1)
Rav and Shmuel argue over a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra that contains a Kinyan. What do Amri bei Rav mi'Shemeih de'Rav mean when they say 'Ark'veih a'Terei Richshi'?
In what way is it ..
... a Matnas Bari?
... a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra?
What is the literal meaning of 'Ark'veih a'T'rei Richshi'?
And what does Shmuel mean when he says 'Lo Yada'na Mai Adun bah'? What is the problem, assuming that ...
... there is a Sh'tar?
... there is no Sh'tar?
1)
Rav and Shmuel argue over a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra that contains a Kinyan. When Amri bei Rav mi'Shemeih de'Rav say 'Ark'veih a'T'rei Richshi' they mean that - the unnecessary Kinyan gives the transaction the strength of a Matnas Bari as well as of a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra.
It is ..
... a Matnas Bari inasmuch as - he cannot retract, should he recover.
... a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra inasmuch as - 'Halva'aso li'Peloni' is effective (even without Ma'amad Sheloshtan).
The literal meaning of 'Ark'veih a'T'rei Richshi' is - 'Ride it on two racing camels'
And when Shmuel says 'Lo Yada'na Mai Adun bah', he means that he has a Safek whether it is valid or not. His problem, assuming that ...
... there is a Sh'tar is that - the Shechiv-M'ra evidently wants the Kinyan to take place via the Sh'tar, and a Sh'tar cannot acquire after death.
... there is no Sh'tar - because here too, it seems that he wants the Kinyan to take affect after his death, which it cannot, because the moment he dies, his heirs inherit his property automatically.
2)
There are four proofs as to why they must be referring to a 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra be'Kulo' and not 'be'Miktzaso'. What is the most obvious proof?
Two of the three remaining proofs are 1. because our Mishnah rules 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra be'Miktzas, Matanaso Matanah' (with or without a Kinyan), so why does Shmuel have a Safek?, and 2. because we will shortly ask from a case of a Shechiv-M'ra who wrote all his property to someone, so presumably, that is the case that we are talking about. What is the final proof?
Will it make any difference if the Kinyan is not written in the Sh'tar?
We query the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel from another ruling of theirs, where Ravin Amar Rebbi Avahu quotes Rebbi Elazar. What did Rebbi Elazar send to the Golah in the name of Rav, regarding a Shechiv-M'ra who said 'Kisvu u'Tenu Manah li'Peloni' and then died?
And what does Shmuel rule there?
2)
There are four proofs as to why they must be referring to a 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra be'Kulo' and not 'be'Miktzaso', the most obvious of which is - because otherwise they should have specifically said so.
Two of the three remaining proofs are 1. because our Mishnah rules 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra be'Miktzas, Matanaso Matanah' (with or without a Kinyan), so why does Shmuel have a Safek?, and 2. because we will shortly ask from a case of a Shechiv-M'ra who wrote all his property to someone, so presumably, that is the case that we are talking about. The final proof is - because we have already ruled that a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra be'Miktzas requires a Kinyan.
If the Kinyan is not written in the Sh'tar - the Din will be exactly the same. As a matter of fact, it will not even make any difference even if there is no Sh'tar at all.
We query the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel from another ruling of theirs, where Ravin Amar Rebbi Avahu quotes Rebbi Elazar, who sent to the Golah in the name of Rav that if a Shechiv-M'ra said 'Kisvu u'Tenu Manah li'Peloni' and then died - one does not carry out his instructions, in case he wanted the Kinyan to take effect specifically via the Sh'tar, and, as we have already learned, a Sh'tar cannot take effect after the death of the benefactor.
Shmuel rules there 'Kosvin ve'Nosnin'.
3)
To reconcile Rav's two rulings, we draw a distinction between where they made a Kinyan and where they did not. What does this mean?
And how do we resolve the discrepancy in Shmuel? How do we establish his latter ruling to ensure that the Kinyan takes effect immediately?
Rava queried Shmuel from another statement of his. With Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sitting behind him, in front of whom was Rava sitting when he asked the Kashya?
What did Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a Shechiv-M'ra who wrote all his property out to someone, even assuming he made a Kinyan)?
3)
To reconcile Rav's two rulings, we draw a distinction between where they made a Kinyan - (the first ruling, which takes effect immediately), and where they did not - (the second ruling, where he obviously intends the Sh'tar to acquire only after his death).
And we resolve the discrepancy in Shmuel, by establishing his latter ruling by 'Meyapeh es Kocho' (as will be explained shortly), which ensures that the Kinyan takes effect immediately (as we already learned in 'Yesh Nochlin').
Rava queried Shmuel from another statement of his. With Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sitting behind him, Rava was sitting in front of - Rav Nachman, when he asked the Kashya.
Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel said that, if a Shechiv-M'ra wrote all his property out to someone, even assuming that he made a Kinyan - he is permitted to retract, in the event that he recovers.
4)
What did Rav Nachman reply? How did he resolve the discrepancy in Shmuel?
How come that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak needed to ask Rava to explain Rav Nachman's answer? Why could he not understand it himself?
One explanation is that Rav Nachman hinted that he had an answer (which he explained to Rava only later). What is the alternative explanation?
