KESUVOS 96 - dedicated by Michael Miller l'Iluy Nishmos Aharon ben Mendel Miller, Rivkah bas Yosef Miller.


Tosfos DH "Ta Shema"

תוס' ד"ה "תא שמע"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question, and why Rashi's explanation of the question is difficult.)

קאמר שמואל מציאתה לעצמה אפי' בשעה שהיא ניזונית הואיל והן יכולין לסלקה לא הוו כבעל אע"ג דמעשה ידיה שלהן


Explanation: Shmuel said that she keeps any lost object she finds even if she is being supported. Being that the orphans can stop giving her food whenever they want they are not like a husband (who would keep anything she found), even though they do receive her Masei Yadayim.

אלא אי אמרת ניזונת תנן וכאנשי גליל אבל לאנשי יהודה מעשה ידיה לעצמה א"כ הא דקאמר שמואל אלמנה מציאתה לעצמה על כרחך לאנשי גליל הוא דאיצטריך ליה לאשמועינן


However, if the Mishnah states "Nizones" like the Anshei Galil, but the Anshei Yehudah would hold that her Masei Yadayim belong to her, it would be difficult to understand Shmuel. This that Shmuel said that a widow keeps any lost objects she finds must mean according to the Anshei Galil.

דלאנשי יהודה לאשמועינן מעשה ידיה לעצמה וכ"ש מציאתה


According to the Anshei Yehudah, Shmuel should have just said that she keeps her Masei Yadayim, and we would certainly know that she keeps any of her lost objects!

וכיון דלאנשי גליל קאמר אמאי מציאתה לעצמה והא לדידהו הוי דהא אינהו כבעל ולא סגי דלא יהבי לה


Question: Once we know Shmuel's statement is according to the Anshei Galil, why does she keep her lost objects? The orphans should keep it, as they are in place of the husband and she should have to give lost objects to them!

ואומר רבינו תם דאלמנה דקאמר שמואל קאי אמתני'


Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that when Shmuel discusses a widow, he is referring to the widow discussed in our Mishnah.

ולאו משום דבלאו הכי לא פשיט שפיר דהניזונת תנן כמו שהוכחתי דעל כרחך אליבא דאנשי יהודה קאמר שמואל ודוקא מציאתה אבל מעשה ידיה ליתומים


This is not solely because the Gemara's proof that "ha'Nizones" is the correct text does not work out well if Shmuel is not addressing the Mishnah. This conclusion is supported by Tosfos' earlier proof (95b, DH "Nizones") that Shmuel must have made this statement only according to the Anshei Yehudah. According to them Shmuel stated that the widow keeps any lost objects, but her Masei Yadayim go the orphans.

אלא כי היכי דלא תקשי דשמואל אדשמואל דאיהו סבירא ליה כאנשי גליל לעיל (ד' נד.)


The main reason (that Shmuel must be addressing the Mishnah and is not getting involved in the argument between the Anshei Galil and Anshei Yehudah) is so that Shmuel should not contradict himself, as he himself holds like the Anshei Galil (54a).

ומה שפירש הקונטר' אי אמרת בשלמא הניזונת תנן שפיר דמוקמינן מילתא דשמואל בשאינה ניזונת קשה


Question: This that Rashi explains that if the Mishnah states "ha'Nizones" it is understandable, as Shmuel would be talking about a case where she is not being supported, is difficult.

דאי בשאינה ניזונת פשיטא


If the case is where she is not being supported, it is obvious that she keeps any lost objects that she finds.

ועוד לימא מעשה ידיה לעצמה וכל שכן מציאתה דהויא כהעדפה שעל ידי הדחק כדאמרינן לעיל בריש מציאת האשה (דף סו. ושם)


Additionally, Shmuel should have stated she keeps her Masei Yadayim, and we would know that she certainly keeps her lost objects that she finds. This would be like the extra monies that she earns through extra effort that she certainly keeps, as is apparent from the Gemara earlier (66a).

