Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that 'T'nai Kesuvah ki'Kesuvah' includes the Tosefes. This statement has no less than fourteen ramifications. The significance (regarding the Tosefes) of ...

1. ... 'Mocheres' and 'Mocheles' is - that, if the woman sells her Kesuvah or foregoes it, the Tosefes is included.
2. ... 'Pogemes' is - that, should she claim that her husband paid her an advance of a Dinar of the Tosefes Kesuvah, and he counters that he actually paid her the entire Kesuvah, she is obligated to swear before receiving the remainder of her Kesuvah.
3. ... 'Tova'as' is - that if she claims the Tosefes Kesuvah, she loses her Mezonos.

(b) A woman may not claim 'Sh'vach' (the benefits of the improvements that the heirs made in the property after her husband's death) when claiming the Tosefes Kesuvah.

(c) A woman will receive her Kesuvah if she claims it not directly from her husband, or if one witness testifies that it has already been paid, or if she claims property from one of her husband's purchasers or from the orphans - only after she has made a Shevu'ah (See Maharam Shif).

(a) The significance of 'Shevi'is' with regard to the Tosefes - is that it does not cancel the Tosefes (just as it does not cancel the Kesuvah itself), and she may continue to claim even after the termination of Sh'mitah.

(b) She may claim Tosefes, just as she claims the Kesuvah itself - from Ziburis of Karka (inferior-quality land).

(c) A woman who continues to live on her husband's estate may claim her Kesuvah at any time - whereas one who returns to her parental home only has twenty-five years.

(a) We learned in the Mishnah on 52b. (regarding K'suvas B'nin Dichrin) 'Inun *Yarsun* Kesef K'suvasech'. That is the correct text according to the Pumbedisa'i. In Masa Mechsaya, they read the Mishnah - 'Inun *Yasvun* Kesef K'suvasech'.

(b) 'Yarsun' implies a Lashon of inheritance, which one *cannot claim from Meshubadim* - whereas 'Yasvun' implies a Lashon of claiming a debt, which *can*. The Halachah is 'Yarsun T'nan'.

(c) If her husband set aside Metaltelin for her Kesuvah ...

1. ... as long as they are available (and not lost), she may claim them from the heirs without a Shevu'ah - due to the fact that the reason that she normally requires a Shevu'ah when claiming from the heirs is because we are afraid that perhaps she already received her Kesuvah on the form of bundles of money, not applicable here, seeing as her husband already set aside Metaltelin for her (and is unlikely to have done so twice).
2. ... and they got lost, the Pumbedisa'i maintain that she may nevertheless claim without a Shevu'ah - because her husband is unlikely to have set aside another set of Metaltelin, preferring to rely on the fact that all his property is actually mortgaged for her Kesuvah.

(d) In Masa Mechsaya - they said that if the Metaltelin got lost, she may only claim with a Shevu'ah (in case he set aside another set of Metaltelin).

(a) If her husband set aside as an Apotiki for her Kesuvah a field marked (in the document) ...

1. ... on all four sides, she does not require a She'vu'ah either - because having mark the field so meticulously, he is unlikely to have set aside money as well.
2. ... on one side, they said in Masa Mechsaya that she requires a Shevu'ah - because he has hardly added anything to normal situation, where all his property is mortgaged for her Kesuvah, yet we are afraid that he may have set aside money on her behalf.

(b) According to the Pumbedisa'i - there is not difference between this case and the previous one. Neither requires a Shevu'ah, and that is the Halachah.

(a) If someone who wishes to give his friend a gift of Karka asks witnesses to write the appropriate document, sign it and give it his friend, if the recipient made a Kinyan, no further negotiations are necessary with regard to documenting the gift - because 'S'tam Kinyan li'Ch'sivah Omed' (any Kinyan is a carte blanche to document the transaction).

(b) The same applies, the Pumbedisa'i maintain, if the recipient did not make a Kinyan. But in Masa Mechsaya they said - that, in the absence of a Kinyan, the witnesses must first check with the owner before writing a document, even though he had said 'Kisvu, ve'Chismu ve'Havu Lei'.

(c) The Halachah is like the men of Masa Mechsaya.

(a) Rebbi Nasan rules like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - who rules that ...

1. ... if a Mesukan (a Go'ses on his deathbed) announced 'Write a Get for my wife!', one complies with his request, despite his failure to add the word 'T'nu' (which would normally prevent us from complying). This is because we assume that that is what he really wanted us to do, and that he omitted the word 'T'nu' only because his situation caused him to become confused.
2. ... if Terumas Ma'aser shel D'mai fell back into the Chulin from which the Chaver separated it, he may ask the Am ha'Aretz from whom he purchased it, even during the week, whether he separated it prior to the sale, and accept his word if he says that he did (because D'mai is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and there is also a loss involved).

(b) Rebbi Nasan's ruling there gives rise to the suggestion that he (and not Rav) is the one to rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (who says in our Mishnah that an Almanah min ha'Eirusin only receives a Manah) - because Rebbi Shimon Shezuri too (in the case of a Mesukan) bases his opinions on 'Umdena' (that we assess that that is what the person concerned would have wanted), like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah does.

7)

(a) Chazal instituted that the gift of a 'Sh'chiv Mera' (a man on his deathbed) does not require a Kinyan - to prevent the worry that his words are not being accepted from hastening his death.

(b) If the documented gift of a 'Sh'chiv Mera' records a Kinyan, Shmuel has doubts whether the gift is valid or not - because the man may then have meant the Kinyan to take effect specifically through the Sh'tar, and a Sh'tar cannot come into effect after the owner's death.

(c) Shmuel may well hold like Rebbi Yossi, who holds that the date written on a Sh'tar determines when the claim falls due - because that is confined to a healthy person, such as a father who is writing over his property to his son. *He* wants to give him the actual property still during his lifetime and the benefits from after his death, but even Rebbi Yossi will agree that a Sh'chiv Mera does not have this in mind.

(d) Rav gives it both the advantage of the gift of a healthy man, and that of a Sh'chiv Mera. The advantage of ...

1. ... the gift of a healthy man (over that of a Sh'chiv Mera) - is that, should he recover, he cannot retract (whereas a Sh'chiv Mera can).
2. ... the gift of a Sh'chiv Mera (over that of a healthy man) - is that even if he bequeaths debts that he is owed, his gift is valid (which would not be the case in the case of a healthy man, because one cannot acquire coins with Chalipin (which we assume is the Kinyan that took place [only together with land]).

(a) We learn from Rav's opinion in the previous case - that he too assesses a person's mind, even to the point of extracting money through it.

(b) This repudiates our suggestion that Rebbi Nasan must be the one to rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah - because according to what we just established, it could just as well be Rav.