Rava asks whether Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's Din ('ha'Kosev Kol Nechasav ls'Ishto ... ') will extend to a Bari. On the one hand, it might ...

... not apply to a Bari - because her husband is still alive, and their children, in deference to their father, will anyway show her respect. On the other hand, it might ...

... nevertheless apply to a Bari as well - because their father wants them to obey their mother even during his lifetime.

To resolve the She'eilah, we cite a Beraisa, which rules that in a case where a husband gives his wife a gift consisting of ...

... the Peiros of his estate that - she may still claim her Kesubah from the actual land itself.

... part of the land that - she may claim from the remainder of the land.

The Beraisa then discusses a case where, after the husband writes all his property to his wife, a creditor produces a Shtar-Chov against him which is dated - after the date on the Kesubah but before the date on the gift.

Rebbi Eliezer says 'Tikara Matanasah, ve'Ta'amod al Kesuvasah' (the gift is torn up, and she retains her Kesubah) - because we assume that a woman would be most unlikely to give up her rights to a field that is Meshubad towards her Kesubah, for the sake of a Matanah that is taken away from her.

The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer say - Tikara Kesuvasah' (meaning that she puts her Kesubah away and does not claim with it) ve'Ta'amod al Matanasah'.

It cannot be understood literally - since she still needs it to claim from any property that her husband will subsequently purchase.

We know that a woman has a right to property that her husband purchases after their marriage - since he specifically writes in her Kesubah that the property that he owns then and that he will later acquire, is all Meshubad to her Kesubah.

The ramifications of this ruling are - 've'Nimtzeis Karachas mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an' (she loses at either end), inasmuch as the creditor claims his debt from that particular field, and in addition, she loses her rights in the field vis-a-vis her Kesubah) .

The reason behind the Chachamim's ruling is - because the woman was Mochel her Shibud regarding the Kesubah for the pleasure of receiving a gift (without realizing that the gift was made erroneously).

This is not a case of Mechilah be'Ta'us (a mistaken Mechilah, which is invalid) - because at the time, the gift was perfectly valid (on the grounds that her husband had the option of paying off his creditor with cash, even though he later chose not to).

Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nachtom testified, when a similar incident occurred with his daughter-in-law - that the Chachamim ruled 'Tikara Kesuvasah, ve'Ta'amod al Matanasah', like the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer.

We extrapolate from the Beraisa that, had the Sh'tar-Chov not been presented, she would indeed have acquired the field. Based on Shmuel's ruling 'Lo As'ah Ela Apotropos' - we assume that the Tana must be referring (not to a Shechiv-M'ra, but) to a Matnas Bari, a proof that Shmuel's ruling does not extend to a Bari.

We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa by a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra after all, circumventing the Kashya on Shmuel - by also establishing it by a woman who is only betrothed or by a divorcee (both of whom acquire the property according to Ravina (as we explained earlier).

When we add that according to Rav Avira, we might also establish it by 'Kulhu' - we are only repeating our previous statement according to Ravina (only this is the Lashon used by Rav Avira), because the only case that he added to those that acquire is that of a daughter when there are sons (and that is not applicable here, since the Tana mentions specifically a wife).

The Tana Kama in another Beraisa rules that, in a case where Reuven hears that his son, who went overseas, has died, and after he wrote his property to someone else, his son returned alive and well, his gift is nevertheless valid. Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya rules that it is not.

Rav Nachman there rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya - because we go after 'Umd'na' (assessment, even though the father did not make any stipulation) inasmuch as that is really what he meant when he gave his property to a third person.

We reconcile this ruling with Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman, who rules like the Chachamim 'Tikara Kesuvasah, ve'Ta'amod al Matanasah' - by pointing out that (even though Rebbi Eliezer's ruling is based on Umd'na, as we explained earlier) there is a counter Umd'na, in that the woman is pleased to receive such a major gift from her husband, which demonstrates the extent of his trust in her, which boosts her esteem in his eyes.

The Mishnah in Pe'ah states that if someone writes his property to his sons and gives a little to his wife too - she loses her rights to her Kesubah (at least, from her husband's current property).

The problem with that Mishnah is that - it does not seem logical for a woman to lose her rights to her Kesubah simply because she received a gift.

Rav answers by establishing the Mishnah 'bi'Mezakeh lahen al-Yadah', by which he means that - she was involved in the distribution to each of her children, a clear sign that she is Mochel her Shibud on those fields.

According to Shmuel, even if she had not assisted in the distribution of the property, she would lose her Shibud on the Karka, by virtue of her having been present when it was distributed and remaining silent. This would not however, be the case if her husband did not also give her something - because then we would have construed her silence as an effort to keep on good terms with her husband (but not because she is Mochel).

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina has a third answer. He establishes the Mishnah where her husband actually told her that he was giving her the piece of land as part payment of her Kesubah, again an indication that she is Mochel the rest of her Shibud on this property.

When we say 'u'mi'Kulei Kesubah Shanu Ka'an', we are referring to - all three answers; in other words, this ruling is confined to the Din of Kesubah and does not extend to any other area of Halachah.

