Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses a case where someone declares his property (Nechasav) Hekdesh. According to Rebbi Eliezer, animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach ...

1. ... must be sold as Olos (burnt-offerings) if they are male, and Olos must be purchased with the proceeds.
2. ... must be sold as Shelamim (peace-offerings) if they are female, and Olos must be purchased with the proceeds.

(b) Wine, oil and birds have the same Din as the previous cases - they must be sold for what they are fit, and with the proceeds, burnt-offerings must be purchased that are brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) We prove from these two Halachos - that animals and birds are also included in 'Nechasim'.

(d) And the Mishnah there says - that if the property includes Tefilin, they must be assessed and the Makdish must pay that amount to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, a proof that Tefilin too, are included in Nechasim.

(a) One is not generally permitted to sell a Seifer-Torah, yet it might be included in 'Nechasav' - because one may sell it in order to learn Torah or to get married.

(b) The outcome of this She'eilah is -Teiku.

(c) The mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya wrote all her property to her son - in order that Rav Z'vid, whom she was about to marry, should not inherit it, a fact which she specifically stated at the time.

(d) When, after she was divorced, she reclaimed her property from her son - Rav Bibi bar Abaye ruled that, since she stipulated that she was giving it to him on condition that she got married, which she did, her son had acquired it, and she had no further claim to it.

(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - asked whether it was because Rav Bibi descended from 'Mulai (the name of the town from which Eli ha'Kohen's descendants lived [though others say that it means 'blemished', see Rashi Eruvin 25b], because Abaye's family descended from Beis Eli) that he issued blemished rulings.

(b) When he said 'even those who hold that 'Mavrachas' acquires, will agree here that Rav Zutra bar Tuvya did not - he was referring to the Rabbanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who say that the beneficiary can have a good laugh and keep the gift.

(c) He cannot have been referring to the case of the mother of Rav Shmuel bar Aba from Akrunya in Perek ha'Chovel, where they ruled that the purchaser of the property that the wife sold him was entitled to keep it - because the case there concerned a woman who sold her Nechsei Milug to her son during her lifetime to inherit after her death, and has nothing to do with our case.

(d) He refuted Rav Bibi bar Abaye's ruling - on the grounds that (unlike the case of the Rabbanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) the mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya had clearly indicated her intentions (that she only gave her property to her son because of her marriage to Rav Z'vid), and that we are obligated to follow her stated intentions.

(a) In the evening, the mother of Rami bar Chama wrote her property to her son Rami and in the morning she wrote it to her other son Rav Ukva (though others reverse the times). After Rav Sheishes had placed the property in the Reshus of Rami bar Chama - Rav Nachman placed it in the Reshus of Rav Ukva (sparking off Rav Sheishes' objection).

(b) Rav Nachman justified his ruling however, despite the fact that the mother had died, by citing Shmuel, who said -that as long as a Shechiv-Mera can retract if he recovers, he can retract even if he doesn't.

(c) When Rav Sheishes suggested that this was confined to where the Shiyur was for Shechiv-Mera himself, but not when it was for the benefit of the benefit of a third person, Rav Nachman replied - that Shmuel had specifically said that there was no difference.

(a) In a similar case cited in Kesuvos involving the same characters, Rav Sheishes and Rav Nachman issued the same rulings. The outcome of the Sugya however, is 'Shuda de'Dayna', which means - that Beis-Din assesses to whom the owner would have wanted to give the gift, or just to give it to whoever they see fit.

(b) The ruling there differs from the ruling here - because it was that of a Matnas Bari.

(c) The reason for that ruling is because - even though we would normally grant right of ownership to the first beneficiary, that does not apply there, since the two gifts were given on the same day (and no distinction appears on the Sh'tar).

(a) Before she died, the mother of Rav Amram Chasida stated that a Melugma di'Shetara should go to her son. A 'Melugma di'Shetara' is - a bundle or a bag-full of Sh'taros.

(b) When Rav Amram's brother complained, and it was ascertained that Rav Amram had not made a Meshichah to acquire the Sh'taros, Rav Nachman replied with the principle - 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami' (the words of a Shechiv-Mera acquire without a Kinyan).

