The Mishna brings different statements a husband can make to relinquish his rights to her usufruct (nichsei melog) property. Which language exempts him from which rights? Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees regarding his right to inherit the property upon her death and holds that his right to inherit the property is a Torah law and he cannot make a stipulation against a law in the Torah. Why does it work for him to relinquish his rights by making a declaration, when in the case of a partnership, one who declares they want no share in the property does not relinquish one’s rights as it is likely one said it out of anger or frustration and didn’t actually mean it? How are the cases different? In the partnership case, what if they did a kinyan? Would it be effective? Why in the first case in the Mishna does the husband relinquish his rights only to the extent that she can sell the property? Why not the other rights instead or the other ones as well? Rabbi Yehuda states that to relinquish rights to the proceeds of the proceeds and the proceeds of those proceeds and so on, one needs to be very specific with the language. What aspect of the wording is the part that is critical – the words “proceeds or proceeds” or “forever?” If one only mentioned proceeds or proceeds and not proceeds alone, are the rights to the proceeds relinquished as well? Rav held like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel but not for the same reason. What was Rav’s reason?
Ketubot 83
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Ketubot 83
הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְאִם מֵתָה יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כָּתַב לָהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ״? שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה — קַיָּים.
MISHNA: One who writes for his wife in a document the declaration: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, thereby relinquishing his rights to her possessions, may nevertheless consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies before him, he inherits from her. If this is so, if he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property? The result of this declaration is that if she sold or gave away her property, the transaction is binding, and he cannot claim it.
כָּתַב לָהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְאִם מֵתָה — יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב לַהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן עַד עוֹלָם״.
If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, he may not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime, but if she dies he still retains the right to inherit from her. Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce. Although he has waived his rights to consume the produce itself, it becomes her usufruct property, whose yield belongs to him. He remains entitled to the produce of the produce until he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce forever.
כָּתַב לַהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיַּיִךְ וּבְמוֹתֵךְ״ — אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְאִם מֵתָה — אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם מֵתָה — יִירָשֶׁנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכׇל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה — תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל.
If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce, in your lifetime and after your death, he may not consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies, he does not inherit from her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she dies, he does inherit from her, because he stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, a husband inherits from his wife by Torah law, and whoever stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ״.
GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita: One who says to his wife; he did not teach: One who writes for his wife, as the mishna stated. This indicates that this condition can be stated verbally and does not need to be written in a contract.
וְכִי כְּתַב לַהּ הָכִי, מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, ״וְאֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, ״וְיָדַי מְסוּלָּקֹת הֵימֶנָּה״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!
The Gemara asks about the ruling of the mishna: And if he wrote this to her, what of it? How does such a stipulation, written or otherwise, take effect? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who says, whether verbally or by written communication, to another person with whom he shares property: I have no legal dealings or involvement with this field, or I have no dealings with it, or my hands are removed from it, has not said anything? This is because statements that waive rights without transferring them to another have no legal standing.
אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ וְעוֹדָהּ אֲרוּסָה, כִּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: נַחֲלָה הַבָּאָה לְאָדָם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר — אָדָם מַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה, וְכִדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים כְּגוֹן זוֹ״ — שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: The mishna is referring to one who writes such a statement for her while she is still betrothed. Since the property was not yet in the husband’s possession when he wrote this condition, he was able to forgo any rights that he would later receive. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: Concerning an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i.e., he did not inherit it directly but rather through his wife or by means of a gift, the person can stipulate with regard to it that he will not inherit it. In this case, his statement is effective, although one cannot waive a right one already has. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to avail myself of an ordinance of the Sages that was instituted for my benefit, such as this one, one listens to him.
מַאי ״כְּגוֹן זוֹ״? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: יְכוֹלָה אִשָּׁה שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְבַעְלָהּ ״אֵינִי נִיזּוֹנֶת וְאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה״.
The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Such as this one? The Gemara explains: Rava is referring to that statement of Rav Huna, who said that Rav said a certain ruling. As Rav Huna said that Rav said that a woman is able say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings. The Sages instituted that a husband must provide sustenance for his wife, and in exchange is entitled to her wages. Since this was instituted for the benefit of the wife, she is able to opt out of this arrangement. Similarly, the husband may opt out of the arrangement granting him the right to the produce of his wife’s land.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה נָמֵי?
