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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 31, 2016 | ื›ืดื ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • 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)

Gittin 49

From which types of land (better quality vs. poorer quality) areย different payments made from? ย When one pays damagesย from land, is the type of land determined by the land of the one who was damaged or the one who has to pay damages. ย This is argued by Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva. ย Our mishna is explained in two different manners – according to each opinion.

Study Guide Gittin 49

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื›ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ

With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where, after appraising the damage, the court comes to collect from the one who caused the damage, but he does not have money available to pay for the damage he caused. And the tannaโ€™im disagree in a case where the superior-quality land of the injured party was equal in quality to the inferior-quality land of the one who caused the damage, and the one who caused the damage also has land of superior quality. With regard to such a case, Rabbi Yishmael holds: We appraise the value of the land of the injured party, and therefore the one who caused the damage can pay with his inferior-quality fields, which are equal in quality to the best fields owned by the injured party. And Rabbi Akiva holds: We appraise the value of the land of the one who caused the damage and have him pay with his fields of superior quality.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื“ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื“ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ืœืžืขืœื” ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืืฃ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ื ื™ื–ืง

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? The word โ€œfieldโ€ is stated below, toward the end of the verse: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4). And the word โ€œfieldโ€ is also stated above, at the beginning of that same verse: โ€œIf a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another manโ€™s field.โ€ Just as the field which is stated above belongs to the injured party, so too, the field stated below belongs to the injured party.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื™ืฉืœื ื“ื”ืื™ืš ื“ืงื ืžืฉืœื

And Rabbi Akiva holds: When the verse says: โ€œOf the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard shall he pay,โ€ it means from the best of the one who is paying, i.e., from the best fields belonging to the one who caused the damage.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื”ื ื™ ื’ื–ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืื”ื ื™ ืงืจื ืื”ื ื™ ื’ื–ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืœื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืื”ื ื™ ืงืจื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืžื–ื™ืง ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื•ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื ืฉื•ื™ื ื›ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื“ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ื” ืžืžื™ื˜ื‘

And how would Rabbi Yishmael respond to this? The verbal analogy between the two instances of the word โ€œfieldโ€ is effective, and the straightforward meaning of the verse itself is effective. The verbal analogy is effective, as we said. It serves to teach that when it says that he pays from the best of his field, it means from land equal in quality to the best field owned by the injured party. And the straightforward meaning of the verse itself is effective, as it serves to teach a different halakha, namely, that if the one who caused the damage has superior-quality land and inferior-quality land, and his inferior-quality land is not as good as the superior-quality land belonging to the injured party, the one who caused the damage pays the injured party from his best land, i.e., from the superior-quality land that he owns.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืœื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ

ยง The baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury collects from superior-quality land.

ืžืื™ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื ื’ื—ื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืœืชื•ืจื ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื•ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: What is the a fortiori inference from ordinary damage to damage involving the consecrated property? To which case does this refer? If we say that our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, gored an ox that is consecrated property, there is a difficulty, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if one manโ€™s ox hurts anotherโ€™s oxโ€ (Exodus 21:35). This teaches that the halakha applies only if the ox hurt an ox belonging to another Jew, but not if it hurt an ox that is consecrated property. In the latter case no damages are collected.

ืืœื ืœืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื“ืืชื™ ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืช

Rather, we say that the a fortiori inference is not referring to a case of damage, but rather to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate one hundred dinars for Temple maintenance, and the inference teaches that if the one who took the vow has no money, then the Temple treasurer comes and collects the hundred dinars from his superior-quality land.

ืœื ื™ื”ื ืืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื“ื™ื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืงื™ืœ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื›ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ื‘ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ื‘ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ

The Gemara challenges this understanding: The Temple treasurer should not be treated any better than an ordinary creditor, and, as stated in the mishna, the halakha of a creditor is that he collects only from intermediate-quality land. And if you would say that Rabbi Akiva holds that even a creditor can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land like payment for damages, there is still a difficulty; the a fortiori inference can still be refuted in the following manner: If an ordinary creditor can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land, this is because the Torah enhanced his power with regard to payment for damages, as a common person can collect payment for damages caused him by anotherโ€™s ox. But can you say the same about the Temple treasury, with regard to which the Torah weakened its power with regard to payment for damages, not allowing it to collect such compensation?

ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ื ื’ื—ื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืœืชื•ืจื ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, we can explain that we are dealing here with a case where our ox gored an ox that is consecrated property, and Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya with regard to this issue, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If an ox that is consecrated property gored an ox belonging to a common person, the Temple treasury is exempt from liability. By contrast, if an ox belonging to a common person gored an ox that is consecrated property, whether the ox that gored the other ox was an innocuous ox [shor tam], i.e., an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure, or it was a forewarned ox [shor muad], i.e., an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox had already gored another ox three times, the oxโ€™s owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื›ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืœืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

The Gemara asks: If so, from where do you know to say that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree about a case where the superior-quality land belonging to the injured party is equal in quality to the inferior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage, and the one who caused the damage also has land of superior quality, as the dispute was previously interpreted by Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov? Perhaps everyone, including Rabbi Akiva, agrees that we appraise the value of the land of the injured party, and here they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the Rabbis.

ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara explains this suggestion: As Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, that in the case of damage caused by the ox of a common person to the property of the Temple treasury, compensation is collected from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage. And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that the owner of the ox bears no liability.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืื™ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืื™ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is so that this is the disagreement, then what is the meaning of Rabbi Akivaโ€™s statement: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land? This indicates that Rabbi Akiva disagrees about how to understand this verse. And furthermore, if the subject is the Temple treasury, what is the meaning of: And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of consecrated property collects from superior-quality land. And furthermore, didnโ€™t Rav Ashi say:

ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื™ืง ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื™ืง

It is taught explicitly in a baraita: The verse: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of the best of the fields of the injured party, and of the best of the vineyards of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The appraisal is of the best of the fields of the one who caused the damage, and of the best of the vineyards of the one who caused the damage. This clearly indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva compensation is collected from the superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงืจื ื•ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืงืืžืจ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื

Ravina said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: By Torah law, we appraise the property of the one who caused the damage. And it is also in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason underlying the verse as a basis for drawing halakhic conclusions. And the mishna is saying: What is the reason for the halakha taught in the mishna? The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties? This is for the betterment of the world. That is to say, the words: For the betterment of the world, do not indicate a rabbinic enactment. Rather, they provide a reason for the Torah law.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ื ื•ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื—ืžืกื ื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืื“ื ืœืžื” ืื ื™ ื’ื•ื–ืœ ื•ืœืžื” ืื ื™ ื—ื•ืžืก ืœืžื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื›ืกื™ ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื“ื” ื ืื” ืฉืœื™ ื•ืกื•ืžื›ื™ื ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืืžืจื• ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 12:2) that Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason did the Sages say that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties? It is due to the robbers and due to those who take that which is not theirs by force [แธฅamsanin]. How so? So that a person will say: Why should I rob and why should I take by force? Tomorrow the court will come down to my property and take my finest field in order to compensate the victim for what I have robbed or taken by force. And the Sages rely on what is written in the Torah: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4). Consequently, they said that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties.

ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืจืื” ืื“ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉื“ื” ื ืื” ื•ื“ื™ืจื” ื ืื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืงืคื•ืฅ ื•ืืœื•ื ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืื’ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื™ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช

The baraita continues: For what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects his debt from intermediate-quality land? It is so that a person should not see anotherโ€™s fine field or fine house and say: I will jump in and lend him money so that later I will collect the field or house for my debt, if the borrower does not have enough money to repay the loan. Therefore, the Sages said that a creditor collects his debt only from intermediate-quality land, and he would not receive that fine field that would have prompted him to extend the loan in the first place.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื™ื”ื ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืื ื›ืŸ ืืชื” ื ื•ืขืœ ื“ืœืช ื‘ืคื ื™ ืœื•ื•ื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the objective is that people not be tempted to lend money for the purpose of acquiring the borrowerโ€™s property should he default on the loan, then the halakha governing a creditor should be to collect his debt from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: If so, then you would be locking the door before potential borrowers, as no one would be willing to lend them money.

ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืฉื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืžื” ืฉื”ืื™ืฉ ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืฉื ื”ืืฉื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื ืฉื

The baraita continues: Payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from inferior-quality land; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: It can be collected from intermediate-quality land. Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason did the Sages say that a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from inferior-quality land? It is because more than a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to become married to a man. Consequently, she will agree to marry even if she knows that she will not be able to collect payment of the marriage contract from superior-quality land.

