1)
Our Mishnah states 'Hini'ach Banim Gedolim u'Ketanim, Ein ha'Gedolim Misparn'sin al-Yedei ha'Ketanim, ve'Lo ha'Ketanim Nizunin al-Yedei ha'Gedolim'. What is the difference between 'Misparn'sin' and 'Nizunin'?
What does the Tana now mean? How do the sons then distribute their father's property?
And what does the Tana mean when he says ..
... 'Nas'u Gedolim, Yis'u Ketanim'?
... 've'Im Amru Ketanim, "Harei Anu Nos'in ke'Derech she'Nasatem Atem", Ein Shom'in lahem'?
The equivalent rulings will apply if the deceased left older and younger daughters. What does the Tana mean when he concludes 'Zeh Chomer be'Banos mi'be'Banim ... '?
What is the reason for this latter ruling?
1)
Our Mishnah states 'Hini'ach Banim Gedolim u'Ketanim, Ein ha'Gedolim Misparn'sin al-Yedei ha'Ketanim, ve'Lo ha'Ketanim al-Yedei ha'Gedolim'. 'Misparn;sin' refers to clothes (a higher priority with the older sons); and 'Nizunin' to food (a higher priority with the younger ones).
What the Tana now means is that - the older sons do not receive more clothes than the younger ones, nor the younger more food than the older ones; But they all share equally.
When the Tana says ..
... 'Nas'u Gedolim, Yis'u Ketanim', he means that - if the older sons get married, and pay their wedding expenses from the money in the kitty, then the younger ones are entitled to claim an equal amount from the kitty to do likewise.
... 've'Im Amru Ketanim, "Harei Anu Nos'in ke'Derech she'Nasatem Atem", Ein Shom'in lahem', he means that - if their father paid the wedding expenses of the older sons during his lifetime, the younger brothers have no claim to the money in the kitty to pay for their weddings.
The equivalent rulings will apply if the deceased left older and younger daughters. When the Tana concludes 'Zeh Chomer be'Banos mi'be'Banim ... ', he means that - whereas, when there are sons, they are obligated to sustain their sisters from the property of their father, there is no such Halachah when there are only daughters (as we just explained) ...
... because the Takanas Chachamim of 'B'nan Nukvan ... ' (where the sons are obligated to feed their sisters) does not extend to the older daughters feeding the younger ones.
2)
What does Rava say about the oldest brother who wears smart clothes from the kitty?
What is the reason for this concession? Is he permitted to do so Lechatchilah?
How do we reconcile this ruling with our Mishnah, which forbids the older brothers to take more clothes than the younger ones?
If there is no real reason to permit it, why does the Tana find it necessary to forbid it?
2)
Rava rules that if the oldest brother wears smart clothes from the kitty - the other brothers are not allowed to take clothes as compensation.
The reason for this concession - which is only Bedieved is because the oldest brother acts as their representative, and it is to their benefit that he looks smart.
Our Mishnah, which forbids the older brothers to take more clothes than the younger ones - is speaking about one of the other brothers, who do not benefit his siblings by wearing nice clothes.
Despite the fact that there is no real reason to permit it, the Tana finds it necessary to forbid it - because we might otherwise have thought that the brothers want each other to look respectable.
3)
Avuha bar Geniva asked Rava whether, in a case where a single woman borrows money and then gets married, the creditor has the right to claim from her husband's property or not. What are the two sides of the She'eilah? What is the criterion for being able to claim?
Rava tried to resolve Avuha's She'eilah from our Mishnah. We have already explained 'Nas'u Gedolos, Yis'u Ketanos'. How did he interpret it?
How do we know that Rava's interpretation of the Mishnah is correct?
What is Rava trying to prove from there?
How do we nevertheless refute Rava's proof? What makes Parnasah (in this case marriage) different than Mezonos in this regard?
3)
Avuha bar Geniva asked Rava whether, in a case where a single woman borrows money and then gets married, the creditor has the right to claim from her husband's property or not. The criterion for being able to claim is that - a husband must be considered an heir (from whom a creditor may even claim an oral loan), and not a purchaser (from whom he is only permitted to claim a written one).
Rava tried to resolve Avuha's She'eilah from our Mishnah. We have already explained 'Nas'u Gedolos, Yis'u Ketanos'. According to him, it means - 'Nas'u Gedolos le'Ba'al' (if the older daughters were sustained from the kitty and then got married), 'Yis'u Ketanos mi'Ba'al' (the younger daughters may claim their dues from the husbands' properties).
We know that Rava's interpretation of the Mishnah is right - because Rebbi Chiya quoted a Beraisa to that effect.
Rava is trying to prove from there that - a husband is an heir (from whom one can claim even an oral loan), and not a purchaser (from whom one cannot).
We nevertheless refute Rava's proof, on the grounds that (even assuming the husband to be a purchaser) Parnasah (in this case marriage) is different than Mezonos - inasmuch as, due to the Kol (the publicity) that accompanies it (which is not the case by Mezonos), it is considered like a written loan.
4)
Rav Papa support Rava's opinion from a letter sent by Ravin from Eretz Yisrael. What did the letter say about a man who dies leaving an Almanah ...
... and a daughter?
... and a daughter who then gets married (bringing her father's property into her husband's domain)?
What did Rav Yehudah, nephew of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, rule, when a case came before him where the daughter had died, and the husband had inherited her father's property?
Until when does the Almanah continue to be fed from her deceased husband's estate?
How did Rav Papa support Rava from here?
4)
Rav Papa brings a support for Rava's opinion from a letter sent by Ravin from Eretz Yisrael. The letter stated that if a man dies leaving an Almanah ...
... and a daughter - the Almanah is sustained from her husband's estate.
