Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Sheshes rules that 'Yitol', 'Yizkeh', 'Yachzik' and 'Yikneh' - are all a Lashon Matanah, and are therefore valid by a Matnas Shechiv-Mera.

(b) We might otherwise have thought - that, like 'Yidor P'loni ba'Bayis Zeh (which we discussed earlier), they are all abstract Leshonos, and are therefore invalid.

(c) The Beraisa seems to have taken Rav Sheishes' cases for granted. The Tana adds 'Yachsin' and 'Yares', to teach us - that if the Shechiv-Mera bequeaths his property to one of the Yorshim, he acquires it (like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, whom we discussed earlier in the Perek).

(d) We ask what the Din will be in the case of 'Yehaneh Bahen', 'Yera'eh Bahen', Ya'amod Bahen' or 'Yisha'en Bahen'. The She'eilah is - whether these are expressions of Matanah, or whether they are abstract expressions of merely having Hana'ah (like in the previous She'eilah).

(e) The outcome of these She'eilos is once again - 'Teiku'.

(a) We then ask about a Shechiv-Mera who sold all his property. We Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who sometimes ruled that he cannot retract, and at other times, ruled that he can - by establishing the former ruling when the money is still intact (when we assume that he deliberately refrained from using it, in order to be able to retract from the sale and return the money should he recover, and the latter ruling when the money has already been spent.

(b) We query this ruling however, from an episode that took place concerning Isur Giyora, from whom Rava had borrowed twelve thousand Zuz.

1. ... Isur Giyora - was the captor who raped one of Shmuel's daughters, before converting.
2. ... Rav Mari - was later born from that incident.

(c) Rav Mari did not automatically acquire his father's estate - because, although by the time he was born, Isur Giyora had already converted, at the time of conception, he was still a Nochri (and a Ger does not inherit his father who converted after he is born).

(d) Rava thought that he would acquire the money (and not Rav Mari) - because he knew that the latter would have a problem in how to give it to him (as we shall now see).

(a) We just explained why Rav Mari did not automatically inherit Isur Giyora. Neither could the latter give him the money ...

1. ... as a Matnas Shechiv-Mera - because Chazal gave a Shechiv-Mera the Din of a Yoresh, so whoever cannot inherit, cannot receive a Matnas Shechiv-Mera either.
2. ... through a. Meshichah or b. Chalipin - since a. the money was not there (on which to make Meshichah) and b. money cannot be acquired with Chalipin.
3. ... together with Karka - simply because Isur Giyora did not own any land.

(b) Neither could he give it to him through the Takanah of Ma'amad Sheloshtan - because Rava made it clear that he would not make himself available, even if Isur Giyora were to call him.

(c) When Rav Ika B'rei de'Rav Ami asked why he did not simply admit that the money belonged to Rav Mari - that is precisely what he did.

(d) Rava was angry - that someone had obviously divulged what they had discussed in the Beis-Hamedrash, thereby assisting Rav Mari against himself.

5)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu, Matanaso Kayemes'. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interprets 'Kol-she'Hu' to mean - sufficient to live off, should he recover.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba adds - that even Metaltelin of that amount will suffice to render the Matanah irreversible.

(c)

1. Rebbi Zeira praises Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - because logically, that is the amount that would clinch the gift, and Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba, because there is no logical reason to differentiate between Karka and Metaltelin.
2. Rav Yosef refutes Rebbi Zeira's statement - on the grounds that the Tana said 'Karka Kol-she'Hu', and the Amora'im should not have changed it.

(a) Abaye queries Rav Yosef from a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where the Tana says that ...

1. ... if someone writes all his property to his Eved - he goes free (because the Eved himself is included in the property that he acquires).
2. ... if he left over 'Karka Kol she'Hu' - he does not go free (because, seeing as Avadim are compared to Karka, perhaps the Eved is the 'Karka Kol-she'Hu' to which the owner referred).

(b) Rebbi Shimon disagrees. According to him, for the Eved not to go free, the owner must say 'Kol Nechasai Nesunin li'Peloni Avdi Chutz me'Echad me'Ribu she'Bahen' (without mentioning 'Karka', which according to him, does not automatically include Avadim [see also Melo ha'Ro'im).

(c) Rav Dimi Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Elazar 'Asu Metaltelin Shiyur Eitzel Eved'. He says that - because Avadim are also compared to Metaltelin (since they are not attached to the ground).

(a) When Rav Dimi bar Yosef says 've'Lo Asu Metaltelin Shiyur Eitzel Kesuvah', he is referring to -a case where a man writes all his property to his sons, and one field to his wife (in which case she would certainly lose her Kesuvah, if she remained silent).

(b) And he is teaching us that the Tana's ruling is confined to where the man leaves his wife Karka, but where he leaves her Metaltelin, she does not lose her Kesuvah, because women tended not to rely on Metaltelin for their Kesuvah.

(c) Abaye tries to prove from here - that when the Mishnah says 'Karka', it does not necessarily come to preclude Metaltelin.

(d) Rav Yosef refutes Abaye's Kashya however - on the grounds that normally, when the Tana says Karka, he means Karka, and it is specifically in the Mishnah in Pe'ah, where he only mentions 'Karka' because of the Reisha ('Rebbi Akiva Omer, Karka Kol-she'Hu Chayeves be'Pe'ah'), where we can say that Karka is 'La'av Davka'.

Next daf