Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yosef just established the Machlokes between the Tana Kama of the Beraisa and Rebbi Shimon like he established that of ben Nannes and Rebbi Akiva (whether the Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin of the heirs of the wife who died after her husband is considered Mosar Dinar or not). We suggest that perhaps they both agree that it is, and that they argue over whether the Mosar Dinar needs to be Karka or not - the Tana Kama holds that it does, and Rebbi Shimon holds that it does not.

(b) We reject ...

1. ... this suggestion - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself (in the next Mishnah) specifically requires Karka.
2. ... the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon comes to permit even Meshubadim (fields of their father that are Meshubad to creditors), whereas the Tana Kama disagrees - on the grounds that, if Rebbi Shimon is coming to be lenient (as all the current explanations assume), then he should have said '*Keivan* she'Yesh Sham Mosar Dinar ... ', rather than '*Im* Yesh Sham Mosar Dinar' (implying that he is coming to be strict).
3. ... the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon comes to permit even less than a Dinar, whereas the Tana Kama requires a Mosar Dinar (besides on the grounds of the previous Kashya) - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself specifically requires a Dinar.

(c) We suggest that perhaps, we ought to switch the opinions, in which case, Rebbi Shimon will require a Dinar and it is the Tana Kama who does not. In that case - the words of the Tana Kama 'Ba'in Banehah shel Zu le'Achar Misah ve'Notlin Kesuvas Iman' will now refer to the *first* set of heirs (unlike the explanation of Rav Yosef on the previous Amud).

(d) We reject the suggestion to switch the opinions in this case - on the basis of the fact that the Tana Kama of Rebbi Shimon in the following Mishnah (whom we presume to be the same Tana as that of the Beraisa), specifically requires a Dinar.

3)

(a) Mar Zutra Amar Rav Papa finally rules 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso, Yesh Lahen K'suvas B'nin Dichrin' and 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah'. Having ruled ...

1. ... 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso, Yesh Lahen K'suvas B'nin Dichrin', he nevertheless found it necessary to rule 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah' - because we might otherwise have thought, that even though one of the sets of heirs claims in the capacity of creditors, an extra Dinar will nevertheless be required before Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin can take effect.
2. ... 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah', he nevertheless found it necessary to rule 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso, Yesh Lahen K'suvas B'nin Dichrin' - because we would otherwise have established the case when the mothers of both sets of sons who are claiming their mother's Kesuvah died during their husband's lifetime, but that there is a third wife who died after her husband, but who has left only daughters (who claim their mother's Kesuvah but not Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin) (when 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah' applies, but not 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso').

(b) We cannot apply the principle 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah' when both wives died in their husband's lifetime - because, if we did, then in which case do Chazal require a Mosar Dinar?

(c) The difference between there where the woman who died after her husband left daughters, to where she left sons is - that where she left sons, the sons can counter the first wife's heirs who are claiming their mother's (larger) Kesuvah from their father with the argument that they are claiming their mother's Kesuvah as heirs of their *mother*, and as far as the remainder of their father's property is concerned, they are all equal heirs (so why should the other set of heirs receive more than they in his property?).

(d) Where the latter wife left only daughters however, there is no reason to worry about strife - because the daughters are not heirs of their father, so what claim can they have against the sons of the first two wives claiming their mother's Kesuvah from their father?

(a) We have already learned that K'suvas B'nin Dichrin only applies if a Dinar remains for the heirs to inherit. If the sons of the wife with the larger K'suvah agree to assess their portion at a higher rate, so that an extra Dinar remains - we reject their 'kind' offer. Beis-Din assess the inheritance at the going rate, and whatever remains after the two Kesuvos have been covered, remains.

(b) A debt of their father's that is waiting to be claimed - cannot be included as part of the extra Dinar.

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon - the Mosar Dinar must comprise Karka, not Metaltelin.

(a) If, when the husband died, there was a Mosar Dinar but the value of property decreased, with the result that by the time that Beis-Din assessed the property, there was no longer a Mosar Dinar - we go after the time of the father's death, in which case, the heirs of the larger Kesuvah have already merited their mother's Kesuvah, by the time the Beis-Din assess it.

(b) In a case where the value of the property increased before the assessment, Rav Amram (who was unsure what the Halachah was in such a case) ordered the heirs of the smaller Kesuvah - to appease the heirs of the larger Kesuvah (to refrain from claiming their mother's Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin).

(c) When they refused to comply - he threatened to place them in Cherem.

(d) Rav Nachman finally ruled that, whether the value of property increases or decreases, we follow the time of the husband's death. Consequently - the heirs of the larger Kesuvah had no claim, and it was unnecessary for the heirs of the smaller Kesuvah to appease the heirs of the larger Kesuvah.

6)

(a) A man who owed his friend a thousand Zuz, sold his two mansions to the same purchaser for five hundred Zuz each. When the creditor, who had already claimed one of the mansions, came to claim the second one - the purchaser offered him an ultimatum. Either, he said, he accept the mansion that he already claimed as if it was worth a thousand Zuz, or he must accept a thousand Zuz from him in exchange for it (because that was how much it was worth to him).

(b) Rami bar Chama tried to compare this case to our Mishnah, which forbids the heirs to inflate the price of their father's property, in order to gain their mother's Kesuvah. Rava rejects his comparison however - on the grounds that in our Mishnah, inflating the price causes a loss to the other set of orphans, whereas in this case, raising the price of the mansion does not cause the creditor a loss, since he receives the thousand Zuz that he lent the debtor (because he had the option of taking the thousand Zuz cash that the purchaser offered him).

(c) In a very similar incident, Rav Yosef, like Rami bar Chama, thought to learn from our Mishnah that one cannot inflate the value of a field to one's own advantage. Abaye told him - exactly the same as Rava told Rami bar Chama.

(a) When the purchaser asked the Beis-Din to write him out a document for the debtor to compensate him for his loss, Ravina held that they should write him a document for a thousand Zuz (which is how much the mansion was worth to both him and the creditor). According to Rav Avira - they had to write out a document for five hundred Zuz (the real value of the mansion).

(b) The Halachah - is like Rav Avira.

(a) When the orphan's father's creditor (whom he had owed a hundred Zuz) claimed a small plot of land worth fifty Zuz as half his debt - the orphans offered him fifty Zuz to get rid off him.

(b) Although it is a Mitzvah to pay one's father's debts - orphans are not obligated to do so.

(c) When the creditor then claimed the land anyway - Abaye ruled that he was entitled to do so, since all the immobile property of the debtor remains Meshubad to the creditor.

(d) The orphans could have prevented him from doing so - had they specifically stipulated that the money that they gave him was to pay for the plot of land.

(a) A certain man sold his mother's Kesuvah for Tovas Hana'ah. His mother at the time - was married to another man.

(b) Tovas Hana'ah in this case - means the small amount that the Kesuvah was worth to the purchaser, bearing in mind that a. the woman might have died before her husband (in which case, her husband would inherit the Kesuvah) and b. even if the husband would die first, perhaps her son (the seller) would die before her, in which, the sale would be negated (seeing as the son was not the purchaser's Sh'li'ach).

(c) When selling the field, the son stipulated that he would not take any responsibility should his mother protest to the sale.

(d) His mother died and he came to claim the Kesuvah from the purchaser as his mother's heir.

1. Rami bar Chama contended - that seeing as he was his mother's heir, his condition extended to himself claiming too. Consequently, he was not obligated to compensate the purchaser for having caused him a loss.
2. ... Rava countered - that his condition did not cover losses that he himself caused the purchaser, and that he was therefore Chayav to compensate him.