1)

(a)That woman denied her husband access to her property - by writing it out to her daughter, and then explaining to witnesses that the real purpose of the document was only to deny her husband access to the property.

(b)When her daughter produced a 'Shtar Mavrachta' - (the relevant document), Rav Nachman tore it up.

(c)Rav Anan lodged a complaint with Mar Ukva - that 'that farmer Rav Nachman' was tearing-up people's documents.

(d)In reply, Mar Ukva quoted Rav Chanilai bar Idi - who quoted Shmuel as saying that he was a Moreh Hora'ah, and that if a Shtar Mavrachta would come to his hand, he would tear it up.

(e)To become a Moreh Hora'ah - one had to obtain permission from the Resh Galusa (the exilarch).

2)

(a)Rava thought - that the Din of Shtar Mavrachta ought to be restricted to a stranger, over whom one would certainly give oneself precedence, but should not apply to a daughter, who is, after all, one's own flesh and blood, and whom one would presumably give with a full heart.

(b)Rav Nachman answered him - that a person always gives himself precedence, even over one's own daughter.

3)

(a)We query Shmuel from a Beraisa however, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel advises a woman who wants to deny her husband access to her property to write a Shtar Pasim - a document containing a request, asking the recipient to accept the property only in order to deny her husband access to the property, and not as a gift.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the document is valid as it stands. According to the Chachamim - the recipient can laugh at the donor (the gift is valid, the condition is not), unless he writes specifically ' ... from today, and whenever it suits me'.

(c)It appears from this Beraisa that - unless he writes a Shtar Mavrachta using this Lashon, the recipient acquires the property, posing a Kashya on Shmuel.

(d)Rebbi Zeira resolves the Kashya - by establishing Shmuel when the donor writes all his property to the recipient, in which case we are witnesses that he did not mean him to acquire it fully; whereas the Beraisa speaks when he sold him only part of it, where there is no reason to assume that.

4)

(a)In the case of a Shtar Mavrachta, despite the fact that the buyer does not acquire the property, the husband does not automatically acquire it either - because Chazal gave it the Din of property which the husband did not know about, according to Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, since it is very similar to it.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a married woman inherits money or detached fruit - it should be used to purchase land for her husband to eat the fruit.

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, if she inherited a field with the fruit already grown, the husband must pay her however much the value of the field has increased due to the fruit - because fruit which did not grow in the domain of the husband is considered capital. Consequently, he must pay her for the fruits (which are assessed according to the increased value of the field on their account) and buy with the money land (like one always does with capital).

(c)According to the Chachamim however - attached fruit belongs to the husband - because it is considered Peiros, since the woman has the land (which is the principle).

(d)When Rebbi Shimon says that whenever he has...

1. ... the upper-hand at the time when his wife inherits the property, he has the lower-hand when he divorces her - he is referring to fruit that was still attached to the ground when she inherited it, and which belongs to the husband (like the Chachamim), but to the wife, when he divorces her.

2. ... the lower-hand at the time when his wife inherits the property, he has the upper-hand when he divorces her - he is referring to detached fruit, which belongs to his wife when she inherit it, but to him when he divorces her.

6)

(a)We take for granted that if a woman inherits a large sum of money with which she wants to buy houses, whereas her husband wants to buy land, or vice-versa, she must buy land - because it is more lucrative than houses, nor is it subject to depreciation, like houses are.

(b)By the same token, houses are preferable to date-palms - because, unlike the latter, they do not tend to dry-up and die.

(c)If it is a question of purchasing trees, date-palms or vines - the order of priorities is 1. date-palms, 2. trees and 3. vines.

7)

(a)If the woman inherited a forest of Uzradin (a kind of cheap fruit - known as sperling) or a fish-pond, some consider the fruit and the fish (respectively) as fruit, others as the capital. The reason of those who consider it ...

1. ... fruit - is because she does still own the land on which the forest stands and the pond itself (which is capital).

2. ... capital - because the wood and the fish will eventually come to an end.

(b)Those who consider the fruit of the forest of Uzradin and the fish in the pond, capital - maintain that whatever will re-grow when cut is called Peiros; Whatever will not is considered capital.

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Oshaya Amar Rebbi Yanai - someone who steals the baby of an animal of Nichsei Milug must pay the double-payment to the woman ...

(b)... because we initially think that we are afraid that the animal will die, so the baby is considered capital and not Peiros.

(c)According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa however, the baby of an animal of Nichsei Milug belongs to the husband; whereas that of a Shifchah Milug belongs to the wife. According to Chananya the son of Yashiyah's brother - the baby of an animal of Nichsei Milug belongs to the husband just like the child of her Shifchah.