The Rabbanan are lenient (with the husband, regarding the way he pays his wife's Kesubah) - because (as opposed to other creditors, who are likely to stop lending money if they encounter any difficulty in claiming their debts), a woman will not refuse to marry on account of that, due to the principle 'A woman wants to marry more than a man' (by token of which she is also willing to marry any man, as Resh Lakish explains in Kidushin).

In an equivalent case of Mamon not connected with Kesubah - we do not assume that the debtor is foregone, until such time as the creditor is Mochel verbally .

The Mishnah in Pe'ah continues 'Rebbi Yossi Omer, Im Kiblah alehah, Af-al-Pi she'Lo Kasav lah, Avdah Kesuvasah', from which we extrapolate that - the Tana Kama requires both Kesivah (that the husband writes his wife a gift) and Kabalah (that she verbally accepts the distribution of the fields between the children).

We know that ...

... the Rabbanan require both Kesivah and Kabalah - because if they required Kesivah only, Rebbi Yossi would have said 'Af-al-Pi she'Kasav lah, Lo Avdah Kesuvasah, Ela-im-Kein Kiblah alehah'.

... the author of the entire Mishnah is not Rebbi Yossi (and that there is no Tana Kama) - because of a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah using a Lashon 'Eimasai' (a sign that he is coming to explain the Tana Kama [it cannot be Rebbi Yossi, with whose opinion, his statement does not conform]), explains that the woman must both be there and accept the facts before she loses her Kesubah.

Had Rebbi Yossi been the sole author of our Mishnah, it would require either Kabalah or Kesivah.

We just established according to the Tana Kama 'Haysah Sham ve'Lo Kiblah alehah, O Kiblah alehah ve'Lo Haysah Sham, Lo Avdah Kesuvasah' - because, as we explained earlier, she only loses her Kesubah there where her husband gives her a little bit of Karka and she is also Mochel the Shibud.

This poses a Kashya on the three above-mentioned answers none of which concur with this explanation - seeing as it requires explicit Kabalah, and not just an implied Mechilah, as they all explain.

We therefore conclude with - 'Tiyuvta'.

When Rava asked Rav Nachman, in light of the three respective interpretations of Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Chanina b'Rebbi Yossi, what he held he replied that - in his opinion, since the husband made her a partner with her brothers (by giving her a portion too), she has lost her Kesubah (like Rebbi Yossi).

According to Rashi, this reflects the opinion of Shmuel, Rav Nachman's Rebbe ('bi'Mechalek lefanehah ve'Hi Shosekes). Granted, we just proved Shmuel wrong - but that was because Shmuel was interpreting the opinion of the Tana Kama (who, we just proved, requires Kabalah as well as Kesivah); whereas in fact, he was saying it according to Rebbi Yossi, (who requires either Kesivah or Kabalah, and) according to whom the original Kashya 'Mishum de'Kasav lah Karka Kol-she'Hu, Avdah Kesuvasah' is equally pertinent.

Here too, Rava asks 'be'Bari He'ach', like he asked on the previous Sugyos, and this time, we remain with 'Teiku'. The basis of his She'eilah is - whether it is only by Shechiv-M'ra, where the woman knows that her husband has no more property, nor will he obtain more property, that we interpret her silence as Mechilah, whereas by a Bari, where we can ascribe her silence to the fact that she expects her husband to obtain fresh property some time in the future, her silence cannot necessarily be construed as Mechilah.

Some commentaries explain that Rava was asking whether she had not even lost the right to claim the property that her husband will purchase later. This explanation is unacceptable however - because immediately after this, we cite the opinion of Rav Kahana, who explicitly holds that in such a case, the woman may claim, and if Rava was uncertain about this, we should have said 'Milsa de'Miba'i leih le'Rava, P'shita leih le'Rav Kahana' (What is doubtful to Rava, is obvious to Rav Kahana) as we do in other places.

Rav Nachman asked Rav Chisda in Sura what the Din will be in a case where a man left a half of his property to each of two daughters, and his wife - a third of the fruit.

In reply, Rav Chisda quoted Shmuel, who stated that even if he left his wife as little as a date-palm, she loses her Kesubah ...

... even if as yet, no fruit has grown on the tree, even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold 'Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' - because it speaks where he gave her a portion in the tree [for the fruit], and the tree was already in the world.

Rav Nachman pointed out that his case was not similar to the case of Rav Chisda - who thought that the fruit was attached to the tree (when really, it was already detached).

Assuming that the woman is allowed to claim her Kesubah from the daughters - she may only claim the balance between what she already received (which we consider payment of her Kesubah, as we shall see later in the Perek), and the remainder of her Kesubah.

In a case where a man left a third of his property to each of his two daughters, and the remaining third to his wife, one of his daughters died. Rav Papi thought that his wife ought to receive - her third, but nothing from the property of the deceased daughter ...

... seeing as she had already been Mochel it.

Rav Kahana corrected him however, on the grounds that - it was no worse than fresh property that the husband would later acquire, which is Meshubad to his wife even though it was not in his domain at the time of their marriage (as we have already learned).