The Beraisa discusses Reuven, a very sick man, who declares that he thought he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, but now that this is not the case, he gives all his property to Shimon. What did he mean by his declaration? What was the basis of his mistake?
(b)
What does the Tana rule in the event that his son is subsequently discovered to be still alive or that his wife is still pregnant?
(c)
On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya (of the previous Beraisa)?
(d)
But is this not obvious? What made us even try to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya?
1)
(a)
The Beraisa discusses Reuven, a very sick man, who declares that he thought that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, but now that this is not the case, he gives all his property to Shimon. The basis of his mistake was - information that his son had died or that his wife had a miscarriage.
(b)
In the event that his son is subsequently discovered to be still alive or that his wife is still pregnant, the Tana rules that - his gift is void.
(c)
We refute the suggestion that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya (of the previous Beraisa) - because in this case, where the man specifically referred to his son's death and to his wife's miscarriage, even the Rabbanan will agree that the gift is invalid.
(d)
The reason that we initially tried to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya is - because we thought that Reuven only mentioned his son and the miscarriage, as a form of lament, but not as a condition for the gift to be valid.
2)
(a)
What does Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav learn from the word "ve'Ha'avartem" (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Vito") which is superfluous?
(b)
This might refer to where he bequeaths part of his property, but specifically mentions his imminent death. How else might we explain it?
(c)
Why can the Limud not be from ...
1.
... the word "es"?
2.
... the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Ha'avartem" and not 'u'Nesatem', like it does regarding the other heirs?
(d)
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuha learns it from "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Echav". Why does ...
1.
... Rebbi Zeira not agree with this?
2.
... Rav Nachman disagree with Rebbi Zeira, because he learns like Rebbi? What does Rebbi learn from "ve'Ha'avartem"?
2)
(a)
Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav learns from the word "ve'Ha'avartem" (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Vito") which is superfluous that - apart from a daughter, there is another case of someone passing over an inheritance from the rightful heir to a third party, with reference to a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra acquiring without a Kinyan.
(b)
This refers either to where he bequeaths part of his property, but specifically mentions his imminent death - or to where he bequeaths everything, even where he doesn't.
(c)
The Limud cannot be from ...
1.
... the word "es" - since Rebbi later will specifically learn it from "ve'Ha'avartem".
2.
... the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Ha'avartem" and not 'u'Nesatem', like it writes regarding the other heirs - because the word "u'Nesatem" would be no less superfluous than "ve'Ha'avartem", as we shall see.
(d)
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuha learns it from "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Echav". On the one hand ...
1.
... Rebbi Zeira does not agree with this, because he considers it to be a regular Lashon. On the other hand ...
2.
... Rav Nachman disagrees with Rebbi Zeira - because he learns "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso" like Rebbi, who learns from there that only a daughter passes her inheritance from one tribe to another, since both her son and her husband inherit her (as we learned in 'Yesh Nochlin').
3)
(a)
What does Rav Menashya bar Yirmiyah learn from the Pasuk in Melachim (in connection with Yeshayah's visit to Chizkiyah) "Koh Amar Hash-m Tzav le'Veischa ki Meis Atah"?
(b)
Rami bar Yechezkel learns the same thing from a similar Lashon in a Pasuk in Shmuel. Who saddled his donkey there, and after 'commanding his house', strangled himself and died?
(c)
The Beraisa describes how before he died, Achitofel advised his children that if the skies were clear on Shevu'os ('Yom-Tov shel Atzeres Barur'), they should sow wheat. Which two other pieces of advice did he leave them in his will, which he would have done well to adhere to, himself?
(d)
Mar Zutra replaced 'Yom-Tov shel Atzeres Barur' with 'Balul', meaning cloudy. What did the Neherda'i quoting Rebbi Ya'akov say about that?
(e)
What has this to do with the Pasuk in Iyov "mi'Tzafon Zahav Ya'asah"?
3)
(a)
Rav Menashya bar Yirmiyah learns from the Pasuk in Melachim (in connection with Yeshayah's visit to Chizkiyah) "Koh Amar Hash-m Tzav le'Veischa ki Meis Atah" that - someone who distributes his property because he is dying does not require a Kinyan [and the same applies to a Shechiv-M'ra]).
(b)
Rami bar Yechezkel learns the same thing from a similar Lashon in a Pasuk in Shmuel, where - Achitofel saddled his donkey, and after 'commanding his house', strangled himself and died.
(c)
The Beraisa describes how before he died, Achitofel advised his children that if the skies were clear on Shevu'os ('Yom-Tov shel Atzeres Barur'), they should sow wheat - that they should refrain from getting involved in Machlokes and that they should not rebel against David Melech Yisrael (both of which he would have done well to adhere to, himself).
(d)
Mar Zutra replaces 'Yom-Tov shel Atzeres Barur' with 'Balul', meaning cloudy. The Nehardai quoting Rebbi Ya'akov explained that - neither Barur nor Balul is absolute. In fact, they say, Barur incorporates a cloudy day, only since the north-wind disperses the clouds, it is also included in 'Balul' ...
(e)
... as the Pasuk says in Iyov, "mi'Tzafon Zahav Ya'asah", which means that the north-wind disperses the clouds, making the day as bright as gold.
4)
(a)
Rebbi Aba told Rav Ashi that they preferred the signs of a good year presented by Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. On what day of the year would the people watch the smoke of the Ma'arachah on the Mizbe'ach?
(b)
If the smoke drifted towards ...
1.
... the north, why were the poor people happy and the rich people sad?
2.
... the south, why were the rich people happy and the poor people sad?
3.
... towards the east, why was everybody happy?
4.
... towards the west, why was everybody sad?
(c)
The Beraisa however, maintains that the east-wind is always good, whereas the west-wind is always bad. The north-wind, the Tana says further, is good for wheat that has grown a third, but bad for olives that have blossomed. What does he say about the south-wind?
(d)
What does Rav Yosef (or Mar Zutra or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) mean when he gives as a Siman the fact that the Shulchan is in the north and the Menorah in the south?
4)
(a)
Rebbi Aba told Rav Ashi that they preferred the signs of a good year presented by Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. According to him, the people would watch the smoke of the Ma'arachah on the Mizbe'ach - on Motza'ei Sukos (because that is when the world is judged for water).
(b)
If the smoke drifted towards ...
1.
... the north, the poor people were happy, and the rich people sad - because it meant that the south-wind would be prevalent, which in turn, heralded a lot of rain, in which case the corn could not be stored for long (because it would rot), and had to be sold cheaply.
2.
... the south, the rich people were happy and the poor people sad - because it meant that the north-wind would be prevalent, which in turn, heralded little (if blessed) rain, in which case the corn could be stored for long periods of time, and could be sold at a high price.
3.
... towards the east, everybody was happy - because the west-wind tended to create a bumper harvest; the fruit was basically cheap, but could be stored for long periods.
4.
... towards the west, everybody was sad - because the east-wind produced little rain, causing draught, which was a communal catastrophe.
(c)
The Beraisa however, maintains that the east-wind is always good, whereas the west-wind is always bad. The north-wind, the Tana says further, is good for wheat that has grown a third, but bad for olives that have blossomed, and the south-wind - is bad for wheat that has grown a third, but good for olives that have blossomed
(d)
When Rav Yosef (or Mar Zutra or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) gives a Siman as the Shulchan in the north and the Menorah in the south, he means that - one can easily remember which of the last two winds is which, by bearing in mind that the Shulchan containing wheat-bread stood in the north, whereas the Menorah, which was kindled with olive-oil, stood in the south.
5)
(a)
How do we reconcile the statement of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi (according to whom the west-wind is good for the crops and the east-wind is bad) with the Beraisa, which says the opposite?
(b)
What does Aba Shaul in a Beraisa say about a year where Shavuos is clear?
(c)
And what does Rav Z'vid say about a year where Rosh Hashanah is either hot or cold?
(d)
What difference does it make, whether we know that the year will be a hot year or a cold one?
5)
(a)
We reconcile the statement of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi (according to whom the west-wind is good for the crops and the east-wind is bad) with the Beraisa, which says the opposite - by establishing the former with regard to Eretz Yisrael, which, due to its height, needs a lot of rain, and the latter, in Bavel, which is deep, and which becomes flooded when there is too much rain.
(b)
Aba Shaul in a Beraisa says that, when Shavuos is clear - it is a good sign for the whole year.
(c)
And Rav Z'vid says that a year in which Rosh Hashanah is hot - is a sign that the coming year will be a hot one, and when it is cold - it is a sign that it will be cold.
(d)
The reason that we need to know whether the year will be a hot year or a cold one is - for the Kohen Gadol to know for what to Daven on Yom Kipur when he enters the Kodesh Kodashim.
147b----------------------------------------147b
6)
(a)
According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra is not min ha'Torah at all. What exactly did the Rabbanan institute?
(b)
Why can the Rabbanan's reason for instituting it not have been due to the concern that, by the time they fetch witnesses for the Kinyan, the Shechiv M'ra will die?
(c)
Then why did the Rabbanan institute it?
(d)
How will Rava Amar Rav Nachman explain the various Pesukim in Nevi'im (that we cited earlier) which imply that there is such a thing as a will by means of the dying man's word alone? Why is it not d'Oraysa?
