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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 25, 2015 | 讝壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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)

Ketubot 110

Study Guide Ketubot 110

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讞讘专讜 讜讛诇讛 讛讜爪讬讗 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 砖讬讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讱 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讛驻专注 讗转 砖诇讱 讻砖诪讻专转 诇讬 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讛讬讛 驻拽讞 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专拽注 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇诪砖讻谞讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, and this borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected your loan when you sold me the field, and you would not have needed to sell it. And the Rabbis say: This is no proof, as it is possible that this lender was perspicacious, as he sold the borrower the land for a good reason, because now he can take the field as collateral from him in lieu of the outstanding loan.

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 讘讗转专讗 讚讬讛讘讬 讝讜讝讬 讜讛讚专 讻转讘讬 砖讟专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇驻专讜注 讗转 砖诇讱 讻砖诪讻专转 诇讬 讗转 讛砖讚讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? After all, Admon is saying well. The Gemara explains: In a place where people first give money and only afterward they write the bill of sale, everyone agrees that the borrower can say to the lender: You should have collected your debt when you sold me the field, i.e., when you received money from me you should have said that it is not for the field but is repayment of the debt I owed you.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗转专讗 讚讻转讘讬 砖讟专讗 讜讛讚专 讬讛讘讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讚诪讜谉 住讘专 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪住专 诪讜讚注讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 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

When they disagree is with regard to a place where people first write out the bill of sale and only afterward they give money. Admon holds that the lender should have put out a preemptive declaration, i.e., he should have earlier told witnesses that he is selling the field only so it can be used as collateral, and this transaction should not be taken as an indication that the buyer is not indebted to him. And the Rabbis hold that the lender may argue: Your friend has a friend and your friend鈥檚 friend has a friend, i.e., word of my intention to use the field as collateral would have come back to the borrower and he would not have agreed to the transaction, and that is why I did not issue any declaration.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗转讛 诇讜讛 诪诪谞讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 砖讟专 讞讜讘讜 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 砖讟专 讞讜讘讜

MISHNA: With regard to two people who each produced a promissory note of a monetary debt against the other, Admon says: The one holding the note with the later date can say to the first: If I owed you money, how is it that you are borrowing from me? You should have sued to collect your debt. This is proof that your document is a forgery. And the Rabbis say: This one collects his promissory note, and that one collects his promissory note.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讛驻讜讻讬 诪讟专转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘砖诇讜

GEMARA: It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the case of two people who each produced a promissory note against the other for the same value. Rav Na岣an said: This one collects his debt and that one collects his debt. Rav Sheshet said: Why do I need to shift donkey packs [matrata] from one side to the other? Rather, as each will retain the same sum, let this one stand with his money and let that one stand with his money.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讬讚讬转 讜注讬讚讬转 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讚讗讬 讛驻讜讻讬 诪讟专转讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara analyses this dispute: Everyone agrees that if the field of one of the parties, which served as guarantee for the promissory note, was superior-quality land and the other person also had superior-quality land, or one had intermediate-quality land and the other had intermediate-quality land, or one had inferior-quality land and the other had inferior-quality land, this is certainly considered like shifting donkey packs, i.e., it is an exercise in futility, as there is no reason to exchange their money.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜诇讞讚 讝讬讘讜专讬转 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 拽住讘专 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉

When they disagree is in a case where one has intermediate-quality land and the other one has inferior-quality land. Rav Na岣an holds that this one collects his debt and that one collect his debt, as he holds that one assesses the quality of land on the basis of his own fields, i.e., if the borrower has different types of land, then his best land is classified as superior-quality land, the next best is considered intermediate-quality land, and his worst fields are called inferior-quality land.

