More mishnayot, with the statements of Admon: When one promises a dowry, but goes bankrupt and can’t provide it, the son-in-law can’t be forced to marry the daughter. But Admon acknowledges that the daughter is stuck in a bind. But does the halakhah follow Admon? Also, another complex mishnah, as Admon’s decision on the case makes clear – when one contests the ownership of a field, even though he has signed on the bill of sale to someone else. How can he still legitimately claim that it’s his field? Plus, a distinction between witnesses and judges in their capacity as notaries. And lastly, a third mishnah: When one is overseas, and the path to that person’s field is lost – because of needing to go through other fields to get there, and he’s been gone long enough… How does he reestablish a path to his field? Either he’s entitled to make the most direct path, or he needs to pay the other owner(s) to be able to make the path again.
To listen: Click the link above. Or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Or join the Talking Talmud WhatsApp group, and receive the link as soon as it goes up.
Please like our Facebook page and join our conversation there: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Talking-Talmud-113324056898191/" target="_blank" rel="noopener