Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO OBLIGATES HIMSELF WITH A DOCUMENT

(a) Rejection: No, it is a case of a document of committal, as Rav Gidal taught.

1. (Rav Gidal): Reuven agreed to marry his son to Shimon's daughter. Each father agreed to give a certain amount to his child. The children got engaged right then - the verbal promises are binding.

(b) Question (Mishnah): Reuven (who has a firstborn son to redeem) wrote to a Kohen, I owe you 5 Sela'im - he must pay him, and his son is not redeemed (we see, the document obligates him)!
(c) Answer: That case is different, since the Torah obligated him.
(d) Question: If so, why did he bother writing a document?
(e) Answer: To clarify to which Kohen he will give the redemption money.
(f) Question: If so, why isn't his son redeemed?
(g) Answer: As Ula taught.

1. (Ula): mid'Oraisa, his son is redeemed when he gives the money.
2. Chachamim said that he is not redeemed, lest people say that one can redeem with documents.

(h) Suggestion (Rava): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Mishnah): A guarantor written below the signatures on a document - the lender may collect from his property, but not from property he sold;
2. A case came before R. Yishmael - he said, he may collect from his unsold property.
3. Ben Nanas: He cannot even collect from unsold property!
4. R. Yishmael: Why not?
5. Ben Nanas: Reuven saw the lender choking the borrower - he told him, leave him, and I will give you - Reuven is exempt, since the money was not lent on expectation to collect from Reuven.

(i) Suggestion: R. Yochanan is as R. Yishmael, and Reish Lakish is as Ben Nanas.
(j) Rejection: Granted, we must say that R. Yochanan cannot hold as Ben Nanas.

1. However, Reish Lakish can hold as R. Yishmael.

i. R. Yishmael only said that he must pay in the case of a guarantor, where there is a Torah obligation to pay - but obligating oneself in a document, he can agree, he is exempt!

(a) (Rav): Reuven agreed to marry his son to Shimon's daughter. Each father agreed to give a certain amount to his child. The children got engaged right then - the verbal promises are binding.

1. (Rava): Presumably, this only applies when Shimon's daughter is a Na'arah, and Shimon benefits (he gets the engagement money) - but if she is a Bogeres, no.
2. In truth, Rav said this even by a Bogeres - we see, Reuven's promise is binding, even though he gets no benefit.

i. It must be, through the happiness that they are marrying their children together, they absolutely decide to give as they promise, and this is binding.

(b) Question (Ravina): Are these promises standing to be written in a document? (Rashi - if they are written, may the recipient collect from land sold afterwards? Tosfos (Nisnu) - must witnesses consult the parties before writing a document? Tosfos (Hacha) - are these promises binding even if a document is not written?)
(c) Answer (Rav Ashi): No.
(d) Question (Mishnah): Clever men would write, 'On condition that I will feed your daughter for 5 years, the whole time you are with me'.
(e) Answer: This was said, not written.

1. Objection: Would the Tana say 'They write' if they only say it?
2. Answer: Yes! The following is an example.

i. (Mishnah): One who writes to his wife, 'I have no claim to your property'.
ii. (R. Chiya): The case is, he said this.

(f) Question (Mishnah): Documents of engagement and marriage may only be written if both parties agree.

1. We infer - if they agree, they may be written.
2. Suggestion: 'Documents of engagement' refers to documents of committal.

(g) Answer: No - it literally means, documents of engagement, as Rav Papa and Rav Sharbiya.

1. (Rava and Ravina): A document of engagement was written in order to engage Leah, without her consent - it is valid;
2. (Rav Papa and Rav Sharbiya): It is invalid.

(h) Question (Mishnah): If the husbands die, their daughters are fed from unsold property, and the wife's daughter is fed even from sold property, since she is as a creditor.
(i) Answer: The case is, the commitment was acquired through Chalipin.
(j) Objection: If so, their daughters should also be fed from sold property!
(k) Answer: The acquisition was only made for her daughter.
(l) Question: Why does the Tana establish the case this way, without specifying - is it always the case that acquisition is only made for her daughter?!
(m) Answer #1: Since her daughter is alive when he commits himself, acquisition helps for her; their daughters have not been born yet, acquisition does not help for them.
(n) Question: Doesn't the Mishnah include the case when their daughters have been born - i.e., he divorced his wife and is now remarrying her?
(o) Answer #2: Rather, no enactment of Beis Din says that her daughter is fed, so an acquisition helps for her; an enactment of Beis Din says that their daughters are fed, so an acquisition does not help for them.
(p) Objection: This is illogical - why should the enactment of Beis Din weaken her?!
(q) Answer #3: Rather, the reason his daughters may not collect from sold property is because we are concerned that the father set aside money for their food, because an enactment of Beis Din says that they must be fed.

(a) (Mishnah): The 1st husband cannot say ... (but he sends her food to where her mother is).
(b) (Rav Chisda): This teaches that a daughter is raised by her mother.
(c) Question: How do we know that the Mishnah deals with an adult - perhaps it deals with a minor, and because of the incident which happened!

1. (Beraisa): Someone died, leaving a small son. The father's heirs and the child's mother both want to raise him - we let the mother raise him.
2. There was a case (when he was left by the father's heirs) and they slaughtered him.

(d) Answer: If so, the Mishnah should have said, he sends food to where she is.