讗转讬 讘注诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讙讘讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讛讜讛 讙讘讬讛 注讬讚讬转 讜讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讜砖拽讬诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转

Consequently, the owner of inferior-quality land, Reuven, will come and collect his debt from the intermediate-quality land of his debtor, Shimon, in accordance with the halakha that a creditor collects payment from intermediate-quality land. Since Shimon does not have any land that is inferior, Reuven necessarily takes his debt from that land. However, at this stage the land Reuven took from Shimon is considered for him superior-quality land, as all of his other fields are of lower quality than the field he took. And therefore, that other creditor, Shimon, comes to collect his debt from Reuven, and takes from inferior-quality land, as the intermediate-quality land that Reuven took from Shimon is now, relative to Reuven鈥檚 other field, classified as superior-quality land. Consequently, each debtor will take different fields from the other, despite the fact that they owe the same sum.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讛驻讜讻讬 诪讟专转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽住讘专 讘砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗转讬 讛讛讜讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽砖拽讬诇

And Rav Sheshet, who said: Why do I need to shift donkey packs, holds that the quality of the land is not assessed differently for each individual borrower. Rather, one assesses the quality of land on the basis of the lands of all people, i.e., there is a standard measure of land quality which applies to everyone. If so, then ultimately, when that second debtor, Shimon, comes to collect from Reuven he will take back his own intermediate-quality land, i.e., the field that Reuven took from him only a short while earlier. Consequently, no purpose is served by going through this process.

讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗转讬 讘注诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转讬 讘注诇 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜诇讬讙讘讬 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜诇讬讛讚专 讜诇讬讙讘讬 谞讬讛诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an, what did you see that led you to establish that the owner of inferior-quality land will come and collect his debt first, as described above? Let the owner of intermediate-quality land come first and collect inferior-quality land from the other party, as that is all he possesses. In this scenario, the intermediate-quality land in the possession of the one who collected his debt will be classified as high quality, while his inferior-quality field will be considered of intermediate quality. And therefore let the other return and collect the same portion of land that he took from him. Once again, this is an apparently unnecessary exchange.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 转讘注讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗转讜 诇诪讙讘讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where the owner of the low-quality land happened to precede the other and claim from him first. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, when they come to collect their respective debts, they come together, which means that they will pass the same portion of land back and forth.

讗诇讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 注讬讚讬转 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 讝讬讘讜专讬转 诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉

Rather, the Gemara provides an alternative explanation: No, this dispute is necessary in a case where one has superior-quality land and intermediate-quality land, and the other one has only inferior-quality land. One Sage, Rav Na岣an, holds that one assesses the quality of land on the basis of his own fields. Consequently, the owner of the low-quality land stands to gain, as he collects intermediate-quality land from the other and pays low-quality land in return, regardless of the order of the claims. And one Sage, Rav Sheshet, holds that the court appraises the quality of land on the basis of the lands of all people, which means that they will be trading the same plot of land back and forth.

转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 转专讙诪讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讜讛 讝讛 诇注砖专 讜讝讛 诇讞诪砖

We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: This one collects his promissory note and that one collects his promissory note. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Sheshet. Rav Na岣an himself interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: This is referring to a situation, for example, where this one borrowed for a period of ten years and that one borrowed for five years. In this case it makes sense to say that each collects as stated in the promissory note in his possession.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讗砖讜谉 诇注砖专 讜砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗转讛 诇讜讛 诪诪谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 诇讞诪砖 讜砖谞讬 诇注砖专

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the first one borrowed for ten years and the second for five, is this the case in which Admon would say: If I owed you money, how is it that you are borrowing from me? After all, the due date has not yet arrived for the second person to pay his debt. Perhaps the other creditor needs money to sustain himself for the next five years. Rather, the first one borrowed for five years and the second for ten years.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讚诪讜谉

The Gemara continues to inquire: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the due date of the first promissory note had already arrived when the second loan was issued, what is the rationale for the ruling of the Rabbis? The second person should not have borrowed money from the first, as he should have instead collected payment on the debt owed to him. And if the due date had not yet arrived, the second person clearly cannot demand his money, as the due date had not yet arrived, and perhaps he simply was in need of available money. And if so, what is the rationale for the opinion of Admon?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讞诪砖 诪专 住讘专 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讝讬祝 诇讬讜诪讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讝讬祝 诇讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he came on exactly that day when the five years of the first loan were completed. The dispute is as follows: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a person will take out a loan even for one day, and one Sage, Admon, holds that a person will not take out a loan for one day, and therefore he would have waited one day to receive payment of the debt owed to him.

