Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 13, 2016 | 讬状讗 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 17

Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether if we find a document in the street that was either ratified by the court or was a shtar hakna’a (in which the land is automatically liened from the date of the document regardless of whether the loan happened or not), can we聽assume that it was not yet paid (since if it was, the borrower would have ripped it up) or do we assume that it was paid back (since if it wasn’t the lender never would have lost it)? 聽Issues relating to trust are raised – in what cases is one no longer trusted to swear in court that he paid back the loan? 聽Is the law different regarding a document found in the street with today’s date on it? 聽Why? 聽Rabbi Yochanan makes another statement that if something is deemed obligatory by the court then one is not trusted to say “I already paid it back” (if they can’t bring witnesses to prove it) even if the other side doesn’t provide a document. 聽Rabbi Chiya bar Abba questions Rabbi Yochanan by asking isn’t that an explicit mishna? 聽Rabbi Yochanan responds by saying that without my statement, it wouldn’t have been clear from the mishna what I said. 聽Abaye then proceeds to explain why.

讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 谞讗诪谉 讘讗 诪诇讜讛 诇讻转讜讘 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

and later on the debtor said: I repaid him, his claim is deemed credible. He must take an oath and is exempt from payment. Therefore, if the creditor comes and asks the court to write an authorization for him to appropriate the property of the debtor, they do not write an authorization and give the document to him.

讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讘讗 诪诇讜讛 诇讻转讜讘 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

By contrast, if the court merely said: You are liable to give him what you owe him, but did not complete the process by saying: Go and give it to him, and later on the debtor said: I repaid the debt, his claim is not deemed credible. The assumption is that since he did not pay on his own without the need for litigation, he does not intend to pay until the court finalizes its verdict against him. Therefore, since the debtor is suspected of lying, the creditor takes an oath and collects what he is owed. In this case, if the creditor comes and asks the court to write an authorization for him to appropriate the property of the debtor, they write the document and give it to him.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 爪讗 转谉 诇讜 讘讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 谞讗诪谉 讘讗 诪诇讜讛 诇讻转讜讘 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

Rav Zevid says in the name of Rabbi Na岣an: Both in the case where the court said: Go and give him what you owe him, and in the case where the court said: You are liable to give him, if the debtor subsequently said: I repaid the debt, his claim is deemed credible. Therefore, if the creditor comes and asks the court to write an authorization, they do not write the document and give it to him.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇驻诇讜讙讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇驻诇讜讙讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 爪讗 转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 驻专注讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉

Rather, if there is room to make a distinction between different cases, this is how there is room to distinguish between them: If the court said to the debtor: Go and give him what you owe him, and subsequently the debtor said: I repaid the debt, and the witnesses testify concerning him that he did not repay it when the debt was demanded in their presence, and later the debtor said again: I repaid the debt, in such a case, the debtor has assumed the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that money, and he is no longer believed when he claims that he repaid the debt unless witnesses substantiate his claim.

讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 驻专注 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉

By contrast, if the court said: You are liable to give him what you owe him, and subsequently the debtor said: I repaid the debt, and the witnesses testify concerning him that he did not repay the debt when it was demanded in their presence, and later the debtor said again: I repaid, in this case, the debtor does not assume the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that money. His claim that he repaid the debt in the absence of witnesses is accepted after he takes an oath to that effect.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖转诪讜讟讬 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖转诪讬讟 诪讬谞讬讛 住讘专 注讚 讚诪注讬讬谞讜 讘讬 专讘谞谉 讘讚讬谞讬

What is the reason that he is not presumed to be lying? It is because before the court verdict was finalized, the debtor was merely trying to evade the creditor, thinking to himself: Since the court has not yet finalized the verdict, I can delay payment until the Sages in the court investigate my case further, as I am not actually liable to pay until the verdict is finalized.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讻诇讜诐 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讬砖 诇讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉

Rabba bar bar 岣nna says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession that you borrowed from me, and the other says in response: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and the witnesses testify concerning him that, in fact, he does have such a debt, and subsequently the debtor said: I repaid the debt, in that case the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that money.

