(Mishnah #1): A man was married to two women and sold his field. His first wife wrote to the buyer 'I have no claim against you.' The second wife may collect the field from the buyer, the first wife collects from the second, and the buyer from the first wife. This cycle continues ad infinitum, until they reach a compromise;

The same applies to a creditor, and to a woman who is a creditor.

(Gemara) Question: When she writes ('I have no claim...'), this does not take effect!

(Beraisa): If a man wrote to his friend (Rashi - his partner) 'I have no claim or dealings in this field', 'I have no business in it', (or) 'my hand is removed from it', these words are void.

Answer: The case is, they acquired the waiving of her rights (through Chalipin, transferal of a garment).

Question: This does not help! She can say that she did so only to placate her husband!

(Mishnah #2): If Reuven sold a field and the buyer also bought the field from Reuven's wife, the sale is void. (This refers to one of three special fields, i.e. it was designated to pay her Kesuvah, or was written in the Kesuvah, or was part of her dowry.)

Inference: She can say that she sold it to placate her husband!

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): Mishnah #2 is like R. Yehudah. Mishnah #1 is like R. Meir.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If a man sold a field (one of the three), and his wife did not sign on it, and he sold a second field and she signed it, she lost (rights to collect) her Kesuvah (from the second field. She cannot collect from the first, for the first buyer left the second field for her to collect from.)

R. Yehudah says, she can say that she signed only to placate her husband.

Objection: Did Rebbi codify the Mishnah here like R. Meir, and there like R. Yehudah?!

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): Mishnah #1 discusses a divorcee who signed. All Tana'im agree to it (she is not concerned for placating her ex-husband).

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Also Mishnah #2 is like R. Meir;

R. Meir does not believe her to say that she signed only to placate her husband only when he made two sales, and she agreed only to the second.

If she did so to placate her husband, she should have agreed to both of them!

When there was only one sale, R. Meir agrees that she can say that she signed only to placate him.

In Mishnah #1, the husband previously sold another field and she did not sign.

(Mishnah): One may not collect from sold land when the debtor still has Bnei Chorin (unsold property), even if it is lowest quality land.

Question: If the Bnei Chorin were flooded, may the creditor collect from sold land?

Answer #1 (Beraisa - R. Meir): If a man sold two fields, and his wife signed only on the second, she lost her Kesuvah.

If a creditor may collect from sold land when Bnei Chorin are flooded, granted she cannot collect her Kesuvah from the second buyer, but she should collect from the first!

Rejection #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The Beraisa says that she lost her Kesuvah, i.e. the right to collect it from the second buyer. She can collect from the first!

Objection #1 (Rava): 'She lost her Kesuvah' connotes that she lost it entirely.

Objection #2 (Rava - Beraisa): A man borrowed from one man, and sold property to two men. The creditor wrote to the second buyer, I have no claim against you. He cannot collect from the first buyer, for the first buyer can tell him, I left for you property from which to collect! (Note: according to Tosfos, Rava defends Answer #1. According to Rashi, Rava rejects Answer #1 for a different reason than Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak did. This is clear from the two coming entries.)

Version #1 (Tosfos) Answer (to Objection #2): That case is different. The creditor caused himself to lose by pardoning his lien! (We do not say so about a wife, for it was not yet the time to collect her Kesuvah.)

Version #2 (Rashi) Rejection #2 (Rava): We cannot learn to Bnei Chorin. There, the creditor or wife caused his or her own loss by pardoning the lien! (end of Version #2)

Answer #2 (Rav Yemar): In everyday practice, creditors collect when the Bnei Chorin are flooded!

A case occurred in which a lender took a vineyard for 10 years (the produce would pay off the debt). After five years, it stopped producing. Chachamim ruled that he may take property that the borrower had sold.

Rejection (Rav Ashi): There, the buyers caused their own loss. They should have realized that a vineyard often stops producing, and refrained from buying the other property.

The Halachah is, if the Bnei Chorin are flooded, the creditor may take sold land.

(Abaye): If one told a woman 'I give my property to you. After you, Ploni will get it' and she married, her husband is like a buyer. After she dies her husband gets the property, not Ploni.

This is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If one said 'I give my property to you (Reuven). After you, Ploni will get it' and Reuven sold the property, after Reuven dies, Ploni takes the property from the buyer;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Ploni gets only what Reuven leaves over.

Question: Did Abaye really say this?!

(Abaye): A cunning Rasha is one who counsels a person to sell like in the above case of R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Answer: Abaye did not say she should get married. He said that if she married, the husband keeps the property.

(Abaye): If one told a woman 'I give my property to you. After you, Ploni will get it' and she sold the property and died, her husband takes the property from the buyer. Ploni takes the property from her husband; the buyer takes it from Ploni, and it stays by him.

Question: The Mishnah says that the cycle continues ad infinitum, until they reach a compromise. Why is Abaye's case different?

Answer: There, all three parties incurred a loss; here, only the buyer loses.

Question (Rafram): Elsewhere, Abaye taught differently!

(Abaye): If one told a woman 'I give my property to you. After you, Ploni will get it', and she remarried, the husband is like a buyer. After she dies, he gets the property, not Ploni.

Answer (Rav Ashi): There, he said this to a single woman. In Abaye's second teaching, he said that to her when she was already married;

When he said 'Ploni should get the property after you', he meant 'Ploni, and not your husband.'

(Mishnah): The same applies to a creditor (and to a woman who is a creditor).

(Beraisa): The same applies to a creditor and two buyers (the creditor waived rights to collect from the second buyer). The same applies to a woman who is a creditor (her husband owes her Kesuvah to her) and two buyers (she waived rights to collect from the second).

(Mishnah): A widow is fed from the property of the orphans. They receive her earnings. They are not obligated to bury her. Her heirs who inherit her Kesuvah must bury her.

(Gemara) Question: Is the text 'a widow is fed' or 'a widow who is fed'?

'A widow is fed' is like in Galil, where the orphans must feed her;

'A widow who is fed' is like in Yehudah, where the orphans need not feed her (they can pay her Kesuvah and exempt themselves from feeding her).