ועוד דכי היכי דאי תנן הניזונת מוקמינן למילתיה דשמואל בשאינה ניזונת כגון שנתנו לה היורשים כתובתה


Furthermore, if the Mishnah's text would read "ha'Nizones" we would say Shmuel must be talking about a case where she is not being supported (according to Rashi), for example in a case where the inheritors already received their Kesuvah.

הכי נמי אי תנן ניזונת וכאנשי גליל מצינו למימר דמילתיה דשמואל מיירי באותה שתבעה כתובתה בב"ד או מכרה שאינה ניזונת שאותה מציאתה לעצמה אפי' לאנשי גליל


Therefore, we should similarly say that if the Mishnah's text is "Nizones" and according to the opinion of the Anshei Galil, we can say that Shmuel is discussing a case where she claimed her Kesuvah in Beis Din or sold it so that she is not supported. Such a woman would be able to keep any lost objects that she finds even according to the Anshei Galil.


Tosfos DH "Aval Manach"

תוס' ד"ה "אבל מנח"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos addresses why this statement does not contradict an earlier Gemara on 28b).

אע"ג דבשלהי האשה שנתארמלה (לעיל כח:) תניא או שהניח תפילין בפני רבו לא יצא לחירות


Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (28b) quoted a Beraisa that said that if a slave put on Tefilin in front of his master we do not assume he has been freed. [Therefore this does not seem to be an assurance that people will not think the student is a slave.]

מ"מ אינו רגיל להניח כל שעה


Answer: However, a slave does not usually have Tefilin on all the time.


Tosfos DH "Almanah"

תוס' "אלמנה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes an argument regarding when the seizure is taking place, and the reasoning why it is a valid seizure.)

פי' הריב"ן דמיירי בתפסה לאחר מיתת הבעל


Rivan's Opinion: The Rivan explains that the seizure mentioned here is after the husband has died.

וא"ת מאי שנא דלמזוני מהניא תפיסה טפי מכתובה


Question: Why should her seizure for the purpose of her food be more valid than a seizure for collecting her Kesuvah?

וי"ל משום דמזוני לא טרפה ממשעבדי אבל כתובה טרפה ממשעבדי


Answer: This is because she cannot seize other properties for her food, while she can seize properties (that her Kesuvah has a lien on) to collect her Kesuvah.

וא"ת אלא מעתה תועיל תפיסת הלוקח שלא באחריות ונמצאת שדה שאינה שלו לאחר מיתת המוכר


Question: This should mean that someone who purchases a field without Achrayus should be able to seize a field that essentially does not belong to him after the death of the seller. [The Maharsha explains that this question is according to the opinion that the buyer can get his money back from the seller in the seller's lifetime.]

והלוקח נמי באחריות ובא בעל חוב וטרפה עם השבח קשה שיועיל בו תפיסה


Similarly, it is difficult to say that a buyer with Achrayus whose field was seized by a creditor of the seller, along with the improvements made by the buyer, should be able to seize his field back from the creditor.

בשלמא ממלוה ע"פ לא קשיא דאע"ג דלא טריף ממשעבדי לא מהני תפיסה משום דיכול לתבוע הלואתו מחיים


It is understandable that one cannot ask a question from a case of a loan that was not documented that even though such a person has no lien enabling him to seize the borrower's sold fields, he still cannot seize property. This is because he can still demand payment of the loan when the borrower is alive.

אבל מלוקח קשה דלא טריף ממשעבדי גם לא היה יכול לתבוע מחיים


However, for a purchaser who has no lien on anyone's field and cannot bring the seller to Beis Din as he is no longer alive, why shouldn't seizing movable objects be valid, just as it is valid for the widow mentioned in our Gemara?

ונראה לי דדוקא מזוני דלא גביא ממשעבדי והוי נמי תנאי ב"ד אלמוה רבנן טפי להועיל בה תפיסה והודה רבי


Answer: Tosfos answers that specifically in a case where the widow needs food that cannot be collected from property (via a lien) and it is a condition set by Beis Din (that a widow receives food support) did the Rabbanan state that her seizure is valid. Rebbi admitted that this approach is correct.

