Abaye queries both Rabah and Rav Nachman on two scores. What did he ask on
1.
... Rabah?
2.
... Rav Nachman?
(b)
Based on Rabah's own statement later (in connection with the case of the old grandmother), why should even Karka be considered Ra'uy, even though it is Meshubad?
(c)
What does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuha say about Yesomim who claimed Karka that was Meshubad to their father?
(d)
What does Abaye ask from there on Rav Nachman's current opinion? What would he have said had the Yesomim acquired Karka after their father's death?
1)
(a)
Abaye queries both Rabah and Rav Nachman on two scores. He asked on ...
1.
... Rabah that - if their father did not leave them that money, he did not leave them that land either?, whereas on ...
2.
... Rav Nachman he asked - the reverse.
(b)
Based on Rabah's own statement later (in connection with the case of the old grandmother), even Karka should be considered Ra'uy, even though it is Meshubad - because the debtor always has the option of paying money.
(c)
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuha rules that if Yesomim claimed Karka that was Meshubad to their father - their father's creditor can claim it from them.
(d)
In that case, asks Abaye - how can Rav Nachman consider Karka Ra'uy in our Sugya. Since, had the Yesomim acquired Karka after their father's death, their father's creditor would not have been able to claim it, why should land that they claimed from their father's debtor be any different (unless it is considered Muchzekes)?
2)
(a)
What did Rabah reply (to answer Abaye's questions on Rav Nachman and on himself)?
(b)
What do Rabah and Rav Nachman then really hold? Whose opinion do they follow?
(c)
If that is so, on what grounds do they qualify the Shalchu mi'Tam? How do they know that they do not consider him Muchzak in both?
2)
(a)
To answer Abaye's questions on Rav Nachman and on himself, Rabah replied that - the opinions which they both expressed were not their own, but came to explain the Shalchu mi'Tam.
(b)
In fact, both of them really hold like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who considers the father Muchzak neither in the money nor in the Karka (from a 'Kal va'Chomer' as we learned above).
(c)
Nevertheless, they qualify the Shalchu mi'Tam - inasmuch as (even assuming that they really consider him Muchzak in both), they are saying to them 'Won't you at least agree with us that he is either not Muchzak in the money (Rabah) or in the land (Rav Nachman).
3)
(a)
If Rav Nachman really considers even Karka to be Ra'uy, on what basis does he quote Rabah bar Avu'ah, who permits the creditor of the Yesomim's father to claim his debt from the property which the Yesomim claimed from their father's debtor?
(b)
And how will we reconcile Rabah here, who considers the father Muchzak in his debtor's Karka according to the Shalchu mi'Tam, with the Shalchu mi'Tam, who, in the forthcoming case, considered the property Ra'uy, even though it was Karka]). Why was it not Meshubad to the husband?
3)
(a)
Despite the fact that Rav Nachman really considers even Karka to be Ra'uy, he quote Rabah bar Avu'ah, who permits the creditor of the Yesomim's father to claim his debt from the property which the Yesomim claimed from their father's debtor - on the basis of 'Shibuda de'Rebbi Nasan', which renders the property of the father's debtor Meshubad to the father's creditor just as it was Meshubad to the father.
(b)
Rabah here considers the father Muchzak in his debtor's Karka according to the Shalchu mi'Tam only because the property of the debtor is Meshubad to the creditor. In the forthcoming case however, the Shalchu mi'Tam considered the property Ra'uy, even though it was Karka, because the husband was not a creditor (as we shall see), in which case there is no reason for the property to be Meshubad to the husband.
125b----------------------------------------125b
4)
(a)
In the case to which we just referred, what did the owner of the property stipulate after bequeathing his property to his old grandmother?
(b)
Who claimed the property after the old woman died?
(c)
On what grounds did ...
1.
... Rav Huna uphold the husband's claim?
2.
... Rav Anan disagree? Who ought then to have inherited the property?
(d)
What would Rav Anan have ruled had the daughter survived her husband, and left a son or daughter when she died?
4)
(a)
In the case to which we just referred, after bequeathing his property to his old grandmother, the owner stipulated that - after she died, his relatives would inherit it.
(b)
After the old woman died his daughter's husband (his daughter having died before the grandmother) claimed the property.
(c)
Rav ...
1.
... Huna upheld the husband's claim on the grounds that - 'le'Yarsi' (to my heirs) includes 'Yarsi de'Yarsi' (which the husband was).
2.
... Anan disagreed however, on the grounds that - 'le'Yarsi' is restricted to his next of kin and not to the next of kin's next of kin, in which case, the grandmother's next of kin ought to have inherited the property from her.
(d)
Had the daughter survived her husband, and left a son or daughter when she died - Rav Anan would have issued the same ruling.
5)
(a)
What did Shalchu mi'Tam mean when they ruled like Rav Anan, but not for the same reason?
(b)
What are the ramifications of this ruling?
(c)
What problem does this initially pose on Rav Huna?
(d)
What did Rebbi Elazar mean when he said in answering this Kashya, 'Davar Zeh Niftach bi'Gedolim, ve'Nistayem bi'Ketanim'? Whom did he mean by 'Gedolim' and 'Ketanim'?
5)
(a)
When Shalchu mi'Tam ruled like Rav Anan, but not for the same reason, they meant that - although they conceded that the husband should not inherit the property, that was not for the reason given by Rav Anan, but because it was Ra'uy, and a husband only inherits what his wife actually owns when she dies.
