Ketubot

MISHNAH. IF A HUSBAND GIVES TO HIS WIFE A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER  UPON YOUR ESTATES', HE MAY NEVERTHELESS ENJOY ITS USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME AND, WHEN SHE DIES, HE IS HER HEIR. IF SO, WHAT WAS HIS OBJECT IN GIVING HER THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOUR ESTATES'? THAT IF SHE SOLD THEM OR GAVE THEM AWAY HER ACT MIGHT BE VALID. IF HE WROTE, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOUR ESTATES AND UPON THEIR PRODUCE, HE MAY NOT ENJOY THEIR USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME BUT, WHEN SHE DIES, HE IS HER HEIR. R. JUDAH RULED: HE MAY IN ALL CASES ENJOY THE YIELD OF THE PRODUCE UNLESS HE WROTE OUT FOR HER [THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING]: 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOUR ESTATES AND UPON THEIR PRODUCE AND THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE AND SO ON WITHOUT END. IF HE WROTE, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM UPON YOUR ESTATES, THEIR PRODUCE AND THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE DURING YOUR LIFETIME AND AFTER YOUR DEATH', HE MAY NEITHER ENJOY THEIR PRODUCE DURING HER LIFETIME NOR CAN HE BE HER HEIR WHEN SHE DIES. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: WHEN SHE DIES HE IS HER HEIR BECAUSE [BY HIS DECLARATION] HE IS MAKING A CONDITION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS ENJOINED IN THE TORAH  AND WHENEVER A MAN MAKES A CONDITION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH, HIS CONDITION IS NULL AND VOID. GEMARA. R. Hiyya taught:  If a husband said  to his wife. And if he gave her such an undertaking in writing,  what does It matter? Was it not taught: If a man says  to another,  'I have no claim whatsoever on this field, I have no concern in it and I entirely dissociate myself from it',  his statement is of no effect?  — At the school of R. Jannai it was explained, [we are dealing here with the case] of a man who gave the undertaking to his wife  while she was still only betrothed to him,  [the ruling  being] in agreement with that of R. Kahana, that a man is at liberty to renounce beforehand an inheritance  which is likely to accrue to him from another source;  and [this ruling, furthermore, is] in agreement with a dictum of Raba, that if anyone says. 'I do not desire [to avail myself] of a regulation of the Rabbis of this kind', his desire is granted.  What [is meant by the expression] 'of this kind'? As [that referred to in the statement made by] R. Huna in the name of Rab: A woman is entitled to say to her husband, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you'.  If so,  should not [the same ruling apply to] a married woman also?  Abaye replied: In the case of a married woman the husband's rights have the same force as the wife's.  Raba said: His rights are superior to hers. This  is of practical significance in the case of a woman who was awaiting the decision of the levir. The question was raised: What is the ruling if symbolic kinyan was executed  [at the time of the renunciation]?  — R. Joseph replied: [The kinyan is invalid since] it related to an abstract renunciation.  R. Nahman replied: [The kinyan is valid because] it related to land itself.  Said Abaye: R. Joseph's statement is reasonable