וא"ת כמאן אי כרבי בלא תפיסה נמי דהא אמר בפרק נערה (לעיל נא.) אחד נכסים שיש להן אחריות ואחד נכסים שאין להן אחריות מוציאין למזון האשה והבנות


Question: Whose opinion does this Beraisa follow? If it follows Rebbi, she should be able to get this money through Beis Din without having to resort to seizure. Rebbi stated earlier (51a) that both possessions that normally have Achrayus and those without Achrayus (including movable objects) are used to pay for the food of a widow and the food of the deceased's daughters.

ואי כר' שמעון בן אלעזר כי תפסה מאי הוי הא אמר נכסים שאין להם אחריות מוציאין לבנים מן הבנות


If our Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, why should it make a difference if she seizes these movable objects? Rebbi Shimon states that possessions that do not have Achrayus are taken for the sons from the daughters.

ואומר רבי דלעולם כר"ש בן אלעזר ודווקא לבנים מן הבנות מוציאין אבל מן האשה לא


Answer: Rebbi says that this Beraisa is authored by Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar meant specifically that such movable objects can be taken from the daughters to give to the sons, but not from the wife to give to the sons.

והא דקא מותיב מר בר רב אשי מאי שנא לכתובה כו' ובעי למימר מאי דתפסה תפסה


Mar bar Rav Ashi later asks why is (seizure of movable objects for a) Kesuvah different than (for) food support, and he wants to answer that the same is indeed true for Kesuvah.

לאו משום דהכי סבירא ליה דהא אדרבי עקיבא לא פליג דאמר אין תפיסה מועלת לאחר מיתה


This is not because he really holds this is true. He would not argue on Rebbi Akiva who says that seizure does not help after the husband dies.

אלא הכי קאמר מאי דתפסה תפסה כלומר ברייתא דקתני דמועיל תפיסה למזונות לאחר מיתה על כרחך כר' טרפון דמאי דתפסה תפסה


Mar bar Rav Ashi is merely saying that the Beraisa that says that seizure helps for her food after her husband dies must be according to Rebbi Tarfon, who says that whatever she seizes (even after her husband dies) is a valid seizure.

ואם כן לרבי טרפון בכתובה נמי מאי דתפסה תפסה


Being that Rebbi Tarfon authored the statement that seizure helps for her food after her husband died, it must be that Rebbi Tarfon also holds that seizure helps for her Kesuvah after her husband dies.

ור"ח והלכות גדולות פירשו דהכא מיירי בתפיסה מחיים


Rach's Opinion: The Rach and the Halachos Gedolos explain that our Gemara is talking about a case where the seizure is done when the husband is still alive.

ודווקא למזוני מהניא אבל לכתובה לא משום דלא נתנה כתובה לגבות מחיים


It specifically works for food that she needs when he is alive. It does not work for a Kesuvah for the simple reason that a Kesuvah is not collected when a husband is alive (and she is still married to him).

ופסק בהלכות גדולות כרבינא


Halachos Gedolos' Ruling: The Halachos Gedolos indeed rules like Ravina.

וקשה שהרי פסק בתשובת הגאונים בכולי הש"ס הלכתא כמר בר רב אשי בר ממיפך שבועה ואודיתא


Question: This is difficult, as in the Teshuvos Ha'Gaonim it is ruled that the Halachah always follows Mar bar Rav Ashi besides for the cases where a vow is turned around by the defendant (see Shevuos 41a) and regarding a document of admitting owing money (see Sanhedrin 29a).

וגם הערוך ור"ח פסקו כמר בר רב אשי בר ממיפך שבועה וחיורי וכתב וסימנך כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא


The Rach and Aruch also ruled that the Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi besides for a case where a vow is turned around by the defendant and regarding the whiteness of Tzomes ha'Gidin (see Chulin 76b). The Rach even wrote that a mnemonic device to remember this is the Pasuk "it all turned (vow) white (Tzomes ha'Gidin) it is pure (we rule like Mar bar Rav Ashi in all other cases)."

