ONE WHO REFUSES TO RECEIVE A GIFT (cont.)
(R. Aba bar Mamal): They do not argue. R. Yochanan discusses one who protested from the beginning. Rav Yehudah discusses one who was initially quiet and later protested.
(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): If Shimon acquired a gift on behalf of Yehudah, and Yehudah was initially quiet and later protested, R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue about this.
(Beraisa): If Reuven wrote his property, which included slaves, to Levi, and Levi said 'I do not want it', if Levi is a Kohen, the slaves may eat Terumah (they are his slaves);
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, since he said 'I do not want it', (Reuven or) his heirs acquire.
Question: Does the first Tana say that he acquires, even if he screams in protest?!
Answer (Rava): If he protested from the beginning, all agree that he does not acquire;
If he was initially quiet and later protested, all agree that he acquired;
They argue about when Shimon acquired on behalf of Levi, and Levi was initially quiet and later protested. Chachamim say that once he was silent, he acquired. Now he protests for he wants to (but cannot) retract;
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, his later protest shows that he never wanted the property. Initially, he felt no need to protest, for the property did not yet come to him.
(Beraisa): If Ploni (a Shechiv Mera) said 'give 200 Zuz (worth of land) to Reuven, 300 to Shimon, and 400 to Levi', we do not say that they acquire in this order (and Ploni's creditor would collect first from the last land given, i.e. from Levi). Rather, a creditor (with a loan document) collects from all of them;
If he said 'give 200 to Reuven, after him give (300) to Shimon, and after him (400) to Levi', they acquire in this order. A creditor collects first from Levi, then (if he was owed more than 200) from Shimon, and then from Reuven.
(Beraisa): If a Shechiv Mera said 'give 200 Zuz to Ploni my son, the firstborn, like is fitting for him', he receives it in addition to his extra share;
If he said 'give to him 200 for his Bechorah (i.e. his extra share)', Ploni has the upper hand. He can take 200 in place of his Bechorah, or he can take his normal Bechorah.
If a Shechiv Mera said 'give 200 Zuz to my wife, like is fitting for her' - she receives it in addition to her Kesuvah;
If he said 'give to her 200 for her Kesuvah' (not in a case in which she pardons the rest of her Kesuvah), she has the upper hand. She can take 200 in place of her Kesuvah, or she can take her Kesuvah.
If a Shechiv Mera said 'give 200 Zuz to Ploni my creditor, like is fitting for him', he receives it in addition to the debt;
If he said 'give to him 200 for the loan', he takes it in place of the loan.
Question: When he said 'like is fitting for him', why does Ploni receive it in addition to the debt? Perhaps he meant 'like I owe him'!
Answer (Rav Nachman): The Beraisa is R. Akiva, who expounds extra words.
(Mishnah - R. Akiva): If Reuven sold his house to Shimon, Shimon does not acquire the pit and cistern, even if Reuven wrote 'the depth and height';
(If Reuven wants to use them) he must buy the rights to a path to them.
Chachamim say, (he may use them, and) he need not buy a path.
R. Akiva admits, if Reuven sold his house 'except for the pit and cistern', he need not buy a path.
Since he wrote this, even though there was no need for it, it comes to add something (a path).
Culmination of answer: Here also, the extra words 'like is fitting for him' add (that the 200 is in addition to the debt).
ARE WE CONCERNED LEST BEIS DIN ERR?
(Beraisa - R. Meir): If a Shechiv Mera said 'Ploni owes me 200 Zuz', the witnesses write this, even though they do not know whether or not it is true;
Therefore, the heir must bring proof to collect it.
Chachamim say, the witnesses may not write this unless they know that it is true. Therefore, the heir collects it without proof.
(Rav Nachman): The opinions must be switched. R. Meir forbids writing if they do not know, and Chachamim permit;
R. Meir forbids them to write because we are concerned lest a Beis Din err (and not require the heir to bring proof).
(Rav Dimi of Neharde'a): The Halachah is, we are not concerned lest a Beis Din err.
Question: Why is this different than Rava's law?
(Rava): Beis Din oversees Chalitzah only if they recognize (that she is a Yevamah and that this is her Yavam). Beis Din oversees Mi'un (a girl annulling her marriage) only if they recognize (the couple, and that she is married only mid'Rabanan).
Therefore, witnesses (who see Chalitzah or Mi'un in front of Beis Din) may write a document of Chalitzah or Mi'un even if they do not recognize.
Inference: We require Beis Din to know, for we are concerned lest another Beis Din err.
Answer: Regarding Chalitzah and Mi'un, we are concerned lest (a second) Beis Din will not check for themselves. Rather they will rely on the Beis Din that witnessed it;
We are not concerned lest a Beis Din rely on witnesses (e.g. who signed a gift of a Shechiv Mera). Surely Beis Din themselves will verify what is written.
ARE ATTACHED PEROS INCLUDED IN A GIFT?
(Mishnah): (If a father wrote his property to a son 'from today and after I die',) the father may harvest the Peros and give it to whomever he wants;
After he dies, if he left harvested Peros, they belong to the heirs.
(Gemara) Inference: What is attached does not belong to the heirs.