Previous daf

1)

(a) Which three rights does a husband have in his wife's property?

(b) Which of them ...

1. ... comes into effect when he writes for his wife 'Din u'Devarim Ein Li bi'Nechasayich'?
2. ... remains unaffected when he adds the word 'u've'Peirosayich'?

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, what must he add in order to be forbidden to eat even Peirei Peiros?

(d) And what must he write in order to be forbidden to eat Peiros and Peirei Peiros even after his wife's death?

(a) On what basis does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permit him to inherit the field and to eat the Peiros even after his wife's death?

(b) What does he learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "li'*She'eiro* ha'Karov Eilav mi'Mishpachto *ve'Yarash Osah*"?

(c) Why is his T'nai valid regarding the Peiros during her lifetime and invalid regarding the inheritance after her death?

(a) How does Rebbi Chiya amend the wording 'ha'Kosev le'Ishto ... '?

(b) The Beraisa states that if someone writes (or says) to the partner with whom he shares a field 'Din u'Devarim Ein Li al Sadeh Zu, ve'Ein Li Eisek Bah ve'Yadi Mesulekes Heimenah', he remains a partner as before.
Why is that?

(c) Then why does the Tana of our Mishnah accept the same Lashon with regard to the Nechsei mi'Lug of one's wife?

(a) Rav Kahana says 'Nachalah ha'Ba'ah Lo le'Adam mi'Makom Acher, Adam Masneh Alehah she'Lo Yirshenah'.
What does he mean when he says 'mi'Makom Acher'? What does that have to do with a statement by Rava?

(b) When Rava himself mentioned 'Kegon Zu', he was referring to a statement by Rav Huna Amar Rav.
What did Rav Huna Amar Rav say?

(c) Seeing as the ultimate reason behind this is because it is illogical to force someone to accept a Takanah that is made for his benefit, why should there be a difference whether a man withdraws from his wife's property before his marriage to her or after it?

(a) According to Abaye, once a man marries, Chazal reinforced his rights, making him an equal partner in his wife's Nechsei mi'Lug.
What does Rava say?

(b) The ramifications of their Machlokes are regarding a Shomeres Yavam, who dies leaving property that she has inherited. According to Beis Shamai, her father's heirs and her husband's (the Yavam) share it, whereas according to Beis Hillel, it remains in the possession of her father's heirs. Abaye establishes this Machlokes when she inherited the property whilst still married to her husband.
What does Rava say?

(a) They asked whether a Kinyan would render the Lashon 'Din u'Devarim ... ' effective.
Why can this She'eilah not pertain to the case in our Mishnah? Then to which case does it pertain?

(b) Rav Yosef maintains that the Kinyan comes to reinforce the meaningless withdrawal from the land, and is no more valid than the withdrawal itself. What does Rav Nachman say?

(c) Abaye establishes Rav Yosef by 'Orer', but not by 'Omed'.
What does he mean by that?

(d) When Ameimar rules that the Kinyan comes to acquire the land, is he referring to the case of Omed (even according to Rav Yosef), or even to that of Orer (according to Rav Nachman)?

7)

(a) Why, in the Reisha of our Mishnah, do we restrict 'Din u'Devarim ... ' to where the woman sold the property? Why do we not say that he meant to withdraw from all of his (three) rights?

(b) So how do we know that he did not mean to withdraw from ...

1. ... the Peiros, which is less than the losses caused by his wife's sale?
2. ... the inheritance (in the event of his wife's death), because there is no reason to suspect that she might die?

(c) How does Rav Ashi learn all this from the Lashon 'Din u'Devarim ... bi'Nechasayich'?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah differentiates between Peiros and Peirei Peiros.
What are Peirei Peiros?

(b) We are not sure whether the criterion, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who mentions both 'Peirei Peiros' and 'ad Olam', is the former or the latter. What is the third alternative?

(c) Assuming that the criterion according to him, is ...

1. ... 'Peirei Peiros', why did he need to mention 'ad Olam'?
2. ... 'ad Olam', why did he need to mention 'Peirei Peiros'?

(d) Why might it be necessary to mention both? Let him write only ...

1. ... 'Peirei Peiros' (and not 'ad Olam')?
2. ... 'ad Olam' (and not 'Peirei Peiros')?

(a) We ask what the Din will be if a man writes 'Din u'Devarim Ein Li bi'Nechasayich u've'Peirei Peiros (without mentioning Peiros).
What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b) How do we attempt to resolve it logically?

(c) We counter this proof however, with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who specifically permits the husband to eat the Peirei Peiros (in the event that he failed to insert them into his stipulation). There too, we can ask that, once the woman has eaten the Peiros, where will the Peirei Peiros come from.
How do we answer both questions 'with one sweep' (leaving our She'eilah unresolved)?

(a) What statement did Rav issue with regard to the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(b) We suggest that what he meant was that, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that, should the woman die, her husband inherits her (in spite of his stipulation) because of 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah', Rav holds that he inherits her for a different reason.
Which reason?

(c) What will Rav then hold with regard to 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'?

(d) On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?

Next daf