אף על פי שכתב הריב"ן שראה בתשובת הגאונים לית הלכתא כמר בר רב אשי אלא במיפך שבועה ואודיתא


This is still difficult, even though the Rivan wrote that he saw in the Teshuvas ha'Gaonim that the Halachah is unlike Mar bar Rav Ashi besides for a turned around vow and a document of admitting owing money.

דומה הוא שה"ג עצמן תופסות כאותם שפסקו לית הלכתא כמר בר רב אשי במיפך שבועה ואודיתא


However, it seems that the Halachos Gedolos himself rules like those who ruled that the Halachah is only unlike Mar bar Rav Ashi in a turned around oath and a document of admitting owing money.

וצ"ל דמר בר רב אשי דקאמר הכא אינו אלא אתקפתא בעלמא ולאו דס"ל הכי


Answer: It must be that Mar bar Rav Ashi's opinion here is only said in an attacking manner, and is not his actual opinion.

ור"ח פסק כמר בר רב אשי והרבה הארכתי בו לעיל בריש הכותב (דף פד: ושם)


Rach's Ruling: The Rach, however, does rule like Mar bar Rav Ashi here. I have talked about this at length earlier (84b, DH "v'Hu she'Tafas").


Tosfos DH "Yesomim"

תוס' ד"ה "יתומים"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara is talking about food support for the past year.)

אומר רבי דמיירי במזונות שעברו דמוכח מילתא טפי משום דשתקה עד השתא דיתמי קושטא קאמרי


Explanation: Rebbi explains that the Gemara is discussing the food support for the past year. It seems apparent that since the widow was quiet until now the orphans are telling the truth (that they already paid).

אבל במזונות דלהבא ודאי על היתומין להביא ראיה דהא רבי יוחנן הוא דאמר בפ"ק דב"מ (דף יז. ושם) הטוען אחר מעשה ב"ד לא אמר כלום


However, regarding future food support it is certainly upon the orphans to bring proof that they already paid her. Rebbi Yochanan himself says in Bava Metzia (17a) that someone who claims that he has paid an obligation that he is obligated to pay due to a stipulation of Beis Din has not said anything (he must bring witnesses to this effect).

ואפילו למאן דלית ליה דר' יוחנן הכא מודה דלא מהימני לומר פרעתי דאי מהימני מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתם שתקנו לה מזונות כל שעה יאמרו פרעתי


Even according to someone who would argue with this statement of Rebbi Yochanan (in Bava Metzia ibid.), he would have to admit that orphans are not believed to say they paid food support. If they would be believed, what would the Chachamim have gained with their decree that a widow should receive food support (as long as she has not yet received her Kesuvah)? The orphans will always claim they paid!

מידי דהוה אכתובה במקום שאין כותבין דכ"ע מודו דלא מצי אמר פרעתי מהאי טעמא דפרישית


This is like a Kesuvah in a place where the custom is not to write a Kesuvah. Everyone agrees that a husband cannot just claim that he paid (without bringing witnesses) because of the reasoning above (there would be no point, as every husband could always get out of his obligation by making this claim).



Tosfos DH "Nichsi"

תוס' ד"ה "ניכסי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara assumes that a widow should be considered as having possession when a regular creditor is not.)

וא"ת מה טעם דלא חשבינן נכסי בחזקת הבעל חוב ואמאי מהימני יתמי למימר פרענו במלוה על פה


Question: Why shouldn't we consider possessions to normally be in the possession of a creditor? Why are orphans normally believed to say that they paid an oral (undocumented) loan? [The Pnei Yehoshua explains Tosfos' question in the following manner. Why does our Gemara entertain the possibility that the widow, who is essentially like a creditor, should be considered as having the monies in her possession when a creditor of an oral loan is not considered to be in possession?]

