Pesak: The Halachah follows Rav Nachman.

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (51a) "also according to you (who challenge Rava), the Seifa is difficult! A case occurred with five women.... This is like 'you and the donkey' [should acquire], but 'you and the donkey' does not acquire!

Answer: This is not because this is the Halachah (that it does not acquire). Rather, it means [according to you, the Seifa] is difficult for the opinion that it does not acquire;

Just like according to him, you must answer, likewise you must answer for Rava.

Question: Since in all gourds the inside is bitter and the outside is sweet, why may one not tithe one on the other? The outside exempts the outside, and the inside exempts the inside! Why must he add onto the outside?

Answer (Ri): R. Yosi here does not discuss when all the gourds are bitter [on the inside]. Rather, the one he tithes was found to be bitter [even on the outside];

He discusses the Mishnah in Terumos (3:1), brought in Yevamos (89a) "one who tithes gourds and it was found to be bitter, or [he tithed] watermelon and it was found to be spoiled, it is Terumah, and he tithes again";

R. Yosi argues, and holds that one need not tithe again. Rather, he adds from the outside on the outside. Even what is found to be bitter, the outside is not so bitter that it is not considered food.

Support: The Yerushalmi connotes like this. Regarding the Mishnah of tithing gourds, it says "granted, a watermelon that was found to be spoiled, it is Terumah, and he tithes again, for it is a total Safek whether or not it was spoiled at the time he separated it";

However, if a gourd was found to be bitter, why is it Terumah? Surely it was bitter at the time of separation. Why is it Terumah at all? [The Yerushalmi] answers that [Chachamim] made it like Safek food. Mid'Oraisa, it is proper food. Therefore, it is Terumah.

Also here, we say that mid'Oraisa it is proper Terumah, just they fined him because he should have tasted it, like it says in Yevamos (89a). They made it like a Safek food, therefore he tithes again.

Afterwards, the Yerushalmi brings R. Yosi's teaching here, that the most bitter part of gourds is the inside. It asks "do they argue about something that can be checked?!"

It answers that they argue about the checking itself. The first Tana holds that there is much bitterness in the outside, and it is proper to consider it Safek food. R. Yosi holds that it is not so bitter, and it is not proper to consider it Safek food. Therefore, he does not tithe again.

Observation: This explicitly connotes that R. Yosi argues with the Mishnah of tithing gourds.

Question (Ri): What was difficult? Is it not obvious that if one says "my property is to two people" that they will receive equally?!

Even so, for a Minchah, this is not l'Chatchilah. If so, you are forced to say that it is because he intends for a big Korban!

Answer (Ri): He asks as follows. It is logical that his wife should receive only like one of the sons, and even so, Rav Yosef said that she gets half;

If so, also here, even though from reasoning, we should say that he intends for a big Korban, we should not follow reasoning!

Question: Since people call a son "Banai (my children)", why did he need to say "my property is to Banai"? Obviously, it is to his son (he is the only heir)!

Answer: It was needed, so if a gift document will be found, it will have no effect.

Implied question: When he descended to Mitzrayim [it says "u'Vnei Dan Chushim"] he did not yet have so many children!

Answer: Even so, he is called (Vnei, a plural expression) due to the future, like we expound "Asher Sam Shamos (destruction." We expound) do not read Shamos, rather, "Shemos" (names).

Explanation (Rivam): The same applies if all the heirs are adults, just the Mishnah discusses a common case (those who do not improve the property are minors).

Implied question: This should be like one who entered another's field and planted it without permission, or like a partner, who is like one who entered with permission!

Answer: [It is different,] for a partner does not pardon his toil. However, brothers pardon to each other.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): See what our father left us. We are ready to divide. What we improve, we will improve from our portion.

Inference: He improves only from the portion proper for him [to inherit. In the Rashbam's text, some brothers say this. In Tosfos' text, one brother says this. Surely the law is the same in both cases.]

Rejection #1: It says that Rav Safra's father left money, and Rav Safra took it. This connotes that he took all of it!

Rejection #2: If he took only his portion, what could [his brothers] claim from him? (Why did they take him to Beis Din?) It says in Bava Metzi'a (69a) that money, it is as if it was divided!

Rejection #3: When they will divide, if the portion of another [brother] will come to him, it turns out that the Shevach was not his!

Explanation #2 (Ri, Rivam): The Shevach that he improved from all the property is his.

Implied question: He should be like one who entered another's field without permission. He gets only wages for his toil, with expenditures! Or he should be like a partner, who entered with permission. He receives like a sharecropper!

Answer: That is because this one (who did not improve) can profit like this one (who did), and they do not pardon. However, here if the adults will not profit, the minor will not profit.

Support: We must say so about Rav Safra's brothers, that they were minors, and they could not profit;

Therefore, since Rav Safra is a great Chacham, and does not abandon [time in which he could be] learning to toil for others, even though he did not said 'see [what father left us...]', is as if he said 'see', and the minors pardon to him.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (22b) regarding dates that fall in the wind [perhaps they are of minor orphans, and minor] orphans cannot pardon!

Answer: Here [the minors] do not lose, and the profit\dio come to them. Therefore, they properly pardon.

Question (Ri): Why does it say regarding sons "in front of Beis Din"?

Suggestion: It is because he revealed his intent that he did not pardon to them.

Rejection: Also in front of witnesses he could reveal his intent! (He does not need Beis Din.)

Answer: Perhaps he needs [to say so] in front of Beis Din, so Beis Din will strive about the matter and enact according to their need. Since Beis Din did not enact to divide, surely they did not find that dividing would help them, and they pardoned everything.

Also Rav Safra was known to Beis Din (that he will profit with all the property), even though he did not say.

Remark: The Rashbam explained that the same applies if he says in front of witnesses. (It need not be in front of Beis Din.)

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (40a), in the episode with Mari bar Isak, we say that since he descended without permission, for we do not appoint a relative over a minor's property, they divide the Shevach!

Answer: Here we should not say so. There, there is concern lest the relative make Chazakah in the minor's property (and later he will claim "it is mine"), for [the minor] is not here;

However, here there is no concern, for the minors are together with the adults. They cannot make a Chazakah one against the other.

Explanation (Rashbam): They did not toil, and they did not spend anything of their own. Rather, from their father's property they hired workers. "Due to themselves" means that they hired workers from their own [property].

Inference: He holds that the reason is, since they hired from their father's property, [the profit] is shared. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)