专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讬转诪讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬转诪讬 诪讬讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讗讙讘讜讬讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 专讗讜讬 诇讙讘讜转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜

Rami bar 岣ma stated a different answer: Here we are dealing with orphans, i.e., one of the debtors died without leaving any landed properties, as orphans collect debts owed to their father but others do not collect from them the debts their father owed. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis that each collects based on the document in his possession has practical ramifications. The Gemara asks: But the mishna teaches that this one collects his promissory note and that one collects his promissory note, whereas according to this interpretation only the orphans collect the debts they are owed. The Gemara answers: The mishna means that this one collects, and that one has the potential to collect but he does not have any land from which he may legally collect his debt.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 诇讙讘讬谞讛讜 讗专注讗 诇讬转诪讬 讜诇讬讛讚专 讜诇讬讙讘讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讘讞讜讘转 讗讘讬讛谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讞讜讝专 讜讙讜讘讛 讗讜转谉 诪讛谉 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: There are two responses to this explanation. One is that the mishna teaches that this one collects his promissory note and that one collects his promissory note, which indicates that each actually collects what is owed to him, not that one is entitled to collect it but may not do so in practice. And furthermore, let him give land to the orphans and return and collect it from them, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an. As Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With regard to orphans who collected land in payment of their father鈥檚 debt, a creditor may come back and collect it from them. The Gemara comments: This does pose a difficulty for the explanation of Rami bar 岣ma.

讜诇讜拽诪讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 注讬讚讬转 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讗讝诇讬 讬转诪讬 讙讘讜 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜诪讙讘讜 诇讬讛 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讛讗 讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讝讬讘讜专讬转

搂 The Gemara asks: And let us establish the mishna as referring to a case where the orphans have inferior-quality land, and he himself, the other creditor, has both superior-quality land and intermediate-quality land. In this scenario the orphans go and collect intermediate-quality land from him, while they give him inferior-quality land in payment of the debt owed to him by their father. The reason is that even if the halakha is that one assesses the quality of land on the basis of the lands of all people, and therefore the other creditor should be able to collect intermediate-quality land from the orphans, there is a principle that one collects a debt from the property of orphans only from inferior-quality land.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 转驻住 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转驻住 转驻住

The Gemara answers: This applies only to a case where the lender has not as yet seized any land from the orphans in payment of his debt. However, where he has seized intermediate-quality land, he has seized that land. Since he is already in possession of a field, it is not taken from him. In these circumstances there is no significance to each party collecting from the other.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 讜诪讻专讱 诇讻专讱 讗讘诇 讘讗讜转讛 讛讗专抓 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 讜诪讻专讱 诇讻专讱

MISHNA: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to marriage: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If a man marries a woman in one of these lands he may not remove her from one town to another town in another of these lands or from one city to another city, i.e., he cannot compel her to move to another land. However, in the same land one may remove her from one town to another town or from one city to another city.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注讬专 诇讻专讱 讜诇讗 诪讻专讱 诇注讬专

However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town.

诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪谞讜讛 讛专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 诪谞讜讛 专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讬驻讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 讘讜讚拽

The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e., one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻专讱 诇注讬专 讚讘讻专讱 砖讻讬讞讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬专 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗诇讗 诪注讬专 诇讻专讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that one may not force one鈥檚 spouse to move from a city to a town or from a town to a city, the Gemara asks: Granted, one may not remove her from a city to a town, as all items are readily available in a city, whereas in a town all items are not as available, and therefore the wife can argue that living in a town is inconvenient for her. However, what is the reason that the husband cannot compel her to move from a town to the city?

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讬砖讬讘转 讻专讻讬诐 拽砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘专讻讜 讛注诐 诇讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐 诇砖讘转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, as Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in cities is difficult? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem鈥 (Nehemiah 11:2). This shows that living in a city is difficult, due to the noise and the general hubbub of an urban area.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬谞讜讬 讜住转 转讞诇转 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讘谉 住讬专讗 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬谞讜讬 讜住转 转讞诇转 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one鈥檚 eating habits [veset] or in one鈥檚 place of residence is the start of intestinal disease. Similarly, it is written in Sefer Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. And yet there are Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor eat well. Once again, the Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one鈥檚 eating habits or in one鈥檚 place of residence is the start of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the better.