וכי תימא דחשבינן ליה בחזקת אלמנה טפי משום דמוכרת למזונות שלא בבית דין


One might suggest that the monies should be considered in the possession of the widow as she can sell possessions of the estate for her food without consulting Beis Din.

אם כן לרב ושמואל נהי דלית להו כל הטוען אחר מעשה ב"ד לא אמר כלום מ"מ כשאיבדה כתובתה לא יהיו יתומין נאמנין לומר פרענו


If so, according to Rav and Shmuel who presumably do not hold of Rebbi Yochanan's law (see Tosfos 96a DH "Yesomim") that anyone who claims that they paid a condition obligated upon them by Beis Din is not believed, there is a difficulty. If she loses her Kesuvah, the orphans should not be believed to say they paid the Kesuvah!

דכיון דמוכרת לכתובתה שלא בבית דין נכסים בחזקתה כי הכא


Being that she can sell from the estate to collect her Kesuvah without consulting Beis Din, the possessions are deemed to be in her possession.

וכי תימא אע"ג דנכסים בחזקתה מיהו מהימני לומר פרענו דמוכחא מילתא מדלית לה כתובה דמחמת פריעה נקרעה מיהו היכא דאיכא עדים שנשרפה לא להימנו


One might say that even though the possessions are deemed to be in her possession, orphans are still believed to say they paid a Kesuvah that she really lost. The reasoning would be that the Kesuvah has no reason to be extant according to the orphans, as it was torn up when they paid the widow. Even so, if there were witnesses that the Kesuvah was burned in a fire we should still say that the orphans would not be believed (as she can sell possessions from the estate).

ושמא י"ל אי איכא עדים אין הכי נמי


First Answer: It is possible that in fact this is true. [If there were witnesses that the Kesuvah was burned in a fire we would indeed say that the orphans would not be believed (as she can sell possessions from the estate).]

א"נ מזונות שאני דכתובה מיד שנפרעה נסתלקה אבל מזונות לעולם יש לה מזונות עד שתתבע כתובתה הלכך הוו נכסים בחזקתן טפי ממזונות


Second Answer: Alternatively, possession regarding food support is different than regarding Kesuvah. When a Kesuvah is paid, the widow has no more claim on the estate. However, she continuously can claim food support until she demands that her Kesuvah should be paid. This is why the possessions are deemed to be in the hands of the orphans more regarding Kesuvah than by food support.

ולא דמי להא דאמרי' בהמקבל (ב"מ קי.) יתומים אמרו אנו השבחנו ובעל חוב אמר אביכם השביח


Implied Question: This is unlike the Gemara in Bava Metzia (110a) where orphans claim that they improved a field, and their father's creditor claims that their father improved the field.

ומסקנא דמילתא ארעא כיון דלגוביינא קיימא כמאן דגביא דמי


The Gemara there concludes that since the land is supposed to be collected (for the creditor's debt) it is as if it was already collected.

דהתם מיירי כגון שהיתומין מודים שהקרקע זה לבעל חוב שאביהן עשאה אפותיקי ולכך מסיק כיון דלגוביינא קיימא כמאן דגביא דמי


Answer: The case there is where the orphans agree that this land was specifically designated by their father as the field that served as a security for this person's loan. This is why the Gemara concludes that it is as if the land was already collected.

ותדע מדמייתי עלה ספק זה קודם ספק זה קודם קוצץ ואינו נותן דמים והיינו הטעם כיון דלקוץ קאי כמאן דקיץ דמי


A proof that this is indeed the details of the case is that the Gemara (ibid.) quotes another case where when it is unclear who was first, the tree owner must cut down the tree and the other party does not have to pay. This is because the tree is going to be cut down in any event, so it is as if it is already cut down (and money therefore does not have to be paid, see Bava Basra 24b at length).

