Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN 1 WIFE DIES IN THE HUSBAND'S LIFETIME

(a) Explanation #1: They argue whether the extra Dinar must be land, or even Metaltelim.

i. The 1st Tana says that it must be land; R. Shimon says, it can even be Metaltelim.

2. Objection: This cannot be the argument - R. Shimon says differently in the coming Mishnah!

i. (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Even if there is extra Metaltelim, the enactment only applies if there is an extra Dinar of land.

(b) Explanation #2: They argue whether the extra Dinar may be land with a lien on it, or if it must be land without a lien.

i. The 1st Tana says that there cannot be a lien; R. Shimon says, it can have a lien on it.

(c) Objection: If so, why does R. Shimon say, If there is an extra Dinar - he should say, Because there is an extra Dinar!
(d) Explanation #3: They argue whether a full extra Dinar is required, or even less than a Dinar suffices.

i. The 1st Tana says that there must be a full Dinar; R. Shimon says, even less than a Dinar.

(e) Objection: But R. Shimon says, there must be an extra Dinar!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps we misunderstood the Beraisa - really, the 1st Tana says that the enactment applies (even with less than a Dinar), and R. Shimon says, it only applies when there is a (full) extra Dinar!

i. (Rashi - When it says, these collect the Kesuvah of their mother - it means, the children of the 1st wife also collect their mother's Kesuvah; Tosfos - the 1st Tana said that there is no enactment when there is no excess - but when there is any excess, it applies.)

2. Rejection: But in the coming Mishnah, R. Shimon and the Chachamim that argue on him agree that a Dinar is required!

(f) We can establish Explanations 1 and 2 by switching our understanding of the Beraisa - the 1st Tana says, the enactment applies; R. Shimon says, it only applies if there is an extra Dinar (of land/land without a lien).
(g) (Mar Zutra): The law is, Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies when 1 wife dies in the life of her husband, and the other after his death; and a Kesuvah is considered as an extra Dinar.

1. We understand why it was not enough to only say that Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies when 1 wife dies in the life of her husband, and the other after his death - we might have thought, a Kesuvah is not considered as an extra Dinar.
2. Question: Why didn't he just say that a Kesuvah is considered as an extra Dinar - we could deduce, Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies when 1 wife dies in the life of her husband, and the other after his death!
3. Answer: We could have thought, the case is that he married 3 women; 2 died in his lifetime, the 3rd after his death, and she left only a daughter (and the collection of her Kesuvah counts as an extra Dinar).

i. But, if a woman that left sons died after him, there is no enactment, lest there be quarrels - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was married to 2 women. They died, then he died. The orphans demand the Kesuvah of their mother, but there is only enough to pay the Kesuvos - the heris split the estate equally;
(b) If there is a Dinar more than the Kesuvos, the children of each mother receive their mother's Kesuvah; if orphans (of 1 mother) say, we will accept property at an inflated price, so that the estate will be considered to have an extra Dinar - we do not consent - rather, Beis Din evaluates the property.
(c) Property which was fitting to fall to the father is not part of the calculation;
(d) R. Shimon says, even if there is extra Metaltelim, it means nothing - we require an extra Dinar of land.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): If the Kesuvos are 1000 and 500, if there is an extra Dinar, each woman's sons receive their mother's Kesuvah; if not, they split the property equally.
(f) The following is obvious: If there was an extra Dinar when he died, but the property depreciated (and when it is appraised, there is not an extra Dinar) the orphans (whose mother had the larger Kesuvah) already merited (the enactment applies).

1. Question: If there was not an extra Dinar when he died, but the property went up in value, does the enactment apply?
2. Answer: Such a case came before Rav Amram - he told the sons (whose mother had the small Kesuvah) to appease the sons of the other mother - if not, he will excommunicate them.

i. They came before Rav Nachman. He said, just as when there was an extra Dinar and the property depreciated, the orphans already merited - also, when there was not an extra Dinar and the property rose in value (Rashi - the sons whose mother had the large Kesuvah merited that the enactment applies; Tosfos - the sons whose mother had the small Kesuvah merited that the enactment does not apply).

3) COLLECTION OF DEBTS

(a) A man owed 1000 Zuz; he had 2 houses, and sold each for 500 Zuz (to the same man).

1. The creditor took 1 house, and was about to take the other. The buyer took 1000 Zuz cash and told him, if 1 house is worth 1000 to you, consider 1 house full collection; if not, take 1000 Zuz.

(b) (Rami Bar Chama): This is as the case of our Mishnah - if the orphans offer to accept the value of the property above its true value (we do not heed them).
(c) Objection (Rava): That is different! There, there is a loss (to the children of the mother with the small Kesuvah); here, the creditor - he lent 1000, and receives 1000!
(d) Question (according to Rava, if the creditor accepted 1 house as payment): When we write a document saying that the buyer's land was taken to pay the debt (and the seller owes him for it), for how much do we write it?
(e) Answer #1 (Ravina): For 1000 Zuz.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Avira): For 500 Zuz.

1. The law is, for 500 Zuz.

(g) A man owed 100 Zuz, and had 2 small plots of land. He sold each for each for 50 Zuz (to the same man).

1. The creditor took 1 plot, and was about to take the other. The buyer took 100 Zuz cash and told him, if 1 plot is worth 100 to you, consider 1 plot full collection; if not, take 100 Zuz.

(h) (Rav Yosef): This is as the case of our Mishnah - if the orphans offer to accept the value of the property above its true value (we do not heed them).
(i) Objection (Abaye): That is different! There, there is a loss (to the children of the mother with the small Kesuvah); here, the creditor - he lent 100, and receives 100!
(j) Question (according to Abaye, if the creditor accepted 1 plot as payment): When we write a document saying that the buyer's land was taken to pay the debt (and the seller owes him for it), for how much do we write it?
(k) Answer #1 (Ravina): For 100 Zuz.
(l) Answer #2 (Rav Avira): For 50 Zuz.

1. The law is, for 50 Zuz.

(m) A man owed 100 Zuz, he died, and the only land he left was a plot worth 50 Zuz. The creditor took it as partial payment. The orphans gave him 50 Zuz (and took the land back); the creditor took it again as final payment.
(n) (Abaye): It is a Mitzvah for orphans to pay the debt of their father - the 50 Zuz they gave the creditor was a Mitzvah; the creditor properly takes the land.

1. This only applies if the orphans did not say that the 50 Zuz is the value of the land - if they said that, they expel him from the land (and he cannot collect any more, since the father didn't leave any other land).

(a) A man sold his mother's Kesuvah for Tovas ha'Na'ah (less than the full value, since it might not be collected, e.g. if she dies before her husband). He stipulated, he will not give compensation if his mother protests. (A 2nd explanation in Rashi says that after his father died, the son sold land of his father which had been designated to pay the Kesuvah - the sale would be valid as long as his mother did not take the land.)

1. His mother died, without having protested; the son protested the sale.

(b) (Rami Bar Chama): He is in place of his mother (and he stipulated not to compensate if she protests).
(c) Objection (Rava): Granted, he did not accepted responsibility for her protest, but for his own, he certainly did!
(d) (Rami Bar Chama): Reuven sold a field to Shimon, without responsibility (to compensate if the land is taken from him); Shimon sold it back to Reuven, with responsibility.