(c) In the morning Rav Achdevu'i bar Masna's sister declared her property in his domain. In the evening, his brother came to plead with her - on the grounds that people would now say that their brother was a Talmid-Chacham, but he was not.

(d) She reacted to that - by promptly declaring the property in the domain of the latter.

(e) Rav Nachman cited Shmuel's principle - 'as long as a Shechiv-Mera can retract if he recovers, he can retract even if he doesn't'.

7)

(a) Whenever when she fell ill - Rav Dimi bar Yosef's sister would be Makneh her piece of vineyard to her brother.

(b) She did not own anything else - rendering her gift a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Kulo'.

(c) Eventually, he refused to accept the gift - because each time she recovered, she retracted from the gift. leaving him with nothing.

(a) He ultimately accepted her next offer and acquired the piece of vineyard - on condition that she retained part of the vineyard for herself (thereby transforming it into a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas).

(b) Following Rav Dimi's sister's recovery, she again reclaimed the piece of property in the Beis-Din of Rav Nachman.

(c) When Rav Dimi refused to appear before Beis-Din - Rav Nachman threatened to prick him with a thorn that does not draw blood (another term for placing a person in Niduy).

(d) Rav Nachman substantiated the sister's claim, in spite of Rav Dimi's precautions - on the grounds of the witnesses' testimony that, whilst her brother was acquiring the property, she was moaning about her imminent death (thus rendering it a case of Metzaveh Machmas Miysah, from which she was able to retract).

(a) Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman said in his father's name that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas resembles ...

1. ... a Matnas Bari - inasmuch as, should he recover, he is unable to retract.
2. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera - inasmuch as it does not require a Kinyan.

(b) Rava reminded Mar Zutra - that he had told him before not to misquote his father.

(c) According to Rava, what Rav Nachman had really said was - that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas resembles a Matnas Bari even as regards the need for a Kinyan, too.

(d) There is no difference regarding a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas, between whether the Shechiv-Mera recovered or died - either way, if a Kinyan was made, the gift is final, whereas if it was not, it is invalid.

(a) Rav Nachman explain our Mishnah 'Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu Matanaso Matanah', from which Rava queried him - by establishing it when he made a Kinyan.

(b) To answer Rava's Kashya from the Seifa 'Lo Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu, Ein Matanaso Kayemes', which seems hard to understand, if the Tana is talking when the Shechiv-Mera made a Kinyan, Rav Nachman cites Shmuel, who said - that a Shechiv-Mera who gives away all his property can always retract (even he made a Kinyan).

(a) Rav Mesharshaya asked Rava from the Beraisa concerning the mother of the sons of Ruchel, who bequeathed her brooch worth twelve Manah to her daughter, and where the Rabbanan - validated the gift.

(b) We know that no Kinyan had taken place - because the Beraisa says that the Chachamim carried out *her words*, implying that no Kinyan had taken place.

(c) Rav Mesharshaya's Kashya was - why, having just concluded that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas is not Koneh without a Kinyan, the daughter acquired the brooch, which was certainly only a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas.

(d) Rava replied - that this was different because it speaks when the woman moaned about her death when she gave her daughter the brooch (Metzaveh Machmas Miysah).

(a) Ravina asked Rava from the Beraisa, where the Tana rules that if someone died after saying ...

1. ... 'T'nu Get Zeh le'Ishti, u'Sh'tar Shichrur Zeh le'Avdi' - *they should not carry out his instructions*, because a Get cannot become valid after the husband's death.
2. ... 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni' - they *should*.

(b) We know that the Seifa is speaking when no Kinyan was made - because of the Reisha, where, had a Kinyan been made, why was the Get not valid?

(c) Rava answers Ravina's Kashya from the Seifa, despite the fact that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas without a Kinyan is not Koneh - like we answered the previous Kashya (of Rav Mesharshaya), by establishing the case by Metzaveh Machmas Miysah.

(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees. In his opinion, even Metzaveh Machmas Miysah requires a Kinyan - and the Beraisa must be speaking when the Shechiv-Mera was in the process of distributing *all* his property (which does not require a Kinyan).

1. ... if the Shechiv-Mera died - acquires even without a Kinyan.
2. ... if he recovered - he is permitted to retract even if a Kinyan did take place.