ולשם מודה בעל האילן שיש לו לקצץ אלא ששואל דמים אם כן ארעא דלגוביינא קיימא נמי מיירי כה"ג


In that case as well the tree owner admits that he has to cut down the tree. He merely wants to be compensated. If so, the case it is compared to (regarding the creditor and the orphans) must also be talking about a similar scenario (where the orphans admit that this specific land was supposed to serve as security for the creditor).


Tosfos DH "Niseis"

תוס' ד"ה "נשאת"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how far the burden of proof on the orphans extends before she marries.)

מדלא משכח עליה להביא ראיה אלא בנשאת ש"מ דנתקבלה כתובתה או דתבעה כתובתה בב"ד אפי' במזונות שעברו עליהן להביא ראיה


Explanation: Being that we only find that she must bring proof when she is married, we see that if she received her Kesuvah or she demands her Kesuvah in Beis Din the burden of proof is on the orphans even (see Maharsha that "even" is inaccurate) regarding prior food support.


Tosfos DH "v'Rebbi Yosi"

תוס' ד"ה "ורבי יוסי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yosi's statement "and so her strength is good" according to Rashi and Rebbi.)

מה שפי' בקונטרס דוכן כחה יפה דקאמר ר' יוסי היינו כשכלו נכסי היתומין תחשוב ללקוחות כל מה שמכרה למזונות


Rashi's Explanation: Rashi explained Rebbi Yosi's statement "and so her strength is good" in the following manner. When the orphan's possessions are used up, she should now make a reckoning of those who bought from her whatever she sold for food support (so she can now seize it from them based on her Kesuvah).

לא נהירא לרבי מדאמר לקמן אי נמי דכולי עלמא בחזקת יתמי קיימי והיינו טעמא דר' יוסי כדאביי מכלל דעד השתא לא אסיק אדעתיה לר' יוסי האי טעמא


Question: This does not seem correct to Rebbi. The Gemara later says an alternate answer that everyone holds the possessions are in the possession of the orphans, and Rebbi Yosi's reasoning follows Abaye. This implies that until now Rebbi Yosi never thought of this line of reasoning.

ונראה לרבי דהיינו יפוי כח השתא דמתוך שהיא מוכרת סתם היא מרווחת לומר אלו מכרתי למזונות


Question: Rebbi understands that Rebbi Yosi's statement regarding her strength is referring to the fact that since she sells without necessarily stating what she is selling for, she benefits by being able to say that she sold for food support.

ולא יוכלו היתומין לומר לה אם שהתה איבדה מזונות כמו שהיו יכולים לומר לה אם היתה כותבת אלו למזונות ואלו לכתובה ואז היו יכולין לומר שאר המזונות מחלה


The orphans cannot tell her that her delay caused her to lose food support like they could have told her if she specifically wrote that she sold certain items for food support and certain items for her Kesuvah. They then would be able to tell her that the rest of the food support she must have forfeited.

אבל לענין טריפת לקוחות אכתי לא מסיק אדעתיה עד דמסיק דכ"ע נכסי בחזקת יתמי קיימי


However, the Gemara as of yet did not think that this would affect her being able to take the possessions back from buyers. This was only thought of later when the Gemara concluded that everyone holds that the possessions are in the possession of the orphans.

דאז לא מצי למימר האי יפוי כח דלגבי יתומים לא תהא נאמנת לומר כולם למזונות מכרתי שהרי בחזקת יתמי קיימי


Then it was no longer possible to apply the logic of "her strength is good," as she is not believed to say to the orphans that she sold everything for food support as the possessions are in the possession of the orphans.

וא"ת מה יפוי כח הוא השתא דקאמרה הכל מכרתי למזונות ולא איבדה וכי אין זו אונאה דשקר הוא שהרי גם לכתובה מכרה


Question: What kind of strength is it that she can claim that she sold everything for food support and therefore did not lose her Kesuvah? Isn't this a painful lie as she also sold for her Kesuvah?

