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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 22, 2015 | 讚壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 109

转砖讘 注讚 砖转诇讘讬谉 专讗砖讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讗谞讬 驻住拽转讬 诇注爪诪讬 讗砖讘 注讚 砖转诇讘讬谉 专讗砖讬 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讘讗 驻住拽 诪讛 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注砖讜转 讗讜 讻谞讜住 讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉

the betrothed woman can be left to sit unwed in her father鈥檚 house until her head turns white. If the groom does not wish to marry without a dowry he cannot be forced to do so, as the father failed to fulfill his promise. Admon says that she can say: Had I apportioned the money myself and broken my promise, I would agree to sit until my head turns white. However, now that my father was the one who apportioned the dowry, what can I do? Either marry me or release me by a bill of divorce. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗讚诪讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讛驻讜住拽 诪注讜转 诇讞转谞讜 讜驻砖讟 诇讜 讗转 讛专讙诇 砖讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 讗讘讗 驻住拽 注诇讬 诪讛 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注砖讜转

GEMARA: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (13:1) that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Admon and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to one who promises and apportions money for his son-in-law as a dowry and subsequently went bankrupt, that the betrothed woman can say: My father apportioned money for me; what can I do?

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖驻住拽讛 讛讬讗 注诇 注爪诪讛 砖讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转砖讘 注讚 砖转诇讘讬谉 专讗砖讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 讻住讘讜专讛 讗谞讬 砖讗讘讗 谞讜转谉 注诇讬 讜注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 讗讘讗 谞讜转谉 注诇讬 诪讛 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注砖讜转 讗讜 讻谞讜住 讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉

With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to a case where she apportioned money for herself, as the Rabbis say: Let her sit until her head turns white, as she did not fulfill her promise. However, Admon says that she can say: I thought that my father would give the money for me, and now that my father is not giving the money for me, what can I do? Either marry me or release me. And it is with regard to this case that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, as the betrothed woman has no money of her own, and she was clearly relying on her father to provide the dowry.

转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讘 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜驻讬谉 诇讘注诇 诇讬转谉 讙讟

搂 It is taught: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an adult woman. However, with regard to a minor girl, the court compels payment. The Gemara asks: Whom do they compel? If we say that they coerce the father to pay, the tanna should have stated the opposite. It is more reasonable to suggest that the father is compelled to pay when an adult woman promises the money, as the promises of an adult are legally valid, whereas a minor is not legally competent and therefore her promises are of no consequence. Rather, Rava said: In the case of a minor, the court compels the groom either to give her a bill of divorce or to marry her.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘诪砖谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar said in the name of 岣zkiyya: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Does this halakhic principle apply even when the debate between Admon and the Rabbis is recorded in a baraita? Rav Na岣an said to him: Did we say: Anywhere it is recorded in the Mishna? We said: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said, which means even in a baraita.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Yirmeya said: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, i.e., Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai (see 107b); however, with regard to the seven statements that Admon said, the halakha is not in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, i.e., Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? What does this ruling mean?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讜砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜诇讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

If we say that this is what he is saying: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, and with regard to the seven statements that Admon said, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion and also not in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar say in the name of 岣zkiyya: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛讗 讻诪讜转讜 讛诇讻讛 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Rather, this is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and is also in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, i.e., Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai. With regard to the seven statements that Admon said, the halakha is not only in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Gamliel, who ruled similarly to Admon in three of these cases. Rather, the halakha is in accordance with Admon鈥檚 ruling in all seven cases.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗

The Gemara questions this interpretation: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar say in the name of 岣zkiyya: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? It may be inferred from here that in those cases concerning which Rabban Gamliel said his statement, yes, the halakha is in accordance with Admon鈥檚 ruling, but in those cases where Rabban Gamliel did not say his statement, no, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Admon.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讬砖 诪讛谉 砖讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 砖讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诇讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

Rather, this is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and is also in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him. With regard to the seven statements that Admon said, there are among these rulings those in which the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, and there are among these rulings those in which the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion but in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him.

讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讬谞讱 诇讗

The Gemara explains the above statement. In other words, anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, whereas in those other cases, where Rabban Gamliel remained silent, indicating that he did not agree with him, the halakha is not in accordance with Admon.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜专专 注诇 讛砖讚讛 讜讛讜讗 讞转讜诐 注诇讬讛 讘注讚 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讞 诇讬 讜讛专讗砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讛讬诪谞讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field under the control of someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is easier for me, as I can reason with him, but the first owner, who sold the field to the current holder, is more difficult to deal with than him. The claimant might have been afraid to protest against the first one, who is perhaps violent, and therefore he was even willing to sign as a witness to transfer the field to the control of someone more amenable to his ensuing protest.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜 注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

And the Rabbis say: He has lost his right to contest ownership, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the present holder. If he established that field as a marker for another field, everyone agrees that he has lost his right. In other words, if the claimant wrote a document concerning another field and in that document he listed the first field as a boundary marker and described it as belonging to someone else, even Admon concedes that he has lost his right, as he had no reason to say it belonged to someone else other than his belief this was in fact the case.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讘诇 讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽专讗讜讛讜

GEMARA: Abaye said: They taught this dispute only with regard to a witness who signed on a bill of sale. However, a judge who was contesting the ownership of a field and at the same time sat on a court that certified the bill of sale for that very tract of land has not lost his right. This is as Rabbi 岣yya taught: Witnesses do not sign a document unless they have read it, which means that a witness cannot reasonably claim that he is certifying only part of document; it is assumed that he read and is aware of everything it contains.

讗讘诇 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讞讜转诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 拽专讗讜讛讜

However, judges do sign a document even though they have not read it, as they are merely certifying the signatures without relating to the content of the document at all.

注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讗讘诇 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

搂 The mishna taught that if someone established a field as a marker for another field, everyone agrees that he has lost his right to contest its ownership. Abaye said: They taught this only in a case where he stated this in a document unrelated to the field in question, which was written for another person. However, if he established it as a marker for himself, when he was buying a different field owned by the person who is in possession of the contested field, he has not lost his right.

讚讗诪专 讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬 诇诪讬诪住专 诪讜讚注讗 讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讞讘专讗 讚讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The reason is that the claimant can say: Had I not done this act of writing that the field belongs to him, he would not have sold me this other field. What have you to say against this argument? Will you say that I should have put out a notice and declared in the presence of witnesses that I am forced to write this way in the contract? I was concerned about doing this, as your friend has a friend and your friend鈥檚 friend has a friend. In other words, it is hard to keep an announcement of this kind secret, and ultimately my notice would have become public knowledge and would have reached the owner of the field himself, and he would have refused to sell me the other tract of land.

讛讛讜讗 讚注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 注专注专 讜砖讻讬讘 讜讗讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讗转讗 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain individual who established a field as a marker for another field, with ownership of the first field ascribed to someone else. Later he contested the ownership of the first field, claiming it as his own, and he subsequently died. And prior to his death he had appointed a steward to manage the properties of his orphans. The steward came before Abaye. Abaye said to him: The deceased established the field as a marker for another, and therefore he has lost his right to contest ownership of the land.

讗诪专 讗讬 讛讜讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诐 讛讜讛 讟注讬谉 讜讗诪专 转诇诐 讗讞讚 注砖讬转讬 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讟注谉 讜讗诪专 转诇诐 讗讞讚 注砖讬转讬 诇讱 谞讗诪谉 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讬讛 诪讬讛转 转诇诐 讗讞讚

The steward said to Abaye: If the father of these orphans were alive he would have claimed and said: I established one furrow for you. In other words, the marker I established by means of this field was not meant as a reference to the entire field but only to a furrow at the edge of the field. Abaye said to him: You have spoken well, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he claimed and said: I established one furrow for you, he is deemed credible. Go and give him one furrow in any event, as you freely admit that at least one furrow belongs to the one currently in control of the property.

讛讜讛 注诇讛 专讬讻讘讗 讚讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诐 讛讜讛 讟注讬谉 讜讗诪专 讞讝专转讬 讜诇拽讞转讬 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讟注谉 讜讗诪专 讞讝专转讬 讜诇拽讞转讬讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 谞讜拽讬诐 讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讬讚注 诇讗驻讜讻讬 讘讝讻讜转讗 讚讬转诪讬