讘谉 住讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讬诇讜转 讘砖驻诇 讙讙讬诐 讙讙讜 讜讘诪专讜诐 讛专讬诐 讻专诪讜 诪诪讟专 讙讙讬诐 诇讙讙讜 讜诪注驻专 讻专诪讜 诇讻专诪讬诐

Since the Gemara quoted from Sefer Ben Sira, it cites the rest of the passage concerning the terrible days of the poor. Ben Sira says: Even the nights of the poor are bad. His roof is at the low point of the roofs, i.e., his residence is at the lowest point in the city, and his vineyard is at the mountain peaks, at the highest point of the slope, which means that the rain of roofs washes down to his roof, and the soil of his vineyard to other vineyards, i.e., the rain washes away the soil in his vineyard and carries it away to the vineyards below.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛谞砖讬诐

MISHNA: All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one鈥檚 family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙专砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙专砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讙专砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讙专砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗

The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia.

讙诪壮 讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna stated: All can force the members of their family to ascend. The Gemara asks: This inclusive phrase serves to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include slaves, i.e., Hebrew slaves as well may be coerced to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael with their master鈥檚 family against their will.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one whose text of the mishna expressly teaches the case of slaves, this phrase comes to include what case? As stated later in the Gemara, there are some editions of the mishna that state that this halakha applies equally to men, women, and slaves. The Gemara answers: It comes to include one who moves from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence, i.e., one may coerce his family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael even from a good residence abroad to an inferior one in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讘谞讬讛 讛讻讗 讜讝讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讬讘转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

搂 The mishna further taught: But all may not remove others. Once again the Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a Canaanite slave who ran away from his master and came from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, as we say to the master: Sell your slave here, in Eretz Yisrael, and then you may go and return abroad, but you may not take the slave abroad with you, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛

搂 The mishna taught: All may force others to ascend to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks once again: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a move from a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Jerusalem.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讜讛 讛专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉

搂 The mishna taught: And all may not remove them from Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include even a move from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence. The Gemara adds: And since the tanna of the mishna taught: But one may not remove, in the first clause, he also taught: But one may not remove, in the latter clause, despite the fact that this halakha could have been inferred from the first clause.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇注诇讜转 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 砖诇讗 诇注诇讜转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇注诇讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转爪讗 讘诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇注诇讜转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 诇注诇讜转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇注诇讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

The Sages taught: If the husband says that he wishes to ascend, i.e., to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and his wife says that she does not wish to ascend, one forces her to ascend. And if she will not do so, as she resists all attempts to force her to make the move, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract, i.e., she forfeits her rights to the benefits outlined in the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and he says that he does not wish to ascend, one forces him to ascend. And if he does not wish to immigrate, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇爪讗转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转爪讗 讘诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇爪讗转 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

If she says that she wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he says that he does not wish to leave, one forces her not to leave. And if she does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael and resists all attempts to force her to stay, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract. If he says that he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael and she says that she does not wish to leave, one forces him not to leave. And if he does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讻讜壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗

搂 The mishna taught that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he must pay her the marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. The same is true if he married her in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the rulings provided by the mishna.