וי"ל מאי טעמא שהתה שתים או שלש שנים ולא תבעה מזונותיה איבדה מזונותיה דמדלא תבעתה א"כ מחלתה


Answer: [We can answer this question with another question.] Why is it that if she waits two or three years without claiming her food support that she loses the right to food support? It must be that because she has not claimed it, she has forfeited her right.

והכא ליכא למימר הכי דאיכא למימר דלא חששה לתובעם משום שיכולה לומר הכל מכרתי למזונות


However, here we cannot say this. It is possible that she simply did not claim food support because she can say that she indeed was selling possessions from the estate for food support.

וגם לפי' הקונטרס אין זו אונאה שאומרת ללקוחות הכל מכרתי למזונות שהרי מן הדין גם מזונות היה לה לגבות ממשעבדי אם לא לפי שאין קצובין כדפרשינן בגטין


Even according to Rashi it is not deceptive to say to the buyers that she sold everything for food support. She indeed would have had a right to claim food support from property on which she had a lien, if it were not for the fact that her support is not a set amount, as is stated in Gitin.

והכא לעולם יש ללקוחות להם לאסוקי אדעתייהו משום כתובה להניח מבני חרי כשיעור כתובה אע"פ שמכרה לכתובה כיון שיכולה לומר למזונות מכרתי


The buyers should therefore always be wary to leave the estate with an amount of property that covers the value of her Kesuvah even if she sold her Kesuvah, being that she could always claim that the estate's sales went towards her food support.

וא"ת והלא יכולין לומר לה הנחנו ליך מקום לגבות ממנו


Question: Can't the buyers claim that they left her something to collect (and she therefore has no right to seize their property)?

וי"ל דהוי כמו אשתדוף בני חרי דגביא ממשעבדי כדאמרן לעיל


Answer: This is like a case where something goes wrong with the supposed lien free property, where the ruling is that one is allowed to collect from property with a lien as we stated previously (95a).

ולא שייך הכא למימר אפסדה אנפשה בידים


Implied Question: It is impossible to say here that she ruined herself (and therefore should not be entitled to receive from the buyers, see 95a where this logic is applied).

שהרי עשתה לצורך מזונות


First Answer: She sold what she sold in order to get food support.

אי נמי בלקוחות שלקחו אחר שמכרה


Second Answer: Alternatively, it could be talking about buyers who bought from her after she sold her Kesuvah.


Tosfos DH "d'Rebbi Yehudah"

תוס' ד"ה "דרבי יהודה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how there must be a different reason why the Gemara earlier stated that the orphans should be believed.)

לטעמא דפרישית לעיל משום הא דשתקה שלא תבעה מזונותיה מוכח שהדין עם היתומים שאומרים נתננו קשה מכאן


Question: According to the reasoning that was explained earlier, that the reason that orphans should be believed is that she was quiet and did not claim her food support, there is a difficulty from our Gemara.

דהכא אמאי עליה להביא ראיה הא לא שייך הכא האי טעמא דהאי דשתקה לפי שמכרה נכסים


In our Gemara, why should she have to bring a proof? The aforementioned reasoning does not apply here, as she can claim she did not say anything previously because she had sold possessions to pay for her food support.

ונראה דהיינו טעמא לעיל דעליה להביא ראיה משום דלא שייך התם למימר מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתם אם נאמנים לומר פרענו מזונות שעברו שהרי היא יכולה לתבוע כל שעה תחילת מזונות הבאין


Answer: The reasoning of the previous Gemara where she must bring proof is because it is not possible to say that the sages did not help with their institution of food support if the orphans can push away the claim by saying that they paid. This is because she can always claim future food support.

וכן הכא יכולה היא לכתוב אלו למזונות מכרתי ואלו לכתובה מכרתי


Here, too, she can write that she sold some possessions for food support and some for her Kesuvah.


Tosfos DH "Tifshot Ley"

תוס' ד"ה "תפשוט ליה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not originally answer this question from the Mishnah.)

