Kesubos - Daf 83
- הכותב לאשתו דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך
The opening Mishnah of the ninth perek state: הכותב לאשתו דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך – If one writes to his wife, “I have no claim or argument with respect to your property, referring to her נכסי מלוג, הרי זה אוכל פרות בחייה ואם מתה יורשה – he may nevertheless eat the produce during her lifetime, and if she dies, he inherits it. If so, why did he write, “I have no claim or argument with respect to your property?” שאם מכרה ונתנה קיים – So that if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction stands. Rebbe Chiya taught a Baraisa which states: האומר לאשתו – If one says to his wife, meaning that he does not need to write this declaration in a formal contract for it to be effective.
- האומר אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים כגון זו שומעין לו
The Gemara challenges whether making such a declaration is effective, for it was taught in a Baraisa: If one says to his friend who is a partner in owning a field: I have no claim or argument with respect to this field,” or, “I shall have no business with it,” or, “my hand is withdrawn from it,” לא אמר כלום – he has not said anything. Rashi explains that none of these statements are an expression that he is giving the field to his partner as a gift. So why should the husband’s declaration work? The Gemara answers: They say in the Beis Midrash of Rebbe Yannai: The husband’s wavier is effective בכותב לה בעודה ארוסה – when he writes it to her while she is still an arusah, for Rav Kahana said: נחלה הבאה לאדם ממקום אחר אדם מתנה עליה שלא יירשנה – With respect to an inheritance coming to a person through another source, ie, marriage, a person may stipulate in advance that he should not inherit it. Rashi explains that since the Rabbanon enacted this for the benefit of the husband, he may waive his right to it. This is in accordance with what Rava said: האומר אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים כגון זו שומעין לו – If one says, “I do not wish to avail myself of a Rabbinic takanah made for my benefit,” such as this, we listen to him, for it does not apply where the beneficiary refuses it.
- Why the seeming redundancy in Rebbe Yehudah’s statement of ובפירי פירותיהן עד עול?
The Mishnah stated that if the husband had written to his wife that he has no claim with respect to her property or the produce, he may not consume the produce during her lifetime. Rebbe Yehudah says: לעולם אוכל פירי פרות – He always retains the right to consume the produce of the produce unless he writes to her, “I have no claim or argument in your property or its produce ובפירי פירותיהן עד עולם – or to the produce of its produce to infinity. The Gemara asks why Rebbe Yehudah included in the husband’s renunciation the both the phrase, “the produce of the produce,” and “to infinity” which seems redundant. The Gemara brings three possible ways of understanding the statement, the third one being that both are necessary. If he had only written "פירי פירות" - “the produce of the produce,” then I might say that he can consume the produce of the produce of the produce. And if he had only written, "עד עולם" – “to infinity,” I might say that he will not consume the produce forever, meaning not this year, next year, and all the years to come, but he could consume the produce of the produce. The Gemara does not resolve which is the correct way to understand his statement.