讻讬 讛讗 讚砖讘转讗讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪专讬谞讜住 讻转讘 诇讛 诇讻诇转讬讛 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讗讬专讻住 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讻转讘 诇讛 诇住讜祝 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻专注转讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讞讝拽转 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讛 讗讬爪讟诇讗

It is like the ruling in this case, where Shabbtai, son of Rabbi Marinus, wrote a pledge to give his daughter-in-law a cloak [itztela] of fine wool [demileta] in her marriage contract, and he accepted upon himself the status of a guarantor for the contract. Her marriage contract was lost, and there was a disagreement between the parties as to its content. Shabbtai said to her: These matters never occurred; I never wrote that I would give you such a cloak. Witnesses then came and said: Yes, he did write her this pledge. Ultimately, he said to them: I paid it, i.e., I gave her the cloak. This case came before Rabbi 岣yya. He said to Shabbtai: You have assumed the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that cloak. His claim was therefore not accepted, even by means of an oath.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘讜注讛

Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one was obligated to take an oath to counter another person鈥檚 claim brought against him, and later he said: I took the oath, and the witnesses testify against him that he did not take an oath when it was demanded of him in their presence, and the defendant subsequently said again: I took the oath, he assumes the status of one who denies his obligations with regard to that oath.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪住转讘专讗 诪诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 砖讘讜注讛 [谞讗诪谉] 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诪拽专讬 讜讗诪专 讗讛讚专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讬

The Rabbis stated this ruling before Rabbi Abbahu. He said to them: Rabbi Avin鈥檚 statement is reasonable in a case where one was obligated by a court to take an oath. But if one voluntarily obligated himself to take an oath, and he later claims that he took the oath, he is deemed credible. This is because a person is prone to say incidentally that he will take an oath and then change his mind; this does not render him a liar. The Rabbis then brought Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 analysis back to Rabbi Avin and presented it before him. Rabbi Avin said to them: I also said this halakha specifically with regard to one who was obligated by a court to take an oath, as Rabbi Abbahu explained.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讘讜注讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘讜注讛

It was also stated that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one was obligated by a court to take an oath to counter the claim of another person, and he subsequently said: I took the oath, and the witnesses testify against him that he did not take an oath when it was demanded of him in their presence, and later the defendant said again: I took the oath, he has assumed that status of one who denies his obligations with regard to that oath. This wording is explicitly in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 explanation.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘砖讜拽 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛谞驻拽 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 讝诪谞讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讬讞讝讬专讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who finds a promissory note in the marketplace, and a ratification is written in it, and the date of the loan is written in it, and evidently it was written on that same day, he must return it to the owner, i.e., the creditor.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 讛讗 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛谞驻拽 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻专注讜谉 诇驻专讬注讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara explains why there is no concern that perhaps the debtor does not owe the money: If one were to be concerned because perhaps the debtor wrote the promissory note intending to borrow money, but he ultimately did not borrow it, this is not a concern, as a ratification is written in the promissory note. Since only the creditor would have brought the note for ratification, it is clear that the loan occurred. And if one were to be concerned because perhaps there was repayment, this is not a concern, as we are not concerned that there was repayment on the same day that the loan was taken, since normally one would not take a loan for less than one day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讟专 砖诇讜讛 讘讜 讜驻专注讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诇讜讛 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Isn鈥檛 it you who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan that one who borrowed money and wrote a promissory note for the loan, and subsequently repaid the debt, may not reuse it to borrow another time, as its lien is already forgiven by virtue of the repayment? A promissory note is valid only for the debt for which it was written.

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪讞专 讜诇讬讜诪讗 讞专讗 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 砖讻讘专 谞诪讞诇 砖注讘讜讚讜 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讜拽讚诐 讜转谞谉 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rabbi Zeira explains: When did the debtor take the second loan? If we say that it was the day after the first loan, when the promissory note was written, or another later date, then Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is difficult. Why does he specifically give as the reason for the promissory note鈥檚 disqualification: As its lien is already forgiven? Instead, he should derive the disqualification of the promissory note from the fact that it is antedated, i.e., dated prior to the actual loan, and we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Antedated promissory notes are invalid. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan could not have been referring to a case where the second loan took place after the date of the first loan.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讗诇诪讗 驻专注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛

Rather, is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement not referring to a case where the second loan took place on the same day as the first loan? Evidently, people do occasionally repay their loans on the same day as they take the loan.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇讗 驻专注讬 讻诇诇 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚驻专注讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗

Rabbi Asi said to him: Did I say that people do not repay their loans on the same day at all? Rather, I said that it is uncommon for people to repay their loans on the same day. Therefore, if a note is found on the same day it was written, it is reasonable to assume that it has not yet been repaid, even though there is a remote possibility that it has.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

Rav Kahana says an alternative explanation: Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to a case when the liable party, i.e., the debtor, admits to the debt. The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating that the note may be returned? This is obvious.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诪驻专注 驻专注讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诪讛讚专 诇诪讝驻讗 讘讬讛 讝诪谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇驻砖讬讟讬 讚住驻专讗 讞讬讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪诇讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 砖讘拽 住讘专 砖诪注讬 讘讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that even if this debtor admits to the debt, perhaps he actually repaid it, and the fact that the debtor says: I did not repay it, is because he wants to go back and use the promissory note to borrow money again. And the reason he prefers to claim that he did not repay the first debt is that he is concerned about saving the scribe鈥檚 fee that he would have to pay for another promissory note. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches us that this possibility need not be taken into account, as, if that were so, the creditor himself would not allow such a scheme. He would be afraid to act in such a manner, thinking: The Sages will hear about me that I reused the note, and will cause me to lose the payment owed to me.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (12b): With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee for a loan, he may not return them to the creditor.

讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉

And we interpreted this mishna as referring to a case when the liable party admits to the debt. And the reason the promissory notes may not be returned is due to the concern that perhaps the debtor wrote the note in order to borrow the money in Nisan, but he ultimately did not borrow it until Tishrei, and the creditor will come to unlawfully repossess land from purchasers who bought the debtor鈥檚 land between Nisan and Tishrei. He is entitled to collect land only from those who bought land from the debtor after the loan took place, causing the lien on the debtor鈥檚 land to take effect.

讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪诇讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讜讘 砖讟专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘转砖专讬 讚讚诇诪讗 砖诪注讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬

The Gemara points out the contradiction between this mishna and Rabbi Kahana鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: And this indicates that we do not say that if that were so, if the promissory note were antedated, the creditor himself would not allow the debtor to use it, as he would say to him: Write another note dated properly in Tishrei, lest the Sages hear about the fact that the date is incorrect and disqualify the promissory note, causing me to lose the money.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讜讞讗 讚拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讜讞讗 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 砖讟专讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讚拽讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讘砖讟专 砖谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 诇讗 砖讘讬拽

The Gemara answers: The Sages say that there, in the case of the mishna, since the creditor benefits by using this promissory note, as he can repossess land from purchasers who bought from the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei, it is satisfactory to him, and he does not say anything to the debtor about using this promissory note. By contrast, here, in the case to which Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring, since the creditor does not benefit from reusing the promissory note, as ultimately, the note is written for the current date, what is there for him to repossess from purchasers by means of the note that he cannot repossess by means of a new promissory note? Therefore, he would not allow the debtor to borrow more money from him with a promissory note whose lien was forgiven, as this would result only in risk and have no potential benefit.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who claims to have repaid a debt that has already been established by a court enactment, i.e., a rabbinic ordinance obligating one to pay a debt, e.g., the main sum in a marriage contract, but he has no witnesses,

诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬

he has said nothing. His claim is not accepted. What is the reason that he is not believed? It is because one who is owed any money based on a court enactment is considered like one who is holding a promissory note in his hand, against which a claim of repayment is not accepted without supporting evidence.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讙讟 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻转讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: But what are you adding? Isn鈥檛 this principle stated in a mishna (Ketubot 88b), which teaches: If a woman produced a bill of divorce, and there was no accompanying marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract? This is an example of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 principle that a court enactment enables one to collect a debt even without the relevant document.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讚诇讗讬 诇讱 讞住驻讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诪专讙谞讬转讗 转讜转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: True, this mishna is a source for my principle; but had I not lifted up the shard for you, you would not have found a pearl beneath it. In other words, if Rabbi Yo岣nan had not pointed out the principle, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba would not have realized that it was underlying the ruling of the mishna.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讙讟 讛讬讬谞讜 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬 谞拽讬讟讗 讻转讜讘讛 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讙讘讬讗