1. וא"ת מאי סלקא דעתי' מעיקרא דלא תפשוט


Question: What did we think originally that made us unable to answer Rebbi Yochanan's question from this Mishnah?

י"ל דסלקא דעתיה דמתני' ודאי משום עצה טובה אבל ברייתא לא משמע משום עצה טובה אלא משום כחה יפה דומיא דר' יוסי, נראה לי


Answer: It seems to me that the Gemara always thought that the Mishnah was only giving good advice to the widow (and therefore did not answer the question from the Mishnah). However, the Beraisa did not seem to be merely suggesting good advice but rather halachic advice, just as Rebbi Yosi's opinion in the Beraisa that "her strength is good" was halachic advice.


Tosfos DH "Ratzah"

תוס' ד"ה "רצה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends Rashi's explanation from a Gemara in Bava Basra 138b.)

פי' שניהם נוטלן אלא כלומר רצה בחובו נוטלן מבני חרי ושוב לא יוכל לגבות המתנה ממשעבדי


Explanation: This means that he can take money because he is a creditor and take additional money as a present. The point is to say that if he wants he can take the money coming to him as a creditor from possessions that are free of any lien, and he would then be unable to collect the present from possessions that already have a lien.

משום הכי קאמר אם נוטלן במתנה לא כך יפה כחו פירוש אם נוטלן במתנה מבני חרי שיוכל לטרוף החוב ממשעבדי וכן משמע מתוך פירוש הקונט'


This is why it says "if he takes it as a present his strength is not as good." If he takes the present money from lien free property he can also take as a creditor from property with a lien. This explanation is also implied by Rashi (unlike the simple explanation one would assume from our Gemara, that he can take the two hundred zuz either as a present or as a debt).

וקשה לר' דבשילהי יש נוחלין (ב"ב קלח:) תניא שכיב מרע שאמר תנו מאתים זוז לפלוני בעל חובי כראוי לו נוטלן ונוטל את חובו כו'


Question: Rebbi has difficulty with this explanation. At the end of Bava Basra (138b), the Gemara quotes a Beraisa that states the following. If a person on his deathbed says "you should give two hundred zuz to ploni (someone) who is my creditor as is deserving for him," he (ploni) takes both the present and what he is owed.

ופריך משום דאמר כראוי לו נוטלן ונוטל את חובו ודלמא כראוי לו בחובו קאמר ומשני הא מני ר' עקיבא היא דדייק לישנא יתירא


The Gemara there asks, just because the man added "as is deserving for him" he should receive both these monies as a present and whatever he is owed? Perhaps the sick man was just saying "as is deserving for him" regarding the amount that he owed him as a creditor? The Gemara answers that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Akiva, who deduces from additional terminology that something significant was meant.

משמע דאם לא אמר אלא תנו מאתים זוז לפלוני בעל חובי ולא אמר כראוי לו אינו נוטל שניהן


This implies (unlike the explanation of our Gemara suggested above) that if the person would have just stated "give two hundred zuz to ploni my creditor" and he would not say "as is deserving for him" he would not receive both a present and money that is owed to him.

ונראה דאי הוה גריס התם לבעל חובי הוה ניחא דודאי כי לא אמר לפלוני אלא דקאמר לבעל חובי משמע דבחובו קאמר שיתנו לו אם לא אמר כראוי לו


Answer: It seems that if the text there would read "to my creditor" (instead of "to ploni my creditor") we could reconcile these two explanations. Certainly when one does not say "to ploni" but rather says "to my creditor" it implies that his debt should be paid to him if he would not add "as is deserving to him."

ויש ספרים שכתוב בהן כך ולא כתוב בהן לפלוני אבל היכא דכתב לפלוני בעל חובי ניכר מהלשון דבמתנה קאמר שיתנו לו ודבר זה תלוי בסברא


Some Sefarim indeed have this text, and do not have the statement "to ploni." However, where it says "to ploni my creditor" it is obvious from the terminology that he is giving a present. This is dependent on logic.