... and a daughter who then gets married (bringing her father's property into her husband's domain) - the Almanah continues to be sustained from her husband's estate.
When a case came before Rav Yehudah, nephew of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, where the daughter had died, and the husband had inherited her father's property, he ruled that - there too, the Almanah continues to be sustained by the daughter's husband.
The Almanah continues to be fed from her deceased husband's estate - either until she marries, or until she either claims her Kesuvah or the Yorshin decide to pay it.
Rav Papa supported Rava from - the fact that the Almanah is permitted to claim Mezonos from the daughter's husband. Now if he was a Loke'ach, this would not be the case, because of the principle 'Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos Lo Torfi mi'Meshabdi' (A woman and her daughters cannot claim Mezonos from Meshubadim), though from the Yorshin, they can).
5)
Abaye queried Rav Papa from the Mishnah in Bechoros, which rules that the Cheilek Bechorah does not go back into the kitty in the Yovel. Why is that?
What does the Tana there say in this regard, about a husband who inherits his wife?
What point was Abaye making by citing this Mishnah?
Rava retorted by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who cites Takanas Usha 'ha'Ishah she'Machrah mi'Nechsei Milug be'Chayei Ba'alah, u'Meisah, ha'Ba'al Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos'. What is Rava trying to prove with this?
5)
Abaye queried Rav Papa from the Mishnah in Bechoros, which rules that the Cheilek Bechorah does not go back into the kitty in the Yovel - because it is a Matanah (as we learned earlier), which does not go back in the Yovel.
The Tana there says - the same about a husband who inherits his wife.
By citing this Mishnah - Abaye meant to ask why Rav Papa needs to cite Ravin to prove that a husband is a Yoresh. Why could he not learn this from the Tana in Bechoros, who would certainly require the husband's property to revert to the owner, if he considered a husband a Loke'ach.
Rava retorted by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who cited in turn, Takanas Usha 'ha'Ishah she'Machrah mi'Nechsei Milug be'Chayei Ba'alah, u'Meisah, ha'Ba'al Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos' which indicates that - a husband is a Loke'ach (the first Loke'ach, to boot), and not a Yoresh (who certainly has no right to claim from the Lekuchos). Consequently, says Rava, we remain with the dilemma with which we began, is a husband a Yoresh or a Loke'ach.
139b----------------------------------------139b
6)
What does Rav Ashi therefore conclude? How does he solve the dilemma?
This Takanah is basically to his advantage. Where do we find this with regard to his status ...
... as a Yoresh?
... as a Loke'ach?
How will we then explain the case of Ravin, where the fact that he is considered a Yoresh obligates the daughter's husband to sustain his father-in-law's Almanah?
Then why did they not consider him a Yoresh in the case of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, to safeguard the rights of the Loke'ach?
6)
Rav Ashi therefore concludes that the Chachamim issued the husband with a dual status; sometimes he is considered a Yoresh, and sometimes, a Loke'ach.
This Takanah is basically to his advantage, like we find in the case of ...
... Yovel, where his status as a Yoresh exempts him from having to return the property when Yovel arrives.
... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, where his status as the first Loke'ach enables him to claim his wife's property from subsequent Lekuchos.
The one exception is the case of Ravin, where the fact that he is considered a Yoresh obligates the daughter's husband to sustain his father-in-law's Almanah - in order to safeguard the Almanah, whose husband undertook to sustain her for the given period.
They did not consider him a Yoresh in the case of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina however, to safeguard the rights of the Loke'ach - because (unlike the father's Almanah, who was entirely blameless), the Lekuchos have only themselves to blame for purchasing property from a woman whose property was Meshubad to her husband.
7)
Our Mishnah teaches that if a man dies, leaving behind sons and daughters and a large estate, his sons inherit the property, but remain obligated to sustain their sisters. Until when does this obligation remain in force?
What will be the Din if he leaves only a small estate?
Rabban Gamliel however, agrees with Admon. What did Admon say?
Like whom is the Halachah?
7)
Our Mishnah teaches that if a man dies, leaving behind sons and daughters and a large estate, his sons inherit the property, but remain obligated to sustain their sisters - until they either become Bogros (six months after they attain puberty), or get married.
If he leaves only a small estate - the daughters are sustained, and the sons must go begging.
Rabban Gamliel however, agrees with Admon, who said that - it is not fair for a male to lose his inheritance simply because he is a male (this will be explained in the course of the Sugya).
In Kesuvos - we ruleed like Admon in all the cases where Rabban Gamliel agrees with him.
8)
According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, 'a large estate' constitutes sufficient to sustain them all for twelve months. What did Shmuel tell Rav Yehudah when, after Rav's death, he came to learn by him?
What did Ravin (or Rabah bar bar Chanah) Amar Rebbi Yochanan have to say about this?
The Gemara asked whether this means that the daughters then take all the property and the sons have to go begging for alms. What did Rava answer?
How did he then explain Ravin's ruling?
8)
According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, 'a large estate' constitutes sufficient to sustain them all for twelve months. When, after Rav's death, Rav Yehudah came to learn by Shmuel, he told him that - this was the opinion of Rabban Gamliel bar Rebbi, but that, according to the Chachamim, it had to be enough to feed the girls until they reached the age of Bagrus (because that is how long their father undertook to feed them).
Ravin (or Rabah bar bar Chanah) Amar Rebbi Yochanan - also ruled like the Rabbanan of Rabban Gamliel bar Rebbi.
In answer to the Gemara's question, whether this means that the daughters then take all the property and the sons have to go begging for alms, Rava replied - in the negative ...
... and what Ravin meant was that - whatever is needed to sustain the daughters until they attain Bagrus, over ans above which their brothers take. And it is only when that runs out, that they will need to go begging for alms.