The Gemara asks: If that is so, and Rava’s opinion that one can waive a right instituted by the Sages for his own benefit is accepted, then even if he relinquished his rights to his wife’s property once she was already married, his stipulation should also be valid. Why, then, was it necessary for Rabbi Yannai to explain that the stipulation in the mishna was made only in the case of a betrothed woman?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נְשׂוּאָה — יָדוֹ כְּיָדָהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: יָדוֹ עֲדִיפָא מִיָּדָהּ. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם.
Abaye said: In the case of a married woman, his hand, i.e., his right to the property, is like her hand. Since the husband is considered a partner in her property, he cannot forfeit his ownership by declaration. Rava said: If they are married, his hand is preferable to her hand, i.e., he has more rights to her property than she does. The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opinions of Rava and Abaye concerns the case of a widow awaiting her brother-in-law [yavam] to perform levirate marriage. If the husband’s rights are greater than the wife’s, then the rights of the yavam can be judged to be at least equal to that of the wife. If the husband and wife have equal rights in her property, then the rights of the yavam are inferior to the wife’s.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִדִּין וּדְבָרִים קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: מִגּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קַרְקַע קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתָא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one not only wrote a declaration relinquishing his rights to his partner’s property, but they also performed an act of acquisition transferring the rights from him? Rav Yosef said: They acquired from him only his promise of: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property. Therefore, the transaction is no more effective than the promise itself. Rav Naḥman said: The transaction is effective and they acquired the land itself from him. Abaye said: The statement of Rav Yosef is reasonable
בְּעוֹרֵר. אֲבָל בְּעוֹמֵד, מִגּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קַרְקַע קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ.
in the case of one who immediately objects when the other comes to claim the portion he was promised, saying that he wrote what he did only in order to avoid a quarrel. However, in the case of one who waits while the other takes possession of the land before regretting his decision and requesting its return, the halakha is that one acquired from him the land itself, as he cannot retract his statement at this late stage.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא, מִגּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קַרְקַע קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: בְּעוֹרֵר אוֹ בְּעוֹמֵד? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, לְכִדְרַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי. כְּלוֹמַר: לָא סְבִירָא לִי.
Ameimar said: The halakha is that one acquired from him the land itself. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Do you mean to teach this halakha with regard to one who immediately objects or with regard to one who waits? The Gemara comments: With regard to what opinion is there a practical difference? There is a difference according to Abaye’s explanation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. However, according to Rav Naḥman, in either case the other retains possession of the land. Ameimar said to him: I did not hear about Abaye’s explanation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. That is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it. I do not distinguish between these two cases.
אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָּתַב לָהּ וְכוּ׳. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ: מִכׇּל מִילֵּי סַלֵּיקְתְּ נַפְשָׁךְ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
§ The mishna taught that if a husband says: I have no claim to your property, then he has not relinquished his right to benefit from the produce of the property or to inherit from his wife. The mishna asks: If this is so, and he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, and explains that his statement grants her permission to sell the property if she so wishes? The Gemara asks: And why does the wife not say to him: You removed yourself from everything? He wrote a general statement, which could be understood as a renouncement of all of his rights. Abaye said: There is a principle that the owner of the document is at a disadvantage. A document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible, to impose only the most limited obligations. Therefore, in this case, the husband is assumed to have relinquished only some of his rights.
וְאֵימָא מִפֵּירֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״בּוּצִינָא טָב מִקָּרָא״.
The Gemara asks: And if this is so, why not say that the husband has merely withdrawn his rights from the produce? A gift or sale of the entire land is a significant matter, certainly in relation to the minor value of its produce. Why, then, is his statement not understood as a renunciation of his rights to the produce? Abaye said: There is a proverb that a cucumber in one’s possession is better than a gourd one will have only later. There is an assumption that the husband’s current access to the produce is more important to him than the future ability to sell the field.