And how did Rav Chisda explain 'Meyapeh es Kocho'?
4)
Rav Nachman resolved the discrepancy in Shmuel - by establishing his second ruling in a case of 'Meyapeh es Kocho'.
Nevertheless Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak needed to ask Rava to explain Rav Nachman's answer - because he did not answer directly, only by way of a hint ...
... either that he had an answer (which he explained to Rava only later), or - by merely presenting the concept of 'Meyapeh es Kocho' (without actually applying it).
Rav Chisda explained 'Meyapeh es Kocho' to mean that - they added 've'Kanina mineih Mosif al Matnasa' (implying that the Kinyan is meant to strengthen the Matanah rather than to qualify it).
152b----------------------------------------152b
5)
When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, what did he say about a Shechiv-M'ra who writes out all his property, first to Reuven and then to Shimon, without handing them the Sh'tar?
Why is a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra called 'Daytiki'? What is 'Daytiki' the acronym of?
If he did hand them the Sh'tar, according to Rav, Reuven acquires the property. What does Shmuel say?
What is the basis of their Machlokes?
5)
When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he said that if a Shechiv-M'ra writes out all his property, first to Reuven and then to Shimon, without handing them the Sh'tar - Shimon acquires the property, because of the principle 'Daytiki Mevateles Daytiki' (which means that a second Matnas Shechiv-M'ra overrides the Matnas Shechiv-M'ra that preceded it, as we have already learned).
'Daytiki' is the acronym of - 'Da Tehei Lemeikam u'le'Mehavei' (meaning 'This is conclusive').
According to Rav, if he did hand them the Sh'tar, Reuven acquires the property; Shmuel says that - even if he did, Shimon will acquire it.
The basis of their Machlokes is that according to Rav - the Sh'tar has the same power as a Kinyan, from which he cannot retract should he recover (as he said earlier). Consequently, he cannot retract even if he does not. Whereas Shmuel holds that - despite the Sh'tar, it is a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra (as we learned above), in which case, he is able to retract.
6)
We query this however, in that they have already argued over this point before. What are we referring to?
According to the answer, had they not presented their Machlokes ...
... here too, why might we have thought that Rav will agree with Shmuel?
... there too, why might we have thought that Shmuel will agree with Rav?
And how do we reconcile Shmuel, who holds in the first case 'Lo Yada'na Mai Adun bah', with his own ruling here 'Sheini Kanah'?
6)
We query this however, in that they have already argued over this point before - in the case of 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra she'Kasuv bo Kinyan'.
According to the answer, had they not presented their Machlokes ...
... here too, we might have thought that, in the current case, Rav will concede that the second one will acquire - since unlike in the previous case, no Kinyan took place.
... there too, we might have thought that Shmuel will agree with Rav there - because a Kinyan took place.
And likewise, we reconcile Shmuel, who holds in the first case 'Lo Yada'na Mai Adun bah', with his own ruling here 'Sheini Kanah', - by pointing out that in our case, no Kinyan took place.
7)
The above is the version as it was learned in Sura. In the Pumbedisian version, Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba cited a She'eilah that bei Rav sent to Shmuel. What did Shmuel reply, when they asked him about a Shechiv-M'ra who wrote all his property to others with a Kinyan?
This principle certainly pertains to a Shechiv-M'ra who gave his property to Reuven and who now wants to give it to Shimon. What did Rav Huna from Kufri say about where the Shechiv-M'ra recovers and wants to retrieve the property himself?
7)
The above is the version as it was learned in Sura. In the Pumbedisian version, Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba cited a She'eilah that bei Rav sent to Shmuel. When they asked him about a Shechiv-M'ra who wrote all his property to others with a Kinyan, he replied - 'Ein Achar Kinyan K'lum' (and he cannot retract).
This principle certainly pertains to a Shechiv-M'ra who gave his property to Reuven and who now wants to give it to Shimon. Rav Chisda quotes Rav Huna from Kufri, who says that - it even extends to where the Shechiv-M'ra recovers and wants to retrieve the property himself.
8)
On what grounds do we reject the proposal that the Pumbedisian version comes to amend Shmuel's earlier statement 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra she'Kasuv bah Kinyan, Lo Yada'na Mai Adun bah'?
Which statement of Shmuel's does it come to amend?
What exactly, is the case?
8)
We reject the proposal that the Pumbedisian version comes to amend Shmuel's earlier statement 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra she'Kasuv bah Kinyan, Lo Yada'na Mai Adun bah' on the grounds that - if this ruling would pertain to a straightforward case of Matnas Shechiv-M'ra with a Kinyan, it would still clash with the ruling of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who said 'Shechiv-M'ra ... Amad, Chozer', whilst here Shmuel rules 'Ein Achar Kinyan K'lum'.
Consequently, it must come to amend - Shmuel's previous statement 'Kasav ve'Zikah la'Zeh ... Sheini Kanah'.
And the case is - where the Shechiv-M'ra wrote the property to Reuven and gave it to him with an additional Kinyan. All this gives it a Din of 'Meyapeh es Kocho', and he cannot therefore retract.