Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye queries both Rabah and Rav Nachman on two scores. On Rabah he asked - that if their father did not leave them that money, he did not leave them that land either, and on Rav Nachman, he asked the reverse.

(b) Based on Rabah's own statement later (in connection with the case of the old grandmother), even Karka should be considered Ra'uy, even though it is Meshubad - because if the debtor so wishes, he is entitled to pay money.

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah rules that if Yesomim claimed Karka that was Meshubad to their father - their father's creditor may claim it from them.

(d) In that case, asks Abaye - how can Rav Nachman consider Karka Ra'uy in our Sugya. Had the Yesomim acquired Karka after their father's death, there is no question that their father's creditor would not have been able to claim it, so why should land that they claimed from their father's debtor be any different (unless it is considered Muchzekes).

(a) To answer Abaye's Kashyos on Rav Nachman as well as those on himself, Rabah replied - that the opinions which they both expressed were not their own, but came to explain the Shalchu mi'Tam.

(b) In fact, both of them really hold like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who considers the father Muchzak neither in the money nor in the Karka (from a 'Kal va'Chomer' as we learned above).

(c) Nevertheless, they qualify the Shalchu mi'Tam as if to say - at least agree with us that he is either not Muchzak in the money (Rabah) or in the land (Rav Nachman).

(a) Despite the fact that Rav Nachman really considers even Karka to be Ra'uy, he quote Rabah bar Avuhah, who permits the creditor of the Yesomim's father to claim his debt from the property which the Yesomim claimed from their father's debtor - on the basis of 'Shibuda de'Rebbi Nasan', which renders the property of the father's debtor Meshubad to the father's creditor just as it was Meshubad to the father.

(b) Rabah here considers the father Muchzak in his debtor's Karka according to the Shalchu mi'Tam - only because the property of the debtor is Meshubad to the creditor. In the forthcoming case however, the Shalchu mi'Tam consider the property Ra'uy, even though it is Karka, because the husband is not a creditor (as we shall see), in which case there is no reason for the property to be Meshubad to the husband.

4)

(a) After bequeathing his property to his old grandmother, the owner stipulated - that after she died, his relatives would inherit it.

(b) After the old woman died - his daughter's husband (his daughter having died before the grandmother) claimed the property.

(c)

1. Rav Huna upheld the husband's claim - on the grounds that 'le'Yarsi' (to my heirs) includes 'Yarsi de'Yarsi' (which the husband was).
2. Rav Anan disagreed however, on the grounds - that 'le'Yarsi' is restricted to his next of kin and not to the next of kin's next of kin, in which case, the grandmother's next of kin ought to have inherited the property from her.

(d) Had the daughter survived her husband, and left a son or daughter when she died - Rav Anan would have issued the same ruling.

(a) When Shalchu mi'Tam ruled like Rav Anan, but not for the same reason, they meant - that although they conceded that the husband should not inherit the property, that was not for reason given by Rav Anan, but because it was Ra'uy, and a husband only inherits what his wife actually owns when she dies.

(b) The ramifications of this ruling will be - in a case where the daughter left behind a son or a daughter, who will receive the property, according to the Shalchu mi'Tam, but not according to Rav Anan, as we explained.

(c) The problem this initially poses on Rav Huna is - that, by inference, he will hold that a husband inherits what is Ra'uy (when really, nobody disputes the fact that he does not).

(d) When Rebbi Elazar said in answering this Kashya 'Davar Zeh Niftach bi'Gedolim, ve'Nistayem bi'Ketanim', he meant - that although the initial statement was made by a great man (Rav Huna), it had to be explained by his subordinate (meaning himself).

(a) Rebbi Elazar gave Rav Huna's reason (not because he holds that a husband inherits even the property of his wife which is Ra'uy, but) - because when someone says 'Acharecha' (so-and-so will inherit after you), he means to give so-and-so the actual article or property immediately (and the interim use of it to 'you'). Consequently, in our case, the owner's daughter received the property immediately, and when his grandmother died, it was not Ra'uy.

(b) Nevertheless, Rabah, agrees with the B'nei Ma'arava (the Shalchu mi'Tam), based on the S'vara (that we already discussed earlier) - that had the grandmother wished, she would have been able to sell the property.

(c) Rav Papa issues a final ruling regarding the matters discussed in the above Sugya. Neither a husband nor a Bechor - receive what is Ra'uy.

(d) And he rules - that a Bechor does not receive an extra portion in a loan, irrespective of whether they claimed land or money.

(a) Rav Papa's first ruling is not absolute - because a husband will inherit Shachas that became fully-grown wheat and unripe dates that ripened in the husband's domain (even though they are Ra'uy).

(b) This is obvious, despite the fact that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi over this point with regard to a Bechor - whose extra portion the Torah refers to as a Matanah (but this has nothing to do with the Yerushah of a husband).

(c) In any case, the Rabbanan will concede to Rebbi that even a Bechor inherits Ra'uy which grows from the object that one inherited - when the Bechor is the sole heir (like a husband is).

(d) Rav Papa will agree that even a Bechor will receive an extra portion - in the case of a tree that grew thicker and land that threw up silt and improved, despite the fact that they are Ra'uy (since it is the same article that improved, and even the Rabbanan will concede this, as we explained earlier).

(a) Rav Papa concludes 'Bechor she'Imo Palgi'. 'Bechor she'Imo' is - an outstanding loan that the Bechor still owes his father.

(b) The reason for this ruling is - because we rule like Sumchus, 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin' (see also Tosfos DH 'u've'Milveh').

(c) The Bechor's father might be more Muchzak in this loan than in a loan that he is owed by a third party - because it is possible that his son wants him to acquire the property fully (so that he will be able to inherit an extra portion), so he is Makneh it with a full heart.