Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that an Almanah is not given any leeway at all (when selling the Yesomim's property for her Kesuvah), and Dayanim, up to a sixth. Rava Amar Rav Nachman compares a Sh'liach to Dayanim. He consider him to be more like Dayanim than an Almanah in this regard - because, unlike an Almanah, both are not selling for themselves, but on behalf of others.

(b) Rav Shmuel bar Bisna Amar Rav Nachman on the other hand, compares him to an Almanah in this regard - because, unlike Dayanim, they are both individuals.

(c) The Halachah is that the Sh'liach is like an Almanah, like Rav Shmuel bar Bisna.

(d) This ruling does not clash with the Mishnah in T'rumos, which validates the T'rumah of a Sh'liach, even though he gave a tenth more or a tenth less than the average - because in that case, it is not really a mistake, seeing as there *are* people who give a fortieth or a sixtieth. Consequently, the Sh'liach has the right to say that that he is how he assessed the owner.

(a) Rav Nachman rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah (who invalidates the mistaken sale of the Beis-Din). Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that if Beis-Din appointed an administrator on behalf of Yesomim who then grew-up - any one of them is entitled to revoke the administrator's decisions and to request a re-distribution of the property.

(b) Rav Nachman himself says 'Im-kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh' - because the administrator did not err in his decisions. When he ruled earlier like the Tana Kama, who does not hold of 'Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh', that is because their sale was made in error.

(c) In spite of the fact that the administrator did not err, any one of the Yesomim might nevertheless wish to retract - concerning the location of the field that he received (e.g. he might wish to receive his portion on another side, next to property that he already owns).

(a) Rav Dimi cited Rebbi who also ruled like the Chachamim. When Rebbi Elazar ben P'rata countered 'Im-kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh' - Rebbi agreed with the S'vara, and retracted from his previous ruling.

(b) Rav Safra's version of the same incident is - that Rebbi had *intended* to rule like the Chachamim, but changed his mind when Rebbi Elazar ben P'rata countered 'Im-kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh'.

(c) We initially explain that Rav Safra holds of the principle 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer' (despite the fact that the Chachamim also appear in the Mishnah. However, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gives a sound reason, which Rebbi agrees, must render his opinion, Halachah). Rav Safra however maintains 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Eino Chozer', and it is only because he had not yet issued a ruling that Rebbi retracted.

(d) We reject this contention however. In fact, we conclude, everyone agrees with the principle 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer. Their Machlokes in that case - is simply as to what happened (whether Rebbi had already issued his ruling or not), and has no Halachic ramifications.

(a) Rav Yosef states that if a widow sells fields for Mezonos, the Yesomim take responsibility for the sale (as we have already learned) - and the same applies to property which the Beis-Din sold.

(b) The former case is not a Chidush. Rav Yosef's Chidush lies in the latter case - where we might have thought that, so certain is the purchaser, that when Beis-Din announced the property for sale, any prospective claimant would have stepped forward and claimed it then, that he then buys the field without any responsibility at all (because it is not necessary).

5)

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah maintains that the sale of the Beis-Din is valid even if they erred by a sixth. The maximum error that he permits - is a half.

(b) This statement of Rav Sheishes is substantiated by a Beraisa - where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel himself says that if Beis-Din sold property worth two hundred Zuz for a hundred or vice-versa, their sale is valid (from which we can infer - but not more than that).

(a) Ameimar said in the name of Rav Yosef that if Beis-Din sold the property of Yesomim without first announcing it, it is as if they erred in a D'var Mishnah and they must revoke their sale. The problem with this statement is - the expression 'as if ' (suggesting that it is not an actual D'var Mishnah), whereas the obligation to announce the property before selling it is an explicit Mishnah (as we shall now see).

(b) If we did not say 'Chozrin' - then the sale would be valid and they would have to reimburse the Yesomim for any losses out of their own pockets.

(c) Based on the Mishnah in Erchin, the period of announcement with regard to ...

1. ... the property of Yesomim - is thirty days.
2. ... Hekdesh - is sixty days.

(d) They would announce it - twice daily, every morning and every evening.

(a) Despite the fact that the Din of announcing is specifically mentioned in a Mishnah, Rav Yosef says that it is only 'as if they had erred' - because the Mishnah is referring to the Beis-Din's Sh'liach, whereas *he* is speaking about the Dayanim themselves, who are not specifically mentioned.

(b) We infer from our Mishnah 'Shum ha'Dayanim she'Pachsu Sh'tus ... Michran Bateil' - that if they sold it for the right price, the sale is valid, which we think speaks when they did not announce it (for the reason that will become clarified immediately), a Kashya on Rev Sheishes.

(c) So we try to answer this by establishing the Mishnah when they announced the property first. The problem with this from the Seifa ('Im Asu Igeres Bikores ... ') is - that since the Seifa speaks when they announced the property, it is clear that the Reisha speaks when they did not.