וְאֵימָא מִיְּרוּשָּׁה! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִיתָה שְׁכִיחָא, מְכִירָה לָא שְׁכִיחָא. וְכִי מְסַלֵּיק אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִמִּילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, מִמִּילְּתָא דִּשְׁכִיחָא לָא מְסַלֵּיק אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, ״בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״ — וְלֹא בְּפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן, ״בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״ — וְלֹא לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara continues to inquire: And why not say that the husband has withdrawn his rights from the inheritance? This is the least important right of the husband, as he might die before her. Abaye said: Death is common, whereas a sale is not common, as one does not usually sell one’s ancestors’ inheritance. And when a person removes himself, it is assumed that he does so from an uncommon matter. However, a person does not remove himself from something that is common. Rav Ashi said a different reason: The wording of the document is: I have no claim to your property, indicating: But I am not relinquishing my claim to its produce. Similarly, the statement: To your property, means during your lifetime, indicating: But I am not relinquishing my claim to it after your death.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן פֵּירוֹת וְאֵלּוּ הֵן פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת? הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ קַרְקַע וְעָשְׂתָה פֵּירוֹת — הֲרֵי הֵן פֵּירוֹת. מָכַר פֵּירוֹת וְלָקַח מֵהֶן קַרְקַע וְעָשְׂתָה פֵּירוֹת — הֲרֵי הֵן פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת.
§ The mishna taught that if a husband wrote: To your property and to its produce, he may not eat the produce. However, Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce. The Sages taught with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: Which is considered the produce, and which is considered the produce of the produce? If she brought into the marriage for her husband land that produced produce, this is produce. If he sold the produce and purchased land from their sale, and this land produced produce, this is the produce of the produce.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״עַד עוֹלָם״ דַּוְקָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דַּוְקָא?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the husband renounces his rights to his wife’s property by writing: To their produce and the produce of the produce forever, is it specifically the phrase produce of the produce that makes his statement effective, and it is sufficient if he writes only this phrase? Or, perhaps he must specifically write forever, and that alone is sufficient. Or perhaps it is effective only if he specifically writes both of the statements.
אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, ״עַד עוֹלָם״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara elaborates: If you say that it is specifically the phrase produce of the produce that makes the statement of the husband effective, why do I need the mishna to include the word forever? The Gemara suggests: This word teaches us that since he wrote to her: Produce of the produce, it is considered as though he wrote to her the term forever, but it does not matter if in practice he omitted this word.
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר ״עַד עוֹלָם״ דַּוְקָא, ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, אִי כְּתַב לַהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
Conversely, the Gemara asks: And if you say that he must specifically write the word forever, why do I need the mishna to include the phrase: Produce of the produce? The Gemara suggests: This phrase teaches us that although he wrote to her: Produce of the produce, if he also wrote to her the word forever, then yes, he has renounced his rights. However, if he did not write this, then he has not withdrawn his rights from her property, and he may consume the produce of the produce of the produce.
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דַּוְקָא, תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב לַהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, וְלֹא כְּתַב לָהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת הוּא דְּלָא אָכֵיל, אֲבָל פֵּירָא דְּפֵירֵי פֵירוֹת — אָכֵיל, לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״עַד עוֹלָם״. וְאִי כְּתַב לַהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״, וְלָא כְּתַב לָהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְעוֹלָם אַפֵּירוֹת קָאֵי, לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״.
And if you say that it is effective only if he specifically writes both of the statements, why do I need two expressions? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to include both phrases, for if he had written for her only: Produce of the produce, and not written for her: Forever, I would say that it is the produce of the produce that he may not consume, but the produce of the produce of the produce he may consume. For this reason, it was necessary to also write forever. And if he had written for her only: Forever, and had not written for her: Produce of the produce, I would say that forever is referring to the produce, i.e., the husband permanently relinquishes his claim to the produce itself, but he retains his right to the produce of the produce. For this reason, it was also necessary to specify produce of the produce.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, כָּתַב לָהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹת״, מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּירוֹת? מִפֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ, מִפֵּירֵי לָא סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: מִכֹּל מִילֵּי סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the husband wrote to his wife: I have no claim to your property or to the produce of your produce, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that he may consume the produce itself? Has he removed himself from the produce of the produce, but from the produce itself, which he failed to mention, he has not removed himself? Or perhaps he has removed himself from all matters, as the produce of the produce includes the produce itself?
פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמִכֹּל מִילֵּי סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ. דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִפֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ, מִפֵּירֵי לָא סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאַכְלִינְהוּ לְפֵירוֹת — פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת מֵהֵיכָא?
The Gemara answers: It is obvious that he has removed himself from all matters, for if you say that he has removed himself only from the produce of the produce, while from the produce itself he has not removed himself, since he consumes the produce, from where will there be produce of the produce?
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ — הָא דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת כּוּ׳. כֵּיוָן דְּאַכְלִינְהוּ לְפֵירֵי, פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת מֵהֵיכָא? אֶלָּא בִּדְשַׁיַּירָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּדְשַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: But according to your reasoning, the same question could be asked about the case discussed in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce, until he writes for her: Or to their produce, or to the produce of their produce forever. This indicates that if he did not write: To their produce, he would be allowed to consume the produce, just not the produce of the produce. Here too, it could be asked: Since he consumes the produce, from where will he have produce of the produce? Rather, it must be that this is referring to one who left over some of the produce, which he used to purchase land, of whose produce he consumes. If so, here too, this is a case of one who left over some of the produce, from which he acquired land, and it is the produce of this land to which he has no rights. The dilemma is left unresolved.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְלָא מִטַּעְמֵיהּ.
§ The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if he wrote: I have no claim to your property, or to its produce, or to the produce of its produce, in your lifetime and after your death, he nevertheless inherits from her. This is because his condition is void, as it runs counter to what is written in the Torah. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that a husband inherits from his wife, but not because of his line of reasoning.
מַאי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְלָא מִטַּעְמֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמַר: אִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ, דְּאִילּוּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: מַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה — תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל, וְרַב סָבַר: תְּנָאוֹ קַיָּים, וְקָסָבַר: יְרוּשַּׁת הַבַּעַל דְּרַבָּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but not because of his line of reasoning? What does Rav mean? If we say that Rav agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if she dies he inherits from her, but Rav maintains this opinion not because of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s line of reasoning, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if one stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void, and then Rav must hold that his condition is valid. But that is not so. Rav accepts Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s conclusion, for he holds that the inheritance of a husband is by rabbinic law, and for this reason his condition is void, as the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greater severity than those of Torah law and decreed that the inheritance of a husband cannot be canceled in any manner.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Ontario, Canada
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
New York, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Ketubot 83
הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְאִם מֵתָה יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כָּתַב לָהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ״? שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה — קַיָּים.
MISHNA: One who writes for his wife in a document the declaration: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, thereby relinquishing his rights to her possessions, may nevertheless consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies before him, he inherits from her. If this is so, if he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property? The result of this declaration is that if she sold or gave away her property, the transaction is binding, and he cannot claim it.
כָּתַב לָהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְאִם מֵתָה — יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב לַהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן עַד עוֹלָם״.
If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, he may not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime, but if she dies he still retains the right to inherit from her. Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce. Although he has waived his rights to consume the produce itself, it becomes her usufruct property, whose yield belongs to him. He remains entitled to the produce of the produce until he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce forever.
כָּתַב לַהּ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיַּיִךְ וּבְמוֹתֵךְ״ — אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְאִם מֵתָה — אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם מֵתָה — יִירָשֶׁנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכׇל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה — תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל.
If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce, in your lifetime and after your death, he may not consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies, he does not inherit from her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she dies, he does inherit from her, because he stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, a husband inherits from his wife by Torah law, and whoever stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ״.
GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita: One who says to his wife; he did not teach: One who writes for his wife, as the mishna stated. This indicates that this condition can be stated verbally and does not need to be written in a contract.
וְכִי כְּתַב לַהּ הָכִי, מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, ״וְאֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, ״וְיָדַי מְסוּלָּקֹת הֵימֶנָּה״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!
