Question (Rav): If brothers diverted the property to others, what is the law?

R. Chiya was present when this question was delivered (to Rebbi).

Question (R. Chiya): Does he mean that they sold the property, or that they gave it for collateral?

Answer to both questions (Rebbi): It makes no difference. In either case, daughters can collect Parnasah from it, but not food.

Question: Why didn't Rav specify whether they sold it, or gave it for collateral?

Answer: Rav wanted to know about both:

Had he asked about when they sold it, and Rebbi would answer that daughters collect it, Rav would know that all the more so, if they gave it for collateral;

However, if Rebbi would answer that it is not collected, Rav would not know about when they gave it for collateral.

Had he asked about when they gave it for collateral, and Rebbi would answer that daughters do not collect it, Rav would know that all the more so, if they sold it;

However, if Rebbi would answer that it is collected, Rav would not know about when they sold it.

Therefore, he worded his question in a way that includes both.

(R. Yochanan): We do not collect for food or Parnasah.

Question: Did R. Yochanan not hear Rebbi's ruling, but had he heard it, he would have retracted his own ruling?

Or, R. Yochanan heard it, but nevertheless he argued?

Answer: The following shows that he had heard it.

(R. Yochanan): A man died, leaving two daughters and a son. One daughter took Parnasah. If the son died before the other daughter received Parnasah, she pardoned her Parnasah (and splits the remaining property with her sister);

Objection (R. Chanina): A bigger Chidush was taught, that we take (sold property to pay) Parnasah, but not for food. How can you say that she pardoned it?

If R. Yochanan had not heard Rebbi's ruling, he should have asked 'Who says that Parnasah is taken from sold property (since R. Yochanan himself argues)!'

Rejection: Perhaps R. Yochanan had not heard it (when he taught (e) above), but he heard it later, before R. Chanina challenged him. Even though R. Yochanan accepted the ruling, he argued with R. Chanina in this case, where the second daughter receives much property anyway (therefore she forfeits Parnasah).

Question (Rav Yemar): According to R. Yochanan, if a girl has money because she found a Metzi'ah, does she pardon Parnasah?!

Answer (Rav Ashi): No. R. Yochanan says so only when she receives a large share of the estate.

(Ameimar): A daughter who receives Parnasah is considered an heir.

Question (Rav Ashi): If so, the sons cannot force her to accept money (if she wants a tenth of the land)!

Answer (Ameimar): Correct!

Question (Rav Ashi): If the sons want her to take the land in one place, can she demand a tenth of each piece of land?

Answer (Ameimar): She can!

(Rav Ashi): She is like a creditor.

Ameimar subsequently retracted, and agreed to Rav Ashi.

(Rav Minyomi): A woman came in front of Ameimar claiming Parnasah. The brothers said 'If we had money, we could force you to take it instead of the land', and Ameimar was silent.

This shows that Ameimar agrees that they could force her to accept money.

Question: Is she like a creditor of the father, or of the brothers?

If she is a creditor of the brothers she collects middle quality land, without an oath (like a regular lender collects from the borrower);

If she is a creditor of the father, she collects low quality land, with an oath (like a lender collects from heirs of the borrower).

Answer: The following episode proves that she is a creditor of the brothers:

Ravina authorized Rav Ashi's daughter to collect middle quality land from her brother, without an oath.

She also collected low quality land from the son of a deceased brother, with an oath (since she was a creditor of the deceased brother, and was collecting from his heir).

Rav Nechemyah sent to Rabah bar Rav Huna to collect Parnasah for a certain woman, even from the base of a millstone.

Rav Ashi: In Rav Kahana's academy, we used to collect for women even from rental of houses.

Rav Anan sent to Rav Huna 'Huna our colleague, Shalom! When this woman comes before you, collect a tenth of the estate for her.' (This was not a proper way to address Rav Huna. Even Shmuel put Rav Huna before himself!)

Rav Huna (to Rav Sheshes): Say the following to Rav Anan verbatim! If not, you will be excommunicated!

'Anan, Anan! From land, or from Metaltelim? Also, who sits at the head in the house of Marzicha?'

Rav Sheshes delivered the message verbatim, but first apologized to Rav Anan. 'You are greater than me; Rav Huna is greater than you. He said I will be in Cherem if I do not give this message. Otherwise, I would not say it! Anan, Anan...'

Rav Anan (to Mar Ukva): Do you see how he treated me? Also - what is Marzicha?

Mar Ukva asked to hear the full story. Rav Anan explained.

Mar Ukva: You do not know what Marzicha is, and you called Rav Huna 'Huna, our colleague'?!

Question: What is Marzicha?

Answer: It is a mourner - "Do not come to a house of Marzach."

Question (R. Avahu): How do we know that a mourner sits at the head?

Answer #1 (R. Avahu): "V'Eshev Rosh...ka'Asher Avelim Yenachem"

Question: Yenachem connotes consoling others (the consoler is at the head)!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It is written (so we can read it) "Yinachem" (will be consoled. The verse could have said "Menachem' (console), which cannot be read any other way - Tosfos).

Answer #2 (Mar Zutra): "V'Sar Mirzach Seruchim" - a mourner becomes a Sar (leader) to great people (who come to console him).

(Rava): The Halachah is, the following are taken only from land, not from Metaltelim: feeding a widow and daughters, paying a Kesuvah, and Parnasah.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Levi gave money to David for Levi's daughter (for her dowry or to buy a field for her), and she says 'I trust my husband (give the money to him)', David should do like he was instructed;

R. Yosi says, even if he bought a field for her and she wanted to sell it, she could. It is as if it is already sold! (Therefore, we heed her.)

This applies to an adult; but the actions of a minor are void.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): If Levi gave money to David, to give to Levi's son-in-law to buy a field for Levi's daughter, and she says 'give it to my husband', if she is Nesu'ah, we heed her. If she is Arusah, David does like he was instructed;

R. Yosi says, we heed an adult, whether she is Nesu'ah or Arusah. We do not heed a minor, whether Nesu'ah or Arusah. Rather, David does like he was instructed.

Question: In which case do they argue?

Answer #1: They argue about a Nesu'ah minor. R. Meir says that we heed her. R. Yosi says that even if she is Nesu'ah, we heed her only if she is an adult.

Rejection - Question: If so, who taught the Seifa, which says 'but the actions of a minor are void?'

It is not R. Yosi. He already said 'it is like a field that she wants to sell', which shows that he discusses only an adult, who can sell!

Answer: Rather, R. Meir taught it. The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means as follows:

David does like he was instructed. This is if she was Arusah, but if she was Nesu'ah, we heed her. This refers to an adult, but the actions of a minor are void.

Answer #2: They argue about an Arusah adult. (R. Meir says, David does like he was instructed; R. Yosi says, we heed her.)

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.

(Rava): The Halachah follows R. Meir.

(Ilfa was very poor, and went away to earn money. He returned and found out that had he stayed, he would have been appointed Rosh Yeshiva.) He hung himself on a mast.

Ilfa: If anyone can say a Tosefta of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya, for which I cannot bring its source in the Mishnah, I will fall and drown!

An elder asked the source of the following Tosefta.

If one said 'give a Shekel to my children each week', and they need a Sela, we give to them a Sela. If he said 'give to them only a Shekel', we give to them only a Shekel;

If he said 'if they die, others should inherit in place of them', whether or not he said 'only', we give to them only a Shekel.

Ilfa: That is like R. Meir, who says (in our Mishnah) that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased.