Rav Sheishes rules that 'Yitol', 'Yizkeh', 'Yachzik' and 'Yikneh' - are all Leshonos of Matanah, and are therefore valid by a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra.

We would otherwise have thought that, like 'Yidor P'loni ba'Bayis Zeh (which we discussed earlier), they are all abstract Leshonos, and are therefore invalid.

The Beraisa seems to have taken Rav Sheishes' cases for granted, adding 'Yachsin' and 'Yares', to teach us that - if the Shechiv-M'ra bequeaths his property to one of the Yorshim, he acquires it (like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, whom we discussed earlier in the Perek).

We ask what the Din will be in the case of 'Yehaneh bahen', 'Yera'eh bahen ', Ya'amod bahen ' or 'Yisha'en bahen '. The She'eilah is whether these are expressions of Matanah, or whether they are abstract expressions of merely having Hana'ah.

The outcome of these She'eilos is once again - 'Teiku'.

We then ask about a Shechiv-M'ra who sold all his property. Sometimes Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ruled that he can retract - where the money is still intact (and where we assume that he deliberately refrained from using it, in order to be able to retract from the sale and return the money should he recover), and sometimes that he can't - where the money has already been spent.

Next we ask whether if the Shechiv-M'ra admits that the property belongs to Reuven, Reuven actually acquires it, and we resolve the She'eilah from an episode where Rava borrowed twelve thousand Zuz from Isur Giyora - the captor who raped one of Shmuel's daughters before converting.

Rav Mari, who was the son born from that incident ...

... did not automatically acquire his father's estate - because, although by the time he was born, Isur Giyora had already converted, at the time of conception, he was still a Nochri (and a Ger does not inherit his father who converted after he has already been conceived).

Rava thought that he would be able to acquire the money (and not Rav Mari) - because he knew that the latter would have a problem in how to give it to him (as we shall now see).

We just explained why Rav Mari did not automatically inherit Isur Giyora. Neither could the latter give him the money ...

... as a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra - because Chazal gave a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra the Din of Yerushah, so whoever cannot inherit, cannot receive a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra either.

... through Meshichah - since the money (on which to make Meshichah) was not there or Chalipin - since one cannot acquire money with Chalipin.

... together with Karka because Isur Giyora did not own any land.

Neither could he give it to him via the Takanah of Ma'amad Sheloshtan - because Rava made it clear that he would not make himself available, even if Isur Giyora were to call him.

When Rav Ika b'rei d'Rav Ami asked why he did not simply admit that the money belonged to Rav Mari - that is precisely what Isur Giyora did.

Rava was angry that someone had obviously divulged what they had discussed in the Beis-Hamedrash, thereby assisting Rav Mari against himself.

We have now proved from this episode that - the beneficiary acquires the property on the Shechiv-M'ra's admission alone.

We learned in our Mishnah 'Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu, Matanaso Kayemes'. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interprets 'Kol-she'Hu' as - sufficient to live off, should he recover.

Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba adds that - even Metaltelin of that amount will suffice to render the Matanah irreversible.

The reason that Rebbi Zeira praised Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is - because logically, that is the amount that would clinch the gift, and Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba, because there is no logical reason to differentiate between Karka and Metaltelin.

Rav Yosef disagreed with Rebbi Zeira's praise of Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba however - because the Tana said 'Karka Kol-she'Hu', and Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba should not have changed it.

Abaye queried Rav Yosef from a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where the Tana says that ...

... if someone writes all his property to his Eved, the latter goes free (because the Eved himself is included in the property that he acquires).

... if he leaves over 'Karka Kol she'Hu' - he does not go free (because, seeing as Avadim are compared to Karka, perhaps the Eved is the 'Karka Kol-she'Hu' to which the owner referred).

According to Rebbi Shimon, for the Eved not to go free, the owner must say - 'Kol Nechasai Nesunin li'Peloni Avdi Chutz me'Echad me'Ribu she'bahen' (without mentioning 'Karka', which according to him, does not automatically include Avadim [see also M'lo ha'Ro'im).

Rav Dimi bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Elazar 'Asu Metaltelin Shiyur eitzel Eved'. He says that - because Avadim are also compared to Metaltelin (since they are not attached to the ground).

When Rav Dimi bar Yosef adds 've'Lo Asu Metaltelin Shiyur eitzel Kesubah', he is referring to a case where a man writes all his property to his sons, and one field to his wife (in which case she would certainly lose her Kesubah, if she remained silent).

And he is teaching us that - the Tana's ruling is confined to where the man leaves his wife Karka, but where he leaves her Metaltelin, she does not lose her Kesubah (as we learned earlier in the Perek), because women tended not to rely on Metaltelin for their Kesubah.

Abaye tries to prove from here that - when the Mishnah says 'Karka', it does not necessarily come to preclude Metaltelin.

Rav Yosef refutes Abaye's Kashya however on the grounds that - normally, when the Tana says Karka, he means exclusively Karka, and it is specifically in the Mishnah in Pe'ah, where he only mentions 'Karka' because of the Reisha ('Rebbi Akiva Omer, Karka Kol-she'Hu Chayeves be'Pe'ah'), where we can say that Karka is 'La'av Davka'.

We just cited Rebbi Akiva in the Mishnah in Pe'ah, who says 'Karka Kol she'Hu Chayeves be'Pe'ah'. He lists three other things that require 'Karka Kol she'Hu', Bikurim, Pruzbul and - in order to acquire Metaltelin together with it by means of Kesef, Shtar or Chazakah.