The Gemara asks about the ruling of the mishna: And if he wrote this to her, what of it? How does such a stipulation, written or otherwise, take effect? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who says, whether verbally or by written communication, to another person with whom he shares property: I have no legal dealings or involvement with this field, or I have no dealings with it, or my hands are removed from it, has not said anything? This is because statements that waive rights without transferring them to another have no legal standing.
אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ וְעוֹדָהּ אֲרוּסָה, כִּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: נַחֲלָה הַבָּאָה לְאָדָם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר — אָדָם מַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה, וְכִדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים כְּגוֹן זוֹ״ — שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: The mishna is referring to one who writes such a statement for her while she is still betrothed. Since the property was not yet in the husband’s possession when he wrote this condition, he was able to forgo any rights that he would later receive. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: Concerning an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i.e., he did not inherit it directly but rather through his wife or by means of a gift, the person can stipulate with regard to it that he will not inherit it. In this case, his statement is effective, although one cannot waive a right one already has. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to avail myself of an ordinance of the Sages that was instituted for my benefit, such as this one, one listens to him.
מַאי ״כְּגוֹן זוֹ״? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: יְכוֹלָה אִשָּׁה שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְבַעְלָהּ ״אֵינִי נִיזּוֹנֶת וְאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה״.
The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Such as this one? The Gemara explains: Rava is referring to that statement of Rav Huna, who said that Rav said a certain ruling. As Rav Huna said that Rav said that a woman is able say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings. The Sages instituted that a husband must provide sustenance for his wife, and in exchange is entitled to her wages. Since this was instituted for the benefit of the wife, she is able to opt out of this arrangement. Similarly, the husband may opt out of the arrangement granting him the right to the produce of his wife’s land.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה נָמֵי?
The Gemara asks: If that is so, and Rava’s opinion that one can waive a right instituted by the Sages for his own benefit is accepted, then even if he relinquished his rights to his wife’s property once she was already married, his stipulation should also be valid. Why, then, was it necessary for Rabbi Yannai to explain that the stipulation in the mishna was made only in the case of a betrothed woman?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נְשׂוּאָה — יָדוֹ כְּיָדָהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: יָדוֹ עֲדִיפָא מִיָּדָהּ. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם.
Abaye said: In the case of a married woman, his hand, i.e., his right to the property, is like her hand. Since the husband is considered a partner in her property, he cannot forfeit his ownership by declaration. Rava said: If they are married, his hand is preferable to her hand, i.e., he has more rights to her property than she does. The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opinions of Rava and Abaye concerns the case of a widow awaiting her brother-in-law [yavam] to perform levirate marriage. If the husband’s rights are greater than the wife’s, then the rights of the yavam can be judged to be at least equal to that of the wife. If the husband and wife have equal rights in her property, then the rights of the yavam are inferior to the wife’s.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִדִּין וּדְבָרִים קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: מִגּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קַרְקַע קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתָא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one not only wrote a declaration relinquishing his rights to his partner’s property, but they also performed an act of acquisition transferring the rights from him? Rav Yosef said: They acquired from him only his promise of: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property. Therefore, the transaction is no more effective than the promise itself. Rav Naḥman said: The transaction is effective and they acquired the land itself from him. Abaye said: The statement of Rav Yosef is reasonable
בְּעוֹרֵר. אֲבָל בְּעוֹמֵד, מִגּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קַרְקַע קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ.
in the case of one who immediately objects when the other comes to claim the portion he was promised, saying that he wrote what he did only in order to avoid a quarrel. However, in the case of one who waits while the other takes possession of the land before regretting his decision and requesting its return, the halakha is that one acquired from him the land itself, as he cannot retract his statement at this late stage.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא, מִגּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קַרְקַע קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: בְּעוֹרֵר אוֹ בְּעוֹמֵד? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, לְכִדְרַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי. כְּלוֹמַר: לָא סְבִירָא לִי.
Ameimar said: The halakha is that one acquired from him the land itself. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Do you mean to teach this halakha with regard to one who immediately objects or with regard to one who waits? The Gemara comments: With regard to what opinion is there a practical difference? There is a difference according to Abaye’s explanation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. However, according to Rav Naḥman, in either case the other retains possession of the land. Ameimar said to him: I did not hear about Abaye’s explanation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. That is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it. I do not distinguish between these two cases.
אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָּתַב לָהּ וְכוּ׳. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ: מִכׇּל מִילֵּי סַלֵּיקְתְּ נַפְשָׁךְ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
§ The mishna taught that if a husband says: I have no claim to your property, then he has not relinquished his right to benefit from the produce of the property or to inherit from his wife. The mishna asks: If this is so, and he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, and explains that his statement grants her permission to sell the property if she so wishes? The Gemara asks: And why does the wife not say to him: You removed yourself from everything? He wrote a general statement, which could be understood as a renouncement of all of his rights. Abaye said: There is a principle that the owner of the document is at a disadvantage. A document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible, to impose only the most limited obligations. Therefore, in this case, the husband is assumed to have relinquished only some of his rights.
וְאֵימָא מִפֵּירֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״בּוּצִינָא טָב מִקָּרָא״.
The Gemara asks: And if this is so, why not say that the husband has merely withdrawn his rights from the produce? A gift or sale of the entire land is a significant matter, certainly in relation to the minor value of its produce. Why, then, is his statement not understood as a renunciation of his rights to the produce? Abaye said: There is a proverb that a cucumber in one’s possession is better than a gourd one will have only later. There is an assumption that the husband’s current access to the produce is more important to him than the future ability to sell the field.
וְאֵימָא מִיְּרוּשָּׁה! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִיתָה שְׁכִיחָא, מְכִירָה לָא שְׁכִיחָא. וְכִי מְסַלֵּיק אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִמִּילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, מִמִּילְּתָא דִּשְׁכִיחָא לָא מְסַלֵּיק אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, ״בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״ — וְלֹא בְּפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן, ״בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״ — וְלֹא לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara continues to inquire: And why not say that the husband has withdrawn his rights from the inheritance? This is the least important right of the husband, as he might die before her. Abaye said: Death is common, whereas a sale is not common, as one does not usually sell one’s ancestors’ inheritance. And when a person removes himself, it is assumed that he does so from an uncommon matter. However, a person does not remove himself from something that is common. Rav Ashi said a different reason: The wording of the document is: I have no claim to your property, indicating: But I am not relinquishing my claim to its produce. Similarly, the statement: To your property, means during your lifetime, indicating: But I am not relinquishing my claim to it after your death.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן פֵּירוֹת וְאֵלּוּ הֵן פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת? הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ קַרְקַע וְעָשְׂתָה פֵּירוֹת — הֲרֵי הֵן פֵּירוֹת. מָכַר פֵּירוֹת וְלָקַח מֵהֶן קַרְקַע וְעָשְׂתָה פֵּירוֹת — הֲרֵי הֵן פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת.
§ The mishna taught that if a husband wrote: To your property and to its produce, he may not eat the produce. However, Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce. The Sages taught with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: Which is considered the produce, and which is considered the produce of the produce? If she brought into the marriage for her husband land that produced produce, this is produce. If he sold the produce and purchased land from their sale, and this land produced produce, this is the produce of the produce.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״עַד עוֹלָם״ דַּוְקָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דַּוְקָא?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the husband renounces his rights to his wife’s property by writing: To their produce and the produce of the produce forever, is it specifically the phrase produce of the produce that makes his statement effective, and it is sufficient if he writes only this phrase? Or, perhaps he must specifically write forever, and that alone is sufficient. Or perhaps it is effective only if he specifically writes both of the statements.
אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, ״עַד עוֹלָם״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara elaborates: If you say that it is specifically the phrase produce of the produce that makes the statement of the husband effective, why do I need the mishna to include the word forever? The Gemara suggests: This word teaches us that since he wrote to her: Produce of the produce, it is considered as though he wrote to her the term forever, but it does not matter if in practice he omitted this word.