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ืื” ืืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื•

Alternatively, it is because a woman is sent out from her husband with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends his wife out from his house only with his consent.

ืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื›ื™ ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืื™ื”ื• ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ืื™ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืชืงื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ื ื” ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื• ืืคืฉืจ ื“ืžืฉื”ื™ ืœื” ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he mentions an alternative explanation? What problem is there with the first explanation? The Gemara answers: The alternative explanation does not explain why she collects from inferior-quality land, but serves to explain a different matter. Since the Sages instituted a marriage contract in order to strengthen the institution of marriage, it is possible to ask: And if you would say that just as when a man divorces his wife the Sages instituted a marriage contract for her from him, so too, when she leaves him they should similarly institute a marriage contract for him from her; then come and hear: A woman is sent out from her husband with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends his wife out from his house only with his consent. Even if she instigates a quarrel with him to bait him into divorcing her, it is nevertheless possible for the husband to keep her waiting for a bill of divorce. A man gives his wife a bill of divorce only when he wishes to do so, and so in essence the divorce depends solely on him.

ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from inferior-quality land. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naแธฅman, said: We said that a woman collects her marriage contract from inferior-quality land only when her husband died and she collects payment from the orphans who inherit his estate. But if she was divorced and she collects payment from the husband himself, then she collects it from intermediate-quality land.

ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ื ืžื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to collecting from orphans, then why discuss specifically a womanโ€™s marriage contract? Even all matters, such as payment for damage, should also be collected from inferior-quality land when it is collected from orphans, as didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the fatherโ€™s debt can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the husband himself?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื™ื ื ืืงื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the orphans who inherit their fatherโ€™s estate. And it was necessary for the mishna to teach the halakha specifically with regard to a womanโ€™s marriage contract. As it could enter your mind to say that the Sages were more lenient with her for the sake of desirability, so that she would be a more desirable partner should she want to remarry, and consequently they allowed her to collect payment of her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even from orphans, the mishna teaches us that even payment for a womanโ€™s marriage contract is not collected from the intermediate-quality land of orphans, but only from their inferior-quality land.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ืžืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ื ืžื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช

Rava said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: Payment for a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from intermediate-quality land. The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: From whom does she collect payment of her marriage contract in this case? If we say that she is collecting from the orphans, it is possible to ask: Does Rabbi Meir not agree with that which we learned in the mishna: The fatherโ€™s debt can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land? Rather, is it not that the woman collects payment of her marriage contract from her husband himself? And since Rabbi Meir maintains that she collects from intermediate-quality land, one can learn by inference that the Rabbis hold that she collects from inferior-quality land, contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื™ื ื

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, actually it is possible to explain that the baraita is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the orphans who inherit their fatherโ€™s estate. And payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is different from other debts collected from orphans, which can be collected only from inferior-quality land. The Sages were more lenient with her for the sake of desirability; consequently, Rabbi Meir ruled that she may collect her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even if she is collecting it from orphans.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืžืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื”

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in the mishna: The court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties. And a creditor collects his debt from the debtorโ€™s intermediate-quality land. And payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from her husbandโ€™s inferior-quality land. The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: From whom is the collection being made? If we say that in all of these cases collection is being made from the orphans, why mention specifically a womanโ€™s marriage contract? Even all of these, i.e., even injured parties and creditors, should also collect only from inferior-quality land when collecting from orphans. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the husband himself, and it rules that she collects from inferior-quality land, contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ืขืจื‘ ืœื ื–ืงื™ ื‘ื ื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื›ืœืชื•

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: No proof can be brought from the mishna against the opinion of Mar Zutra, as the mishna can be understood as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one became a guarantor for compensation for his sonโ€™s damages, and similarly for repayment to his sonโ€™s creditor, and similarly for payment of his daughter-in-lawโ€™s marriage contract, and his son died. Since the guarantor stands in place of his son, collection is made from him as if it were being made from his son.

ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื ื’ื‘ื• ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืžื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืžื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื“ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ื’ื‘ื™ื ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ืžืžืืŸ ื’ื‘ื™ื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืžื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ืžื’ื‘ื™

And payment is made in this case in accordance with its halakha and payment is made in this case in accordance with its halakha. Since an injured party and a creditor ordinarily collect from those who owe them money while they are alive, when the guarantor pays the debt, he too pays the debt as though the one who caused the damage or borrowed the money were still alive. Therefore, in these cases collection is made from superior-quality or intermediate-quality land. But in this case, where the father serves as a guarantor for his son, payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is only after her husbandโ€™s death, and after his death from whom does she collect? From the orphans. Consequently, when the guarantor pays the debt, he too pays the debt as though it were being paid by the orphans after the husbandโ€™s death. Accordingly, payment for her marriage contract is made from inferior-quality land.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ืขืจื‘ ื“ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ื‘ืงื‘ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: But let him derive this halakha from another halakha that states that the guarantor of a marriage contract does not become responsible for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property. The signature that he adds to the marriage contract serves merely as additional support but does not turn him into a true guarantor. Therefore, even if a collection is made, it is only from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with an unconditional guarantor, i.e., one who accepted unconditional responsibility for the obligation, allowing his daughter-in-law to collect payment of her marriage contract either from his son or from him, as she so desires.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื‘ืœืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื ื›ืกื™ ืœืœื•ื” ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ืื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that an unconditional guarantor becomes responsible for repayment of the loan even if the borrower does not have property of his own. Therefore, it works out well to explain the case in this manner. But according to the one who says that if the borrower has property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor becomes responsible, but if the borrower does not have property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor does not become responsible, what is there to say in a case where the son did not have any property at the time of the marriage? In such a case, the father never became responsible for his sonโ€™s obligations.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื‘ื“ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ืฉืชื“ื•ืฃ

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that it is a case where the son had property of his own at the outset, but afterward it was blighted. Since the son had his own property, the father accepted responsibility for the obligation, and now that the property has no value, the daughter-in-law can collect payment for her marriage contract from the father.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื›ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจื™ื” ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ื™ ืžืฉืขื‘ื“ ื ืคืฉื™ื”

And if you wish say: With respect to anything relating to his son, it is common for a father to pledge himself absolutely, even when the son has no property of his own.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืจื‘ ื“ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“

ยง Apropos a guarantor for a marriage contract, the Gemara notes: It was stated that everyone agrees that a guarantor who signs a marriage contract does not thereby become responsible for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property.

  • 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!

Gittin 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 49

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื›ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ

With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where, after appraising the damage, the court comes to collect from the one who caused the damage, but he does not have money available to pay for the damage he caused. And the tannaโ€™im disagree in a case where the superior-quality land of the injured party was equal in quality to the inferior-quality land of the one who caused the damage, and the one who caused the damage also has land of superior quality. With regard to such a case, Rabbi Yishmael holds: We appraise the value of the land of the injured party, and therefore the one who caused the damage can pay with his inferior-quality fields, which are equal in quality to the best fields owned by the injured party. And Rabbi Akiva holds: We appraise the value of the land of the one who caused the damage and have him pay with his fields of superior quality.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื“ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื“ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ืœืžืขืœื” ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืืฃ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ื ื™ื–ืง

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? The word โ€œfieldโ€ is stated below, toward the end of the verse: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4). And the word โ€œfieldโ€ is also stated above, at the beginning of that same verse: โ€œIf a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another manโ€™s field.โ€ Just as the field which is stated above belongs to the injured party, so too, the field stated below belongs to the injured party.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื™ืฉืœื ื“ื”ืื™ืš ื“ืงื ืžืฉืœื

And Rabbi Akiva holds: When the verse says: โ€œOf the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard shall he pay,โ€ it means from the best of the one who is paying, i.e., from the best fields belonging to the one who caused the damage.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื”ื ื™ ื’ื–ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืื”ื ื™ ืงืจื ืื”ื ื™ ื’ื–ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืœื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืื”ื ื™ ืงืจื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืžื–ื™ืง ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื•ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื ืฉื•ื™ื ื›ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื“ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ื” ืžืžื™ื˜ื‘

And how would Rabbi Yishmael respond to this? The verbal analogy between the two instances of the word โ€œfieldโ€ is effective, and the straightforward meaning of the verse itself is effective. The verbal analogy is effective, as we said. It serves to teach that when it says that he pays from the best of his field, it means from land equal in quality to the best field owned by the injured party. And the straightforward meaning of the verse itself is effective, as it serves to teach a different halakha, namely, that if the one who caused the damage has superior-quality land and inferior-quality land, and his inferior-quality land is not as good as the superior-quality land belonging to the injured party, the one who caused the damage pays the injured party from his best land, i.e., from the superior-quality land that he owns.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืœื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ

ยง The baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury collects from superior-quality land.