On that particular furrow there was a row of palm trees, which the steward did not want to lose. He said to Abaye: If the father of these orphans were alive he would have claimed and said: I did in fact sell the field to him, but I went back and bought it from him sometime later. Abaye said to him: You have spoken well, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he claimed and said: I went back and bought it from him, he is deemed credible. After the steward won his suit in court, Abaye said: One who wants to appoint a steward should appoint someone like this person, who knows how to look out for the rights of the orphans and how to argue on their behalf.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗讘讚讛 讚专讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬诇讱 诇讜 讘拽爪专讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽谞讛 诇讜 讚专讱 讘诪讗讛 诪谞讛 讗讜 讬驻专讞 讘讗讜讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who went overseas and in the meantime the path leading to his field was lost, e.g., the path he used to reach his land was taken over by the owner of the field through which it passed, so that its exact position is now unknown, Admon says: Let him go to his field by the shortest possible route. And the Rabbis say: Let him buy himself a path from an owner of a neighboring field at whatever price he can, even if it is one hundred dinars [maneh], or let him fly through the air.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛 讗专讘注讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讚诪讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that he is not automatically entitled to a path leading to his field? After all, Admon speaks well, as it was established that he owned a path beforehand. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is dealing with a case where the field was surrounded on four sides by the property of four different people. Each of the four properties adjoining his field belonged to a different person, each of whom denied that his path cut through his land. Since he is unable to prove his claim with regard to each one of them, he has no choice but to buy himself a new path. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason for the opinion of Admon?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讗转讜 诪讻讞 讗专讘注讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讚讗转讜 诪讻讞 讞讚 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪爪讬 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讚 讚讗转讬 诪讻讞 讗专讘注讛

Rava said: In a case where there are four owners of fields who come by virtue of four previous owners, and in a case where there are four owners who come by virtue of one previous owner of all four properties, everyone agrees that they may put off the claims of the owner of the field in the middle, as each can say: Your path did not cut through my property. When they disagree is in a case where there is one current owner of four fields who comes by virtue of four previous owners.

讗讚诪讜谉 住讘专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讻讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讙讘讱 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬 砖转拽转 砖转拽转 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专谞讗 砖讟专讗 诇诪专讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讬转 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

Rava elaborates: Admon holds that the claimant can say to the landowner: In any case, I have a path through your property. Although he cannot prove where the path ran, it was certainly within the perimeter of the landowner鈥檚 property that borders his own tract of land, and for this reason he selects the shortest route. And the Rabbis hold that the landowner can say to the man: If you will stay silent, then stay silent and we will compromise; and if not, I will return the document of each field to its previous owner and you will not be able to negotiate with them, as you do not know through which field your path passed.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讬拽诇讗 诇讘专转 讗讝讜诇 讬转诪讬 驻诇讜讙 诇谞讻住讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讛 讚讬拽诇讗 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his heirs, in his will: I am leaving a palm tree for my daughter. The orphans went and divided up the property and they did not give the daughter a palm tree at all. Rav Yosef thought to say that this is exactly like the case of the mishna, as each heir can say to her: The tree designated for you is not in my portion but in that of a different heir.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪爪讬 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讚讬拽诇讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讬讛讜 诇讬转讘讜 诇讛 讚讬拽诇讗 讜诇讬讛讚专讜 讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 诪专讬砖讗

Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? There, each and every one of the fields鈥 owners can put him off, as in fact the path might not have passed through his property, whereas here, the palm tree is in their possession, i.e., they all share the obligation to give her a tree, and each is illegally holding on to a share of it. Abaye adds: What is their remedy? Let them give her a palm tree and go back and divide the inherited property once again from the outset. Since the palm tree will be taken from one of the shares, they must redistribute the estate afresh.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讬拽诇讗 诇讘专转 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘讬拽 转专讬 驻诇讙讬 讚讚讬拽诇讗

The Gemara relates a similar story: There was a certain man who said to his heirs, in his will: I am leaving a palm tree for my daughter. He died and left behind two halves of palm trees, as there had been two trees he had shared with different business partners. The heirs wished to give the girl these two halves, despite the fact that tending to them would involve considerably more trouble than taking care of a single tree.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇转专讬 驻诇讙讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇转专讬 驻诇讙讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讚讬拽诇讗

Rav Ashi sat and posed a difficulty to the proposal of the heirs. Do people refer to two halves of a palm tree as a whole palm tree or not? If the statement of the dying father can reasonably be interpreted as referring to these two halves she is at a disadvantage, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Alternatively, if this is an unreasonable explanation of his wishes, they must give her a whole tree. Which alternative is correct? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said as follows in the name of Rava: People do in fact refer to two halves of a palm tree as a whole palm tree. Consequently, the heirs may fulfill their father鈥檚 dying wish by giving the girl the two halves they inherited.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 107-112 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about people owing money to others and their responsibility to pay it back. We will...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 109: She Should Wait for Him until Her Hair Turns White

More mishnayot, with the statements of Admon: When one promises a dowry, but goes bankrupt and can't provide it, the...

