Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 83 - Highlights

Mishna

The Mishna states: If one writes to his wife, “I have no claim or rights to your property,” he may nevertheless eat the produce during her lifetime, and if she died, he inherits her property. If so (the Mishna asks), why did he write to her, “I have no claim or rights to your property?” It accomplishes that if she sold the property or gave them away, it is valid.

If he wrote to her, “I have no claim or rights to your property and its produce,” he does not eat the produce during her lifetime, but if she died, he inherits her property.

Rabbi Yehudah says: He always has the right of eating the produce of the produce unless he writes to her, “I have no claim or rights to your property and its produce and the produce of the produce forever.”

If he wrote to her, “I have no claim or rights to your property and its produce and the produce of the produce, during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not eat the produce during her lifetime, and if she died, he does not inherit her property.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she died, he does inherit her property because he stipulated contrary to that which is written in the Torah; and if one stipulates contrary to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void. (83a)

Husband can Relinquish his Rights Prior to the Nisuin

The Gemora asks: Why is there any validity to what he writes? Did we not learn in a braisa that if one says to his fellow (a partner in the field): “I have no claim or rights regarding this field,” or he says: “I have no business with it,” or he says: “My hand is removed from it,” it is considered as if he said nothing (since he is not stating that he is giving his share to his partner)?

In the Beis Medrash of Rabbi Yannai, they said: The Mishna is referring to a case where he wrote it to her while she was still an arusah (and therefore, it has validity since the husband does not own the property yet), and it would be in accordance with that which Rav Kahana said. For Rav Kahana said: A man may stipulate in advance that he does not wish to inherit an inheritance that will come to him through marriage.

This can be proven from Rava’s statement, for Rava said: If a person says, “I do not want to avail myself of a Rabbinic enactment (which was made for his benefit), such as this one, we listen to him.

The Gemora asks: What did Rava mean when he said, “such as this one”? He is referring to that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav. For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman is permitted to say to her husband, “I do not want to be supported by you, and I will not give you my earnings.” (She works and keeps the earnings to herself.)

The Gemora asks: If so, the husband should be able to waive his rights to her property even if she is a nesuah (since her property belongs to him based on a Rabbinic enactment; he should be entitled to refuse this right that was intended for his benefit)?

Abaye answers: His hand is equal to her hand (since she is a nesuah, they are equal partners, and therefore, he cannot waive his rights any longer; he must actually give it away).

Rava said: His hand is even stronger than her hand. (83a)

If he Makes a Kinyan

(The Gemora had stated: if one says to his fellow (a partner in the field): “I have no claim or rights regarding this field,” or he says: “I have no business with it,” or he says: “My hand is removed from it,” it is considered as if he said nothing since he is not stating that he is giving his share to his partner.) The Gemora inquires: If his partner made a kinyan (chalipin; he took a kerchief from his fellow in order to formalize the transfer), does this kinyan give more validity to his statement or not?

Rav Yosef said: He has acquired the waiver of the claim and rights regarding the field (and since the waiver was meaningless, so is the acquisition).

Rav Nachman said: He acquires the land itself.

Abaye said: It is logical that Rav Yosef is correct regarding a case where the initial owner of the field protested immediately (as the other fellow was attempting to take possession of the field; the owner said that his statement and kinyan was only for the purpose of not arguing with him regarding his portion), but if he would have stood quiet for a few days before objecting, we can assume that he (the recipient) has indeed acquired the land.

Ameimar said: The halacha is that he acquires the land itself.

Rav Ashi asked Ameimar: Is the halacha this way even if he objects immediately or only if he stands quiet for a few days?

The Gemora asks: What difference does it make?

Rav Ashi answers: For that which Rav Yosef said (and as Abaye explained).

Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: I do not agree that there is any such distinction (he acquires the land regardless of if the owner stood quiet or even if he objected immediately). (83a – 83b)

Interpreting his Statement

The Mishna had stated (regarding the case when one writes to his wife, “I have no claim or rights to your property,” he may nevertheless eat the produce during her lifetime, and if she died, he inherits her property): If so, why did he write to her, “I have no claim or rights to your property?” It accomplishes that if she sold the property or gave them away, it is valid.

The Gemora asks: Why can’t the wife tell the husband that he removed himself completely from retaining any rights in the property?

Abaye answers: The holder of the document is always at a disadvantage (since the language of the document is vague, we say that he has removed himself from the least valuable right that he had in the property; the husband possesses the rights of (1) produce, (2) inheritance after her death and (3) the seizure of any property she has sold or given away; the least valuable right is the ability to nullify her sale and that is what we assume he renounced).

The Gemora asks: But perhaps he was referring to the right of consuming the produce?

Abaye answers: A small gourd now is more preferable than a large one later (and we assume that the ability to eat the produce now is more advantageous to him).

The Gemora asks: But perhaps he was referring to his right of inheritance after her death?

Abaye answers: Death is common, whereas her selling her melog property is not. A person will generally renounce the rights of an uncommon occurrence rather than renouncing his rights to a common one.

Rav Ashi answers (the original question) differently: The husband had stated that he is withdrawing from any claims to her property. We can infer that he was referring to her property (the ability to nullify her sale), and not to its produce. We can also infer that he was referring to her property during her lifetime, and not to a claim which is only relevant after her death. (83b)

From Heaven

The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Yehudah says: He always has the right of eating the produce of the produce unless he writes to her, “I have no claim or rights to your property and its produce and the produce of the produce forever.”

The Gemora cites a braisa: If she brought in land into the marriage, the crops from that land are regarded as produce. If she sold the produce from that land and purchased land with the proceeds, the crops that grow from that land is regarded as produce of the produce.

The Gemora inquires as to the exact expression necessary according to Rabbi Yehudah. If the husband withdraws from the produce of the produce, does this include all future produce which comes from her melog property? Does he have to say “forever”? Or, perhaps both expressions are necessary.

The Gemora leaves this issue unresolved. (83b)

[END]