The Eddie B. Sit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focusing on Masechet Bava Batra, the longest tractate in Shas by page count. This session is dedicated to our esteemed friend and pioneering student of the Daf Yomi shiur, Adam Ezra, may God protect and sustain him, Amen. We pray for the success of his dear children, that they may grow up to bring him much nachat, possessing chochma, binah, and da’at. May they merit, with God’s help, to find their appropriate zivugim, and be blessed with parnasa, wealth, and honor, from now until eternity, Amen. Today’s daf, Daf 133, is dedicated in memory of Abraham ben Esther, may his soul be at rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen. We also dedicate this daf in memory of Asher Moshe ben Luna, and for the complete recovery of Meir Mickey ben Jamie Jamila. May it be Your will, God, to grant them a full and swift recovery, both physically and spiritually, Amen.
We begin today’s daf on Daf 132, Amud Bet, starting from the phrase mahu de-amar. We are up to the first wide line. There was a shechiv mera on his deathbed, who had two daughters. On his deathbed, he declared, palga l’brat, half of my estate goes to one daughter, u-palga l’brat, and the other half goes to the other daughter, while ve-tilta l’itat be-peiri, a third of the fruits will go to my wife. Thus, he allocated half of his nichasim to each daughter and a third of the peirot to his wife.
Rav Nachman once visited Sura, where he encountered Rav Chisda. Rav Chisda asked him, “In this case, what do we do?” The question arose because the husband did not bequeath any karka to his wife; he only mentioned peirot. Until now, we learned that if the wife is mentioned in the will regarding karka, she relinquishes her kesuvah. However, in this case, with only peirot mentioned, does she also relinquish her she'ibud? One might argue that she becomes a partner in the yerusha through her share of the fruits, but perhaps this only applies to karka, not to peirot.
Rav Nachman responded, “Thus said Shmuel: Even if the husband only gave her one tree for its fruits, she loses her kesuvah.” This implies that even receiving peirot alone is sufficient for her to relinquish her kesuvah. However, the Gemara clarifies that when he gave her the tree, she owns the tree and its peirot, which is akin to owning karka. Here, however, the peirot are detached from the tree, considered as metaltelin. The question remains whether a woman relinquishes her kesuvah for a basket of fruits.
Rav Nachman continued, “I misunderstood you. You were referring to detached fruits?” He clarified that he was not speaking of detached fruits. The Gemara explains that initially, the peirot were still attached to the tree, which is why the husband’s act was akin to giving her karka. In contrast, detached fruits are treated differently. A woman does not relinquish her kesuvah for detached peirot.
Another case presented involves a shechiv mera who allocated a third of his estate to each of his two daughters and a third to his wife. If one daughter died, the inheritance would revert to the father. The question arises: since the wife received karka, does she relinquish her kesuvah? If the land returns to the husband, does she regain her kesuvah? The Gemara suggests that a wife only relinquishes her kesuvah on what she has received, but retains her claim on any future properties acquired by the husband.
Rav Pappa asserted that she only retains a claim to the third originally given to her and cannot claim the land because she relinquished it. Rav Kahana countered that if the husband purchases new land, she would have a claim because she did not relinquish her shibud on future properties. Therefore, when the inheritance reverts to the husband, it could be viewed as if he purchased new property, and she should have a claim.
In another story, a shechiv mera divided his assets between his wife and sons, leaving one tree for himself. Ravina suggested that she only has a claim to the kesuvah from that one tree, as she would be satisfied with her share. Rav Yeimar countered that if she has a claim to the tree, she should have a claim to all the assets.
Rav Yeimar concluded that a woman’s silence does not indicate relinquishment of her shibud when her husband has left her an asset. Her silence could be interpreted as waiting for a proper evaluation of her rights. Thus, even if the husband divided his estate, her silence does not imply relinquishment, especially when she has a claim to the assets.
In summary, the Gemara discusses a shechiv mera who allocated his assets to his children in front of his wife. If he gave karka to the children and a gift to his wife without objection, her silence may indicate relinquishment of her claim to the excess of her kesuvah. However, the Rashbam adds that this principle applies not only when the assets are divided among children but also when given to others. A wife may relinquish her kesuvah when included in the distribution.
Three key conclusions emerge from these discussions: First, a woman only relinquishes her shibud when given karka, not metaltelin. Second, her claim is limited to assets present at the time of division, and third, she only relinquishes her claim when the husband has divided all his assets. The Gemara leaves open the question of whether these principles apply to a bari (healthy individual) as opposed to a shechiv mera.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that even in cases where a husband gives his estate to a stranger, the Rabbis express disapproval when it bypasses the Torah’s laws regarding inheritance. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel states that if the children are misbehaving, it is commendable to redirect the inheritance to others. The Gemara explores whether the Rabbis agree with this view, indicating a potential disagreement between them and the Tanna Kamma.
Thus, the essence of these discussions revolves around the complexities of inheritance laws, the rights of wives, and the implications of silence in relinquishing claims. The Gemara emphasizes the importance of adhering to Torah laws while navigating the nuances of familial relationships and obligations.