Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SALE OF A CONTESTED FIELD

(a) Version #1 (Abaye): Reuven sold a field to Shimon without responsibility, and people contested the sale. Until Shimon makes a Chazakah in the field, he can retract; after this, he cannot retract.

1. Reuven can say to him, you knew you were risking your money.

(b) Question: What is considered having made a Chazakah?
(c) Answer: When he walks around the borders.
(d) Version #2 (Abaye): This applies even if he sold the field with responsibility - Reuven can say, when Beis Din declares that they can take the field, I will compensate you.

(a) (Mishnah): A man married 3 women on the same day and died. Their Kesuvos are for 100, 200 and 300. If the estate is 100, they divide it equally;
(b) If the estate is 200, the 1st woman receives 50, the others 75 each;
(c) If the estate is 300, they receive 50, 100 and 150.
(d) The same applies to 3 people that invested money together - if there was a loss or profit, they share this way.
(e) (Gemara) Question: In case (b), why does the 1st woman get 50 - she only deserves 33 1/3 (a share of the 1st 100 - she has no claim to the 2nd 100!
(f) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, the 2nd woman wrote to the 1st, 'I have no claim with you in 100 of the estate' (so the 1st and 3rd women share that 100).

1. Question: If so, why do the 2nd and 3rd women both receive 75 - the 3rd can tell the 2nd, you forfeited your share in the 1st 100!
2. Answer: She responds - I only forfeited the right to quarrel with and decrease the share of the 1st woman, I did not concede anything to you (Rashi; Tosfos does not understand this answer).

(g) (Mishnah): If the estate is 300, they receive 50, 100 and 150.
(h) Question: Why does the 2nd woman receive 100 - she should only get 75 (Since she has no claim to the 3rd 100, she should get the same share as when the estate was 200)!
(i) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, the 3rd woman wrote to the 1st and 2nd, 'I have no claim with you in 100 of the estate' (so the 1st and 2nd women share that 100).
(j) Answer #2 (R. Yakov from Nahar Pekod): The women twice seized Metaltelim of the estate.

1. In case (b) of the Mishnah, they first seized 75 (which was split equally), and then 125 (the 1st woman took an equal share of 75 of that, since that was her remaining claim to the Kesuvah);
2. In case (c), they first seized 75 (which was split equally), and then 225 (the 1st woman took an equal share of 75 of that; the 2nd woman divided equally with the 3rd woman in 175 of this second confiscation, since that was her remaining claim to the Kesuvah, and the 3rd woman took the last 50 herself).

(k) (Beraisa): This Mishnah is as R. Nasan; Rebbi says, I disagree - they split equally (Rashi; Tosfos - they always receive proportional to their Kesuvos).

(a) (Mishnah): And similarly, 3 that invested ...
(b) (Shmuel): 2 people invested money together, 1 put in 100, the other, 200 - they share the profits equally.

1. (Rabah): Presumably, Shmuel only said this when they bought an ox for plowing, and it stands for plowing - but if they bought it for plowing, and it stands to be slaughtered, each receives proportional to his investment.
2. (Rav Hamnuna): Even if they bought it for plowing, and it stands to be slaughtered, they share the profits equally.

(c) Question (Beraisa): 2 people invested money together, 1 put in 100, the other, 200 - they share the profits equally.

1. Suggestion: The case is, they bought it for plowing, and it stands to be slaughtered, and this refutes Rabah.

(d) Answer: No, they bought it for plowing, and it stands for plowing.
(e) Question: But if they bought it for plowing, and it stands to be slaughtered, the law would be, each receives proportional to his investment?

1. If so, why does the end of the Beraisa say, 'If each bought with his own money and then they mixed them together, each receives proportional to his investment' - rather, the Beraisa should distinguish within the case of pooling money!
2. It should say, 'This applies when they bought it for plowing, and it stands for plowing - but if they bought it for plowing, and it stands to be slaughtered, each receives proportional to his investment'!

(f) Answer: The Beraisa does say this! 'This applies when they bought it for plowing, and it stands for plowing - but if they bought it for plowing, and it stands to be slaughtered, it is as if each bought with his own money and then they mixed them together, and each receives proportional to his investment'.
(g) (Mishnah): Similarly, 3 that invested money together, if it increased or decreased, they split thusly.

1. Suggestion: The investment literally increased or decreased (and this contradicts Shmuel, who said that they share profits and losses equally).
2. Rejection (Rav Nachman): No - the increase referred to is newer coins (but the same quantity); the decrease, coins that were disqualified, and now stand for healing a wound on a foot.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was married to 4 women; he died. The 1st receives her Kesuvah before the 2nd; the 2nd before the 3rd, and the 3rd before the 4th. The 1st woman must swear to the 2nd (that she did not already receive her Kesuvah), the 2nd to the 3rd, and the 3rd to the 4th; the 4th woman receives her Kesuvah without swearing;
(b) Ben Nanas says, because she is last, she profits?! Rather, she also does not collect without swearing.
(c) If all the Kesuvos have the same date, whichever comes first, even by an hour, collects first - in Yerushalayim, they used to write the hour of the day.
(d) If they all are for the same hour, and there is only 100 in the estate, they share it equally.
(e) (Gemara) Question: On what do they argue?