ืžืื™ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื ื’ื—ื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืœืชื•ืจื ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื•ืจ ืจืขื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: What is the a fortiori inference from ordinary damage to damage involving the consecrated property? To which case does this refer? If we say that our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, gored an ox that is consecrated property, there is a difficulty, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if one manโ€™s ox hurts anotherโ€™s oxโ€ (Exodus 21:35). This teaches that the halakha applies only if the ox hurt an ox belonging to another Jew, but not if it hurt an ox that is consecrated property. In the latter case no damages are collected.

ืืœื ืœืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื“ืืชื™ ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืช

Rather, we say that the a fortiori inference is not referring to a case of damage, but rather to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate one hundred dinars for Temple maintenance, and the inference teaches that if the one who took the vow has no money, then the Temple treasurer comes and collects the hundred dinars from his superior-quality land.

ืœื ื™ื”ื ืืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื“ื™ื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืงื™ืœ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื›ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ื‘ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ื‘ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ

The Gemara challenges this understanding: The Temple treasurer should not be treated any better than an ordinary creditor, and, as stated in the mishna, the halakha of a creditor is that he collects only from intermediate-quality land. And if you would say that Rabbi Akiva holds that even a creditor can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land like payment for damages, there is still a difficulty; the a fortiori inference can still be refuted in the following manner: If an ordinary creditor can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land, this is because the Torah enhanced his power with regard to payment for damages, as a common person can collect payment for damages caused him by anotherโ€™s ox. But can you say the same about the Temple treasury, with regard to which the Torah weakened its power with regard to payment for damages, not allowing it to collect such compensation?

ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ื ื’ื—ื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืœืชื•ืจื ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉื ื’ื— ืœืฉื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, we can explain that we are dealing here with a case where our ox gored an ox that is consecrated property, and Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya with regard to this issue, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If an ox that is consecrated property gored an ox belonging to a common person, the Temple treasury is exempt from liability. By contrast, if an ox belonging to a common person gored an ox that is consecrated property, whether the ox that gored the other ox was an innocuous ox [shor tam], i.e., an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure, or it was a forewarned ox [shor muad], i.e., an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox had already gored another ox three times, the oxโ€™s owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ื›ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืœืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

The Gemara asks: If so, from where do you know to say that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree about a case where the superior-quality land belonging to the injured party is equal in quality to the inferior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage, and the one who caused the damage also has land of superior quality, as the dispute was previously interpreted by Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov? Perhaps everyone, including Rabbi Akiva, agrees that we appraise the value of the land of the injured party, and here they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the Rabbis.

ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara explains this suggestion: As Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, that in the case of damage caused by the ox of a common person to the property of the Temple treasury, compensation is collected from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage. And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that the owner of the ox bears no liability.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืื™ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืื™ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is so that this is the disagreement, then what is the meaning of Rabbi Akivaโ€™s statement: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land? This indicates that Rabbi Akiva disagrees about how to understand this verse. And furthermore, if the subject is the Temple treasury, what is the meaning of: And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of consecrated property collects from superior-quality land. And furthermore, didnโ€™t Rav Ashi say:

ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื™ืง ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื™ืง

It is taught explicitly in a baraita: The verse: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of the best of the fields of the injured party, and of the best of the vineyards of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The appraisal is of the best of the fields of the one who caused the damage, and of the best of the vineyards of the one who caused the damage. This clearly indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva compensation is collected from the superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื“ืžื–ื™ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงืจื ื•ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืงืืžืจ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื

Ravina said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: By Torah law, we appraise the property of the one who caused the damage. And it is also in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason underlying the verse as a basis for drawing halakhic conclusions. And the mishna is saying: What is the reason for the halakha taught in the mishna? The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties? This is for the betterment of the world. That is to say, the words: For the betterment of the world, do not indicate a rabbinic enactment. Rather, they provide a reason for the Torah law.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ื ื•ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื—ืžืกื ื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืื“ื ืœืžื” ืื ื™ ื’ื•ื–ืœ ื•ืœืžื” ืื ื™ ื—ื•ืžืก ืœืžื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื›ืกื™ ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื“ื” ื ืื” ืฉืœื™ ื•ืกื•ืžื›ื™ื ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืืžืจื• ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 12:2) that Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason did the Sages say that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties? It is due to the robbers and due to those who take that which is not theirs by force [แธฅamsanin]. How so? So that a person will say: Why should I rob and why should I take by force? Tomorrow the court will come down to my property and take my finest field in order to compensate the victim for what I have robbed or taken by force. And the Sages rely on what is written in the Torah: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4). Consequently, they said that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties.

ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืจืื” ืื“ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉื“ื” ื ืื” ื•ื“ื™ืจื” ื ืื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืงืคื•ืฅ ื•ืืœื•ื ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืื’ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื™ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช

The baraita continues: For what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects his debt from intermediate-quality land? It is so that a person should not see anotherโ€™s fine field or fine house and say: I will jump in and lend him money so that later I will collect the field or house for my debt, if the borrower does not have enough money to repay the loan. Therefore, the Sages said that a creditor collects his debt only from intermediate-quality land, and he would not receive that fine field that would have prompted him to extend the loan in the first place.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื™ื”ื ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืื ื›ืŸ ืืชื” ื ื•ืขืœ ื“ืœืช ื‘ืคื ื™ ืœื•ื•ื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the objective is that people not be tempted to lend money for the purpose of acquiring the borrowerโ€™s property should he default on the loan, then the halakha governing a creditor should be to collect his debt from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: If so, then you would be locking the door before potential borrowers, as no one would be willing to lend them money.

ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืฉื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืžื” ืฉื”ืื™ืฉ ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืฉื ื”ืืฉื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื ืฉื

The baraita continues: Payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from inferior-quality land; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: It can be collected from intermediate-quality land. Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason did the Sages say that a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from inferior-quality land? It is because more than a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to become married to a man. Consequently, she will agree to marry even if she knows that she will not be able to collect payment of the marriage contract from superior-quality land.

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ืื” ืืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื•

Alternatively, it is because a woman is sent out from her husband with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends his wife out from his house only with his consent.

ืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื›ื™ ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืื™ื”ื• ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ืื™ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืชืงื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ื ื” ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื• ืืคืฉืจ ื“ืžืฉื”ื™ ืœื” ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he mentions an alternative explanation? What problem is there with the first explanation? The Gemara answers: The alternative explanation does not explain why she collects from inferior-quality land, but serves to explain a different matter. Since the Sages instituted a marriage contract in order to strengthen the institution of marriage, it is possible to ask: And if you would say that just as when a man divorces his wife the Sages instituted a marriage contract for her from him, so too, when she leaves him they should similarly institute a marriage contract for him from her; then come and hear: A woman is sent out from her husband with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends his wife out from his house only with his consent. Even if she instigates a quarrel with him to bait him into divorcing her, it is nevertheless possible for the husband to keep her waiting for a bill of divorce. A man gives his wife a bill of divorce only when he wishes to do so, and so in essence the divorce depends solely on him.

ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from inferior-quality land. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naแธฅman, said: We said that a woman collects her marriage contract from inferior-quality land only when her husband died and she collects payment from the orphans who inherit his estate. But if she was divorced and she collects payment from the husband himself, then she collects it from intermediate-quality land.

ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ื ืžื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to collecting from orphans, then why discuss specifically a womanโ€™s marriage contract? Even all matters, such as payment for damage, should also be collected from inferior-quality land when it is collected from orphans, as didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the fatherโ€™s debt can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the husband himself?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื™ื ื ืืงื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the orphans who inherit their fatherโ€™s estate. And it was necessary for the mishna to teach the halakha specifically with regard to a womanโ€™s marriage contract. As it could enter your mind to say that the Sages were more lenient with her for the sake of desirability, so that she would be a more desirable partner should she want to remarry, and consequently they allowed her to collect payment of her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even from orphans, the mishna teaches us that even payment for a womanโ€™s marriage contract is not collected from the intermediate-quality land of orphans, but only from their inferior-quality land.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ืžืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ื ืžื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช

Rava said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: Payment for a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from intermediate-quality land. The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: From whom does she collect payment of her marriage contract in this case? If we say that she is collecting from the orphans, it is possible to ask: Does Rabbi Meir not agree with that which we learned in the mishna: The fatherโ€™s debt can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land? Rather, is it not that the woman collects payment of her marriage contract from her husband himself? And since Rabbi Meir maintains that she collects from intermediate-quality land, one can learn by inference that the Rabbis hold that she collects from inferior-quality land, contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื™ื ื

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, actually it is possible to explain that the baraita is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the orphans who inherit their fatherโ€™s estate. And payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is different from other debts collected from orphans, which can be collected only from inferior-quality land. The Sages were more lenient with her for the sake of desirability; consequently, Rabbi Meir ruled that she may collect her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even if she is collecting it from orphans.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืžืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื”

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in the mishna: The court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties. And a creditor collects his debt from the debtorโ€™s intermediate-quality land. And payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from her husbandโ€™s inferior-quality land. The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: From whom is the collection being made? If we say that in all of these cases collection is being made from the orphans, why mention specifically a womanโ€™s marriage contract? Even all of these, i.e., even injured parties and creditors, should also collect only from inferior-quality land when collecting from orphans. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract from the husband himself, and it rules that she collects from inferior-quality land, contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ืขืจื‘ ืœื ื–ืงื™ ื‘ื ื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื›ืœืชื•

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: No proof can be brought from the mishna against the opinion of Mar Zutra, as the mishna can be understood as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one became a guarantor for compensation for his sonโ€™s damages, and similarly for repayment to his sonโ€™s creditor, and similarly for payment of his daughter-in-lawโ€™s marriage contract, and his son died. Since the guarantor stands in place of his son, collection is made from him as if it were being made from his son.

ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื ื’ื‘ื• ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืžื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืžื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื“ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ื’ื‘ื™ื ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ืžืžืืŸ ื’ื‘ื™ื ืžื™ืชืžื™ ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืžื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ืžื’ื‘ื™

And payment is made in this case in accordance with its halakha and payment is made in this case in accordance with its halakha. Since an injured party and a creditor ordinarily collect from those who owe them money while they are alive, when the guarantor pays the debt, he too pays the debt as though the one who caused the damage or borrowed the money were still alive. Therefore, in these cases collection is made from superior-quality or intermediate-quality land. But in this case, where the father serves as a guarantor for his son, payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is only after her husbandโ€™s death, and after his death from whom does she collect? From the orphans. Consequently, when the guarantor pays the debt, he too pays the debt as though it were being paid by the orphans after the husbandโ€™s death. Accordingly, payment for her marriage contract is made from inferior-quality land.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ืขืจื‘ ื“ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ื‘ืงื‘ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: But let him derive this halakha from another halakha that states that the guarantor of a marriage contract does not become responsible for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property. The signature that he adds to the marriage contract serves merely as additional support but does not turn him into a true guarantor. Therefore, even if a collection is made, it is only from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with an unconditional guarantor, i.e., one who accepted unconditional responsibility for the obligation, allowing his daughter-in-law to collect payment of her marriage contract either from his son or from him, as she so desires.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื‘ืœืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื ื›ืกื™ ืœืœื•ื” ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ืื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that an unconditional guarantor becomes responsible for repayment of the loan even if the borrower does not have property of his own. Therefore, it works out well to explain the case in this manner. But according to the one who says that if the borrower has property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor becomes responsible, but if the borrower does not have property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor does not become responsible, what is there to say in a case where the son did not have any property at the time of the marriage? In such a case, the father never became responsible for his sonโ€™s obligations.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื‘ื“ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ืฉืชื“ื•ืฃ

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that it is a case where the son had property of his own at the outset, but afterward it was blighted. Since the son had his own property, the father accepted responsibility for the obligation, and now that the property has no value, the daughter-in-law can collect payment for her marriage contract from the father.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื›ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจื™ื” ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ื™ ืžืฉืขื‘ื“ ื ืคืฉื™ื”

And if you wish say: With respect to anything relating to his son, it is common for a father to pledge himself absolutely, even when the son has no property of his own.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืจื‘ ื“ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“

ยง Apropos a guarantor for a marriage contract, the Gemara notes: It was stated that everyone agrees that a guarantor who signs a marriage contract does not thereby become responsible for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property.

Scroll To Top