Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE HALACHAH FOLLOWS R. ABA

(a) Question: For which teaching(s) was it necessary to teach that the Halachah follows R. Aba?

1. Suggestion: He must teach that the Halachah does not follow Rava (that Reuven's grandson can testify about Reuven's brother).
2. Rejection: R. Aba taught a smaller Chidush (that Reuven's grandson can testify about Reuven's nephew) - we cannot infer that the Halachah does not follow Rava (perhaps R. Aba agrees with Rava)!
3. Suggestion: He must teach that the Halachah does not follow Mar bar Rav Ashi (that a man can testify about his grandfather).
4. Rejection: We already taught that explicitly!
5. Suggestion: He must teach that the Halachah does not follow Shmuel, Rav Sheshes and Rav Papa.
6. Rejection: They were already refuted!

(b) Answer: He teaches that the Halachah does not follow R. Yochanan (who ruled like Chachamim of R. Yehudah), not like Mar bar Rav Ashi's objection (that even R. Shimon ben Elazar exempts from the oath in this case).

(a) (Mishnah): If (a dying person) stipulated how much each son should receive, and gave some sons more than others...(If he wrote at the beginning, middle or end that it is a gift, it takes effect.)
(b) Question: What is the case of a gift at the beginning, middle or end?
(c) Answer (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): At the beginning: Field Plonis will be given to Ploni and he will inherit it;

1. In the end: He will inherit it and it will be given to him;
2. In the middle: He will inherit it and it will be given to him and he will inherit it.
3. This is only regarding one field and one recipient - but if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, the language of gift takes effect, the language of inheritance does not take effect.

(d) (R. Elazar): Even if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, both acquisitions work;

1. But if there are two fields and two recipients, the language of gift takes effect, the language of inheritance does not take effect.

(e) (Ravin): 'Field Plonis will be given to Ploni, Ploni will inherit field Plonis' - R. Yochanan says that he acquires, R. Elazar says that he does not.
(f) (Abaye): One of your teachings we understand, the other contradicts what Rav Dimi taught!

1. There is no contradiction in R. Elazar - your teaching is when there are two fields and two recipients, R. Elazar teaches that the language of inheritance does not acquire.
2. We cannot resolve R. Yochanan!

(g) Conclusion: The Amora'im argue about R. Yochanan's opinion.
(h) (Reish Lakish): In order that both acquire, he must say 'Ploni and Almoni will inherit fields Plonis and Almonis that I gave them as a gift, and they will inherit them.
(i) Other Amora'im argue as R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argue.

1. (Rav Hamnuna): This is only regarding one field and one recipient - but if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, the language of inheritance does not take effect.
2. (Rav Nachman): Even if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, both acquisitions work;

i. But if there are two fields and two recipients, the language of inheritance does not take effect.

3. (Rav Sheshes): Even regarding two fields and two recipients, both take effect.

(j) Support (Rav Sheshes for himself - Beraisa): Reuven said (before he left) 'Give a Shekel (of my money) to my sons each week', and it is fitting to give them two Shekalim, we give them two (he only intended that they should receive the minimum necessary);

1. If he said 'Only give them a Shekel', we give only one.
2. If he said 'If they die, others (Ploni and Almoni) should inherit' (instead of their sons - this shows that he wants the rest of his money to go to the others) - whether he said 'Give' or 'Only give', we give only one.

3. Culmination of support: This is like two fields (the weekly Shekalim and the remaining money) and two recipients (his sons and the others), and both acquire!

(k) Rejection (Rav Sheshes): This is not a proof, perhaps the others are fitting to inherit Reuven, and the Beraisa is R. Yochanan ben Brokah (who says that a language of inheritance works).
(l) Question (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): 'My property is (given) to you (Shimon), and after you (die) Ploni will inherit, and after him Almoni' - after Shimon dies, Ploni acquires; after Ploni dies, Almoni acquires;

1. If Ploni died before Shimon, when Shimon dies it goes to Shimon's heirs.
2. This is like two fields (Rashbam - Ploni does not receive anything in Shimon's lifetime; R. Gershom - Shimon only received produce of the land, Ploni inherits the land itself) and two people, and both acquire!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps this is not a proof, here also Ploni is fitting to inherit Reuven, the Beraisa is R. Yochanan ben Brokah (130A).
4. Rejection: If so, Almoni would not acquire when Ploni dies!

i. (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avya): According to R. Yochanan ben Brokah, 'My property is to you, and after you to Ploni' - if Shimon is fitting to inherit the giver, Ploni does not get anything, 'to you' is not a language of a gift, rather of inheritance, and one cannot stipulate after inheritance.

5. This refutes all the opinions (except for R. Yochanan according to Ravin, and Rav Sheshes).

(m) Suggestion: Reish Lakish is also refuted.
(n) Rejection: That cannot be - Rava said, the Halachah follows Reish Lakish against R. Yochanan in three places (and this is one of them)!

1. The Beraisa is when he said 'after you Ploni will inherit' Toch Kedai Dibur (within the time to say three or four words, therefore the first language of a gift also applies to Ploni);
2. Reish Lakish's law is when the inheritance was not said Toch Kedai Dibur of the gift, therefore it needs its own language of a gift.

(o) The Halachah is, anything said within Toch Kedai Dibur is like part of the previous matter, except for (Rashbam - designation for; Tosfos - acceptance of) idolatry and Kidushin (and divorce).