אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: מַן יָהֵיב לָן מִכּוֹתָבוֹת דִּירִיחוֹ וְאָכַלְנָא בֵּיהּ! נְפַל עֲלָהּ חוּרְבָה וּמֵתָה; אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְבוֹדְקָהּ, מֵתָה – אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ.

She said to him: Who will give us of the dates of Jericho that I shall eat them, hinting that she smelled the date he had brought with him. The ruin collapsed upon her and she died. The Sages said: Since he went into the ruin after her only to check her sense of smell, and not for the purpose of consummating their marriage, if she dies, he does not inherit from her, as the marriage was not effected, and a man does not inherit from his betrothed.

״סִבְלוֹנוֹת מוּעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ״ וכו׳. יְתֵיב רָבִין סָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פַּפָּא וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: בֵּין שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא וּבֵין שֶׁמֵּת הוּא, הֲדַר הוּא – סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָדְרִי, מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה לָא הָדַר; הֲדַרָא בָּהּ אִיהִי – הֲדַרָא אֲפִילּוּ כִּישָׁא דְּיַרְקָא. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְשָׁמִין לָהֶן דְּמֵי בָשָׂר בְּזוֹל. עַד כַּמָּה בְּזוֹל? עַד תִּילְתָּא.

§ The mishna teaches: If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected. Ravin the Elder was sitting before Rav Pappa and he was sitting and saying: Whether she died, or whether he died, or whether he retracted his agreement to the betrothal and divorced her, the presents return to the betrothed man or his heirs, but food and drink do not return. If she retracted her agreement to the betrothal even a bundle of vegetables returns to the betrothed man. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: When the presents are returned, the court appraises for the betrothed woman’s family the sum that they must repay for any meat he gave her, according to a reduced assessment of the value of the meat and not according to the price the betrothed man paid. How much less is the reduced assessment? Up to one-third less than he paid.

מתני׳ שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא – מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת, לֹא שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא – אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת.

With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support.

גמ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא דְּאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא? אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת בְּנוֹ וְעָמַד וְכָתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לְאַחֵר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בְּנוֹ – מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹ קַיָּים – לֹא הָיָה כּוֹתְבָן.

Who is the tanna who taught that we follow the principle of assessing a person’s intentions, Rav Naḥman said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita ( Tosefta , Ketubot 5:9): In a case where one’s son went overseas and he heard that his son died, and then he arose and wrote a document granting all of his property to another, and then his son came back, his gift to the other people is a valid gift. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: His gift is not a valid gift, as had he known that his son was alive he would not have written a document granting them his property.

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אֲמַר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר וְאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְפָרֵשׁ וְהַיּוֹצֵא בְּשַׁיָּירָא; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְסוּכָּן.

Rav Sheshet said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, as it is taught in a mishna ( Gittin 65b): Initially the Sages would say: With regard to one who was taken out in a collar to be executed and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write and give her the document. Although he did not explicitly say the word give, this is understood to have been his intention, to release her from the necessity to perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza . They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs with a caravan to a far-off place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said just: Write. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

וְרַב נַחְמָן מַאי טַעֲמָא לָא מוֹקִים לָהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דַּאֲמַר ״כִּתְבוּ״. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַאי טַעֲמָא לָא מוֹקִים לָהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא? אוּמְדָּנָא דְּמוּכָח שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Naḥman does not interpret the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman holds that it is different there, as he said: Write a bill of divorce, thereby partially stating his intention to divorce her, whereas in the case of the mishna here, he did not express his intention at all. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Sheshet does not interpret the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara answers: An assessment of a person’s intentions that is clearly proven is different, and it is possible that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya does not apply this principle where the person’s intentions are less evident.

מַאן תַּנָּא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה וּמוּטָּל בַּמִּטָּה, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: נְכָסֶיךָ לְמִי? וְאָמַר לָהֶן:

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught ( Tosefta , Ketubot 4:15): If one was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall your property be given? And he said to them: