If someone dies and leaves behind sons and daughters and a lot of property, the sons inherit the property and the daughters are sustained from it - until they becomes Bogros (generally at the age of twelve and a half), or get married.

According to the Tana Kama, if there is not sufficient property to sustain the daughters for that period of time - the daughters are fed from it and the sons will have to go round the doors begging for alms.

When Admon argues 'Is it because I am a son that I should lose?', he means to say that - both the sons and the daughters are then sustained from the property as long as it lasts.

When Rabban Gamliel heard what Admon had to say - he declared that he agreed with him.

The Halachah however - is like the Tana Kama.

The Mishnah rules that an Almanah where there are only daughters - has the same Din as daughters where there are sons.

A ...

... Tumtum is a person whose genitalia are covered and we do not know whether he is a Zachar or a Nekeivah, and ...

... his status is that of a Safek (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

The Mishnah rules in a case where the deceased leaves behind Nechasim ...

... Merubim that - the sons can push him on to the daughters (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

... Mu'atim - that the daughters can push him off on to the sons.

The reason for these rulings is - because in each case, they can say to him 'Prove that you are one of us!'

The Tana rules that, if a man declares that should his wife give birth to a boy, he will receive a Manah; a girl, two, in the event that she gives birth to ...

... one of them - then we follow his instructions.

... twins, a boy and a girl - then the boy receives a Manah, and the girl, two.

The problem with the two previous rulings is that - it clashes with the principle that one cannot acquire on behalf of a fetus ('ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah').

The case must therefore be - that of a Shechiv-M'ra, whose words we uphold, because a person feels close to his sons (and daughters), in which case, they will acquire it even though they are not yet born (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

But if his wife gives birth to a Tumtum - he does not acquire it.

In the latter case, for even the Tumtum to acquire whatever his father stipulated, the father must say - 'Whatever my wife gives birth to will receive ... '.

In spite of the earlier ruling, in the case where the father said 'Zachar and Nekeivah', the Tumtum receives - the lesser of the two amounts.

The Mishnah finally rules that where a Tumtum is the only child - then he inherits everything.

We might otherwise have thought - that he is an independent species ('Beryah bi'Fenei Atzmah'), and does not inherit at all.

In a case where a deceased father leaves behind Gedolim and Ketanim, and the Gedolim improve the land and claim an extra portion for their work, the Mishnah rules - that (we ignore their claim and) all the brothers share the improved property equally.

The case is - where they pay for all the expenses from the kitty ...

... but if they pay for the improvements out of their own pocket - then they are entitled to all the improvements.

And they will be permitted to take all the improvements even if they did not pay for it themselves - if they stipulated (See Tos. Yom-Tov) in advance that they were only improving the field on condition that they exclusively would benefit from it.

The Mishnah issues the same dual ruling with regard to the Reuven's deceased wife if she improves the property (See Tos. Yom-Tov). The Tana is speaking - where she is also an heir ...

... where, for example, Reuven dies childless and she is the daughter of his brother Shimon, who died before he did, leaving only daughters (all of whom are now the next of kin).

The Tana now discusses brothers who have not yet divided their deceased father's property (See Tos. Yom-Tov), where one of them 'falls to Umnus' - to work as the king's tax-collector for one or two months (a most lucrative assignment), when a man from another family is chosen.

All the brothers ...

... share the benefits - provided this particular brother is chosen on account of his father's close connections (See previous Tos. Yom-Tov), but ...

... the brother who performs it alone will benefit - if he is chosen on account of his own acumen, importance or wisdom [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

The Mishnah also rules that if one of the brothers takes ill, then he must pay all his own medical expenses. The Tana is speaking - where he became ill due to his own carelessness (such as going out in the cold or in the heat) ...

... whereas if his illness is a pure Oneis - then he can claim his expenses out of the kitty.

The Tana now discusses 'Shushbinus' - where Shimon takes a meal (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and a gift to his brother Reuven's wedding, and Reuven reciprocates when Shimon gets married.

He now rules, that, in a case where the father sent Shimon to perform Shushbinus with Reuven when he married during his lifetime, and now, after his death, Shimon is getting married - the brothers between them (See Tos. Yom-Tov) are obligated to reciprocate.

This ruling is based on the fact that Shushbinus can be claimed in Beis-Din - indicating that it has the status of a loan (which must be repaid).

Reuven can say to Shimon, if he (Reuven)...

... married a virgin and Shimon is now marrying a widow, or vice-versa, or if he ...

... made a large public wedding and Shimon is now making a small private one, or vice-versa - that he is prepared to perform Shushbinus under the same circumstances as Shimon performed it with him, but not under different circumstances.

In a case where Shimon sent Reuven jars of wine or oil when the latter got married and now Shimon is getting married - Reuven is under no obligation to reciprocate ...

... because what Shimon sent was merely a gift, which one is not obligated to repay.

The Mishnah now discusses the Sivlonos that a Chasan sends to the house of his Kalah. 'Sivlonos' - are the trinkets, treats, and jars of wine and oil that the Chasan sends to his Kalah's home the day after the engagement.

Sometimes - he eats there as well

The Tana discusses a case where the Chasan sent Sivlonos even to the value of a hundred Manah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and ate a Dinar's-worth at her house. In the event that ...

... the Kalah subsequently dies or he divorces her, or that ...

... he subsequently dies - neither can claim the losses ...

... since, due to the love between the two parties (enhanced by the good meal that the Chasan ate) - they are Mochel each other.

The Tana mentions specifically that he ate a 'Dinar's-worth - because if he ate less than that, he is not Mochel.

The Mishnah rules that the Chasan can reclaim the Sivlonos if the Kalah dies ... provided he sent the gifts on condition that she brings them into their home when they get married ...

... irrespective of whether he sent her many gifts or only a few.

And the reason the Tana refers to 'Sivlonos Merubin' is - because that is what the Chasan usually does when he wants her to bring them into their marital home.

If a Shechiv-M'ra writes all his property to others (See Tos. Yom-Tov) to take effect during his lifetime (See Tos. Yom-Tov), the Mishnah declares the gift valid - provided he retains some Karka for himself, and the same will apply ...

... if he retains Metalt'lin and not Karka.

The gift will not be valid however, even if he retains something for himself - if he did not make a Kinyan.

A Kinyan will not be necessary however - if he stipulates that the recipient will only receive the gift after his death.

If the Sh'chiv-M'ra Shechiv-M'ra stipulates that the gift should take effect immediately and makes a Kinyan, but does not leave over anything for himself - he is entitled to retract (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Lo Shiyer').

The Shechiv-M'ra is able to retract even if he retains something for himself and made a Kinyan if he is 'Metzaveh Machmas Misah' (indicates clearly that he is giving the gift due to his impending demise).

The other distinction between the previous cases and 'Metzaveh Machmas Misah' is that - the recipient acquires after the Shechiv-M'ra dies even if he did not perform a Kinyan.

The Mishnah cites a dispute between the giver, who claims that he was a Shechiv-M'ra and that he has now recovered and wishes to retract, and the recipient, who claims that he was a Bari. They do not examine the Sh'tar - because it speaks where neither the fact that he was a Shechiv-M'ra nor that he was a Bari is mentioned there.

According to Rebbi Meir, the onus lies on the giver, to prove that he was a Shechiv-M'ra - since now he is a Bari.

Whereas the Chachamim hold that - based on the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah', the onus lies on the recipient to prove that he was a Bari (because whatever he is now will not override a Chezkas Mamon).

The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.

Rebbi Eliezer (See Tos. Yom-Tov) rules that if someone is distributing his property verbally (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - the recipient acquires Karka with Kesef, Sh'tar and Chazakah and Metalt'lin with Meshichah.

He does not differentiate between a Bari and a Mesukan - (a Shechiv-M'ra [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) ...

... because he does not hold of the principle 'Divrei Shechiv-M'ra ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami'.

The Rabbanan query him from an episode with 'the mother of the b'nei Rocheil' (the name of a man) - who wrote her bracelet to her daughter when she was ill.

The bracelet was worth - twelve Manah.

When, after her death, the sons claimed the bracelet - the Chachamim ruled that it belonged to their sister ...

... a proof that a Shechiv M'ra (Metzaveh Machmas Misah) does not require a Kinyan.

Rebbi Eliezer exclaimed in response - 'B'nei Rocheil Tikb'rem Imam (May the mother of the b'nei Rocheil bury them)!'

What he meant was that - the Chachamim allowed the daughter to keep the bracelet even though no Kinyan had taken place - as a K'nas, because the sons were wicked.

The Halachah is - like the Chachamim (of Rebbi Eliezer [See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Tikb'rem Imam').

The Chachamim (See Tos. Yom-Tov) concede that the gift of a Shechiv-M'ra is effective even without a Kinyan, on Shabbos (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - because one is not allowed to write on Shabbos.

Based on a Kal va'Chomer (See Tos. Yom-Tov), Rebbi Yehoshua rules that - it is effective even on a weekday.

The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yehoshua (because 'Divrei Shechiv-M'ra ki'Chesuvin u'Mesurin Dami' [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

If however, the Shechiv-M'ra requests that a Kinyan is performed - then one performs it ...

... even on Shabbos - to prevent him from becoming upset that his words are not being adhered to, and dying.

The Mishnah discusses a case where a house collapsed on Reuven and his father (or another relative to whom he is next of kin), and it is not known who died first, and where ...

... the father's heirs (See Tos. Yom-Tov) claim that - Reuven died first, in which case, his father inherited him, whereas ...

... Reuven's creditor's (including his wife, who wants her Kesubah [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) claims that - the father died first, and Reuven inherited his father.

Beis Shamai rule 'Yachloku', because, they maintain, even though a creditor is merely claiming, whereas an heir automatically owns his father's property - they hold that - 'a Sh'tar that stands to be claimed is as if it has already been claimed'.

Beis Hillel rule - that the property is in the Chazakah of the heirs (See Tos. Yom-Tov), and the onus is on the creditors to prove that the father died first.

The Tana repeats the same case but where the house collapsed on a man and his wife. When the husband's and the wife's heirs argue as to who died first they are arguing over - who inherits the wife's Kesubah.

Here too, Beis Shamai say 'Yachloku'(See Tos. Yom-Tov), and Beis Hillel, 'Nechasim be'Chezkasan'. The ramifications of Beis Hillel's ruling regarding ...

... the Kesubah are that - it belongs to the husband's heirs (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

... the Nechasim ha'Nichnasin ve'ha'Yotz'in Imah' - (the Nechsei Milug) are that - it belongs to the father's heirs ...

... by which he really means the heirs of the wife's (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

The basis of this ruling is - the fact that during the marriage, the wife takes full responsibility for them, so that whatever they are worth when she leaves her husband's domain, she takes them as they are.

Beis Hillel do not say what they hold with regard to 'Nechsei Tzon Barzel' - property that the wife brings into the marriage, but for which the husband takes full responsibility.

Consequently, they concede - 'Yachloku'.

The Tana Kama rules, in a case where the house collapsed on Reuven and his mother and where Reuven is the only son (See Tos. Yom-Tov), that - both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that they divide the property.

The ones who claim that the mother died first are the son's heirs (his father's family [See Tos. Yom-Tov); that Reuven died first - are the family of the mother's father's (See Tos. Yom-Tov, end of DH 'Nafal ha'Bayis).

The Mishnah does not say 'Nechasim be'Chekasan', like it did in the previous Mishnah (in the case where the house fell on a man and his wife) - since, because they both claim as heirs, it is a case of Safek ve'Safek, in which case they divide it, whereas in the previous case, there are two different kinds of property, one of which the husband is Muchzak, the other, the wife (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

Nevertheless, Rebbi Akiva concedes (See Tos. Yom-Tov) that - according to Beis Hillel, 'Nechasim be'Chezkasan' ...

... in the Chazakah of the mother's familiy ...

... because already in her lifetime, from the time that her husband died, she is Misyaches to the tribe of her father (See Tos. Yom-Tov)

Ben Azai countered - that bad enough, that in the previous case, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue, but now, even where they agree, Rebbi Akiva creates a Machlokes!

The Halachah is - like Rebbi Akiva.