Previous daf

1)

(a) We take for granted that if the father left a large estate which then 'diminished' before they had a chance to distribute it, the heirs retain what they already inherited. The property diminish - either by the price of Mezonos rising or by the property getting spoiled.

(b) The property is then divided - according to Beis-Din's original assessment, with each one losing proportionately.

(c) We ask what the Din will be in the reverse case, where Nechasim Mu'atin became Nechasim Merubim (because the price of Mezonos dropped) - whether the sons lose their basic right to Nechasim Mu'atin (in which case, it is their sisters' property that went up in value), or whether the property remains basically theirs. According to the former assumption, the sons will not receive any more, despite the rise in value; whereas according to the latter, they will.

(d) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules - that if Yesomim sold Nechasim Mu'atin, their sale is valid, a clear proof that Nechasim Mu'atin remains basically theirs.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Avahu whether an Almanah detracts in a case of Nechasim Mu'atin. The case is - where there is enough property to feed the sons and the daughters up to the time that the latter are due to reach the age of Bagrus.

(b) She might not detract - because although she is entitled to Mezonos, she is only sustained up to the time that she gets married.

(c) If she does not detract, and the sons nevertheless inherit, the Almanah shares what is left after the daughters have taken Mezonos, with the sons. Alternatively, since the Almanah does not detract from the property, it is considered Nechasim Merubim which decreased, and all three of them are sustained from the property until there is nothing left.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah then asked Rebbi Avahu about 'bas Ishto' (from a previous marriage), who has the advantage over the Almanah - inasmuch as she receives Mezonos for five years even after she is married. Consequently, she might detract from the Nechasim, even if we assume that the Almanah does not.

(b) Nevertheless, she might also not detract by Nechasim Mu'atin - because she loses the Mezonos when she dies.

(c) Assuming that she does not detract, the property has a Din of Merubin ve'Nisma'atu, in which case, the sons inherit, and bas Ishto is fed together with the daughters.

(a) Despite the fact that a creditor's heirs can still claim their father's debt after his death, a creditor might nevertheless not detract from Nechasim Mu'atin - because it has yet to be claimed (a shortcoming that does not pertain to the previous cases, since they are a Takanah of Beis-Din).

(b) If he does, it is obvious that the creditor claims his debt, the daughters take the rest and the sons will have to go begging. But if he does not - then the sons and daughters are sustained until the creditor claims his debt, after which, the daughters are sustained from the remainder, if there is anything left.

(c) Some cite the set of She'eilos in the reverse order. Starting with a creditor, before asking whether ...

1. ... bas Ishto detracts, we assume - that the creditor does.
2. ... Almenaso detracts - we assume that bas Ishto detracts too.

(d) Finally, Rebbi Yirmiyah asks, in a case where there are only Almenaso u'Bito (and no son) - which of the two inherits first.

5)

(a) Rebbi Avahu seemingly overwhelmed by all the She'eilos, told Rebbi Yirmiyah - to go home and return the next day.

(b) By the next day, he had resolved - one She'eilah, the last one.

(c) To do that, he quoted Rebbi Aba Amar Rebbi Asi, who said - that Chazal made 'Almanah Eitzel ha'Bas' like 'Bas Eitzel Achin'. In other words, like a daughter when there are sons, the Almanah is fed from the estate, whilst the Bas is forced to go begging.

(a) Abaye explains Admon's statement 'Bish'vil she'Ani Zachar Hifsadti' to mean that because a male learns Torah, he ought to benefit, not lose out. Rava refutes that explanation however, on the grounds - that if inheritance was connected with Torah-study, then a son who studies Torah ought to inherit, and one who doesn't, should not.

(b) What Admon therefore means, says Rava, is - that seeing as a male inherits everything by Nechasim Merubim, it doesn't make sense to say that he should lose out by Nechasim Mu'atin.

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where the deceased leaves behind sons, daughters and a Tumtum - a baby whose sexual organs are covered (so that his sex cannot be determined).

(b) Our Mishnah says that in the case of ...

1. ... Nechasim Merubim - the sons can tell the Tumtum to go to the daughters.
2. ... Nechasim Mu'atin - the daughters can tell him to go to the sons.

(c) 'Dochin Oso Eitzel Nekeivos' does not necessarily mean that he is fed like a daughter, as we shall see.

(d) The Tana nevertheless uses that Lashon - to counter the Tumtum's claim that he is a male.

(a) In a case where a man declares ...

1. ... 'Im Teiled Ishti Zachar, Yitol Manah' - the Tana rules 'Im Yaldah Zachar, Notel Manah'.
2. ... 'Im Teiled Ishti Nekeivah, Yitol Masayim' - he says 'Im Yaldah Nekeivah, Noteles Nekeichah'.
3. ... 'Im Zachar Manah, Im Nekeivah Masayim' - the Tana says 've'Yaldah Zachar, Notel Manah; Nekeivah, Noteles Masayim'.

(b) The Tana cannot mean that his wife gave birth to twins, and that the one takes a Manah and the other, Masayim - because that is not what he said (perhaps he did not think of twins, or perhaps he does not want them).

(c) In fact, if his wife did indeed give birth to twins - neither would receive anything.

(d) In the previous case, should his wife gave birth to a Tumtum, he will not receive anything. A Tumtum ...

1. ... will however, receive like a son or daughter - if the father said 'Kol Mah she'Teiled Ishti'.
2. ... will even inherit 'his' father - if he is the only child.

(a) Our Mishnah rules in the Reisha, with regard to a Tumtum when there are Nechasim Merubim, 'ha'Zecharim Dochin Oso Eitzel ha'Banos'. The problem with this from the Seifa 'Yaldah Tumtum, Eino Notel' is - that the Reisha seems to consider a Tumtum a Safek, who takes either like a male or like a female, whereas the Seifa considers him an independant species, and he takes neither like a male, nor like a female.

(b) In order to resolve this problem, Abaye establishes the Reisha to mean - that he ought to receive like a daughter by Nechasim Merubim, and like a son by Nechasim Mu'atin, but in fact, he doesn't (because he is considered an independent species, like we explained in the Seifa).

(c) Rava learns the Reisha literally, and establishes the Seifa like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules in the Mishnah in Temurah - that an animal that is a Tumtum or an Androginus cannot be declared Kodshei Mizbe'ach, since it is neither a male nor a female (and the Torah requires either the one or the other by Kodshim).

(a) The Beraisa says 'Tumtum Yoresh ke'Ben, ve'Nizun ke'Bas', which Rava explains to mean - Yoresh ke'Ben bi'Nechasim Mu'atin, ve'Nizun ke'Bas, bi'Nechasim Merubim'.

(b) The problem according to Abaye is - how to interpret 'Nizun ke'Bas' (since, in fact, she is not sustained at all, as we just explained).

(c) Abaye counters the Kashya - by asking how Rava will explain 'Yoresh ke'Ben', when in fact, the Banim (who have to resort to begging) receive nothing.

(d) So he finally interprets the Beraisa like he explained our Mishnah - and 'Nizun ke'Ben' means that he really ought to receive part of the Yerushah, but doesn't; and that is how he interprets 'Nizun ke'Bas'.