Kesubos - Daf 55
- Machlokes whether the kesubas b’nin dichrin is an inheritance or a collection of a debt
The Gemara presents four machlokosim between the academies of Pumbedisa and Masa Mechasya. The first machlokes was regarding the kesubas b’nin dichrin. In Pumbedisa they say: לא טרפא ממשעבדי – It is not collected from property that has a lien on it, ירתון תנן – for their text of the Mishnah reads regarding the kesubas b’nin dichrin that the male children will inherit the money of the kesubah above what they share with their brothers. Rashi explains that an inheritance is not collected from sold properties. But those in Masa Mechasya say: טרפא ממשעבדי – it is collected from liened property that has been sold by the father, יסבון תנן – for their version reads regarding the kesubas b’nin dichrin, they will take the money of your kesubah above what they share with their brothers. Rashi explains that “taking” is a loshon of a collection of a debt. Therefore, the kesubas b’nin dichrin can be collected from liened properties sold by their father during his lifetime. The Gemara concludes that the halachah is like those in Pumbedisa and the kesubas b’nin dichrin cannot be collected from properties sold during the father’s lifetime.
- Delivering a document where the witnesses did not perform a kinyan with the donor
The fourth machlokes between the academies of Pumbedisa and Masa Mechasya is regarding the following: If one said to witnesses: "כתבו וחתמו והבו ליה" – Write and sign a document and give it to him, which Rashi explains to mean that he is giving some land to a certain recipient, קנו מיניה – if the witnesses perform a kinyan with the donor on behalf of the recipient, לא צריך אימלוכי ביה – both academies agree that it is not necessary for the witnesses to consult with him before giving it to the recipient to see if he changed his mind, since a formal act of transfer was done. They disagree where there was no kinyan done. In Pumbedisa they said that it is not necessary to consult with him before giving the document to the recipient, whereas those in Masa Mechasya say that it is necessary for the witnesses to ask the donor if he has had a change in mind. The Gemara concludes that it is necessary to ask the donor before delivering the document to the recipient.
- מתנת שכיב מרע שכתוב בה קנין
It was stated: מתנת שכיב מרע שכתוב בה קנין – Regarding a gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was also written that the gift was given with a kinyan, in the Beis Midrash of Rav, they said in the name of Rav: ארכביה אתרי רכשי – the sick person who has done this has made his gift ride on two horses, but Shmuel said: “I do not know how to decide about what he had done”. The Gemara explains that what Rav meant is that he gave his gift two powers: הרי היא כמתנת בריא והרי היא כמתנת שכיב מרע – that he made his gift like the gift of a healthy person, and like a gift of someone on their sickbed. It is like the gift of a healthy person, so that if he gets better, he cannot retract the gift. And he made his gift in the form of a gift of someone on their deathbed, which Rashi explains means that he had written in the document the form of a sickbed gift, using the clause: “as he lay sick in bed,” so it has the power of a שכיב מרע gift. If he said, “My loan, (referring to a debt owed to him), is to be given to So-and-so,” the loan is transferred to him. Shmuel said he did not know how to judge this case, שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה – for perhaps the sick person only had in mind to effect the transfer through the kinyan sudar with the shtar, and a kinyan sudar with a shtar cannot effect the transfer after death. The Gemara brought this case to refute an earlier הוא אמינא that Rav does not go בתר אומדנא – after assessing a person’s intent. It is clear from here that Rav does assess a person’s intent.
