Question (Rava): What is the law regarding a healthy person?

Perhaps only a Shechiv Mera intends that they will honor her, but if he is healthy, they will honor her (in his lifetime) whether or not she is an overseer!

Or, perhaps he wants them to start showing more honor to her from now!

Answer (Beraisa): If a man wrote the Peros of his property to his wife, she collects her entire Kesuvah from the land (i.e. the gift was in addition to her Kesuvah, and not in place of it);

If he wrote to her a half, a third or quarter of his property, she collects her entire Kesuvah from the rest.

R. Eliezer says, if he wrote all his property to her, and a creditor presents a loan document (dated before the gift but after the Kesuvah) against him, she tears up the gift document, (and he collects. If later she is widowed or divorced and the husband did not leave property to pay the Kesuvah,) she can collect her Kesuvah from what the creditor took. (This is because her husband intended that the gift take effect only if it benefits her.)

Chachamim say, through accepting the gift, she forfeited the lien of her Kesuvah on that land (so she cannot take it from the creditor).

R. Yehudah ha'Nachtom says, a case occurred with my daughter-in-law, and Rabanan ruled like Chachamim.

Inference: This is because a creditor had a claim against the land. If not, she would acquire the gift.

Question: What is the case?

If her husband was Shechiv Mera, we said that he only made her an overseer!

Answer: He was healthy (this answers Rava's question).

Rejection: Really, he was Shechiv Mera. The gift was to his Arusah or ex-wife. (Ravina and Rav Avira agree that she does not acquire.)

(Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Chachamim.

Question: Elsewhere, Rav Nachman follows estimation! (He should rule like R. Eliezer, that presumably, he intended only for his wife's benefit.)

(Beraisa): If Reuven went overseas, and his father heard that Reuven died, and wrote all his property to others, and later Reuven returned, the gift stands;

R. Shimon ben Menasiya says, the gift is void. Had he known that his son was alive, he would not have given it.

(Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Menasiya.

Answer: Our case is different. She is happy that people hear that her husband wrote her the property, so she pardons the lien of her Kesuvah.

(Mishnah): If Shimon wrote his property to his sons, and gave to his wife any amount of land, she forfeits her (lien on all the land designated to collect her) Kesuvah.

Question: Does she really forfeit her lien for any amount of land?!

Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, she acquired on behalf of the sons. (This shows that she consents.)

Answer #2 (Shmuel): It is even if he gave the property in front of her and she was silent. (This shows her consent.)

Answer #3 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): The case is, he said 'take this land in place of your Kesuvah' (and she was silent).

(According to all three opinions,) this is a leniency of Kesuvos. (We assume that she forfeits her lien).

(Seifa - R. Yosi): If she said that she forfeits the lien, this takes effect even if he did not write any property to her.

Question: This implies that the first Tana holds that he must write and she must say that she pardons the lien!

Suggestion: The entire Mishnah is like R. Yosi.

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): When does this law (of the first Tana) apply? It is only if she was there and accepted to pardon the lien. If only one of these applies, she does not forfeit it.

This refutes all three Amora'im.

Rava (to Rav Nachman): Like which opinion do you hold?

(Rav Nachman): I say that if he wrote any amount of land to her, that suffices for her to forfeit her lien (like R. Yosi. Receiving land or accepting suffices.)

Question (Rava): What is the law regarding a healthy person?

Perhaps only regarding a Shechiv Mera, her silence shows that she forfeits her lien, because she knows that he will not acquire any more property;

But regarding a healthy person, perhaps she is silent because she thinks that he may acquire more property, she does not want to protest until she sees that she must!

Or, since she knows that now he has no other property from which she can collect, her silence shows that she forfeits her lien?

This question is not resolved.

A case occurred in which Reuven said 'half to my daughter, half to my daughter, and a third of the Peros to my wife.'

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Even if he gave to his wife a date tree to eat its fruit (until it dries up), she forfeited her lien.

(Rav Chisda): Shmuel said that only because he gave to her a Kinyan in the land. Here, he gave only detached Peros!

(Rav Nachman): If the Peros were detached, surely she did not forfeit her lien.

A case occurred in which Reuven said 'a third to my daughter, a third to my daughter, a third to my wife.' One of the daughters died.

(Rav Papa): His wife gets only a third (she forfeited her lien on the rest).

Rejection (Rav Kahana): She did not forfeit her lien from property her husband will acquire in the future. Here also, he acquired back what he gave to the daughter who died!