Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) INHERITANCE IN CASES OF DOUBT

(a) This does not apply in the case of the Safek child.
(b) R. Yirmiyah may hold as Chachamim.

1. Chachamim only said that the neighbor's claim wins, because he could return the deeds.

i. This does not apply in the case of the Safek child.

(c) The Safek and the Yavam come to inherit the Yavam's father.

1. Safek: I am the deceased's son, and I receive half.
2. Yavam: You are my son, and you receive nothing.
3. The Yavam definitely inherits; it is doubtful if the Safek inherits - we do not remove from one who has a certain claim to give to one with a doubtful claim.

(d) The Safek and the Yavam's sons come to inherit the Yavam's father.

1. Safek: I am the deceased's son, and I receive half.
2. Yavam's sons: You are our brother, and you receive a share with us.

(e) The half which the Safek admits is theirs, they split among themselves. The third which they concede to him (e.g. the Yavam left 2 sons, neither a firstborn) he takes. The remaining sixth is money in Safek, and they split it.
(f) The Yavam's father and the Yavam come to inherit the Safek; or, the Yavam's father and the Safek come to inherit the Yavam. The money is in doubt, they split it.

(a) (Mishnah): Property fell to a Yevamah. Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel admit that she may sell it, and the sale is valid;
(b) If she dies, her Kesuvah and property which enters and leaves the marriage with her - Beis Shamai says, the husband's heirs split it with her father's heirs; Beis Hillel says, the property is in its status quo; the Kesuvah stays by the husband's heirs, property which enters and leaves with her stays by her father's heirs;
(c) If he does Yibum, she is as his wife in all respects, just the Kesuvah is paid from the property of the deceased.
(d) (Gemara) Question: Why do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree in the first case, but not in the 2nd?
(e) Answer #1(Ula): In the 1st case, she fell to Yibum from engagement; in the 2nd case, she fell from Nisu'in.

1. Ula holds, Zikah of one who falls from engagement is like Safek engagement; Zikah of one who falls from Nisu'in is like Safek Nisu'in.

2. Zikah from engagement is only as Safek engagement - if it would be as certain engagement, Beis Hillel would not admit that she may sell!

i. (Mishnah): Property that fell to an engaged girl - Beis Shamai says, she may sell it; Beis Hillel says, she should not sell it.
ii. Both admit that if she sold it, the sale stands.

3. Zikah from Nisu'in is only as Safek Nisu'in - if it would be as certain Nisu'in, Beis Shamai would not say that heirs of the husband split it with heirs of the father!

i. property that fell to her after Nisu'in - Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel admit that if she sold, the husband takes the property from the buyers.

(f) Question (Rabah): Rather than arguing about the property itself, after she dies - they should argue during her lifetime, who eats the fruits!
(g) Answer #2 (Rabah): In both cases, she was widowed from Nisu'in; Zikah from Nisu'in makes Safek Nisu'in.

1. In the first case, she is alive, she is certain (the property itself is hers), the husband is Safek (he may have no rights to it at all) - a Safek does not remove from a Vadai.
2. In the 2nd case, she died, both are coming to inherit, they divide the property.

(h) Question (Abaye): Do Beis Shamai really hold that a Safek does not take from a Vadai?

1. (Mishnah): A house fell on Reuven and his father or another relative that Reuven inherits, and Reuven owed money to pay a Kesuvah or creditors.
2. Heirs of the father say, Reuven died first, then the father (so the father's property never passed to his son, so the Kesuvah or debt cannot be collected from them); the creditor says, the son died first;
3. Beis Shamai says, they divide; Beis Hillel says, property remains in its status quo.

i. Here, the heirs of the father are Vadai, and the creditor is Safek, and Beis Shamai say they divide!

(i) Answer #1: Beis Shamai hold that a document is considered to be already collected.

1. Question: What is the source to say this?
2. Answer (Mishnah): If the husband died before the Sotah drank, Beis Shamai says, she receives her Kesuvah and does not drink; Beis Hillel says, she drinks or does not receive her Kesuvah.
3. Objection: How can she drink - we cannot apply, "the man will bring his wife"!
4. Answer: Rather, since she does not drink, she does not receive her Kesuvah.
5. We see, there is a Safek whether she had adultery, and she receives her Kesuvah (from the heirs, who definitely inherit)!
6. It must be, Beis Shamai say that a document is considered to be already collected.
7. Question: Why didn't Abaye ask from this Mishnah?
8. Answer: One could answer, Kesuvah is different - it was enacted to be collected, even in a Safek, to encourage women to marry.
9. Question: Why didn't he ask from the case of Kesuvah in our Mishnah? (Since she already died, the reason cannot be to encourage women to marry). 10. Answer: Beis Shamai do not argue in the Mishnah.
11. Objection: They do argue! 'Her Kesuvah and property which enters and leaves with her, ... Beis Shamai says, heirs of the husband divide with heirs of the father; Beis Hillel says, property stays in its status quo'!
12. Answer: The Mishnah asked, what do we do with the Kesuvah, and never answered; property which enters and leaves with her, Beis Shamai says, heirs of the husband divide with heirs of the father; Beis Hillel says, property stays in its status quo.
13. (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah also supports this - it says, 'heirs of the husband divide with heirs of the father' (suggesting that the property was the father's), not 'heirs of the father divide with heirs of the husband'.

(j) Answer #2(Abaye): In the first case of the Mishnah, the property fell after she fell to Yibum; in the 2nd case, it fell when she was married.