1)A HUSBAND INHERITS ONLY WHAT WAS MUCHZAK
1.Question (R. Avahu): What is the source that a husband does not inherit Ra'uy (what is apt to come), only what was Muchzak (in her possession)?
2.Answer (R. Avahu): "V'Elazar... va'Yikberu Oso b'Giv'as Pinchas Beno".
i.Question: How did Pinchas have land that did not belong to his father?
ii.Answer: We must say that Elazar married a woman, and she died before Morishah (a relative who was destined to bequeath to her). When Morishah died, (Elazar did not inherit; and) Pinchas inherited through his mother.
3.Suggestion: Perhaps Pinchas (inherited his wife, or) received a Cherem field!
4.Rejection: "(B'Giv'as Pinchas) Beno" connotes that the inheritance was destined to fall to Elazar, but fell to his son.
5.125b: A case occurred in which Levi said 'my property should go (after my death) to my grandmother, and after her, to my heirs.' Levi had a married daughter; she died in the life of her husband and the grandmother. When the grandmother later died, the daughter's husband claimed the property.
i.Rav Huna: Levi said 'to my heirs.' This includes his heirs' heirs.
ii.Rav Anan: 'My heirs' excludes his heirs' heirs.
6.(Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The Halachah follows Rav Anan, that the husband does not inherit, but his reason is wrong. Rav Anan holds that even if the daughter had a son, her son would not inherit. Really, her son would inherit!
i.Her husband does not inherit because the property was only Ra'uy, and a husband inherits only what was Muchzak.
7.Suggestion: Rav Huna says that the husband inherits. He must hold that a husband inherits property that was Ra'uy!
8.Rejection (R. Elazar): If one says 'after you, the property will go to Ploni...', it is as if he said 'the property should belong to Ploni from now.' (The grandmother had only Peros (usage rights). The daughter received the Guf (permanent rights to the property) right away, so her husband inherited it when she died.)
9.(Rava): Presumably, Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael hold that if the grandmother sold the property, the sale stands. (Therefore, the property might not fall to the daughter. It is only Ra'uy, and a husband does not inherit Ra'uy.)
10.(Rav Papa): The Halachah is, a husband inherits only Muchzak, but not Ra'uy.
11.Gitin 48a (Rava): A Beraisa supports Reish Lakish (who says that Kinyan Peros (the rights to the produce) is like Kinyan ha'Guf (owning the land itself).
i.(Beraisa): A Bechor receives a double portion in a field that returns to his father in Yovel.
1.Rif (55a): The Halachah does not follow R. Elazar's explanation of Rav Huna.
2.Rif and Rosh (8:12): We infer that it is Ra'uy only because he said 'after you.' Had he said 'from now', it would be Muchzak, and her husband would inherit.
3.Rambam (Hilchos Nachalos 1:11): If Levi's wife died, and afterwards died her father or brother or someone else who bequeaths to her, Levi does not inherit her. Rather, if she had descendants, they inherit her. Or, (if not,) the inheritance returns to her father's family. A husband does not inherit what is Ra'uy to come, rather, only what came to her Reshus before she died.
4.The Rosh (8:1) brings the Gemara in 113a.
5.Rosh (11): He does not inherit a loan owed to her. A husband does not inherit damages owed to his wife according to Rabanan, for it is like a loan, even though had it come to her in her lifetime it would have been Nichsei Melug. However, if Morishah died and someone owed him a loan, and she died before collecting it, her husband does not inherit it. This is like damages due to her.
6.Mordechai (574): Rava proved that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf from a Beraisa that says that a Bechor gets a double portion in a field that returns to his father in Yovel. This shows that if one gave property 'from today and after death' (i.e. Kinyan Peros), it is not Ra'uy regarding the giver's Bechor or husband.
1.Shulchan Aruch (EH 90:1): A man inherits his wife. This refers to what is Muchzak (in her possession). He does not inherit Ra'uy, e.g. an inheritance she was apt to inherit, and she died in the lifetime of Morishah.
i.Chelkas Mechokek (1): He inherits even property for which he had no rights to eat the Peros.
2.Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): One does not inherit a loan due to his wife, e.g. Morishah died, and others owed a loan to Morishah from when she married, and she died before collecting it.
i.Chelkas Mechokek (6): 'From when she married' is a printing mistake. The same applies if they lent during the marriage. In either case it is Ra'uy, for she did not collect it! However, if they had deposits with others, this is not Ra'uy, for they are in the Reshus of the owner whenever they are.
ii.Beis Shmuel (7): Perhaps 'from when she married' teaches that even if Morishah died before she married, and her husband knew that she is sure to inherit the loan, it is Ra'uy because she did not collect it!
3.Rema: However, if Morishah left property, even if she did not collect it in her lifetime, and even if it was Meshubad to (there was a lien on it to pay) a widow's Kesuvah, it is Muchzak to the daughter and her husband inherits it.
i.Chelkas Mechokek (7): The same applies if it was Meshubad to other creditors, for we hold that a creditor does not collect retroactively.
ii.Chelkas Mechokek (8): If one had a loan from his wife and she died, it seems that he is Muchzak in it and inherits it. Even though this is a Safek regarding a Bechor (who had a loan from his father), that is because it says "b'Chol Asher Yimatzei Lo)", i.e. what the father had. Here, it is not Ra'uy, for her husband has the money. However, the Rashba says that he inherits only half. If her Nichsei Melug were stolen and returned after she died, this is Ra'uy, unless land or Seforim were stolen, for these cannot be (Halachically) stolen. Wages that she did not collect in her lifetime are Ra'uy.
A HUSBAND DOES NOT INHERIT RA'UY (Bava Kama 42)