Ketubot — Daf 83b

בעורר אבל בעומד מגופה של קרקע קנו מידו

אמר אמימר הלכתא מגופה של קרקע קנו מידו אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר בעורר או בעומד למאי נפקא מינה לכדרב יוסף אמר ליה לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי:

אם כן למה כתב לה וכו': ותימא ליה מכל מילי סליקת נפשך אמר אביי יד בעל השטר על התחתונה

ואימא מפירי אמר אביי בוצינא טב מקרא

ואימא מירושה אמר אביי מיתה שכיחא מכירה לא שכיחא וכי מסליק איניש נפשיה ממילתא דלא שכיחא ממילתא דשכיחא לא מסליק איניש נפשיה רב אשי אמר בנכסייך ולא בפירותיהן בנכסייך ולא לאחר מיתה:

רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירי פירות: תנו רבנן אלו הן פירות ואלו הן פירי פירות הכניסה לו קרקע ועשתה פירות הרי הן פירות מכר פירות ולקח מהן קרקע ועשתה פירות הרי הן פירי פירות

איבעיא להו לרבי יהודה פירי פירות דוקא או דלמא עד עולם דוקא או דלמא תרוייהו דוקא

אם תמצי לומר פירי פירות דוקא עד עולם למה לי הא קמ"ל כיון דכתב לה פירי פירות כמאן דכתב לה עד עולם דמי

ואם תמצי לומר עד עולם דוקא פירי פירות למה לי הא קמ"ל אע"ג דכתב לה פירי פירות אי כתב לה עד עולם אין אי לא לא

ואם תמצי לומר תרוייהו דוקא תרתי למה לי צריכא דאי כתב לה פירי פירות ולא כתב לה עד עולם הוה אמינא פירי פירות הוא דלא אכיל אבל פירא דפירי פירות אכיל להכי איצטריך עד עולם ואי כתב לה עד עולם ולא כתב לה פירי פירות הוה אמינא לעולם אפירות קאי להכי איצטריך פירי פירות:

איבעיא להו כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסייך ובפירי פירות מהו שיאכל פירות מפירי פירות סליק נפשיה מפירי לא סליק נפשיה או דלמא מכל מילי סליק נפשיה

פשיטא דמכל מילי סליק נפשיה דאי אמרת מפירי פירות סליק נפשיה מפירי לא סליק נפשיה כיון דאכלינהו לפירות פירי פירות מהיכא

וליטעמיך הא דתנן רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירי פירות כו' כיון דאכלינהו לפירי פירי פירות מהיכא אלא בדשיירא הכא נמי בדשייר:

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כו': אמר רב הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולא מטעמיה

מאי הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולא מטעמיה אילימא הלכה כרשב"ג דאמר אם מתה יירשנה ולאו מטעמיה דאילו רשב"ג סבר מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל ורב סבר תנאו קיים וקסבר ירושת הבעל דרבנן וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה

where [the partner]  lodged his protest forthwith,  but if he delayed,  the kinyan must be regarded as relating to the land itself,  Amemar said, the law is that the kinyan is taken to refer to the land itself.  Said R. Ashi to Amemar: [Do you speak] of one who lodged his protest forthwith or of one who delayed it? 'In what respect [the other asked] does this matter?' — In respect of [determining whether the law is] in agreement with the view of R. Joseph.  'I did not hear this',  the other replied. 'by which I mean that I do not accept it.' IF SO, WHAT WAS HIS OBJECT IN GIVING HER THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING etc. But  why should she not be able to say to him, 'You have renounced all your claims'?  — Abaye replied: The holder of a deed is always at a disadvantage.  But might it not be suggested [that he renounced his claim] upon the usufruct?  — Abaye replied: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full-grown one [in the field].  But may it be suggested [that his renunciation related] to his heirship?  Abaye replied: Death is a common occurrence but the sale [of property by a wife] is not common;  and whenever a person renounces his claims [he does so] in respect of what is not a common occurrence but he does not do it in respect Of that which is a common occurrence. R. Ashi replied:  [The husband's renunciation was] 'UPON YOUR ESTATES',  but not upon their produce; 'UPON YOUR  ESTATES', but not after your death. R. JUDAH RULED: HE MAY IN ALL CASES ENJOY THE YIELD OF THE PRODUCE [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: The following are regarded as produce and the following as the yield of the produce respectively. If a woman brought to her husband  a plot of land and it yielded produce, such yield is regarded as produce. If he sold the produce and purchased land with the proceeds and that land yielded produce, such yield is regarded as the yield of the produce. The question was raised: According to R. Judah, [is the expression] THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE  the essential element,  or is rather WITHOUT END  the essential element,  or is it possible that both expressions are essential?  But should you find [some ground] for deciding [that the expression] THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE is the essential element,  what need was there [it might be asked, for the mention  of] 'WITHOUT END'? — It is this that we were taught: So long as he renounced in her favour, in writing, the yield of the produce it is as if he had expressly written in her favour, 'without end'. But should you find [some reason] for deciding that WITHOUT END is the essential element,  what need was there [it might be asked, for the mention  of] THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE? — It is this that we were taught; Although he renounced in her favour, in writing, the yield of the produce [the renunciation] is valid only  if he also wrote 'without end' but is invalid  if he did not [write it]. But if you should find some argument for giving the decision that both expressions are essential [it could he asked]. what need is there for the specification  of both? Both are necessary. For if only the 'yield of the produce' had been written in her favour and 'without end' had been omitted, it might have been assumed that he loses thereby his right to the enjoyment of the yield of the produce only but that he is still entitled to enjoy the produce of the yield of that produce, hence it is necessary for the expression 'without end' [to be included in the renunciation]. And if only 'without end' had been written in her favour and the 'yield of the produce' had not been specified,  it might have been assumed that 'without end' referred to the first produce only,  hence it is necessary to specify also the 'yield of the produce'. The question was raised: May a husband who wrote, in favour of his wife, the renunciation 'I have no claim whatsoever upon your estates and upon the yield of their produce', enjoy the produce itself? Has he renounced the yield of their produce only but not the produce [itself] or is it possible that he renounced all his claim? But it is quite obvious that he has renounced all his claims. For should you suggest that he only renounced his claim upon the yield of the produce but not upon the produce itself, whence [it might be objected] would arise a yield of the produce if the man had consumed the produce itself? [No, for even] according to your view, [how will you explain] the statement in our Mishnah, R. JUDAH RULED: HE MAY IN ALL CASES ENJOY THE YIELD OF THE PRODUCE etc. [Where it may equally be objected,] whence would there be a yield of the produce if she  has consumed the produce itself? [Your explanation,] however, [would be that the reference is to a case] where the woman had allowed [the produce] to remain;  here also [it may be a case] where the husband has allowed the produce to remain. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED etc. Rab said: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel but not because of the reason he gave. What is meant by 'the halachah is In agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel but not because of the reason he gave'? If it be suggested: 'The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel' in respect of his statement that WHEN SHE DIES HE IS HER HEIR, 'but not because of the reason he gave'.for whereas R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is of the opinion that if A MAN MAKES A CONDITION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH, HIS CONDITION IS NULL AND VOID, Rab holds that such a condition  is valid  and [his acceptance of the ruling  is solely due to] his opinion that a husband's right of inheritance is a Rabbinical enactment and that the Sages have imposed upon their enactments greater restrictions than upon those of the Torah;