Ketubot 109

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 109

转砖讘 注讚 砖转诇讘讬谉 专讗砖讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讗谞讬 驻住拽转讬 诇注爪诪讬 讗砖讘 注讚 砖转诇讘讬谉 专讗砖讬 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讘讗 驻住拽 诪讛 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注砖讜转 讗讜 讻谞讜住 讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉

the betrothed woman can be left to sit unwed in her father鈥檚 house until her head turns white. If the groom does not wish to marry without a dowry he cannot be forced to do so, as the father failed to fulfill his promise. Admon says that she can say: Had I apportioned the money myself and broken my promise, I would agree to sit until my head turns white. However, now that my father was the one who apportioned the dowry, what can I do? Either marry me or release me by a bill of divorce. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗讚诪讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讛驻讜住拽 诪注讜转 诇讞转谞讜 讜驻砖讟 诇讜 讗转 讛专讙诇 砖讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 讗讘讗 驻住拽 注诇讬 诪讛 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注砖讜转

GEMARA: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (13:1) that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Admon and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to one who promises and apportions money for his son-in-law as a dowry and subsequently went bankrupt, that the betrothed woman can say: My father apportioned money for me; what can I do?

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖驻住拽讛 讛讬讗 注诇 注爪诪讛 砖讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转砖讘 注讚 砖转诇讘讬谉 专讗砖讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 讻住讘讜专讛 讗谞讬 砖讗讘讗 谞讜转谉 注诇讬 讜注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 讗讘讗 谞讜转谉 注诇讬 诪讛 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注砖讜转 讗讜 讻谞讜住 讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉

With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to a case where she apportioned money for herself, as the Rabbis say: Let her sit until her head turns white, as she did not fulfill her promise. However, Admon says that she can say: I thought that my father would give the money for me, and now that my father is not giving the money for me, what can I do? Either marry me or release me. And it is with regard to this case that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, as the betrothed woman has no money of her own, and she was clearly relying on her father to provide the dowry.

转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讘 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜驻讬谉 诇讘注诇 诇讬转谉 讙讟

搂 It is taught: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an adult woman. However, with regard to a minor girl, the court compels payment. The Gemara asks: Whom do they compel? If we say that they coerce the father to pay, the tanna should have stated the opposite. It is more reasonable to suggest that the father is compelled to pay when an adult woman promises the money, as the promises of an adult are legally valid, whereas a minor is not legally competent and therefore her promises are of no consequence. Rather, Rava said: In the case of a minor, the court compels the groom either to give her a bill of divorce or to marry her.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘诪砖谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar said in the name of 岣zkiyya: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Does this halakhic principle apply even when the debate between Admon and the Rabbis is recorded in a baraita? Rav Na岣an said to him: Did we say: Anywhere it is recorded in the Mishna? We said: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said, which means even in a baraita.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Yirmeya said: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, i.e., Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai (see 107b); however, with regard to the seven statements that Admon said, the halakha is not in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, i.e., Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? What does this ruling mean?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讜砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜诇讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

If we say that this is what he is saying: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, and with regard to the seven statements that Admon said, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion and also not in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar say in the name of 岣zkiyya: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛讗 讻诪讜转讜 讛诇讻讛 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Rather, this is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and is also in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, i.e., Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai. With regard to the seven statements that Admon said, the halakha is not only in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Gamliel, who ruled similarly to Admon in three of these cases. Rather, the halakha is in accordance with Admon鈥檚 ruling in all seven cases.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗

The Gemara questions this interpretation: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar say in the name of 岣zkiyya: Anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? It may be inferred from here that in those cases concerning which Rabban Gamliel said his statement, yes, the halakha is in accordance with Admon鈥檚 ruling, but in those cases where Rabban Gamliel did not say his statement, no, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Admon.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讬砖 诪讛谉 砖讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 砖讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诇讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

Rather, this is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: With regard to the two statements that 岣nan said, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and is also in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him. With regard to the seven statements that Admon said, there are among these rulings those in which the halakha is in accordance with his opinion and in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him, and there are among these rulings those in which the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion but in accordance with he who ruled similarly to him.

讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讬谞讱 诇讗

The Gemara explains the above statement. In other words, anywhere it is recorded that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, whereas in those other cases, where Rabban Gamliel remained silent, indicating that he did not agree with him, the halakha is not in accordance with Admon.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜专专 注诇 讛砖讚讛 讜讛讜讗 讞转讜诐 注诇讬讛 讘注讚 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讞 诇讬 讜讛专讗砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讛讬诪谞讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field under the control of someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is easier for me, as I can reason with him, but the first owner, who sold the field to the current holder, is more difficult to deal with than him. The claimant might have been afraid to protest against the first one, who is perhaps violent, and therefore he was even willing to sign as a witness to transfer the field to the control of someone more amenable to his ensuing protest.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜 注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

And the Rabbis say: He has lost his right to contest ownership, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the present holder. If he established that field as a marker for another field, everyone agrees that he has lost his right. In other words, if the claimant wrote a document concerning another field and in that document he listed the first field as a boundary marker and described it as belonging to someone else, even Admon concedes that he has lost his right, as he had no reason to say it belonged to someone else other than his belief this was in fact the case.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讘诇 讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽专讗讜讛讜

GEMARA: Abaye said: They taught this dispute only with regard to a witness who signed on a bill of sale. However, a judge who was contesting the ownership of a field and at the same time sat on a court that certified the bill of sale for that very tract of land has not lost his right. This is as Rabbi 岣yya taught: Witnesses do not sign a document unless they have read it, which means that a witness cannot reasonably claim that he is certifying only part of document; it is assumed that he read and is aware of everything it contains.

讗讘诇 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讞讜转诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 拽专讗讜讛讜

However, judges do sign a document even though they have not read it, as they are merely certifying the signatures without relating to the content of the document at all.

注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讗讘诇 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

搂 The mishna taught that if someone established a field as a marker for another field, everyone agrees that he has lost his right to contest its ownership. Abaye said: They taught this only in a case where he stated this in a document unrelated to the field in question, which was written for another person. However, if he established it as a marker for himself, when he was buying a different field owned by the person who is in possession of the contested field, he has not lost his right.

讚讗诪专 讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬 诇诪讬诪住专 诪讜讚注讗 讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讞讘专讗 讚讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The reason is that the claimant can say: Had I not done this act of writing that the field belongs to him, he would not have sold me this other field. What have you to say against this argument? Will you say that I should have put out a notice and declared in the presence of witnesses that I am forced to write this way in the contract? I was concerned about doing this, as your friend has a friend and your friend鈥檚 friend has a friend. In other words, it is hard to keep an announcement of this kind secret, and ultimately my notice would have become public knowledge and would have reached the owner of the field himself, and he would have refused to sell me the other tract of land.

讛讛讜讗 讚注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 注专注专 讜砖讻讬讘 讜讗讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讗转讗 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注砖讗讛 住讬诪谉 诇讗讞专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain individual who established a field as a marker for another field, with ownership of the first field ascribed to someone else. Later he contested the ownership of the first field, claiming it as his own, and he subsequently died. And prior to his death he had appointed a steward to manage the properties of his orphans. The steward came before Abaye. Abaye said to him: The deceased established the field as a marker for another, and therefore he has lost his right to contest ownership of the land.

讗诪专 讗讬 讛讜讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诐 讛讜讛 讟注讬谉 讜讗诪专 转诇诐 讗讞讚 注砖讬转讬 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讟注谉 讜讗诪专 转诇诐 讗讞讚 注砖讬转讬 诇讱 谞讗诪谉 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讬讛 诪讬讛转 转诇诐 讗讞讚

The steward said to Abaye: If the father of these orphans were alive he would have claimed and said: I established one furrow for you. In other words, the marker I established by means of this field was not meant as a reference to the entire field but only to a furrow at the edge of the field. Abaye said to him: You have spoken well, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he claimed and said: I established one furrow for you, he is deemed credible. Go and give him one furrow in any event, as you freely admit that at least one furrow belongs to the one currently in control of the property.

讛讜讛 注诇讛 专讬讻讘讗 讚讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诐 讛讜讛 讟注讬谉 讜讗诪专 讞讝专转讬 讜诇拽讞转讬 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讟注谉 讜讗诪专 讞讝专转讬 讜诇拽讞转讬讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 谞讜拽讬诐 讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讬讚注 诇讗驻讜讻讬 讘讝讻讜转讗 讚讬转诪讬