6)
(a)
According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra is not min ha'Torah at all, and it is the Rabbanan who instituted that - it acquires even without a Kinyan.
(b)
The Rabbanan's reason for instituting it cannot have been due to the concern that, by the time they fetch witnesses for the Kinyan, the Shechiv-M'ra will die - because that is no reason for concern. There is nothing wrong with a Shechiv-M'ra's property going to his heirs.
(c)
The Rabbanan instituted it out of concern that - the aggravation at the Shechiv-M'ra's wishes not being fulfilled will hasten his death.
(d)
According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, the various Pesukim in Nevi'im (that we cited earlier), which imply that there is such a thing as a will by means of the dying man's word alone - the Navi is coming to teach us that it is a good idea to leave a last will and testament, with a Kinyan where it is necessary and without one where it is not (such as by whom his property is deposited).
7)
(a)
On what grounds ...
1.
... can a person sell a Sh'tar Chov (which is after all, no more than a piece of paper), even according to the opinion in 'ha'Mocher es Sefinah' that holds 'Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'?
2.
... does Shmuel rule that if one did, he can still be Mochel the debtor, and absolve him from having to repay his loan?
(b)
On what basis is he nevertheless obligated to compensate the purchaser?
(c)
And why does he even permit the creditor's heirs to be Mochel?
7)
(a)
The grounds on which ...
1.
... a person can sell a Sh'tar Chov (which is after all, no more than a piece of paper), even according to the opinion that holds 'Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' are - by adding 'K'ni lach Ihu ve'Chol Shibudeih'.
2.
... Shmuel rules that if one did, he can still be Mochel the debtor, and absolve him from having to repay his loan are - the fact that, even after having sold the Sh'tar-Chov, he still retains the Shibud ha'Guf, only selling what he will ultimately receive. Consequently, since he will now not receive anything, the sale is automatically invalid.
(b)
He is obligated to compensate the purchaser however - based on the Din of 'Garmi' (the obligation to compensate for direct cause of loss).
(c)
He even permits the creditor's heirs to be Mochel - because the heirs inherit all their father's rights, and if he only sold the purchaser whatever he receives, by the same token, he only sold him what his heirs will receive.
8)
(a)
What did Rav Nachman say (with regard to Shmuel's ruling) about a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra which he then wants to be Mochel)?
(b)
What is the problem with extending this ruling to where he is Metzaveh Machmas Misah (where he only gave away part of his property [see Gilyon ha'Shas])?
(c)
If, as Rav Nachman himself said earlier, a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra is only effective mi'de'Rabbanan, why should the creditor not be able to be Mochel?
8)
(a)
Rav Nachman ruled that - once a Shechiv-M'ra gives a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra, he can no longer be Mochel.
(b)
The problem with extending this ruling to where he is Metzaveh Machmas Misah (where he only gave away part of his property) is that - in that case, it has a Din of a Matnas Bari, and Reuven has the right to be Mochel.
(c)
Despite the fact that, a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra is only effective mi'de'Rabanan (as Rav Nachman himself said earlier), the Rabbanan gave it the Din of a d'Oraysa - for fear that if the Kinyan is absolute, the Shechiv-M'ra will succumb, as we explained earlier.
9)
(a)
What does Rava Amar Rav Nachman say about a Shechiv-M'ra who declares that so-and-so should live in one of his rooms, or that he should eat the fruit of one of his trees?
(b)
On what principle is this ruling based?
(c)
Why in the case of a Bari, is Shimon not Koneh, if Reuven declared that he should ...
1.
... live in one of his rooms?
2.
... eat the fruit of one of his trees?
(d)
What can the Shechiv-M'ra do to enable the beneficiary to live in one of his rooms or to eat the fruit of one of his trees?
9)
(a)
Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules that if a Shechiv-M'ra declares that so-and-so should live in one of his rooms, or that he should eat the fruit of one of his trees - the beneficiary is not Koneh.
(b)
This ruling is based on the principle that - with the exception of the fact that a Shechiv-M'ra does not require a Kinyan, whatever is not Koneh in the case of a Bari is not Koneh in the case of a Shechiv-M'ra either.
(c)
In the case of a Bari, Shimon is not Koneh if Reuven declared that he should ...
1.
... live in one of his rooms - because a Kinyan does not take effect on something that is abstract.
2.
... eat the fruit of one of his trees - because it is a 'Davar she'Lo Ba Le'Olam'.
(d)
To enable the beneficiary to live in one of his rooms or to eat the fruit of one of his trees - the Shechiv-M'ra merely needs to prefix his gift with the words 'T'nu Bayis Zeh' or 'Dekel Zeh ... li'Peloni'.
