About this episode
Today's daf is dedicated with love by the Hadran Daf Yomi group of Hashmonaim to our wonderful friend and havruta Phyllis Hecht and her entire family on the occasion of the Bar Mitzvah of her son Caleb, celebrated this past Shabbat Breishit. May this special simcha bring joy and light as we pray for the good health of Phyllis (Gitel Pesha bat Masha Rahel) Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the marriage of David and Eve Farber's daughter, Allie. The third debate between Admon and the rabbis is if a man commits money to his future son-in-law (one who is betrothed to his daughter) and then goes bankrupt, can the fiance delay the indefinitely or can the woman insist she either marry her or divorce her? A different version appears in the Tosefta where the debate is only regarding a case where the woman herself committed the money, but if it was the father, all agree that the woman can insist that he marry or divorce her as it is not she who made the commitment. Another braita limits the law to a grown woman, as if she is young and committed money, we do not take her commitment seriously as she is a minor. Rabban Gamliel supported Admon and Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar ruled like Rabban Gamliel where he sides like Admon. Rabbi Zeira made a ruling regarding the cases of Admon and Chanan and regarding which cases we hold by them. It seemed to contradict what Rabbi Yitzchak said, so they suggest a different reading/understanding of Rabbi Zeira's ruling. If one is signed on a document of sale between two people and then later claims that the field was stolen from him, Admon and the rabbi debate whether that person is believed. However, they both agree in a case where one signed a document regarding the sale of one field but mentioned that it bordered on the owner's field, that the signator cannot come and claim the bordering property was stolen from him. If it was a judge who signed verifying the signatures of the witnesses, this debate would be irrelevant as we assume that judges relate only to the signatures and not the content of the document. In the second case, regarding the bordering field, if the sale is to the one who later claims it was stolen, then the stolen claim can be accepted as one can say there was a reason for agreeing earlier to the border claim, in order to ensure that the sale go through. A case is brought where one claimed the land was stolen from him and then subsequently died, having appointed a steward in his place to plead the case for his orphans. The steward made one claim after another and succeeded in getting all the land for the orphans. If one went abroad and upon returning no longer remembered where one had a path that led from their property through the surrounding neighbor's property, Admon and the rabbis disagree about whether they get the shortest path or do they need to pay the owner of the surrounding territory to be able to pass through. Rava mentions a number of scenarios where there is no debate, depending on how many people own the surrounding territories. The debate is only in a case where it was originally owned by four different owners but now when the claim is made, there is only one. A case is brought up where a father promised his daughter upon his death one palm tree. Rav Yosef thought to compare it to our Mishna as each male heir can claim it is not in his territory, but his comparison is rejected. Another issue of that case is raised - if there are two separate half palms trees that they own (i.e. they have a partnership with someone's two palm trees), can they give her those, instead of one whole one, even though it will be more difficult for her to tend to them?