Previous daf

1)

(a) If a man who is married to two women, sells his field, and the first woman withdraws from any claim against the purchaser, then, when their husband dies and the second woman claims it from the purchaser - the first woman claims it from the second one and the purchaser from the first woman (in a never-ending cycle).

(b) We are talking about a field that is Meshubad to both Kesuvos.

(c) The Tana in the Mishnah spoke about one of the wives withdrawing any claims against the creditor. When we learn in a Beraisa that one cannot withdraw from something that one already has - that was without a Kinyan, but our Tana is speaking when she made a Kinyan (and, as we learned above in ha'Kosev, the Kinyan pertains to the actual field, and is therefore valid).

(a) The Mishnah in Gitin states that if someone purchases a field that is designated for a woman's Kesuvah, the purchase is invalid, even if the sale is backed by the seller's wife - because she can say that she only agreed to the sale in order to make her husband happy.

(b) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Chisda initially reconciles our Mishnah, which accepts the woman's withdrawal (albeit with a Kinyan), with the Mishnah in Gitin - by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and the Mishnah in Gitin like Rebbi Yehudah (seeing as they argue over this point in a Beraisa).

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if a man sells one field to one person without the backing of his wife, and a second field to another person, and his wife substantiates the sale, she can say 'I was only out to make my husband happy'. According to Rebbi Meir, she loses her Kesuvah - because it speaks when there are no B'nei Chorin (property or money still in the husband's domain), and as for the Meshubadim: she can neither claim from the first purchaser, who can say that he left her property with her husband, nor from the second purchaser, whose purchase she herself corroborated.

(d) The problem with establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir and the Mishnah in Gitin, like Rebbi Yehudah is - that it would be rather odd for Rebbi to present two S'tam Mishnahs according to two conflicting opinions.

(a) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah - when the woman relinquished her rights from her Kesuvah after she was already divorced (in which case, even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that she would hardly have done so to make her husband happy).

(b) According to Rav Ashi, the author of the Mishnah in Gitin too, is Rebbi Meir - because Rebbi Meir only argues with Rebbi Yehudah when the woman corroborated the second sale, but not the first one (a clear indication, that she genuinely agreed with the second sale); whereas in the Mishnah in Gitin, where the sale that she corroborated was the only, he will concede that she only signed in order to make her husband happy)?

(c) Our Mishnah, which Rav Ashi also establishes like Rebbi Meir - speaks when her husband had already sold the field to a previous buyer, and that she had not corroborated that sale (in which case, Rebbi Meir will agree with Rebbi Yehudah, as we just explained).

(a) A creditor has the right - to claim from medium-quality fields (mi'de'Rabbanan, because Chazal were afraid that otherwise, people will refuse to lend money).

(b) The Mishnah in Gitin says that a creditor, whose debtor sold everything except Ziburis (poor quality fields) - must claim from Ziburis, because one cannot claim from Meshubadim when there are B'nei Chorin (irrespective of what those B'nei Chorin are).

(a) We ask what the Din will be regarding a case where the debtor sold all his fields, but retained one field which became spoiled, whether he loses his claim or whether he may now claim his debt from the purchasers. We try to resolve this She'eilah from the Beraisa (that we quoted above) 'Kasav le'Rishon ve'Lo Chasmah Lo, le'Sheini ve'Chasmah Lo, Ibdah K'suvasah' - because, if we were to say that, once there is no possibility of claiming from B'nei Chorin, one can claim from Meshubadim, then why should the woman there not claim from the first purchaser (from whom she did not withdraw)?

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers 'Mai Ibdah, mi'Sheini' - which Rava immediately dismisses on the grounds that 'Ibdah' implies a total loss.

(c) He also rejects Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's answer based on a Beraisa - which says that a creditor, who withdraws from any claim against the second purchaser of the debtor's field, has no claim against the first creditor either.

(d) Rava refutes any proof for our She'eilah from there or from the Beraisa which, under similar circumstances, writes 'Ibdah K'suvasah' - because there, since the creditor and the woman respectively, withdrew from their main source of claim, they are responsible for causing their own loss, whereas in our case, where the property became spoiled automatically, it is not the fault of the creditor.

6)

(a) That man who deposited an orchard with his friend for ten years - was a debtor, who agreed that the creditor should eat the fruit of the field for ten years (in lieu of his debt), before returning it without charge.

(b) When, after five years, the trees became too old to produce fruit - Beis-Din handed the creditor a credit note authorizing him to claim from the debtors purchasers.

(c) Despite the fact that this was a regular occurrence, we still have doubts about a debtor who sold all his fields, but retained one which became spoiled. It is not obvious from there at all - because there too, the purchaser has only himself to blame for buying property from someone who had entered into such a transaction, in the knowledge that trees tend to dry up after a few years.

(d) The Halachah regarding a debtor who sold all his fields, but retained one which became spoiled is - that the creditor is permitted to claim from Meshubadim.

(a) Abaye says that if a man says to a woman 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharayich li'P'loni', and then she gets married - the husband gets the property, because he is considered a buyer, and 'Acharecha' does not get anything when there is a buyer.

(b) This is the opinion of - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa regarding a man who says to his friend 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha li'P'loni', holds that, if the first man goes and sells the property - 'Acharecha' may take the property from the purchaser.

(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - the purchaser gets it, and not 'Acharecha'.

(c) Abaye himself describes someone who advises the recipient of a gift given in such a manner to sell the property (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) - as an interfering Rasha.

(d) When Abaye made his initial statement - he did not mean that the woman is permitted to get married Lechatchilah in order to deprive 'Acharecha' of the property, but that, if she did get married, then her husband gets the property.

(a) If the same person gave the woman the gift when she was already married, and the woman then sold it and died - Abaye holds that the husband, who is considered the first buyer, takes it from the second buyer, Acharecha from the husband and the first buyer from the husband, where Chazal decided, it remains.

(b) In our Mishnah, we learned that, in a similar case, the property rotates between the two wives and the purchaser (until they come to terms) - because there they all stand to lose their rights (so the Chachamim did not want to intercede), whereas here, it is only the buyer (who paid for the article) who stands to lose (so they interceded on his behalf).

(a) Our Mishnah concludes 've'Chein Ba'al Chov, ve'Chein Ishah Ba'alas Chov'. The Beraisa explains 've'Chein Ba'al Chov' to mean 've'Chein Ba'al Chov u'Sh'nei Lekuchos'. The case is when - after borrowing a Manah from Reuven, Shimon sold his two fields to two purchasers, each for fifty Zuz. Then, after withdrawing from any claim from the second purchaser, Reuven claims the field from the first purchaser, who then claims from the second purchaser, who claims from Reuven ... .

(b) Once the creditor has withdrawn from any claims against the second purchaser, he has the right to go to the first purchaser, who cannot counter 'I deliberately left you property (which the second purchaser subsequently bought) to claim from' - because he only left him a field worth fifty Zuz, whilst the claim is a hundred.

11)

(a) A widow is fed from the property of the orphans (as her husband wrote in the Kesuvah) - who receive the work of her hands.

(b) The onus of burying her falls - not on the orphans, but on her heirs, who inherit her Kesuvah.