Abaye said: What qualifies this proof as a pearl? It is not a compelling proof, as perhaps in the mishna we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, as in such a place, a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce is the same as her marriage contract. But in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract then she collects payment, and if not, she does not collect payment. There is no proof from the mishna in support of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 principle.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬 谞拽讬讟讗 讻转讜讘讛 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讙讘讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗

Abaye then said: What I said is not correct. As, if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, but in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract then she collects payment, and if not she does not collect payment, then through what means does a widow from her betrothal collect payment of her marriage contract? She has neither a marriage contract nor a bill of divorce.

讘注讚讬 诪讬转转 讘注诇 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讬诪讗 驻专注转讬讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转谉

If it is suggested that she can collect payment by means of witnesses to the death of her husband, let the husband鈥檚 heir, from whom she is demanding payment, claim and say: I paid it; she has no proof that she did not receive the money. And if you would say that indeed, the heir can claim that he has paid what he owes, if so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance that a widow from betrothal receives payment of her marriage contract? The heirs can always exempt themselves.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讗 诇谉

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi, questioning the underlying assumption of Abaye: And from where do we derive that a widow from her betrothal has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讚诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛

If we say that this halakha is derived from that which we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 54b): If a woman became widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, she collects all that she is entitled to, both the main sum of her marriage contract instituted by the Sages and the additional sum that her husband added; that mishna cannot serve as a source for the halakha that a widow from her betrothal has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract. As perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where the husband wrote a marriage contract for her, but if he did not, she does not receive any money at all.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讻讜谞住讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

And if you would say: In that case, what is the purpose of stating this halakha since it is obvious that she can collect payment if she has a written contract, then one could respond that it is stated to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says that a widow from betrothal does not receive that which the husband committed to pay in the marriage contract, as he wrote the marriage contract only on the condition that he would marry her. He did not intend to obligate himself in a situation where he died before their marriage. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to mention that a widow from betrothal who has a written marriage contract collects payment.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛

The language of the mishna is also precise according to this understanding, as it teaches: She collects all that she is entitled to. Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband wrote her a marriage contract, this is why the mishna teaches that she collects all that she is entitled to, i.e., even the amount that the husband added to the main sum of the marriage contract. But if you say that it is referring a case where he did not write her a marriage contract,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 17

讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 谞讗诪谉 讘讗 诪诇讜讛 诇讻转讜讘 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

and later on the debtor said: I repaid him, his claim is deemed credible. He must take an oath and is exempt from payment. Therefore, if the creditor comes and asks the court to write an authorization for him to appropriate the property of the debtor, they do not write an authorization and give the document to him.

讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讘讗 诪诇讜讛 诇讻转讜讘 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

By contrast, if the court merely said: You are liable to give him what you owe him, but did not complete the process by saying: Go and give it to him, and later on the debtor said: I repaid the debt, his claim is not deemed credible. The assumption is that since he did not pay on his own without the need for litigation, he does not intend to pay until the court finalizes its verdict against him. Therefore, since the debtor is suspected of lying, the creditor takes an oath and collects what he is owed. In this case, if the creditor comes and asks the court to write an authorization for him to appropriate the property of the debtor, they write the document and give it to him.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 爪讗 转谉 诇讜 讘讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 谞讗诪谉 讘讗 诪诇讜讛 诇讻转讜讘 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

Rav Zevid says in the name of Rabbi Na岣an: Both in the case where the court said: Go and give him what you owe him, and in the case where the court said: You are liable to give him, if the debtor subsequently said: I repaid the debt, his claim is deemed credible. Therefore, if the creditor comes and asks the court to write an authorization, they do not write the document and give it to him.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇驻诇讜讙讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇驻诇讜讙讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 爪讗 转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 驻专注讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉

Rather, if there is room to make a distinction between different cases, this is how there is room to distinguish between them: If the court said to the debtor: Go and give him what you owe him, and subsequently the debtor said: I repaid the debt, and the witnesses testify concerning him that he did not repay it when the debt was demanded in their presence, and later the debtor said again: I repaid the debt, in such a case, the debtor has assumed the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that money, and he is no longer believed when he claims that he repaid the debt unless witnesses substantiate his claim.

讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 驻专注 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉

By contrast, if the court said: You are liable to give him what you owe him, and subsequently the debtor said: I repaid the debt, and the witnesses testify concerning him that he did not repay the debt when it was demanded in their presence, and later the debtor said again: I repaid, in this case, the debtor does not assume the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that money. His claim that he repaid the debt in the absence of witnesses is accepted after he takes an oath to that effect.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖转诪讜讟讬 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖转诪讬讟 诪讬谞讬讛 住讘专 注讚 讚诪注讬讬谞讜 讘讬 专讘谞谉 讘讚讬谞讬

What is the reason that he is not presumed to be lying? It is because before the court verdict was finalized, the debtor was merely trying to evade the creditor, thinking to himself: Since the court has not yet finalized the verdict, I can delay payment until the Sages in the court investigate my case further, as I am not actually liable to pay until the verdict is finalized.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讻诇讜诐 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讬砖 诇讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 驻专注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉

Rabba bar bar 岣nna says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession that you borrowed from me, and the other says in response: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and the witnesses testify concerning him that, in fact, he does have such a debt, and subsequently the debtor said: I repaid the debt, in that case the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that money.

讻讬 讛讗 讚砖讘转讗讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪专讬谞讜住 讻转讘 诇讛 诇讻诇转讬讛 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讗讬专讻住 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讻转讘 诇讛 诇住讜祝 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻专注转讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讞讝拽转 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讛 讗讬爪讟诇讗

It is like the ruling in this case, where Shabbtai, son of Rabbi Marinus, wrote a pledge to give his daughter-in-law a cloak [itztela] of fine wool [demileta] in her marriage contract, and he accepted upon himself the status of a guarantor for the contract. Her marriage contract was lost, and there was a disagreement between the parties as to its content. Shabbtai said to her: These matters never occurred; I never wrote that I would give you such a cloak. Witnesses then came and said: Yes, he did write her this pledge. Ultimately, he said to them: I paid it, i.e., I gave her the cloak. This case came before Rabbi 岣yya. He said to Shabbtai: You have assumed the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that cloak. His claim was therefore not accepted, even by means of an oath.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘讜注讛

Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one was obligated to take an oath to counter another person鈥檚 claim brought against him, and later he said: I took the oath, and the witnesses testify against him that he did not take an oath when it was demanded of him in their presence, and the defendant subsequently said again: I took the oath, he assumes the status of one who denies his obligations with regard to that oath.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪住转讘专讗 诪诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 砖讘讜注讛 [谞讗诪谉] 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诪拽专讬 讜讗诪专 讗讛讚专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讬

The Rabbis stated this ruling before Rabbi Abbahu. He said to them: Rabbi Avin鈥檚 statement is reasonable in a case where one was obligated by a court to take an oath. But if one voluntarily obligated himself to take an oath, and he later claims that he took the oath, he is deemed credible. This is because a person is prone to say incidentally that he will take an oath and then change his mind; this does not render him a liar. The Rabbis then brought Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 analysis back to Rabbi Avin and presented it before him. Rabbi Avin said to them: I also said this halakha specifically with regard to one who was obligated by a court to take an oath, as Rabbi Abbahu explained.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讘讜注讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘讜注讛