拽转谞讬 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙专砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 砖讬注讘讜讚讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讙专砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara elaborates: The mishna first teaches that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the customs of the place of the lien, i.e., he pays with the currency of the location of the wedding, where the obligation came into force. Now, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the place of the collection of the money.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讻转讜讘讛 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 拽住讘专 讻转讜讘讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rabba said: The Sages taught here one of the leniencies that apply to a marriage contract. The leniency is that the husband pays with the less valuable currency of Eretz Yisrael in both cases, whether the wedding or the divorce occurred there. This is because the tanna of this mishna holds that a marriage contract applies by rabbinic law.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 拽住讘专 讻转讜讘讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

搂 The mishna taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he pays her the marriage contract in the currency of Cappadocia. The Gemara explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a marriage contract applies by Torah law, which means that its debt must be paid according to its highest possible value. Consequently, one follows the place in which the obligation was formed, which is the halakha for all deeds and contracts, and there is no room for leniency in this matter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讘讘诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讘讘诇 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讜讘 讘讜 住转诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讘讘诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讘讘诇 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讻住祝 住转诐 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 诇讜讛 诪讙讘讛讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讻转讜讘讛

The Sages taught: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, if Babylonia is written in it, he pays it with the currency of Babylonia; if Eretz Yisrael is written in it, he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. In a case where it is written without specification as to where the document was written, if he produced it in Babylonia he pays it with the currency of Babylonia and if he produced it in Eretz Yisrael he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. If the note mentions money without specification of what type of coins are to be used, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes, even the smallest denomination available. However, this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract.

讗讛讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻转讜讘讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to this last statement, that this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract: To which part of the baraita is this referring? Rav Mesharshiyya said: It is referring back to the first clause, that if the promissory note mentions Babylonia one pays with Babylonian currency. This indicates that one invariably pays based on the place where the document was written. The tanna adds that this principle does not apply to a marriage contract, as one pays based on the place where a marriage contract was written only if this would lead to a leniency, as explained above (Rid). This ruling comes to exclude the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that that a marriage contract applies by Torah law and must always be paid in the currency of the place in which the obligation was first formed.

讻转讜讘 讘讜 讻住祝 住转诐 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 诇讜讛 诪讙讘讛讜 讜讗讬诪讗 谞住讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讟讘注 讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讬讟讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻专讬讟讬 讚讻住驻讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬

搂 The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita, which teaches: If the note mentions money [kesef ] without specification, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes. The Gemara asks: But can鈥檛 one say that perhaps the document was not speaking of coins but of silver [kesef ] strips? Rabbi Elazar said: The baraita is referring to a case in which it is written in the document: Coins, although it does not specify which ones. The Gemara further asks: And can鈥檛 one say that one may pay off the debt with perutot, a small denomination? Rav Pappa said: People do not ordinarily mint perutot of silver, as they reserve silver for larger denominations.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讬讚讜专 讗讚诐 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讗诇 讬讚讜专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻诇 讛讚专 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇讜讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇转转 诇讻诐 讗转 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 诇讛讬讜转 诇讻诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐

搂 In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: 鈥淭o give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God鈥 (Leviticus 25:38).

讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讚专 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讚专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讘讚讜讚 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讙专砖讜谞讬 讛讬讜诐 诪讛住转驻讞 讘谞讞诇转 讛壮 诇讗诪专 诇讱 注讘讜讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讚讜讚 诇讱 注讘讜讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讚专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: 鈥淔or they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods鈥 (I聽Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 拽诪砖转诪讬讟 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘注讗 诇诪讬住拽 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诪讘讘诇 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讜讘专 讘注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated:

  • 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!

Ketubot 110

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 110

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讞讘专讜 讜讛诇讛 讛讜爪讬讗 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 砖讬讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讱 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讛驻专注 讗转 砖诇讱 讻砖诪讻专转 诇讬 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讛讬讛 驻拽讞 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专拽注 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇诪砖讻谞讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, and this borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected your loan when you sold me the field, and you would not have needed to sell it. And the Rabbis say: This is no proof, as it is possible that this lender was perspicacious, as he sold the borrower the land for a good reason, because now he can take the field as collateral from him in lieu of the outstanding loan.

