Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav sent Rebbi a letter into which he inserted the She'eilah what the Din will be if the brothers mortgaged their property for their sisters Mezonos or Parnasah. When Rebbi Chiya asked Rebbi whether Rav was referring to the property that they sold or that they designated as collateral - he replied that there was no difference between them, and that, either way, they could claim for Parnasah but not for Mezonos (as we just learned above).

(b) Rav deliberately declined to specify that his She'eilah was in a case when they ...

1. ... sold it - because then, if Rebbi were to reply in the negative, he would not know what the Din would be in a case when they designated it as collateral (where perhaps they could claim).
2. ... designated it as collateral - because then, were he to reply in the affirmative, he would not know what the Din would be in a case where they sold it (where perhaps they would not be permitted to claim).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan ruled that the daughters may claim neither Mezonos nor Parnasah from Meshubadim. We ask - whether Rebbi Yochanan was not aware of Rebbi's opinion in this matter, and if he would have been, he would have retracted, or whether he knew that Rebbi disagreed with him regarding Parnasah, and he abided by his opinion in spite of it.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan said in Gitin that, if a daughter (who had a brother and an unmarried sister) married and received Isur Nechasim after her father's death, and then her brother died, her sister shares the remainder of the property with her and foregoes Isur Nechasim. According to Rebbi Chanina - in view of the fact that Chazal said that the daughters can even take *from Meshubadim* (like Rebbi said earlier), how can Rebbi Yochanan say that the daughter is willing to forego *property that is available*?

(b) We attempt to resolve our query in Rebbi Yochanan from here - because if Rebbi Yochanan had not been aware of Rebbi's opinion, he should have retorted 'Who said that'?

(c) We go on to reject this proof however. Assuming that Rebbi Yochanan did indeed retract and accept Rebbi's ruling when he heard it, we reconcile that with his ruling there - on the grounds that, since the second daughter suddenly inherits half her father's property, she is willing to forego whatever extra she might obtain in the form of the Isur Nechasim.

(d) This does not mean that whenever one of the daughters finds a precious object, she is willing to forego Isur Nechasim, as Rav Yeimar suggested - because what she finds has nothing to do with Isur Nechasim, whereas in the case in Gitin, the Isur Nechasim is an intrinsic part of the very property that she is inheriting.

(a) According to Ameimar, a daughter has the Din of an heir - which means that the brothers neither have the right to give her money nor to restrict her to one particular field (i.e. she is entitled to claim a section from each field on her father's estate).

(b) According to Rav Ashi - she has the Din of a creditor (whom one is permitted to pay with money, and to designate one particular field).

(c) Minyumi Brei de'Rav Nechumi related - that when a woman once came before Ameimar to claim Isur Nechasim, the brothers were overheard saying that if they had money, they would give her money, and it was evident from Ameimar's reaction, that he would have permitted them to do so (a clear indication that he had retracted and now held like Rav Ashi).

(a) We ask whose creditor she is, her father's - in which case she will be entitled to receive only Ziburis (inferior quality fields) with a Shevu'ah, or her brothers' - in which case she will be entitled to Beinonis without a Shevu'ah (like a regular creditor who claims from his debtors).

(b) We resolve this She'eilah from Ravina, who claimed Beinonis without a Shevu'ah from Mar Brei de'Rav Ashi for Parnasah for his sister, after Rav Ashi's death, a proof that he considers a woman her brothers' creditor. He make her take Ziburis with a Shevu'ah from the son of Rav Sama, Mar's brother, because Rav Sama had died during his father's lifetime, in which case, his son was in fact, the son of her creditor, from whom she could only claim Ziburis with a Shevu'ah.

(c) Rav Nechemyah Brei de'Rav Yosef instructed Rabah Bar Rav Huna to claim Isur Nechasim even from the base of the mill - on the grounds that it is considered Karka.

(d) Rav Kahana used to claim Isur Nechasim even from 'Amla de'Beisa' - the rent owing for houses (see Tosfos).

(a) Rav Huna was angry with Rav Anan when he sent him a message urging him to claim Isur Nechasim - because he called him 'Huna Chavrin'.

(b) Rav Huna sent Rav Sheishes to him with two She'eilos. Rav Sheishes feel compelled to appease him - because Rav Huna referred to him as 'Anan Anan'. Nor was he able to decline, because Rav Huna had issued a Shamta on him if he failed to go.

(c) The first She'eilah was whether one claims Isur Nechasim from Karka or Metaltelin; the second, 'Ma'an Yasiv Bei Mirzach be'Reisha'. Rav Anan reacted to the second She'eilah - by telling Rav Sheishes that he did now know what Bei Mirzach meant.

(d) After Rav Anan had related to Rav Sheishes how he had addressed Rav Huna - he replied that someone who did not even know the meaning of Bei Mirzach should not refer to Rav Huna as 'Huna Chavrin'.

6)

(a) 'Bei Mirzach' means - the house of an Aveil.

(b) In a Beis Aveil - it is the Aveil who sits at the head.

(c)

1. ... Rebbi Avahu learns this from the Pasuk "Evchar Darkam ... Ka'asher Aveilim Yenachem" (despite the fact that the Pasuk writes "Yenachem" - implying the comforters) - because, if the word was meant to be read "Yenachem", then the Pasuk should have placed an 'Alef' after the 'Nun'. Now that there is no 'Alef', it is considered as if it had written "Yinachem" (the one who is being comforted - the Aveil).
2. ... Mar Zutra learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Sar Mirzach Seruchim" - which he explains 'Mar ve'Zach' (the acronym of "Mirzach" - meaning 'the one who is bitter and removed') Na'aseh Sar li'Seruchim' ('became the head of the great ones [even those who are greater than him] who came to visit him'.

(d) Rava rules that Mezonos, Kesuvah and Parnasah - can be claimed from Karka but not from Metaltelin.

(a) If a man appoints a trustee to purchase a field for his daughter or her trousseau when she gets married, and the daughter maintains that she trusts her husband and that the money should be transferred to him, Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah holds that the trustee should do what he was instructed to do. Rebbi Yossi says - that considering that, if the trustee had already bought the field and she were to sell it, the sale would be valid, why should we not listen to her and transfer the money to her husband?

(b) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Meir repeats what he said in the Mishnah, but with regard to an Arusah - a Nesu'ah, he maintains, has the right to rescind her father's appointment.

(c) Rebbi Yossi differentiates between a Gedolah and a Ketanah - the former, he says, has the right to rescind her father's appointment, even if she is only an Arusah, whereas the latter, even a Nesu'ah, does not.

(a) We suggest that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue over a Ketanah min ha'Nisu'in - whom Rebbi Meir authorizes to rescind her father's appointment, but Rebbi Yossi does not.

(b) The author of the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Gedolah, Aval bi'Ketanah, Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah K'lum' cannot be Rebbi Yossi - because that is already evident from the Reisha, where he permits her to rescind her father's instructions only because she could sell the field, automatically precluding a Ketanah, whose sale is invalid.

(c) In order to establish it like Rebbi Meir, we add a whole section to the Mishnah (which also matches his opinion in the Beraisa) confining his statement there to an Arusah, but a Nesu'ah is permitted to switch the money from the trustee to her husband. This enables us to establish the Seifa ' ... Aval bi'Ketanah, Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah K'lum', like Rebbi Meir, dismissing the suggestion that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue over a Ketanah min ha'Nisu'in - because we now see that Rebbi Meir concedes this point to Rebbi Yossi.

(d) Consequently - they must be arguing over a Gedolah min ha'Eirusin, who has the right to rescind her father's instructions, according to Rebbi Yossi, but not according to Rebbi Meir.

10)

(a) Ilfa suspended himself from the mast of a ship because, after poverty forced him to leave Yeshivah and go into business, Rebbi Yochanan remained and became Rosh Yeshivah. He did what he did, in order to prove that he was equally capable of the appointment.

(b) He threatened to throw himself into the sea, if anyone could quote him a Beraisa whose source he could not find in a Mishnah.

(c) If a dying man leaves instructions to give his sons ...

1. ... a Shekel (half a Sela) per week, and they really need a Sela - Beis-Din arrange for them to receive a Sela, because that is what their father would have wanted them to receive, had he known that the cost of living would rise.
2. ... only a Shekel per week, and they really need a Sela - they will only receive a Sela, because that is what their father said.
3. ... a Shekel a week, adding that, in the event of their death so-and-so should inherit whatever is left - they will receive only a Shekel, in order not to deprive those who were named to inherit from them from inheriting.

(d) Ilfa connected this Beraisa to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who rules that the trustee should follow the father's instructions - because he holds 'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis'.

(a) In the case where the father leaves instructions to give his sons only a Shekel a week, their needs are supplemented from Tdedakah funds, according to the Tana of the Beraisa.

(b) We reconcile this with what we learned earlier (on Daf 48a), that if a man leaves instructions to pass on all his estate to his sons and to bury him from Tzedakah funds, we ignore his instructions - because that ruling is base on the principle that a person does not the right to force the community to sustain him by enriching his sons, whereas in our case, the conditions that he placed on the inheritance must be met, because it is on those conditions that it belongs to the heirs.

(a) Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva rules not like this Beraisa. In his opinion - even if the father left instructions for his sons to receive only a Shekel weekly, Beis-Din will arrange for them to receive a Sela, if that is what they need.

(b) This does not contradict the traditional ruling 'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis', like Rebbi Meir - because, he says, Rebbi himself will agree that, in this case, even their father would really have wanted what is best for his children, and that he only specified a Shekel per week, in order to teach them to live modestly.