(d) So we establish the Reisha when they did not announce the property first, and the Tana is referring specifically to the three things that Beis-Din do not normally announce - Avadim, Metaltelin and Sh'taros.

(a) Beis-Din do not announce ...

1. ... Avadim - because they may get wind of the impending change in their situation, and take the opportunity to run away.
2. ... Metaltelin and Sh'taros - because due to the many people who will come to inspect them, they can easily get stolen.

(b) Alternatively, our Mishnah can even speak with regard to regular property, which, under normal circumstances, they *would announce*. Nevertheless, the sale of Beis-Din is valid here, despite the fact that they did *not* - because the Tana is speaking about a specific situation when it was customary not to announce the sale.

(c) The Neherda'i list three occasions when Beis-Din sell the property of Yesomim without prior announcement - 'le'Karga' (when a head-tax is being claimed); 'li'Mezoni' (for the Mezonos of the Almanah or the daughters of the deceased); 've'li'Kevurah' (to obtain money for the burial requirements of the deceased), all of which must be sold quickly (so Chazal dispensed with the announcement).

(a) The third possible way of explaining our Mishnah according to Rav Sheishes is - that our Mishnah is speaking in a place where it was not customary to announce the sale.

(b) Neherda'a itself, was one such place. The reason that we initially ascribe to this Minhag - is because they were such experts in price assessments that the prior announcement of the sale (which was done mainly to obtain a good assessment of the property) was superfluous.

(c) The real reason however is - because the buyers, who were really taking advantage of the Yesomim, who were being forced to sell their father's inheritance by claimants, and who had to therefore sell it cheap, were looked upon with contempt.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, Beis-Din assess the Metaltelin of Yesomim, and sell them immediately - before they have a chance to go bad.

(b) In the opinion of Rav Chisda Amar Avimi, one waits for the next market-day. Their is no Machlokes here - only one speaks when market-day is close, and the other, when there is still a long time to wait.

(c) Rav Kahana waited for the next Yom-Tov before selling beer belonging to Rav Mesharshaya bar Chilkai the Yasom, even though it was turning sharp - because, according to his assessment, the beer would hold out until Yom-Tov, at which point he would make a large profit on the sale.

(d) When Ravina asked Rav Ashi about taking wine belonging to Ravina Zuti his nephew on a ship together with his own (because he was afraid that the ship might sink and he will be held responsible for causing his nephew a big loss), the latter replied that it was not necessary to pay more attention to the deposited wine that to his own (so that if he was willing to risk his own wine on the ship, he was also permitted to risk that of Ravina Zuti).

(a) A Mema'enes, a Sh'niyah and an Aylonis do not receive a Kesuvah or Peiros ...

1. ... Mezonos or Bela'os (the worn out clothes of Nechsei Tzon Barzel that his wife brought into the marriage and entered into the Kesuvah, and that he subsequently wore).
2. ... which can mean - either the equivalent of Peiros (Pirkunah - meaning that her husband is not obligated to redeem her in the event of her capture), or that she cannot reclaim the Peiros of the Nechsei mi'Lug which her husband ate after they were married.

(b) The reason in the case of ...

1. ... a Mema'enes - is because she was the one to walk out of the marriage.
2. ... a Sh'niyah - because she sinned by marrying her husband (and what's more, she was probably the one who, with nothing to lose [as we shall see shortly], talked him into marrying her despite the Isur).
3. ... an Aylonis - because it is a false sale (had he known that she was an Aylonis, he would never have married her).

(c) An Aylonis will nevertheless receive her Kesuvah - if he married her in spite of the fact that she was an Aylonis.

(a) Besides an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot, our Tana includes - a Mamzeres and a Nesinah le'Yisrael and a bas Yisrael to a Mamzer or a Nasin in the list of women who entered into a Pasul marriage but who nevertheless receive their Kesuvah.

(b) This group of women receive a Kesuvah, because they or their children stand to become Pasul as a result of this marriage, in which it was more likely to have been their husbands who talked them into the marriage - whereas a Sh'niyah does not, because she was probably the one who talked her husband into the marriage, seeing as neither she, nor her daughter, become Pasul through the marriage.

(a) Shmuel conforms with our version of the Mishnah, which includes Mema'enes among the three women who do not receive a Kesuvah. Rav's version is - 'Ketanah Yotzah be'Get Ein Lah Kesuvah' (and 'Kal va'Chomer' a Mema'enes). By 'Ketanah' - he is referring to one who was married off by her mother or her brothers.

(b) Shmuel differentiates between a Mema'enes and a Ketanah who is divorced, in three regards: one, regarding receiving a Kesuvah, as we just explained; another, inasmuch as Mema'enes is not forbidden to marrying her original husband's brothers or a Kohen, whereas a Ketanah who is divorced is, and the third regard is - concerning the Din of waiting three months before remarrying, which a Ketanah who is divorced is obligated to do, but not a Mema'enes.

(c) We have learned the first two of the three distinctions in a Mishnah in Yevamos - Shmuel is coming to teach us the third.