(b)
The ramifications of this ruling will be - in a case where the daughter leave behind a son or a daughter, who will receive the property, according to the Shalchu mi'Tam, but not according to Rav Anan, as we explained.
(c)
The problem this initially poses on Rav Huna is that - by inference, he will hold that a husband inherits what is Ra'uy (when really, nobody disputes the fact that he does not).
(d)
When Rebbi Elazar said in answering this Kashya 'Davar Zeh Niftach bi'Gedolim, ve'Nistayem bi'Ketanim', he meant that - although the initial statement was made by a great man (Rav Huna), it had to be explained by his subordinate (meaning himself).
6)
(a)
How did Rebbi Elazar explain Rav Huna, for the property not to have been Ra'uy?
(b)
Nevertheless, Rabah, based on a S'vara that we have already discussed, agrees with the B'nei Ma'arava (the Shalchu mi'Tam). Which S'vara?
(c)
Rav Papa issues a final ruling regarding the matters discussed in the above Sugya. Which ruling did he issue (that effects a husband and a B'chor equally)?
(d)
What does he rule with regard to a B'chor receiving an extra portion from a loan ...
1.
... in land?
2.
... in money?
6)
(a)
For the property not to have been Ra'uy, Rebbi Elazar gave Rav Huna's reason (not because he holds that a husband inherits even the property of his wife which is Ra'uy, but) - because when someone says 'Acharecha' (so-and-so will inherit after you), he means to give so-and-so the actual article or property immediately (and the interim use of it to 'you'). Consequently, in our case, the owner's daughter received the property immediately, and when his grandmother died, it was not Ra'uy.
(b)
Nevertheless, Rabah, agrees with the B'nei Ma'arava (the Shalchu mi'Tam), based on the S'vara (that we already discussed earlier) that - had the grandmother wished, she would have been able to sell the property.
(c)
Rav Papa issues a final ruling regarding the matters discussed in the above Sugya that - neither a husband nor a B'chor can claim what is Ra'uy.
(d)
And he rules that - a B'chor does not receive an extra portion from a loan, irrespective of whether they claim ...
1.
... land or ...
2.
... money.
7)
(a)
Regarding Rav Papa's first ruling, in which case will a husband inherit what is basically Ra'uy?
(b)
Why is this obvious, despite the fact that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi over this point with regard to a B'chor?
7)
(a)
Regarding Rav Papa's first ruling, Rav Papa will concede that - a husband will inherit Shachas that became fully-grown wheat and unripe dates that ripened in the husband's domain (even though they are basically Ra'uy).
(b)
This is obvious, in spite of the fact that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi over this point with regard to a B'chor, whose extra portion the Torah refers to as a Matanah - because here everybody agrees that a husband's inheritance is called a Yerushah (and not a Matanah).
8)
(a)
In which case will the Rabbanan anyway concede to Rebbi that even a B'chor will inherit Ra'uy which grows from the object that one inherited?
(b)
Why is that?
(c)
And in which case will Rav Papa agree that even a B'chor who has brothers will receive an extra portion, despite the fact that it is Ra'uy?
(d)
Why is that?
(e)
Then why can he not claim double from 'Anavim u'Batzrum'?
8)
(a)
In any case, the Rabbanan will concede to Rebbi that even a B'chor inherits Ra'uy which grows from the object that he inherited - when he is the sole heir (like a husband is) ...
(b)
... in which case, he inherits all the property and it is his property that improved.
(c)
And Rav Papa will agree that even a B'chor will receive an extra portion - in the case of a tree that grew thicker and land that threw up silt and improved, in spite of the fact that it is Ra'uy ...
(d)
... since it is the same article that improved, and even the Rabbanan will concede this, as we explained earlier).
(e)
He cannot however, claim double from 'Anavim she'Batzrum' - because as we learned on the previous Daf, he is not entitled to double from Sh'vach which he himself developed.
9)
(a)
What does Resh Lakish in the Yerushalmi learn (regarding the Cheilek B'chorah) from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Mishpat" "Mishpat" (from the Cheilek Pashut)?
9)
(a)
Resh Lakish in the Yerushalmi learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Mishpat" "Mishpat" that - if a B'chor dies during his father's lifetime, his heirs inherit the Cheilek Bechorah (just like a son's heirs inherit the Cheilek Pashut there where their father died during their lifetime).
10)
(a)
Rav Papa concludes 'B'chor she'Imo Palgi'. What is 'B'chor she'Imo'?
(b)
What does 'B'chor she'Imo Palgi' mean?
(c)
What is the dual reason for this ruling?
(d)
On what grounds might the B'chor's father be more Muchzak in this loan than in a loan that he is owed by a third party?
10)
(a)
Rav Papa concludes 'B'chor she'Imo Palgi'. 'B'chor she'Imo' is - an outstanding loan that the B'chor still owes his father.
(b)
'B'chor she'Imo Palgi' means that - the brothers divide it between them ...
(c)
... because a. we are not sure whether the father is considered Muchzak; and b. the Halachah is like Sumchus, who holds 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin' (see also Tosfos DH 'u've'Milveh').
(d)
The B'chor's father might be more Muchzak in this loan than in a loan that he is owed by a third party - because it is possible that his son is Mesha'bed his property to his father with a good eye (so as to inherit an extra portion), in which case he is Makneh it with a full heart.
