(a)Question: What does Rabah bar Rav Huna come to exclude?

1.Suggestion: He excludes other property (to which she has no rights).

2.Rejection: All the more so, she can say 'I merely wanted to please my husband', because he would be very upset if she refused! (He would assume she anticipates being divorced or widowed)!

(b)Answer: Rather, he excludes Milug property (she gets it back like it is with her Kesuvah, even if it declined or increased in value. Regarding such property, if he can prove that she sold it to him, he keeps it).

(c)Question: Ameimar taught that if a man and his wife sold her Milug property, the sale is invalid!

(d)Answer #1: No, that is when he or she sold it,

1.If he sold it and died, she takes the property;

2.If she sold it and died, he takes the property due to an enactment mid'Rabanan.

i.(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): In Usha they enacted that if a woman sold her Milug property and died, her husband takes it from the buyer.

3.If they both sold it, or if she sold it to her husband, the sale is valid.

(e)Answer #2: Ameimar holds like R. Elazar.

1.(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven sold his (Kena'ani) slave to Shimon, and stipulated 'the slave will still work for me for 30 days', the law of Yom O Yomayim applies to Reuven (if he strikes the slave and he dies from the blow after 24 hours, Reuven is not killed, since the slave is working for him). It does not apply to Shimon;

i.R. Meir holds that Kinyan Peros (regarding a slave, his labor) is like Kinyan ha'Guf.

2.R. Yehudah says, (Yom O Yomayim) applies to Shimon (for the slave is his property), but not to Reuven;

i.R. Yehudah holds that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.

3.R. Yosi says, it applies to Reuven (for the slave is working for him) and to Shimon (for the slave is his property);


i.R. Yosi is in doubt whether or not Kinyan Peros (labor) is like Kinyan ha'Guf (therefore, we do not kill either master);

4.R. Elazar says, it does not apply to Reuven (for the slave is not his property) nor to Shimon (for the slave is not working for him);

5.Question (Rava): What is R. Elazar's reason?

6.Answer (Rava): "Lo Yukam Ki Kaspo Hu" - he must be entirely the property of the owner.

7.(Likewise, since Milug property is not entirely the property of the husband or wife, neither can sell it.)


(a)(Mishnah): A man does not get a Chazakah in his wife's property...

(b)Question: Rav taught that a married woman must protest (against someone on her property)!

1.Question: Against whom must she protest?

i.Suggestion: She must protest against another man.

ii.Rejection: Rav taught that one cannot make a Chazakah in the property of a married woman!

2.Answer #1: Rather, she must protest against her husband. (If she does not, he gets a Chazakah in her property!)

(c)Answer #1 (and Answer #2 to Question b:1 - Rava): Really, she must protest against her husband. The case is, he was digging pits in her property. (Since his right to eat the Peros does not allow him to dig pits, this proves that he bought it from her.)

1.Question: Rabah taught that there is no Chazakah regarding damages!

2.Answer #1: He meant that the usual three years of Chazakah are not needed for one who damages property (rather, he gets a Chazakah immediately. If someone else owned it, he would protest immediately!)

3.Answer #2: He meant that one is never Muchzak to do something that is very damaging to his neighbor:

i.(Rav Mari): One is never Muchzak to make smoke enter his neighbor's property;

ii.(Rav Zvid): One is never Muchzak to use an area as a bathroom if the stench will reach his neighbor.

(d)Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): Really, Rav meant that a married woman must protest against another man;

1.The case is, the man used her field for some time before her husband died, and for three years after her husband died;

2.Migo he would be believed to say that he bought it from her, he is believed to say 'you sold it to your husband, and I bought it from him.'