Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE MOST DIFFICULT MONETARY LAW

(a) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): Reuven borrowed from his father (Yakov) in Yakov's lifetime, and he died; Reuven takes from the buyers (this will be corrected and explained); this is among the most difficult monetary laws.
(b) Objection #1: Why does borrowing entitle him to take from buyers?
(c) Objection #2: The teaching did not mention that anyone bought anything!
(d) Correction - Version #1: Rather, Reuven sold his father's property in Yakov's lifetime, and Reuven died, Reuven's son (Chanoch) takes from the buyers;

1. This is among the most difficult monetary laws - why can't the buyers say 'You do not inherit what your father sold!'?

(e) Objection: This is not difficult! Chanoch can say, I do not take because I inherit Reuven, rather, because I inherit Yakov.

1. Support: "Tachas Avosecha Yihyu Vanecha" (your (Reuven's) sons will be in your father's stead, i.e. they inherit him).

(f) Correction - Version #2: Rather, the following was considered difficult.
(g) A firstborn (Reuven) sold his extra portion in Yakov's lifetime, and Reuven died; Chanoch takes from the buyers;

1. This is among the most difficult monetary laws - why can't the buyers say, 'You do not inherit what your father sold!'?

i. Suggestion: Chanoch can say, I do not take because I inherit Reuven, rather, because I inherit Yakov.
ii. Rejection: The law is true even if Chanoch (Rashbam; R. Gershom - Yakov) is not a firstborn, surely the extra portion is on account of Reuven!

(h) Objection: This is not difficult! Chanoch can say, I inherit Yakov; I am in place of my father, therefore I get the extra portion!
(i) Correction - Version #3: Rather, the following was considered difficult.
(j) Shimon signed on a document for Moshe before Shimon stole; later, he stole. Shimon cannot verify his signature, others can testify about it.

1. This is among the most difficult monetary laws - since we do not trust Shimon, why does it help if others recognize his signature (perhaps he did not sign on the date of the document, rather, later, after he stole)!

(k) Objection: This is not difficult! Perhaps the case is, we saw the signatures on the document before Shimon stole!
(l) Correction - Version #4: Rather, the following was considered difficult.
(m) Shimon signed on a document for Moshe before he inherited (Rashash - was standing to inherit) Moshe, then he inherited Moshe (Rashash - became his heir, e.g. Moshe's heir died). Shimon cannot verify his signature, others can testify about it.

1. This is among the most difficult monetary laws - since we do not trust Shimon, why does it help if others recognize his signature (perhaps he signed after he inherited (or became an heir)!)?

(n) Objection: This is not difficult! Here also, the case is, we saw the signatures on the document from before this!
(o) Correction - Version #5: Rather, the following was considered difficult.
(p) Shimon signed on a document for Moshe before he became Moshe's son-in-law, then he became his son-in-law. Shimon cannot verify his signature, others can testify about it.

1. Why does it help if others recognize his signature (perhaps he signed after he became his son-in-law!)?

i. Suggestion: Perhaps here also, the case is, we saw the signatures on the document from before this!
ii. Rejection: Rav Yosef bar Minyomi taught, the law applies even if we did not see the signatures on the document before this!

(q) Objection: This is not difficult! Perhaps the Torah decreed that a relative is not believed, even though we do not suspect that he would lie!

1. Support: Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon ha'Kohen could not testify together, even though we do not suspect that they would lie; rather, the Torah decreed that relatives are not believed.

(a) Conclusion: Really, Version #1 was correct (Reuven sold Yakov's property, Reuven died, Chanoch takes from the buyers; it is difficult, why can't they say 'You do not inherit what your father sold!'?)

1. "Tachas Avosecha Yihyu Vanecha" does not teach that a grandchild directly inherits his grandfather, rather, it is merely a blessing (that a Tzadik will have children to inherit him).

(b) Question: Is it really true that it is merely a blessing, the law is not true?!

1. (Mishnah): A house fell on Reuven and his father or Morishav (someone else that Reuven inherits). Reuven left creditors (or a wife entitled to a Kesuvah). His father's heirs say that Reuven died first, the creditors say that the father died first.

i. Suggestion: The father's heirs are Reuven's sons; 'Morishav' is Reuven's brother.
ii. If a grandchild does not directly inherit his grandfather, the verse is merely a blessing, even if Reuven died first, the creditors collect, because the property passes to Reuven before Reuven's sons!

(c) Answer: No, the father's heirs are Reuven's brothers; 'Morishav' is Reuven's uncle. (But if the father's heirs were Reuven's sons, the creditors would collect no matter who died first.)
(d) Question: If a woman died after her son, does he 'inherit' her in the grave, i.e. to pass her property to his paternal brothers?
(e) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): A man was captured and his son died here (or vice-versa, we do not know who died first) - the father's heirs and the son's heirs divide the property.
(f) Question: What is the case?

1. If as it is taught - the father's heirs also are the son's heirs!

(g) Answer: Rather, a man was captured and his daughter's son died here - the father's heirs and the grandson's heirs divide the property.

1. If you will say that a son inherits in the grave, even if the grandson died first, he inherits his grandfather in the grave to pass her property to his paternal brothers!
2. We conclude that a son does not inherit in the grave.

(h) (Rav Acha bar Minyomi): We can also learn this from our Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): A house fell on Reuven and his mother. Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that his heirs divide her property with her heirs.
2. If a son inherits in the grave, even if the son died first, he inherits his mother to pass her property to his paternal brothers!

(i) Question: What is the reason that a son does not inherit in the grave?
(j) Answer (Abaye): The Torah mentions Sivah (transferal of inheritance from tribe to tribe) ownership regarding a son and a husband (who inherits his mother/wife);

1. Just as a husband in the grave does not inherit his wife, also a son.

(k) Reuven told Shimon 'I sell you the property of bar Sisin's house'. There was a certain land called by that name, Reuven said that it was not bar Sisin's, it was just called on his name.

1. Rav Nachman gave the land to Shimon.
2. Question (Rava): Reuven was established as the owner - to take the house from him, the burden of proof is on Shimon (that it was bar Sisin's property)!

(l) Contradiction: Rav Nachman and Rava said just the contrary in a different case!

1. Reuven asked Shimon: What are you doing in this house?
2. Shimon: I bought it from you, and I have lived here the years needed to make a Chazakah.
3. Reuven: (I did not sell it to you;) I have been living in the inner rooms of the house (so you do not have a Chazakah).
4. Rav Nachman: (To get the house) Shimon must prove that he was alone in the house.
5. Objection (Rava): Shimon has a Chazakah - to take the house from him, the burden of proof is on Reuven (to prove that he lived in the inner rooms)!
6. (Summation of contradiction: In the first case, Rav Nachman considers the buyer to be Muchzak when in doubt, Rava says that the seller is Muchzak; in the latter case, each holds the opposite!)

(m) Answer - part 1: Rava does not contradict himself - in the first case, the seller is on the property, so he is Muchzak;

1. In the second case, the buyer is on the property, so he is Muchzak.

(n) Answer - part 2: Rav Nachman does not contradict himself - in the first case, since the property is called by bar Sisin's name, the seller must prove that it was not really bar Sisin's;

1. In the second case, living in the house for the years of Chazakah only supports his claim that he had a document and lost it - even if he had the document, he would have to validate it! (Here also, he must prove that his Chazakah was valid).