Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) STIPULATION NOT TO INHERIT ONE'S WIFE

1. Rejection: Rav holds that stipulation on Torah laws is void!

i. One who says, 'I will sell this to you on condition that you cannot claim Ona'ah (reimbursement for being overcharged)' - Rav says, he can claim Ona'ah; Shmuel says, he cannot.

2. Suggestion #2: Rav says, the law is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel, that one who stipulates contrary to Torah, his stipulation is void; but R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that when she dies, he inherits her, whereas Rav holds that he does not.
3. Rejection: This is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel's reason, but unlike his law!
4. Suggestion #3: Rav says, the law is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel, that when she dies, he inherits her;
5. Rav argues on his reason - R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that one who stipulates contrary to Torah, his stipulation is void, but contrary to Rabbinical law, his stipulation works; whereas Rav holds that even by Rabbinical laws, it is void.
6. Rejection: If so, Rav agrees both to the law and the reason, he merely adds (that even by Rabbinical laws, the stipulation is void)!

(b) Answer: Rav says, the law is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel, that when she dies, he inherits her; but not for his reason;

1. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that a husband inherits his wife mid'Oraisa, and one who stipulates contrary to Torah, his stipulation is void; whereas Rav holds that a husband inherits his wife mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim strengthened their enactments as much as Torah law (one who stipulates contrary to Rabbinical law, it is void).

(c) Question: Does Rav really hold that a husband only inherits his wife mid'Rabanan?

1. (Mishnah): R. Yochanan Ben Brokah says, a man that inherits his wife returns the property to her family (in the Jubilee year), and deducts from the price.
2. Question: Does R. Yochanan Ben Brokah say that a husband inherits mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?

i. If mid'Oraisa - why must he return the property?
ii. If mid'Rabanan - why must they pay him?

3. Answer (Rav): He holds, it is mid'Oraisa - the case is, he inherited a burial site.

i. Because of affront to the family, Chachamim said that he returns the property and is paid for it.

4. Question: Why does he deduct from the price?
5. Answer: He deducts the value of his wife's grave.
6. (Beraisa): One who sells his gravesite, the path to his gravesite, or the place of stopping during the procession or eulogizing, his family can bury him there against the will of the buyer, because of affront to the family.

(d) Answer: Rav only explained the reason for R. Yochanan Ben Brokah; Rav himself holds that a husband inherits mid'Rabanan.

(a) (Mishnah): A man died, leaving a widow, a creditor and heirs; he had a deposit or a loan by others. R. Tarfon says, it is given to the weakest of them; R. Akiva says, we do not show mercy in law - rather, the heirs get it, since a widow or creditor only collect by swearing, but heirs do not need to swear;
(b) If he left detached fruit, whoever grabs it first keeps it; if the widow or creditor grabbed more than she or he is entitled to - R. Tarfon says, the excess is given to the weakest of them; R. Akiva says, we do not show mercy in law - rather, the heirs get it, since a widow or creditor only collect by swearing, but heirs do not need to swear.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why must we learn both the case of a deposit and of a loan?
(d) Answer: If we only learned the case of a loan - we would think, only in this case R. Tarfon said the heirs do not get it, because a loan is given to be spent; but by a deposit, which is intact, he would admit to R. Akiva that the heirs get it.

1. If we only learned the case of a deposit - we would think, only in this case R. Akiva argues; but by a loan, he would admit to R. Tarfon (for the above reason).

(e) Question: What is meant by 'the weakest'?
(f) Answer #1 (R. Yosi Bar Chanina): The one with the weakest proof.
(g) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): The widow, because of grace (to encourage marriage).

1. The following Tana'im argued similarly.

(h) (Beraisa - R. Binyamin): The one with the weakest proof; and this is proper; R. Elazar says, the widow, because of grace.
(i) (Mishnah): If he left detached fruits ...
(j) Question: Why does R. Akiva only speak of the excess - it should all go to the heirs!
(k) Answer: It does! Since R. Tarfon spoke of the excess, so did R. Akiva.

(l) Question: Does R. Akiva say that seizing never helps?
(m) Answer (Rava): Seizing in his lifetime helps.

(a) Question: According to R. Tarfon (who says that seizing helps after death), where is the property?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav and Shmuel): In a public domain, but not in a shoulder of a road.
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): Even in a shoulder.

1. A case occurred, and judges ruled as R. Tarfon. Reish Lakish overturned the ruling.
2. R. Yochanan: You treat R. Akiva's law as mid'Oraisa!

i. Suggestion #1: Reish Lakish holds, if a judge makes a clear mistake, the ruling is overturned; R. Yochanan says, it is not.
ii. Suggestion #2: No - all agree, if a judge makes a clear mistake, the ruling is overturned. R. Yochanan holds that the law is as R. Akiva when he argues on a colleague, but not against his Rebbi; Reish Lakish holds, even when he argues on his Rebbi.
iii. Suggestion #3: Alternatively - all agree, the law is as R. Akiva when he argues on a colleague, but not against his Rebbi. R. Yochanan holds, R. Tarfon was R. Akiva's Rebbi; Reish Lakish holds, he was his colleague.
iv. Suggestion #4: Alternatively - all agree, R. Tarfon was R. Akiva's colleague. Reish Lakish holds, the law is as R. Akiva against his colleague; R. Yochanan holds, we merely lean towards R. Akiva's opinion.

(d) R. Yochanan's relatives seized property from a shoulder. He ruled, they seized properly; they came to Reish Lakish, and he said that they must return it.

1. R. Yochanan: What can I do? My equal argues against me.

(e) There was a shepherd watching cattle of orphans; a creditor seized an ox. The creditor said that he seized it in the life of the father; the shepherd said, he seized it after death.

1. Rav Nachman: Do you have witnesses that he seized it?
2. Shepherd: No.
3. Rav Nachman: Since he could claim that he bought the ox, he is believed to say that he seized it in the father's lifetime.
4. Question: But Reish Lakish taught, posession of animals is no proof of ownership!
5. Answer: This was not said by animals being watched by a shepherd.

(f) The Nasi's house seized a slave of orphans. R. Avahu, R. Chanina Bar Papi and R. Yitzchak Nafcha. They said, this was a good seizure.

1. R. Aba: Because it is the Nasi's house, you flatter them? A case was ruled as R. Tarfon, and Reish Lakish overturned it!

(g) Yeimar Bar Chashu was owed money by a man that died and left a boat. He made a messenger to seize it for him; the messenger did so. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua (who were also creditors of the borrower) saw him.

1. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua: You are seizing for a creditor in a case where it harms others - R. Yochanan says, such seizure is invalid.