It was also stated that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one was obligated by a court to take an oath to counter the claim of another person, and he subsequently said: I took the oath, and the witnesses testify against him that he did not take an oath when it was demanded of him in their presence, and later the defendant said again: I took the oath, he has assumed that status of one who denies his obligations with regard to that oath. This wording is explicitly in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 explanation.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘砖讜拽 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛谞驻拽 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 讝诪谞讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讬讞讝讬专讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who finds a promissory note in the marketplace, and a ratification is written in it, and the date of the loan is written in it, and evidently it was written on that same day, he must return it to the owner, i.e., the creditor.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 讛讗 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛谞驻拽 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻专注讜谉 诇驻专讬注讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara explains why there is no concern that perhaps the debtor does not owe the money: If one were to be concerned because perhaps the debtor wrote the promissory note intending to borrow money, but he ultimately did not borrow it, this is not a concern, as a ratification is written in the promissory note. Since only the creditor would have brought the note for ratification, it is clear that the loan occurred. And if one were to be concerned because perhaps there was repayment, this is not a concern, as we are not concerned that there was repayment on the same day that the loan was taken, since normally one would not take a loan for less than one day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讟专 砖诇讜讛 讘讜 讜驻专注讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诇讜讛 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Isn鈥檛 it you who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan that one who borrowed money and wrote a promissory note for the loan, and subsequently repaid the debt, may not reuse it to borrow another time, as its lien is already forgiven by virtue of the repayment? A promissory note is valid only for the debt for which it was written.

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪讞专 讜诇讬讜诪讗 讞专讗 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 砖讻讘专 谞诪讞诇 砖注讘讜讚讜 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讜拽讚诐 讜转谞谉 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rabbi Zeira explains: When did the debtor take the second loan? If we say that it was the day after the first loan, when the promissory note was written, or another later date, then Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is difficult. Why does he specifically give as the reason for the promissory note鈥檚 disqualification: As its lien is already forgiven? Instead, he should derive the disqualification of the promissory note from the fact that it is antedated, i.e., dated prior to the actual loan, and we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Antedated promissory notes are invalid. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan could not have been referring to a case where the second loan took place after the date of the first loan.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讗诇诪讗 驻专注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛

Rather, is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement not referring to a case where the second loan took place on the same day as the first loan? Evidently, people do occasionally repay their loans on the same day as they take the loan.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇讗 驻专注讬 讻诇诇 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚驻专注讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗

Rabbi Asi said to him: Did I say that people do not repay their loans on the same day at all? Rather, I said that it is uncommon for people to repay their loans on the same day. Therefore, if a note is found on the same day it was written, it is reasonable to assume that it has not yet been repaid, even though there is a remote possibility that it has.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

Rav Kahana says an alternative explanation: Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to a case when the liable party, i.e., the debtor, admits to the debt. The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating that the note may be returned? This is obvious.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诪驻专注 驻专注讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诪讛讚专 诇诪讝驻讗 讘讬讛 讝诪谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇驻砖讬讟讬 讚住驻专讗 讞讬讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪诇讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 砖讘拽 住讘专 砖诪注讬 讘讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that even if this debtor admits to the debt, perhaps he actually repaid it, and the fact that the debtor says: I did not repay it, is because he wants to go back and use the promissory note to borrow money again. And the reason he prefers to claim that he did not repay the first debt is that he is concerned about saving the scribe鈥檚 fee that he would have to pay for another promissory note. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches us that this possibility need not be taken into account, as, if that were so, the creditor himself would not allow such a scheme. He would be afraid to act in such a manner, thinking: The Sages will hear about me that I reused the note, and will cause me to lose the payment owed to me.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (12b): With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee for a loan, he may not return them to the creditor.

讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉

And we interpreted this mishna as referring to a case when the liable party admits to the debt. And the reason the promissory notes may not be returned is due to the concern that perhaps the debtor wrote the note in order to borrow the money in Nisan, but he ultimately did not borrow it until Tishrei, and the creditor will come to unlawfully repossess land from purchasers who bought the debtor鈥檚 land between Nisan and Tishrei. He is entitled to collect land only from those who bought land from the debtor after the loan took place, causing the lien on the debtor鈥檚 land to take effect.

讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪诇讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讜讘 砖讟专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘转砖专讬 讚讚诇诪讗 砖诪注讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬

The Gemara points out the contradiction between this mishna and Rabbi Kahana鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: And this indicates that we do not say that if that were so, if the promissory note were antedated, the creditor himself would not allow the debtor to use it, as he would say to him: Write another note dated properly in Tishrei, lest the Sages hear about the fact that the date is incorrect and disqualify the promissory note, causing me to lose the money.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讜讞讗 讚拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讜讞讗 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 砖讟专讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讚拽讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讘砖讟专 砖谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 诇讗 砖讘讬拽

The Gemara answers: The Sages say that there, in the case of the mishna, since the creditor benefits by using this promissory note, as he can repossess land from purchasers who bought from the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei, it is satisfactory to him, and he does not say anything to the debtor about using this promissory note. By contrast, here, in the case to which Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring, since the creditor does not benefit from reusing the promissory note, as ultimately, the note is written for the current date, what is there for him to repossess from purchasers by means of the note that he cannot repossess by means of a new promissory note? Therefore, he would not allow the debtor to borrow more money from him with a promissory note whose lien was forgiven, as this would result only in risk and have no potential benefit.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who claims to have repaid a debt that has already been established by a court enactment, i.e., a rabbinic ordinance obligating one to pay a debt, e.g., the main sum in a marriage contract, but he has no witnesses,

诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬

he has said nothing. His claim is not accepted. What is the reason that he is not believed? It is because one who is owed any money based on a court enactment is considered like one who is holding a promissory note in his hand, against which a claim of repayment is not accepted without supporting evidence.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讙讟 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻转讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: But what are you adding? Isn鈥檛 this principle stated in a mishna (Ketubot 88b), which teaches: If a woman produced a bill of divorce, and there was no accompanying marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract? This is an example of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 principle that a court enactment enables one to collect a debt even without the relevant document.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讚诇讗讬 诇讱 讞住驻讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诪专讙谞讬转讗 转讜转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: True, this mishna is a source for my principle; but had I not lifted up the shard for you, you would not have found a pearl beneath it. In other words, if Rabbi Yo岣nan had not pointed out the principle, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba would not have realized that it was underlying the ruling of the mishna.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讙讟 讛讬讬谞讜 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬 谞拽讬讟讗 讻转讜讘讛 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讙讘讬讗

Abaye said: What qualifies this proof as a pearl? It is not a compelling proof, as perhaps in the mishna we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, as in such a place, a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce is the same as her marriage contract. But in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract then she collects payment, and if not, she does not collect payment. There is no proof from the mishna in support of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 principle.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬 谞拽讬讟讗 讻转讜讘讛 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讙讘讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗

Abaye then said: What I said is not correct. As, if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, but in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract then she collects payment, and if not she does not collect payment, then through what means does a widow from her betrothal collect payment of her marriage contract? She has neither a marriage contract nor a bill of divorce.

讘注讚讬 诪讬转转 讘注诇 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讬诪讗 驻专注转讬讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转谉

If it is suggested that she can collect payment by means of witnesses to the death of her husband, let the husband鈥檚 heir, from whom she is demanding payment, claim and say: I paid it; she has no proof that she did not receive the money. And if you would say that indeed, the heir can claim that he has paid what he owes, if so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance that a widow from betrothal receives payment of her marriage contract? The heirs can always exempt themselves.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讗 诇谉

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi, questioning the underlying assumption of Abaye: And from where do we derive that a widow from her betrothal has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讚诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛

If we say that this halakha is derived from that which we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 54b): If a woman became widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, she collects all that she is entitled to, both the main sum of her marriage contract instituted by the Sages and the additional sum that her husband added; that mishna cannot serve as a source for the halakha that a widow from her betrothal has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract. As perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where the husband wrote a marriage contract for her, but if he did not, she does not receive any money at all.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讻讜谞住讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

And if you would say: In that case, what is the purpose of stating this halakha since it is obvious that she can collect payment if she has a written contract, then one could respond that it is stated to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says that a widow from betrothal does not receive that which the husband committed to pay in the marriage contract, as he wrote the marriage contract only on the condition that he would marry her. He did not intend to obligate himself in a situation where he died before their marriage. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to mention that a widow from betrothal who has a written marriage contract collects payment.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛

The language of the mishna is also precise according to this understanding, as it teaches: She collects all that she is entitled to. Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband wrote her a marriage contract, this is why the mishna teaches that she collects all that she is entitled to, i.e., even the amount that the husband added to the main sum of the marriage contract. But if you say that it is referring a case where he did not write her a marriage contract,

Scroll To Top