Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOCUMENTS THAT TAKE EFFECT AFTER DEATH

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one wants to write his property to his children (e.g. before he marries a woman, so they will receive it after he dies, she will not be able to collect her Kesuvah from it) he must write 'From today and after I die';
(b) R. Yosi says, he need not write this.
(c) If one wrote his property to his son (for after his death), the father may not sell it because he already wrote it to the son; the son may not sell it because (the produce) still belongs to the father.

1. If the father sold it, the buyer may use it until the father dies; if the son sold it, the buyer does not receive anything until the son dies.

(d) (Gemara) Question: Even if he writes 'From today and after I die', why does it help?

1. (Mishnah): 'This is your Get from today and after I die' - she is doubtfully divorced; if he died without children, she does Chalitzah, she may not do Yibum.

(e) Answer: There, we are unsure if he intended to make a condition (this is your Get from today, on condition that I die (from this sickness)), or if he originally wanted the Get to take effect from today, and retracted, and said '(no, rather) after I die';

1. Here, we are sure that he wants the son to receive permanent rights to the property from today, and to receive the produce after the father's death.

(f) (Mishnah): R. Yosi says, he need not write this.
(g) Question (Rav Nachman): Does the Halachah follow R. Yosi?
(h) Answer (Rabah bar Avuha): Yes.
(i) (Rav Huna): R. Yosi's reason is that the date on a document proves that it should take effect (at least partially, i.e. regarding permanent rights to the property) from that day.
(j) Support (Beraisa -R. Yosi): He need not write this, because the date on a document proves that it should take effect from that day.
(k) Version #1 - Question (Rava): What is the law regarding a Hakna'ah document (it says that an acquisition (Chalipin) was done - does R. Yehudah admit that it need not say 'From today and after I die')?
(l) Answer (Rav Nachman): He agrees, it need not say this (because the acquisition took place today).
(m) (Rav Papa): Some Hakna'ah documents must say this, others need not:

1. If it says 'Aknei u'Kanina Minei' - Aknei means that the witnesses acquired for him, u'Kanina is an extra language to show that the giver wants the acquisition to take effect immediately, therefore it need not say 'From today and after I die';
2. If it says 'Kanina Minei v'Aknei', Aknei merely explains that Kanina Minei was an acquisition - if it does not say 'From today and after I die', it is like a document after death (it is invalid).

(n) Question (R. Chanina of Sura): Most Chachamim do not know the difference between these languages, do the scribes know it?!

1. They asked the scribes of Abaye and Rava - they knew the difference.

(o) (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Whether it says 'Aknei u'Kanina Minei' or 'Kanina Minei v'Aknei', it need not say 'From today and after I die';

1. R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue about documents that do not mention an acquisition.

(p) Version #2 - Rav Zvid of Neharda'a: Rava taught (like Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua) in the name of Rav Nachman.

(a) (R. Yochanan): If the son sold the property and then he died in the father's lifetime, the buyer never gets it (we will explain why);

(b) (Reish Lakish): The buyer gets it (after the father dies).
(c) R. Yochanan says that the buyer never gets it - he holds that owning the produce is like owning the property (the son never properly owned it, therefore the buyer does not get it);
(d) Reish Lakish says that the buyer gets it - owning the produce is not like owning the property.
(e) Question: They argued about this elsewhere!

1. (R. Yochanan): If one sold his land for a limited amount of time, the buyer brings Bikurim and reads the declaration;
2. (Reish Lakish) The buyer brings Bikurim but does not read the declaration;

i. R. Yochanan says that he reads the declaration - owning the produce is like owning the property, he can thank Hash-m for "Ha'Adamah Asher Nasatah Li";
ii. Reish Lakish says that he cannot say this, because owning the produce is not like owning the property.

(f) Answer: R. Yochanan had to teach here that the buyer does not get it;

1. Even though normally, owning the produce is like owning the property, one might have thought that a father (even when he retains the produce) concedes full ownership to the son, and the son's sale stands - R. Yochanan teaches, this is not so.
2. Also, Reish Lakish had to teach here that the buyer gets it;
3. Even though normally, owning the produce is not like owning the property, one might have thought that a person always favors himself (even against his son), when he retains the produce, he also keeps full ownership, and the son's sale is void - Reish Lakish teaches, this is not so.

(g) Question (R. Yochanan - 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. Summation of question: If owning the produce is not like owning the property, Shimon never really owned it, it should go to the heirs of the giver!

(h) Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Hoshaya answered, the law is different when he says 'After you...', this language
shows that he wants each recipient to get full ownership.
(i) Rabah bar Rav Huna asked similarly of Rav, Rav answered as R. Hoshaya.
(j) Contradiction (Beraisa): If Ploni died before Shimon, when Shimon dies it goes to the heirs of the giver.
(k) Answer: Tana'im argue whether or not 'After you' is different.