(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If Reuven was Makdish property Meshu'abad to pay his wife's Kesuvah, when he divorces her, he must vow not to benefit from (relations with) her. (Perhaps he schemes to remarry her after she collects from Hekdesh);

R. Yehoshua says, he need not vow.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, similarly, if a divorcee seeks to collect her Kesuvah from an Arev (guarantor), her ex-husband must vow not to benefit from her, lest he plans to remarry her after she takes the Arev's money.

(Gemara) Question: What do they argue about?

Version #1 - Answer #1: R. Eliezer holds that one is suspected of scheming to swindle Hekdesh. R. Yehoshua holds that he is not suspected.

Question: Rav Huna taught that if a Shechiv me'Ra (dying person) was Makdish all his property, and said "one Maneh in my possession really belongs to Ploni," he is believed. There is a Chazakah that people do not scheme to cheat Hekdesh.

Do Tana'im argue about Rav Huna's law?!

Answer: No. They argue only about a healthy person, but all agree that a dying person does not scheme to swindle Hekdesh.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: He will not live to benefit from the money. Ein Adam Chotei v'Lo Lo. (One will not sin just to benefit others, in this case his heirs.)

Version #2: All agree that a healthy person is suspected of scheming to swindle Hekdesh;

Answer #2A: They argue about a Neder b'Rabim (made in front of many people):

R. Yehoshua holds that it can be permitted, therefore it is useless to force the husband to vow. (He will permit his vow later);

R. Eliezer holds that it cannot be permitted.

Answer #2B: Alternatively, they argue about a Neder Al Da'as Rabim (dependent on the will of at least two others. R. Yehoshua holds that it can be permitted, R. Eliezer holds that it cannot. The following two objections attack Answers 2A and 2B.)

Objection #1: Ameimar taught that a Neder b'Rabim can be permitted, but a Neder Al Da'as Rabim cannot be permitted;

Do Tana'im argue about Ameimar's teaching?!

Objection #2: Why does R. Yehoshua say that he need not vow? He should say it would not help to vow!

Answer #3: Rather, they argue about whether one can permit Hekdesh (through regret, like Hataras Nedarim. It is like mistaken Hekdesh).

Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If Reuven was Makdish property Meshu'abad to pay his wife's Kesuvah, when he divorces her, he must vow not to benefit from her;

R. Yehoshua says, he need not vow.

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon: These opinions are according to Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel!

Beis Shamai holds that mistaken Hekdesh takes effect. (Therefore, one cannot permit Hekdesh; we are concerned for scheming);

Beis Hillel holds that mistaken Hekdesh does not take effect. (One can permit Hekdesh through regret. One would not scheme to swindle Hekdesh by divorcing his wife!)

Rav Huna bar Moshe was a Chacham in dire financial straits. His father was an Arev for the Kesuvah of Huna's wife.

Abaye: Why doesn't someone suggest to Rav Huna that he divorce his wife, and remarry her after she collects the Kesuvah from his father?!

Question (Rava): The Mishnah says he must vow that he will not benefit from her!

Answer (Abaye): He can divorce her outside of Beis Din. Perhaps the father will pay without making him vow!

It became known that Rav Huna was a Kohen (who cannot marry a divorcee), so the scheme was not feasible.

Abaye: Poverty clings to the poor! (They do not easily escape it.)

Question: How could Abaye have suggested such a scheme?! (In a Beraisa, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that if Reuven gave a gift to Shimon, and stipulated that it will pass to Levi after him, if Shimon sells it, Levi never gets it, even after Shimon dies.)

(Abaye): A crafty Rasha is one who counsels (Shimon) to sell, according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Answer: Here is different, for the father's money would go to his son (who would eventually inherit him anyway). Also, Huna was a Chacham (it is a Mitzvah to support Chachamim).

Question: The Halachah is that an Arev for a Kesuvah is not obligated! (This will be explained later.)

Answer: The father was a Kablan (an Arev with greater responsibility).

Question: We understand according to the opinion that a Kablan for a Kesuvah is obligated;

However, according to the opinion that a Kablan for a Kesuvah is not obligated unless the husband had property (at the time he agreed to be a Kablan), how can we answer?

Answer #1: The case is, Rav Huna had property (when his father became a Kablan). Later, it was flooded.

Answer #2: A father obligates himself for his son (even if the son has no property).

All agree that an Arev for a Kesuvah is not obligated;

All agree that a Kablan for a loan is obligated;

The argument is about a Kablan for a Kesuvah and an Arev for a loan. One opinion says that the Kablan (or Arev) is obligated only if the husband (or borrower) has property;

The other opinion says that either way, he is obligated.

The Halachah is, an Arev is obligated whether or not the borrower has property, except for an Arev for a Kesuvah, who is never obligated;

Question: Why is he not obligated for a Kesuvah?

Answer: He gets no benefit. He thinks "I am doing a Mitzvah (to help them get married). She is not losing anything." (She prefers to be married, even if there is no Arev for her Kesuvah. He does not really intend to pay.)

A certain man sold property, and later divorced his wife.

Question (Rav Yosef brei d'Rava): The Mishnah requires a vow before collecting from Hekdesh or an Arev. What is the law concerning buyers?

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The Tana is not a peddler (who must mention everything he has. Surely, a vow is required.)

Answer #2 (Chachamim of Neharda'a): A vow is required only in the cases mentioned in the Mishnah.

Question (Rav Mesharshiya): What is Neharda'a's reason?

Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): One must vow before collecting from Hekdesh. This is so Hekdesh will not lose;

Also we do not want an Arev for a Kesuvah to lose. He did a Mitzvah (to help the couple get married, and even if the wife will not collect,) she did not lose (just she did not receive);

A buyer knows that every wife has a Kesuvah. He bought the land knowing that it was Meshu'abad. He caused his own loss!

(Mishnah): If Reuven owed a Kesuvah or debt to Simchah (his ex-wife or creditor), and was Makdish his property, Simchah may not take the property from Hekdesh;

Version #1 (Tosfos): (If the property is worth more than the debt,) anyone who wants to can redeem the property (for its value, less the debt owed) and pays the debt from it.

If the property is worth (less, e.g.) 90 and the debt is 100, Simchah "lends" another Dinar, he redeems the property for a Dinar and keeps the property.

Version #2 (Rashi): Rather, the redeemer (Reuven) redeems the property in order to pay his debt, e.g. if the property is worth 90 and the debt is 100, he borrows another Dinar and redeems the property for a Dinar to pay the debt.

(Gemara) Version #1 - Tosfos - Question: Why does it say "anyone who wants to can redeem"? (The part that was owed was never really Hekdesh!)

Version #2 - Rashi - Question: Why does it say "the redeemer redeems" (for a Dinar)? (The property never became Hekdesh!) (end of Version #2)

Answer: We want it to look like he redeems (Tosfos - all of) the property, for R. Avahu's reason:

(R. Avahu): This is so people will not say that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption.

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon ben Gamliel;

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If the debt is at least as much as the property is worth, he redeems it (for a Dinar);

Version #1 (Tosfos): If the debt is less than the property is worth, he need not redeem it;

Version #2 (Rashi): If the debt is less than the property is worth, he may not redeem it (for less than its true value. Since Simchah did not rely on this land to collect the entire amount, it is not Meshu'abad at all.)

Question: According to Chachamim (our Tana), how much must the property be worth (for the law of a one-Dinar redemption to apply)?

Answer (Rav Huna bar Yehudah): It must be at least half the debt.

(Mishnah): If Reuven owes Erchin, even though we take a security from him, we leave him with the following (or money to buy them if he does not have them):

Food for 30 days, clothes for a year, a bed and sheet, shoes, and Tefilin.

We leave for him, but not for his wife and children.

If he is a craftsman, we leave him two of everything needed for his trade;

We leave a carpenter with two planing tools and two saws.

R. Eliezer says, we leave a farmer with a yoked pair of oxen. We leave a donkey-driver with his donkey;

If he had extra (more than two) of one kind of tool and less than two of another kind, he may not sell the extras to buy the kind he is lacking. Rather, he keeps two of the former and whatever he has of the latter.

If one was Makdish his property, we evaluate his Tefilin, and he redeems them.