(d)We reconcile Rebbi Oshaya Amar Rebbi Yanai with this Beraisa - by considering the baby of an animal Peiros (like both Tana'im maintain). However, Rebbi Yanai holds that, although the Chachamim instituted that the husband receives the Peiros, he will not take the double-payment - because it is considered Peiros of the Peiros, to which he is not entitled.

9)

(a)Chananyah considers both the baby of animals and of Shefachos Milug as Peiros - because he is not afraid that the mother might die, in which case, she is considered the capital.

(b)To explain the Chachamim, who consider the former, Peiros, but the latter, capital - we point out that, in the former case, even if the animal were to die, the woman would still be able to benefit from the skin (which is therefore considered capital), which is not the case by a Shifchah (whose corpse is Asur b'Hana'ah).

(c)Shmuel rules like Chananyah, who concedes that, should the woman become divorced, she may claim the baby of her Shifchah (despite the fact that they are considered Peiros) - because of 'Shevach Beis Avihah' (in honor of her father's house, a sort of family heirloom, which has special sentimental value).

(d)She is however - obligated to pay for them.

10)

(a)Rav Rava Amar Rav Nachman rule that if a woman brings into the marriage a goat for its milk, a sheep for its wool, a chicken for its eggs or a date-palm for its fruit - her husband is permitted to use up the capital completely (until they die), because the skin, the feathers and the wood (respectively) remain.

(b)According to Rav Nachman, the Peiros of a coat that she brings into the marriage is its usage - because, even if her husband uses up the coat, she will still have the rags as principal.

11)

(a)We support Rava Amar Rav Nachman from a Beraisa, which considers salt-pools (by the sea-shore) and sand-deposits (for building) Peiros because they never become used-up.

(b)In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Meir considers deposits of sulfur and of alum, capital - the Chachamim consider them Peiros (and he is permitted to use them up completely ...

(c)... corroborating the opinion of Rava Amar Rav Nachman, because, like the worn-out clothes according to him, the empty sulfur and alum pits (which remain) are of negligible value.

(d)The difference between this case and that in our Mishnah, of a woman who brings in money or detached fruit - is that, in the latter case, they are considered capital, because once they become worn out, nothing remains, whereas in the former case, the pits remain, as we explained.

12)

(a)Rebbi Shimon says in our Mishnah that whenever the husband has the upper-hand at the time when his wife inherits the property, he has the lower-hand when he divorces her, and whenever he has the lower-hand at the time when his wife inherits the property, he has the upper-hand when he divorces her. It is clear that the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Shimon with regard to fruit that is detached when he divorces her (which obviously goes to him). They argue with him though - by fruit that is attached at the time when he divorces her, which, according to Rebbi Shimon, belongs to her, and according to them, to him (because it grew in his domain).

13)

(a)Our Mishnah considers old Avadim and Shefachos capital, due to the likelihood of them dying. Consequently, says the Tana Kama, they are sold, and with the proceeds, she buys land. Similarly, should the woman inherit old olive-trees and vines, she sells them, too.

1. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that - with regard to old Avadim and Shefachos, she is entitled to protest at their sale, because of 'Shevach Beis Avihah'.

2. Rebbi Yehudah - says the same with regard to old olive-trees and vines.

(b)Rav Kahana Amar Rav establishes the Machlokes Tana'im (regarding the old olive-trees and vines) when they fell to her in her own field. Even Rebbi Yehudah will agree however, in the event that they fell to her in someone else's field - that neither of them can prevent their sale, seeing as the trees are likely to die, in which case there will be no Shevach Beis Avuhah.

(c)The problem Rav Yosef now has with the Reisha of our Mishnah is - that if, whenever there is a likelihood of the capital dying, everyone agrees that we do nor contend with 'Shevach Beis Avuhah', why does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argue with the Chachamim in the case of old slaves and Shefachos (which are equivalent to old trees in someone else's land)?

(d)So we amend Rav Kahana Amar Rav's statement to read - that they only argue by old olive-trees and vines that fell to her in someone else's field (when Shevach Beis Avihah may never materialize), but in her own field, even the Chachamim will agree with Rebbi Yehudah, that she has the right to protest against the sale (because of Shevach Beis Avihah).

14)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, if a man spends a lot of money improving his wife's fields, but divorces her having reaped little benefit from it - he is not permitted to reclaim the difference from his wife. 'What he spent, he spent, and what he ate, he ate'.

(b)But if he spent money but obtains no benefit at all in return - then he is permitted to recoup his losses.

(c)According to Rebbi Asi, even if he ate as little as a dried fig, that falls under the category of 'little benefit', though he is only prohibited from recouping his losses - if he ate it in an honorable manner (sitting in his house at the table).