מתני׳ הכותב לאשתו דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך הרי זה אוכל פרות בחייה ואם מתה יורשה אם כן למה כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך שאם מכרה ונתנה קיים

MISHNA: One who writes for his wife in a document the declaration: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, thereby relinquishing his rights to her possessions, may nevertheless consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies before him, he inherits from her. If this is so, if he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property? The result of this declaration is that if she sold or gave away her property, the transaction is binding, and he cannot claim it.

כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן הרי זה אינו אוכל פרות בחייה ואם מתה יורשה רבי יהודה אומר לעולם אוכל פירי פירות עד שיכתוב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן ובפירי פירותיהן עד עולם

If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, he may not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime, but if she dies he still retains the right to inherit from her. Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce. Although he has waived his rights to consume the produce itself, it becomes her usufruct property, whose yield belongs to him. He remains entitled to the produce of the produce until he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce forever.

כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן ובפירי פירותיהן בחייך ובמותך אינו אוכל פירות בחייה ואם מתה אינו יורשה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אם מתה יירשנה מפני שמתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה וכל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל

If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce, in your lifetime and after your death, he may not consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies, he does not inherit from her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she dies, he does inherit from her, because he stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, a husband inherits from his wife by Torah law, and whoever stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.

גמ׳ תני רבי חייא האומר לאשתו

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita:

One who says to his wife; he did not teach: One who writes for his wife, as the mishna stated. This indicates that this condition can be stated verbally and does not need to be written in a contract.

וכי כתב לה הכי מאי הוי והתניא האומר לחבירו דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו ואין לי עסק בה וידי מסולקת הימנה לא אמר כלום

The Gemara asks about the ruling of the mishna: And if he wrote this to her, what of it? How does such a stipulation, written or otherwise, take effect? But isn’t it taught in a baraita:

One who says, whether verbally or by written communication, to another person with whom he shares property: I have no legal dealings or involvement with this field, or I have no dealings with it, or my hands are removed from it, has not said anything? This is because statements that waive rights without transferring them to another have no legal standing.

אמרי דבי רבי ינאי בכותב לה ועודה ארוסה כדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא נחלה הבאה לאדם ממקום אחר אדם מתנה עליה שלא יירשנה וכדרבא דאמר רבא האומר אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים כגון זו שומעין לו

The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: The mishna is referring to one who writes such a statement for her while she is still betrothed. Since the property was not yet in the husband’s possession when he wrote this condition, he was able to forgo any rights that he would later receive. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: Concerning an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i. e., he did not inherit it directly but rather through his wife or by means of a gift, the person can stipulate with regard to it that he will not inherit it. In this case, his statement is effective, although one cannot waive a right one already has. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to avail myself of an ordinance of the Sages that was instituted for my benefit, such as this one, one listens to him.

מאי כגון זו כדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה איני ניזונת ואיני עושה

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Such as this one? The Gemara explains: Rava is referring to that statement of Rav Huna, who said that Rav said a certain ruling. As Rav Huna said that Rav said that a woman is able say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i. e., you will not keep my earnings. The Sages instituted that a husband must provide sustenance for his wife, and in exchange is entitled to her wages. Since this was instituted for the benefit of the wife, she is able to opt out of this arrangement. Similarly, the husband may opt out of the arrangement granting him the right to the produce of his wife’s land.

אי הכי אפילו נשואה נמי

The Gemara asks: If that is so, and Rava’s opinion that one can waive a right instituted by the Sages for his own benefit is accepted, then even if he relinquished his rights to his wife’s property once she was already married, his stipulation should also be valid. Why, then, was it necessary for Rabbi Yannai to explain that the stipulation in the mishna was made only in the case of a betrothed woman?

אמר אביי נשואה ידו כידה רבא אמר ידו עדיפא מידה נפקא מינה לשומרת יבם

Abaye said: In the case of a married woman, his hand, i. e., his right to the property, is like her hand. Since the husband is considered a partner in her property, he cannot forfeit his ownership by declaration. Rava said: If they are married, his hand is preferable to her hand, i. e., he has more rights to her property than she does. The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opinions of Rava and Abaye concerns the case of a widow awaiting her brother-in-law [yavam] to perform levirate marriage. If the husband’s rights are greater than the wife’s, then the rights of the yavam can be judged to be at least equal to that of the wife. If the husband and wife have equal rights in her property, then the rights of the yavam are inferior to the wife’s.

איבעיא להו קנו מידו מהו אמר רב יוסף מדין ודברים קנו מידו רב נחמן אמר מגופה של קרקע קנו מידו אמר אביי מסתברא מילתא דרב יוסף

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one not only wrote a declaration relinquishing his rights to his partner’s property, but they also performed an act of acquisition transferring the rights from him? Rav Yosef said: They acquired from him only his promise of: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property. Therefore, the transaction is no more effective than the promise itself. Rav Naḥman said: The transaction is effective and they acquired the land itself from him. Abaye said: The statement of Rav Yosef is reasonable