1)

SALE OF A CONTESTED FIELD [last line of previous Amud]

(a)

Version #1 (Abaye): If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without Acharayos and people contested the sale, until Shimon makes a Chazakah in the field he can retract (if he did not yet pay). After this, he cannot retract;

1.

Reuven can say to him 'you knowingly risked your money.'

(b)

Question: What is considered making a Chazakah?

(c)

Answer: It is when he walks around the borders.

(d)

Version #2 (Abaye): This is even if he sold the field with Acharayos. Reuven can say 'if Beis Din rules that they can take the field, I will compensate you.'

2)

SPLITTING AN ESTATE TO PAY KESUVOS [line 6]

(a)

(Mishnah): A man married three women on the same day, and died. Their Kesuvos are for 100, 200 and 300 (Zuzim). If the estate is 100, they divide it equally;

(b)

If the estate is 200, the 'first' woman (whose Kesuvah is 100) receives 50. The others receive 75 each;

(c)

If the estate is 300, they receive 50, 100 and 150, respectively.

(d)

The same applies to three people who invested money together. If there was a loss or profit, they share this way.

(e)

(Gemara) Question: In case (b), why does the first woman get 50? She deserves only 33 and a third (a share of the first 100. She has no claim to the second 100!)

(f)

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, the second woman wrote to the first, 'I have no claim with you in 100 Zuzim of the estate' (so the first and third women share that 100).

(g)

Question: If so, why do the second and third women both receive 75? The third can tell the second, you forfeited your share in the first 100!

(h)

Answer: She responds 'I forfeited only the right to quarrel with and decrease the share of the first woman. I did not concede anything to you' (Tosfos does not understand this answer. Some say that the third woman consented to the second's waiving of her rights (Hagahah in Targum of Rif, Sof 52a), or that her silence to the waiving shows acceptance (Meiri)). The Rif says that Rav Hai Gaon explained according to two people holding a Talis [but later retracted]. Perhaps he meant that if we look at how much money any two women received together, they divided it according to the Halachah of two holding a Talis. E.g. in case two, the first two women received a total of 125. The first woman has a claim only to 100. The second woman takes the remaining 25, and they divide the other 100 equally. This works in every case of the Mishnah. The Mishnah ends 'and similarly... they share this way"; there is always exactly one way to divide among all the parties to fulfill this. Presumably, Rav Hai rejected this because if so, the Talmudim could have explained the Mishnah without need to discuss authorizing or seizing at two times. (PF))

(i)

(Mishnah): If the estate is 300, they receive 50, 100 and 150.

(j)

Question: The second woman should receive only 75 (since she has no claim to the third 100, she should get the same as when the estate was 200)!

(k)

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, (the second woman did not write anything, and) the third woman wrote to the first two 'I have no claim with you in 100 of the estate' (so the first and second women share that 100).

(l)

Answer #2 (to questions (e) and (j) - Rav Yakov from Nehar Pekod): The women seized Metaltelim of the estate at two times;

1.

In case (b) of the Mishnah, they first seized 75 (which was split equally), and then the last 125. (The first woman took an equal share (a third) of 75 of the 125, since she still needed to be paid 75 from her Kesuvah);

2.

In case (c), they first seized 75 (all split it equally), and then the last 225. The first woman took a third of 75 from the 225, like above. The second woman received as much as the third woman in 175 of the 225 (i.e. 75), since she still needed to be paid 175 from her Kesuvah, and the third woman took the last 50 herself.

(m)

(Beraisa): This Mishnah is like R. Nasan;

(n)

Rebbi says, I disagree with R. Nasan. Rather, they split equally (Rashi; Tosfos - they always receive proportional to their Kesuvos).

3)

PEOPLE WHO INVESTED MONEY TOGETHER [line before last]

(a)

(Mishnah): And similarly, three who invested...

(b)

(Shmuel): If two people invested money together, one put in 100 and the other put in 200, they share the profits equally.

93b----------------------------------------93b

(c)

(Rabah): Presumably, Shmuel said this only when they bought an ox for plowing and it plows (for neither share could plow without the other). If they bought it for plowing and it is destined to be slaughtered, each receives proportional to his investment.

(d)

(Rav Hamnuna): Even if they bought it for plowing and it stands to be slaughtered, they share the profits equally.

(e)

Question (Beraisa): If two people invested money together, one put in 100, the other, 200 - they share the profits equally.

1.

Suggestion: This is (even) if they bought it for plowing and it is destined to be slaughtered, unlike Rabah!

(f)

Answer: No, they bought it for plowing and it plows.

(g)

Inference: If they bought it for plowing and it is destined to be slaughtered, each receives proportional to his investment.

(h)

Question (Seifa): If each bought (an ox) with his own money and then they mixed them together, each receives proportional to his investment.

1.

The Beraisa should distinguish within the case of pooling money! It should say 'this is when they bought it for plowing and it plows, but if they bought it for plowing and it is destined to be slaughtered, each receives proportional to his investment'!

(i)

Answer: The Beraisa means this! It is as if it says 'this is when they bought it for plowing and it plows. If they bought it for plowing and it is destined to be slaughtered, it is as if each bought with his own money and then they mixed them together, and each receives proportional to his investment.'

(j)

Question (Mishnah): Similarly, if three invested money together, if it increased or decreased, they split this way. (This refers to what was taught just before this; each receives proportional to her Kesuvah.)

1.

Suggestion: The investment literally increased or decreased! (This contradicts Shmuel, who said that they share profits and losses equally.)

(k)

Answer (Rav Nachman): No. 'Increase' refers to (the same quantity of) newer coins. 'Decrease' refers to coins that were disqualified; one puts them on a wound on a foot to heal it.

4)

THE ORDER IN WHICH WOMEN COLLECT THEIR KESUVOS [line 26]

(a)

(Mishnah): If a man married four women and he died, the first receives her Kesuvah before the second; the second before the third, and the third before the fourth. The first woman must swear to the second (that she did not already receive her Kesuvah), the second to the third, and the third to the fourth. The fourth receives her Kesuvah without swearing;

(b)

Ben Nanas says, does she profit because she is last?! Rather, also she does not collect without swearing.

(c)

If all the Kesuvos have the same date, whichever comes first, even by an hour, collects first. In Yerushalayim they used to write the hour of the day.

(d)

If all have the same hour and there is only 100 in the estate, they share it equally.