Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO RETRACTS HIS PROMISE TO GIVE A DOWRY

(a) (Mishnah): A man promised to give a certain amount to his son-in-law; before the Nesu'in, he said that he will not (or cannot) give the money; his son-in-law can say, I will not make Nesu'in until you give the money, your daughter will be unable to marry;
(b) Admon says, she can claim - had I promised myself, this would be proper; but my father promised - what should I do? Marry me, or divorce me!

1. R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(c) (Gemara): Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana.
(d) (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): Admon and Chachamim didn't argue by a man who promised money to his son-in-law, and then retracted - she can say, my father promised - what should I do?
(e) They argue when she promised, and then retracted.

1. Chachamim say, her husband can say, I will not make Nesu'in until you give the money;
2. Admon says, she can say, I thought that my father would give - now that I see that he will not (or cannot), what can I do? Marry me, or divorce me!
3. R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(f) (Beraisa): When does this apply (Rashi - the law of this Beraisa; Tosfos - our Mishnah)? When she is an adult; but if she is a minor, we force.
(g) Question: Whom do we force?

1. Suggestion: If we force her father - to the contrary, it is more reasonable to force him if she is an adult!

(h) Answer (Rava): We force the husband to divorce her.
(i) (R. Yitzchak Ben Elazar): Every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the law is as Admon.
(j) Question (Rava): Does this even apply to the Beraisa?
(k) Answer (Rav Nachman): He did not say, in the Mishnah - he said, in every place!
(l) (R. Zeira): The 2 laws Chanan said, the law is Kayotzei Bo (Rashi - as the one who agrees with him; Tosfos - this is also the law in similar cases); the 7 laws Admon said, the law is not as Kayotzei Bo.
(m) Question: What does this mean?

1. Suggestion: If it means, the 2 laws Chanan said, the law is as him and Kayotzei Bo; the 7 laws Admon said, the law is not as him nor as Kayotzei Bo - but R. Yitzchak Ben Elazar said, every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the law is as Admon!
2. Suggestion: Rather, the 2 laws Chanan said, the law is as him and Kayotzei Bo; the 7 laws Admon said, the law is not as Kayotzei Bo.

i. This implies, the law is as Admon in all 7 - but R. Yitzchak Ben Elazar said, every place that R. Gamliel said that he agrees with Admon, the law is as Admon - but where R. Gamliel did not say this, the law is not as Admon!

(n) Answer: Rather, the 2 laws Chanan said, the law is as him and Kayotzei Bo; the 7 laws Admon said, sometimes the law is as him and as Kayotzei Bo; sometimes, it is not as him, but as Kayotzei Bo;

1. In every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the law is as Admon; in all other places, not.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven claims that Shimon stole a field from him; Reuven signed on the document in which Levi bought this field from Shimon. Admon says, Reuven did not forfeit his claim - he signed the document, because he would rather take Levi to trial than Shimon; Chachamim say, he forfeited his claim.

1. A sale document delineates an adjacent field by saying it borders on Shimon's field. If Reuven signed (Rashi; Tosfos - authorized) this document, he forfeits his claim that Shimon stole the field from him.

(b) (Gemara - Abaye): This only applies to signing as a witness - but if a judge signed (validated) such a document, he does not forfeit his claim.

1. (R. Chiya Bar Aba): Witnesses may not sign a document unless they read it, but judges may sign a document even without reading it.

(c) (Mishnah): If this field was used to delineate an adjacent field ...
(d) (Abaye): This only applies if the adjacent field was sold to someone else; but for himself (Rashi - he himself bought the field from Shimon; Tosfos - he sold the field to Shimon) he does not forfeit his claim.

1. Had Reuven objected to calling the adjacent field Shimon's, the sale would not have gone through.
2. Suggestion: Reuven should have told witnesses that he does not admit that the field is Shimon's.
3. Answer: Everyone has friends - had Reuven done so, word would have spread, Shimon would have heard, and the sale would have been impeded.

(e) Reuven signed (authorized) a document selling the field north of Shimon's field, and later claimed that Shimon stole that field (the southern one); Reuven died. A caretaker was appointed for the orphans.

1. Abaye: Reuven forfeited his claim to the field.
2. The caretaker: If their father was alive, he would claim, Shimon only owns 1 furrow's width of the south field - this was used to delineate the north field - the rest of the south field is mine!
3. Abaye: Excellent! We make this claim for the orphans!

i. (R. Yochanan): If Reuven claims, Shimon owns only 1 furrow's width of the south field, and this was used to delineate the north field, he is believed.

4. Abaye: Give Shimon a furrow's width of the field.

i. There was a row of date trees on the furrow (making the furrow very valuable).

5. The caretaker: If their father was alive, he would claim, I later bought back the furrow!
6. Abaye: Excellent! We make this claim for the orphans!

i. (R. Yochanan): If Reuven claims, I later bought it back - he is believed.

7. Abaye: One who appoints a caretaker should appoint a man like this, who knows how to argue for the orphans!

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven went overseas; he returned, and there is no path to his field (it was annexed to the adjacent field, he does not know where). Admon says, he is entitled to a small path to his field;
(b) Chachamim say, he must pay as much as the neighbor demands, or will have no path to his field.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Admon's law is reasonable - why do Chachamim's argue?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): The case is, 4 neighbors surround his field, 1 in each direction.

1. Question: If so, what is Admon's reason?

(e) Answer (Rava): If 4 neighbors own the surrounding fields, whether there were originally 4 neighbors or only 1, all agree that Reuven has no claim against any of them.

1. They argue when 1 person bought the 4 surrounding fields from 4 people.
2. Admon holds, Reuven's path is definitely by the neighbor!
3. Chachamim say, the neighbor can threaten Reuven.

i. If you do not pay as much as I want - I will return the fields I bought, and you will have no claim against any of the neighbors.

(f) A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date tree; he died. His sons divided the estate, and did not give her a tree.

1. (Rav Yosef): This is just as our Mishnah!
2. Objection (Abaye): No! In the Mishnah, each neighbor can dispel him - your path is not by me. Here, the sons divided her tree among themselves!

i. They must give her a tree, and divide up from the beginning.

(g) A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date tree; he died, leaving 2 trees in which he was a half-owner.
(h) Question (Rav Yosef): Are 2 halves of a tree called a tree?
(i) Answer (Rav Mordechai): Yes.