(Mishnah): If Levi promised to give a certain amount to his son-in-law, and before the Nisu'in he said that he will not (or cannot) give the money; his son-in-law can say that he will not make Nisu'in until Levi gives the money, and Levi's daughter will be unable to marry anyone else;

Admon says, she can claim 'had I promised myself, this would be proper. My father promised. What should I do? Have Nisu'in with me, or divorce me!'

R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana:

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): Admon and Chachamim didn't argue about a man who promised money to his son-in-law, and then retracted. All agree that she can say 'my father promised. What should I do?'

They argue when she promised, and then retracted.

Chachamim say that her husband can say 'I will not make Nisu'in until you give the money';

Admon says, she can say 'I thought that my father would give. Now that I see that he will not (or cannot), what can I do? Have Nisu'in with me, or divorce me!'

R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Beraisa): This (Rashi - the law of this Beraisa; Tosfos - our Mishnah) applies when she is an adult. If she is a minor, we force.

Question: Whom do we force?

Suggestion: We force her father.

Rejection: It is more reasonable to force him if she is an adult!

Answer (Rava): We force her husband to divorce her.

(R. Yitzchak ben Elazar): Wherever R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the Halachah follows Admon.

Question (Rava): Does this even apply to the Beraisa?

Answer (Rav Nachman): He did not say 'in the Mishnah.' He said 'wherever'!

(R. Zeira): Regarding the two laws that Chanan said, the Halachah is k'Yotzei Bo (Rashi - like the one who agrees with him; Tosfos - the same applies in similar cases). Regarding the seven laws that Admon said, the Halachah is not k'Yotzei Bo.

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: The Halachah follows Chanan's two laws and k'Yotzei Bo. The Halachah does not follow Admon's seven laws, nor k'Yotzei Bo.

Rejection: R. Yitzchak ben Elazar said that wherever R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the Halachah follows Admon!

Answer #1: Rather, the Halachah follows Chanan's two laws and k'Yotzei Bo. Regarding Admon's seven laws, the Halachah does not follow k'Yotzei Bo.

Inference: This implies that the Halachah follows Admon in all seven.

Rejection: R. Yitzchak ben Elazar taught that wherever R. Gamliel said that he agrees with Admon, the Halachah follows Admon;

Inference: Where R. Gamliel did not say this, the Halachah does not follow Admon!

Answer #2: Rather, the Halachah follows Chanan's two laws and k'Yotzei Bo. Regarding Admon's seven laws, sometimes the Halachah follows him and k'Yotzei Bo. Sometimes, it is not like him, but it is (Tosfos - and it is not) k'Yotzei Bo;

Wherever R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the Halachah follows Admon. In all other places, it does not.

(Mishnah - Admon): If Reuven claims that Shimon stole a field from him, and Reuven signed on the document in which Levi bought this field from Shimon. Reuven did not forfeit his claim. He signed the document, because he would rather take Levi to trial than Shimon;

Chachamim say, he forfeited his claim.

If a sale document delineates an adjacent field by saying that it borders on Shimon's field, and Reuven signed this document, he forfeits his claim that Shimon stole the field from him.

(Gemara - Abaye): This applies only to a witness who signs. If a judge signed (validated) such a document, he does not forfeit his claim.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): Witnesses may not sign a document unless they read it, but judges may sign a document even without reading it.

(Mishnah): If this field was used to delineate an adjacent field...

(Abaye): This is only if the adjacent field was sold to someone else. If it was for himself (Reuven bought (Rashi) or sold (Tosfos) the field from or to Shimon), he does not forfeit his claim;

Had Reuven objected to calling the adjacent field Shimon's, the sale would not have gone through.

Question: Reuven should have told witnesses that he does not agree that the field is Shimon's!

Answer: Everyone has friends. Had Reuven done so, word would have spread, Shimon would have heard and cancelled the sale.

David signed a document selling the field north of Levi's field, and later claimed that Levi stole the field (to the south). David died. An Apotropos was appointed for the orphans.

Abaye: David forfeited his claim to the field.

The Apotropos: If David was alive, he would claim that Levi only owns one furrow's width of the south field, and this was used to delineate the north field. The rest of the south field is mine!

Abaye: Excellent! We make this claim for the orphans!

(R. Yochanan): If David claims that Levi owns only one furrow's width of the south field, and this was used to delineate the north field, he is believed.

Abaye: Give to Shimon a furrow's width of the field.

There was a row of date trees on the furrow (making the furrow very valuable).

The Apotropos: If David was alive, he would claim that later he bought back the furrow!

Abaye: Excellent! We make this claim for the orphans!

(R. Yochanan): If Reuven claims that later he bought it back, he is believed.

Abaye: One who appoints an Apotropos should appoint a man like this, who knows how to argue for the orphans!

(Mishnah - Admon): If Levi went overseas, and the path to his field was lost field (it was annexed to the adjacent field, he does not know where), he receives a short path to his field;

Chachamim say, he must pay whatever his neighbor charges for a path, or else he must fly (i.e. he may not walk) to his field.

(Gemara) Question: We understand Admon (surely, Levi used to have a path, and the neighbor took it). Why do Chachamim argue?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): The case is, he was surrounded by four neighbors on the four sides of his field.

Question: If so, what is Admon's reason? (He has no Vadai claim against any neighbor!)

Answer (Rava): If every neighbor owned his land (when Levi left), or if all bought from one person who used to own all the property surrounding the field, all agree that they can push off Levi;

They argue when Levi was surrounded by four neighbors, and one person bought all their land.

Admon says, in any case the path to his field is by the buyer!

Chachamim say, the buyer says, accept my terms. If you protest, I will return the deeds to the original owners (undo the sales), and you will be unable to force them to give you a path.

A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date tree; he died. His sons divided the estate, and did not give to her a tree.

(Rav Yosef): This is just like our Mishnah!

Objection (Abaye): No! In the Mishnah, each neighbor can dispel him and say 'your path is not by me.' Here, the sons divided her tree among themselves!

They must give to her a tree, and make a new division.

A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date tree. He died, leaving two trees in which he was a half-owner.

Question (Rav Yosef): Are two halves of a tree called a tree?

Answer (Rav Mordechai): Yes.