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר ״עַד עוֹלָם״ דַּוְקָא, ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, אִי כְּתַב לַהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״ — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
Conversely, the Gemara asks: And if you say that he must specifically write the word forever, why do I need the mishna to include the phrase: Produce of the produce? The Gemara suggests: This phrase teaches us that although he wrote to her: Produce of the produce, if he also wrote to her the word forever, then yes, he has renounced his rights. However, if he did not write this, then he has not withdrawn his rights from her property, and he may consume the produce of the produce of the produce.
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דַּוְקָא, תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב לַהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, וְלֹא כְּתַב לָהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת הוּא דְּלָא אָכֵיל, אֲבָל פֵּירָא דְּפֵירֵי פֵירוֹת — אָכֵיל, לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״עַד עוֹלָם״. וְאִי כְּתַב לַהּ ״עַד עוֹלָם״, וְלָא כְּתַב לָהּ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְעוֹלָם אַפֵּירוֹת קָאֵי, לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת״.
And if you say that it is effective only if he specifically writes both of the statements, why do I need two expressions? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to include both phrases, for if he had written for her only: Produce of the produce, and not written for her: Forever, I would say that it is the produce of the produce that he may not consume, but the produce of the produce of the produce he may consume. For this reason, it was necessary to also write forever. And if he had written for her only: Forever, and had not written for her: Produce of the produce, I would say that forever is referring to the produce, i.e., the husband permanently relinquishes his claim to the produce itself, but he retains his right to the produce of the produce. For this reason, it was also necessary to specify produce of the produce.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, כָּתַב לָהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹת״, מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּירוֹת? מִפֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ, מִפֵּירֵי לָא סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: מִכֹּל מִילֵּי סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the husband wrote to his wife: I have no claim to your property or to the produce of your produce, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that he may consume the produce itself? Has he removed himself from the produce of the produce, but from the produce itself, which he failed to mention, he has not removed himself? Or perhaps he has removed himself from all matters, as the produce of the produce includes the produce itself?
פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמִכֹּל מִילֵּי סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ. דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִפֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ, מִפֵּירֵי לָא סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאַכְלִינְהוּ לְפֵירוֹת — פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת מֵהֵיכָא?
The Gemara answers: It is obvious that he has removed himself from all matters, for if you say that he has removed himself only from the produce of the produce, while from the produce itself he has not removed himself, since he consumes the produce, from where will there be produce of the produce?
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ — הָא דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת כּוּ׳. כֵּיוָן דְּאַכְלִינְהוּ לְפֵירֵי, פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת מֵהֵיכָא? אֶלָּא בִּדְשַׁיַּירָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּדְשַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: But according to your reasoning, the same question could be asked about the case discussed in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce, until he writes for her: Or to their produce, or to the produce of their produce forever. This indicates that if he did not write: To their produce, he would be allowed to consume the produce, just not the produce of the produce. Here too, it could be asked: Since he consumes the produce, from where will he have produce of the produce? Rather, it must be that this is referring to one who left over some of the produce, which he used to purchase land, of whose produce he consumes. If so, here too, this is a case of one who left over some of the produce, from which he acquired land, and it is the produce of this land to which he has no rights. The dilemma is left unresolved.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְלָא מִטַּעְמֵיהּ.
§ The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if he wrote: I have no claim to your property, or to its produce, or to the produce of its produce, in your lifetime and after your death, he nevertheless inherits from her. This is because his condition is void, as it runs counter to what is written in the Torah. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that a husband inherits from his wife, but not because of his line of reasoning.
מַאי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְלָא מִטַּעְמֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמַר: אִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ, דְּאִילּוּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: מַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה — תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל, וְרַב סָבַר: תְּנָאוֹ קַיָּים, וְקָסָבַר: יְרוּשַּׁת הַבַּעַל דְּרַבָּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but not because of his line of reasoning? What does Rav mean? If we say that Rav agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if she dies he inherits from her, but Rav maintains this opinion not because of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s line of reasoning, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if one stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void, and then Rav must hold that his condition is valid. But that is not so. Rav accepts Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s conclusion, for he holds that the inheritance of a husband is by rabbinic law, and for this reason his condition is void, as the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greater severity than those of Torah law and decreed that the inheritance of a husband cannot be canceled in any manner.
