) Question: According to R. Yehudah, what must he say: 'fruits of fruits' or 'ad infinitum', or both?

1. Question: If he must say 'fruits of fruits' - why does the Mishnah say 'ad infinitum'?
2. Answer: This teaches that saying 'fruits of fruits' is like saying 'ad infinitum'.
3. Question: If he must say 'ad infinitum' - why does the Mishnah say 'fruits of fruits'?
4. Answer: This teaches that even though he said 'fruits of fruits', he must say 'ad infinitum'.
5. Question: What is the rationale to say that he must say both?
6. Answer: If he only said 'fruits of fruits' - we would think, he does eat fruits of fruits of fruits; if he only said 'ad infinitum' - we would think, 'ad infinitum' refers to the fruits (i.e. he will never eat fruits, but he does eat fruits of fruits).

(h) Question: If he wrote, 'I have no case or words in your property nor the fruits of its fruits' - does he eat the fruits?

1. Did he only waive his rights to fruits of fruits, but not from fruits?
2. Or, perhaps he totally removed himself from the fruits?

(i) Answer: Clearly, he totally removed himself - if you would say, he retains rights to the fruits, he will eat them, and there will not be any fruits of fruits!
(j) Rejection: If so, how will you explain the Mishnah, 'R. Yehudah says, he always eats the fruits of fruits' - since she eats the fruits, there will not be fruits of fruits!

1. Rather, you must say, the Mishnah teaches the law if she leaves fruits over; likewise, the Mishnah teaches the law if he leaves fruits over!

(a) (Mishnah): R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says ...
(b) (Rav): The law is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel, but not for his reason.
(c) Question: What does Rav mean by this?

1. Suggestion #1: Rav agrees, the law is, if she dies, he inherits her; but R. Shimon Ben Gamliel's reason is, one who stipulates contrary to Torah, his stipulation is void, whereas Rav holds that such a stipulation is valid;
2. Rav holds that a husband inherits mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim strengthened their enactment more than Torah laws (and stipulation on a Rabbinic law is void).