On that particular furrow there was a row of palm trees, which the steward did not want to lose. He said to Abaye: If the father of these orphans were alive he would have claimed and said: I did in fact sell the field to him, but I went back and bought it from him sometime later. Abaye said to him: You have spoken well, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he claimed and said: I went back and bought it from him, he is deemed credible. After the steward won his suit in court, Abaye said: One who wants to appoint a steward should appoint someone like this person, who knows how to look out for the rights of the orphans and how to argue on their behalf.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗讘讚讛 讚专讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬诇讱 诇讜 讘拽爪专讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽谞讛 诇讜 讚专讱 讘诪讗讛 诪谞讛 讗讜 讬驻专讞 讘讗讜讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who went overseas and in the meantime the path leading to his field was lost, e.g., the path he used to reach his land was taken over by the owner of the field through which it passed, so that its exact position is now unknown, Admon says: Let him go to his field by the shortest possible route. And the Rabbis say: Let him buy himself a path from an owner of a neighboring field at whatever price he can, even if it is one hundred dinars [maneh], or let him fly through the air.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 讗讚诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛 讗专讘注讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讚诪讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that he is not automatically entitled to a path leading to his field? After all, Admon speaks well, as it was established that he owned a path beforehand. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is dealing with a case where the field was surrounded on four sides by the property of four different people. Each of the four properties adjoining his field belonged to a different person, each of whom denied that his path cut through his land. Since he is unable to prove his claim with regard to each one of them, he has no choice but to buy himself a new path. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason for the opinion of Admon?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讗转讜 诪讻讞 讗专讘注讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讚讗转讜 诪讻讞 讞讚 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪爪讬 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讚 讚讗转讬 诪讻讞 讗专讘注讛

Rava said: In a case where there are four owners of fields who come by virtue of four previous owners, and in a case where there are four owners who come by virtue of one previous owner of all four properties, everyone agrees that they may put off the claims of the owner of the field in the middle, as each can say: Your path did not cut through my property. When they disagree is in a case where there is one current owner of four fields who comes by virtue of four previous owners.

讗讚诪讜谉 住讘专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讻讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讙讘讱 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬 砖转拽转 砖转拽转 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专谞讗 砖讟专讗 诇诪专讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讬转 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

Rava elaborates: Admon holds that the claimant can say to the landowner: In any case, I have a path through your property. Although he cannot prove where the path ran, it was certainly within the perimeter of the landowner鈥檚 property that borders his own tract of land, and for this reason he selects the shortest route. And the Rabbis hold that the landowner can say to the man: If you will stay silent, then stay silent and we will compromise; and if not, I will return the document of each field to its previous owner and you will not be able to negotiate with them, as you do not know through which field your path passed.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讬拽诇讗 诇讘专转 讗讝讜诇 讬转诪讬 驻诇讜讙 诇谞讻住讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讛 讚讬拽诇讗 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his heirs, in his will: I am leaving a palm tree for my daughter. The orphans went and divided up the property and they did not give the daughter a palm tree at all. Rav Yosef thought to say that this is exactly like the case of the mishna, as each heir can say to her: The tree designated for you is not in my portion but in that of a different heir.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪爪讬 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讚讬拽诇讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讬讛讜 诇讬转讘讜 诇讛 讚讬拽诇讗 讜诇讬讛讚专讜 讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 诪专讬砖讗

Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? There, each and every one of the fields鈥 owners can put him off, as in fact the path might not have passed through his property, whereas here, the palm tree is in their possession, i.e., they all share the obligation to give her a tree, and each is illegally holding on to a share of it. Abaye adds: What is their remedy? Let them give her a palm tree and go back and divide the inherited property once again from the outset. Since the palm tree will be taken from one of the shares, they must redistribute the estate afresh.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讬拽诇讗 诇讘专转 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘讬拽 转专讬 驻诇讙讬 讚讚讬拽诇讗

The Gemara relates a similar story: There was a certain man who said to his heirs, in his will: I am leaving a palm tree for my daughter. He died and left behind two halves of palm trees, as there had been two trees he had shared with different business partners. The heirs wished to give the girl these two halves, despite the fact that tending to them would involve considerably more trouble than taking care of a single tree.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇转专讬 驻诇讙讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇转专讬 驻诇讙讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讚讬拽诇讗

Rav Ashi sat and posed a difficulty to the proposal of the heirs. Do people refer to two halves of a palm tree as a whole palm tree or not? If the statement of the dying father can reasonably be interpreted as referring to these two halves she is at a disadvantage, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Alternatively, if this is an unreasonable explanation of his wishes, they must give her a whole tree. Which alternative is correct? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said as follows in the name of Rava: People do in fact refer to two halves of a palm tree as a whole palm tree. Consequently, the heirs may fulfill their father鈥檚 dying wish by giving the girl the two halves they inherited.

Scroll To Top