Talmud su Gittin 9:11

MISHNAH: If somebody writes to his wife¹After the preliminary but before the definitive marriage, when he does not yet have the administration of her properties.: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rebbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues²If the wife invests some or all of the revenue from her holdings, these new holdings are not referred to in the renunciation. They represent new paraphernalia and as such their administration is the husband’s, who receives their yield. unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits³I. e., even the yield of the k-th re-investment of prior yields, k = 1,2, …, is excluded by this contract..” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah⁴Since in rabbinic interpretation (disputed by Sadducees/Karaites) the husband inherits from his wife but the wife not from her husband; cf. Babli Baba batra 111b, Sifry Num. 134. In the opinion of R. Ismael, this cannot be established from the pentateuchal law of inheritance (Num. 27:7–11) but from the books of Josua, 34:33, and 1Chr.2:22. According to R. Aqiba, the husband’s right of inheritance follows by twisting the text of Num. 27:11., and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid⁵As a general principle, this is Mishnaiot Baba meṣiʻa 7:14, Baba batra8:5. Quoted in Peah 6:10 (Note 159), Giṭṭin 9:1 (50a 1.48), Qiddušin 1:2 (59c 1.40), Baba meṣiʻa 7:10 (11c 1.11); Babli 56a/b, 83b, 84a, and 7 other quotes.
As far as money matters go, his opinion is that of a minority of one; cf. Chapter 5, Note 207. He will agree that in matters of revenues, whose assignment to the husband is purely rabbinic usage, there are no restrictions in the freedom to contract..

Mishnah: “Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit,” etc. The Mishnah [presents the case] that she said, I cannot accept this one, try that one; I cannot accept this one, try that one⁵⁶In this interpretation, if the man said: Be preliminarily married to me by this, by that one, etc., she would be married if all dates together were worth a peruṭah. If the preliminary marriage must be mentioned every time, it must be that the proposal was rejected in between. Then not any date but specifically the last one must be worth a peruṭah.. “By this and by that one and by that one.⁵⁷The triple mention is the version of the Mishnah in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss.” Who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Meïr, either this or this or that one⁵⁸The positions of Rebbis Jehudah and Meïr about the interpretation of conjunctions in multiple statements are discussed in Giṭṭin 9:7, Notes 93–101..

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid¹¹⁸A predated document can be made whole by testimony about the exact time it was signed. Then it can serve as basis for foreclosure procedures based on the oral testimony.. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol^118*Ševi'it 10:3, Note 80. is valid, postdated it is invalid”?¹¹⁹Mishnah Ševi‘it 10:5. The question is not asked about this sentence, but about the following one: Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. In the Halakhah there (Notes 98–99), R. Joḥanan holds that a predated bond is totally invalid; R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it only counts from the time of signing, parallel to Rav Huna’s opinion here. As explained in Note 114 (Ševi‘it 10:1 Note 2), a bond creates a mortgage lien on behalf of the creditor which is not removed by sale of the property. A predated document may create a false lien; this makes it invalid. That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim¹²⁰Probably one should read instead “R. Simeon ben Laqish”, R. Simeon ben Yaqim’s teacher.. Rav Huna, quoted here. ¹²¹Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:5 (Notes 69–71).“Rebbi Eleazar¹²²R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna. said, it¹²³A bill of divorce. is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony¹²⁴If the witnesses claim that their signatures were forged, there is no document. Rav Huna cannot declare it valid., the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say¹²⁵Ševi‘it 10:5 Note 96, Ketubot 2:3 Note 56, Giṭṭin 4:2 Note 46; Babli Ketubot 18b, Giṭṭin 3a., that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court¹²⁶A witness, once he has testified in court, may not change his story (Bikkurim 3:5 Note 72, Babli Sanhedrin44b). Therefore the witnesses are not admitted to claim that they did not know the bond was predated.? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”¹²⁷A bond signed by the debtor witout any witnesses.