(Mishnah): If a man wrote to his wife 'I have no Din u'Devarim (claim or dealings) in your property', he eats the Peiros of her property in her lifetime, and inherits her if she dies;

Question: If so, why did he write to her 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property'?

Answer: If she sold it or gave it away, it stands.

If he wrote to her 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property nor in its Peiros', he does not eat the Peiros in her lifetime, but inherits her if she dies;

R. Yehudah says, he always eats the Peiros of the Peiros, unless he writes, 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property nor in its Peiros nor in the Peiros of its Peiros Ad Olam (ad infinitum)'.

If he wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property, nor in its Peiros, nor in the Peiros of its Peiros, in your lifetime and after your death', he does not eat the Peiros in her lifetime, and does not inherit her if she dies;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if she dies he inherits her, because he stipulated contrary to Torah. Any stipulation contrary to Torah is void. (He holds that a husband inherits his wife mid'Oraisa.)

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): [He wrote to her] before he entered her (Nisu'in), but if he entered her, a person does not forfeit his rights through this expression.

Support (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): R. Chiyah's teaching says so, for R. Chiya taught that one who says 'my hands are removed from this field', or 'my legs are removed from this field', his words have no effect.

Question (R. Avun bar Chiyah, to R. Ze'ira): A Mishnah teaches that one does not forfeit his rights through this expression!

(Mishnah): If a man was married to two women and sold his field, and his first wife wrote to the buyer 'I have no claim with you', [after he dies] the second wife takes the field from the buyer.

Inference: The first wife cannot [take it from the buyer, for this expression takes effect]!

Answer (R. Ze'ira): This very [Mishnah] teaches that one does not forfeit his rights through this expression! If not (i.e. rather, he forfeits his rights through this expression), even the second would not take from the first.

Question: [If so,] why does the first not take it from the buyer?

Answer: So she writes to him - any protest that I have in this field (to take it from you), I will not have any [protest] against you. (She did not lose her rights. Rather, she accepted not to contest the buyer.)

If he wrote to her (I have no Din u'Devarim...) and she wrote to him [so, in the same document] - just like he does not lose his rights, she does not lose her rights. (She intended to forfeit her rights only if he did. Since this expression does not help for him, also she does not lose her rights. We explained this like SEFER NIR)

If he wrote to her after [property fell to her during] Eirusin, and she had Nisu'in, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about this;

According to Beis Shamai, she may sell. According to Beis Hillel, she may not sell. (R. MEIR SIMCHAH - Beis Hillel hold that what fell to her during Eirusin, she may not sell. I.e. her husband acquired it. Therefore, 'Din u'Devarim', which is mere Siluk (forfeiting rights to receive something new), has no effect.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Ze'ira): If he wrote to her [after Nisu'in] 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property', and afterwards [property] fell to her, what is the law? (Since he did not yet acquire it, does it help, like when he wrote during Eirusin?)

Answer (R. Ze'ira): Can one stipulate about what is not in his Reshus?! (Since after Nisu'in Yado k'Yadah, Siluk does not help. And before the property fell, even a gift would not help, since it is not yet in his Reshus. We explained this like SHITAH MEKUBETZES, 78b.)

Objection (R. Bun bar Chiyah, to R. Ze'ira): From his rights, you learn his Chiyuv! Had he not written [I have no...], would he not eat the Peiros [of what falls to her]?! From his rights, you learn his Chiyuv. (Since he has rights to it, his Siluk helps before the property comes to his Reshus.)

Question (R. Levi bar R. Chiyasa): If he wrote to her 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property that will fall to you in the future', what is the law? Can one stipulate about what is not in the world?

If [he wrote to her 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property', and] she sold Peros attached to the ground, R. Acha says, she is like one who sells detached Peros. (Her husband totally owns them; her sale is Batel.)

(R. Yosi): She is like one who sells a 10th (i.e. part of) the land. (Her sale is valid.)

(R. Ze'ira citing Rav Yehudah citing Rav): One who writes a field for a gift to his wife, he does not eat the Peros.

Question (R. Ze'ira): A Tosefta says unlike this! These are Peirei Peros - he sells Peros and buys land, and he eats the Peros. (Below, we explain that Rav holds that the gift was a pretext to exempt himself from feeding her; rather, she will eat the Peros. R. Ze'ira asks that we should say so also about one who said 'I have no Din u'Devarim...' We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Is he not like one who writes a field for a gift to his wife, and you (Rav) say that he does not have Peros or Peirei Peros?!

Question (R. Imi): If someone else wrote to her, he eats the Peros. If he wrote to her, it is not all the more so [that he eats the Peros]?!

Answer: [Rav] said so only about one who writes [a gift to his wife], but one who sells, no. (He eat the Peros.)

Question: What is the difference between one who writes [a gift] and one who sells?

Answer: [A gift] was a pretext to exempt himself from feeding her (rather, she will eat the Peros. This does not apply to a sale.)

Granted, according to R. Yehudah, when he wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property or in its Peros', he does not eat the Peros. (He gets only Peirei Peros.)

Question: Even if he wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in this field or in its Peros', does he [never] eat the Peros? (Or, perhaps he forfeited only the Peros in it at the time?)

Granted, according to Rabanan, when he wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property or in its Peros', he does not eat the Peirei Peros.

Question: Even if he wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in this field or in its Peros', does he not eat Peirei Peros? (Or, perhaps he forfeited only the Peros?)

Answer: We learn from the following. R. Ze'ira citing Rav Yehudah citing Rav said that one who writes a field for a gift to his wife, he does not eat the Peros.

Question (R. Ze'ira): A Tosefta says unlike this! These are Peirei Peros - he sells Peros and buys land, and he eats the Peros. (Below, we explain that Rav holds that the gift was a pretext to exempt himself from feeding her; rather, she will eat the Peros. R. Ze'ira asks that we should say so also about one who said 'I have no Din u'Devarim...' We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Since he wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property or in its Peros', is he not like one who writes a field for a gift to his wife, and you (Rav) say that he does not have Peros or Peirei Peros?!

Answer - Inference: [Since R. Ze'ira challenged Rav, who discusses a gift of a field, from a Tosefta teaching about 'in your property...', this shows that according to R. Yehudah, there is no difference between one who wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in this field or in its Peros', and one who wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property or in its Peros'. He does not eat the Peros.

And similarly, according to Rabanan, there is no difference between one who wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in your property or in its Peros', and one who wrote 'I have no Din u'Devarim in this field or in its Peros'. He does not get Peirei Peros. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(R. Yirmeyah citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, but not for his reason.

The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that if she dies, he inherits her;

However, the Halachah does not follow his reason. He said, because he stipulated contrary to Torah, and any stipulation contrary to Torah, his Tenai is Batel;

[This is true] for a Tenai about [pain to the] body, but a monetary Tenai is binding, and this is a monetary Tenai.

Question: Why did they say [here] that [the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, i.e.] his Tenai is Batel? [Only] in the end (when she dies), he acquires [the inheritance. Therefore, Siluk should work! - HAGAHOS R. DINAR]

Answer (R. Imi citing R. Yochanan): It would be proper that if she sold or gave, it is fulfilled, for [only] in the end, he acquires it. Why did they say that it is Batel? It is lest a woman sell property of her husband, and say 'it is mine.'

A case occurred with Rav Yustinah (he wrote to her 'I have no Din u'Devarim...', and she died); he asked Rabanan. They told him, leave your property (you do not inherit her, like Rabanan). He asked Reish Lakish; he told him, enter your property (like R. Shimon ben Gamliel).

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Ze'ira): Who are these Rabanan? Behold Rav, behold R. Yochanan, behold Reish Lakish (all of them rule like R. Shimon ben Gamliel)!

Answer (R. Ze'ira): They are the Rabanan of Rav Yustinah (the ones he asked. They hold like Rabanan of R. Shimon ben Gamliel.)

Question (to R. Yochanan): According to Chachamim, if she died, who inherits her?

Answer (R. Yochanan): Her brothers inherit her [if she has no children, and her father already died].

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Ze'ira): Brothers who divided [their father's estate] - is the widow fed from them?

Perhaps you say that it is as if they sold, and she is not fed from them!

Obviously, if [the heirs] sold [what they inherited], they sold (the widow is not fed from Meshubadim.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Avahu): It says "Im Yihyeh ha'Yovel li'Vnei Yisrael" - at a time when Yovel applies, inheritances return. At a time when Yovel does not apply, inheritances do not return! (Bnei Menasheh should have said 'perhaps there will not be Yovel, and then Tzlafchad's portion will permanently go to another Shevet!')

Answer: [The verse] comes to teach you that even when Yovel applies and inheritances return, and Torah inheritance (e.g. a husband inherits his wife) does not return. (We explained this Sugya like PNEI MOSHE.)