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 讘讗转专讗 讚讬讛讘讬 讝讜讝讬 讜讛讚专 讻转讘讬 砖讟专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇驻专讜注 讗转 砖诇讱 讻砖诪讻专转 诇讬 讗转 讛砖讚讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? After all, Admon is saying well. The Gemara explains: In a place where people first give money and only afterward they write the bill of sale, everyone agrees that the borrower can say to the lender: You should have collected your debt when you sold me the field, i.e., when you received money from me you should have said that it is not for the field but is repayment of the debt I owed you.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗转专讗 讚讻转讘讬 砖讟专讗 讜讛讚专 讬讛讘讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讚诪讜谉 住讘专 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪住专 诪讜讚注讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 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

When they disagree is with regard to a place where people first write out the bill of sale and only afterward they give money. Admon holds that the lender should have put out a preemptive declaration, i.e., he should have earlier told witnesses that he is selling the field only so it can be used as collateral, and this transaction should not be taken as an indication that the buyer is not indebted to him. And the Rabbis hold that the lender may argue: Your friend has a friend and your friend鈥檚 friend has a friend, i.e., word of my intention to use the field as collateral would have come back to the borrower and he would not have agreed to the transaction, and that is why I did not issue any declaration.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗转讛 诇讜讛 诪诪谞讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 砖讟专 讞讜讘讜 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 砖讟专 讞讜讘讜

MISHNA: With regard to two people who each produced a promissory note of a monetary debt against the other, Admon says: The one holding the note with the later date can say to the first: If I owed you money, how is it that you are borrowing from me? You should have sued to collect your debt. This is proof that your document is a forgery. And the Rabbis say: This one collects his promissory note, and that one collects his promissory note.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讛驻讜讻讬 诪讟专转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘砖诇讜

GEMARA: It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the case of two people who each produced a promissory note against the other for the same value. Rav Na岣an said: This one collects his debt and that one collects his debt. Rav Sheshet said: Why do I need to shift donkey packs [matrata] from one side to the other? Rather, as each will retain the same sum, let this one stand with his money and let that one stand with his money.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讬讚讬转 讜注讬讚讬转 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讚讗讬 讛驻讜讻讬 诪讟专转讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara analyses this dispute: Everyone agrees that if the field of one of the parties, which served as guarantee for the promissory note, was superior-quality land and the other person also had superior-quality land, or one had intermediate-quality land and the other had intermediate-quality land, or one had inferior-quality land and the other had inferior-quality land, this is certainly considered like shifting donkey packs, i.e., it is an exercise in futility, as there is no reason to exchange their money.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜诇讞讚 讝讬讘讜专讬转 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 拽住讘专 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉

When they disagree is in a case where one has intermediate-quality land and the other one has inferior-quality land. Rav Na岣an holds that this one collects his debt and that one collect his debt, as he holds that one assesses the quality of land on the basis of his own fields, i.e., if the borrower has different types of land, then his best land is classified as superior-quality land, the next best is considered intermediate-quality land, and his worst fields are called inferior-quality land.

讗转讬 讘注诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讙讘讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讛讜讛 讙讘讬讛 注讬讚讬转 讜讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讜砖拽讬诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转

Consequently, the owner of inferior-quality land, Reuven, will come and collect his debt from the intermediate-quality land of his debtor, Shimon, in accordance with the halakha that a creditor collects payment from intermediate-quality land. Since Shimon does not have any land that is inferior, Reuven necessarily takes his debt from that land. However, at this stage the land Reuven took from Shimon is considered for him superior-quality land, as all of his other fields are of lower quality than the field he took. And therefore, that other creditor, Shimon, comes to collect his debt from Reuven, and takes from inferior-quality land, as the intermediate-quality land that Reuven took from Shimon is now, relative to Reuven鈥檚 other field, classified as superior-quality land. Consequently, each debtor will take different fields from the other, despite the fact that they owe the same sum.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讛驻讜讻讬 诪讟专转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽住讘专 讘砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗转讬 讛讛讜讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽砖拽讬诇

And Rav Sheshet, who said: Why do I need to shift donkey packs, holds that the quality of the land is not assessed differently for each individual borrower. Rather, one assesses the quality of land on the basis of the lands of all people, i.e., there is a standard measure of land quality which applies to everyone. If so, then ultimately, when that second debtor, Shimon, comes to collect from Reuven he will take back his own intermediate-quality land, i.e., the field that Reuven took from him only a short while earlier. Consequently, no purpose is served by going through this process.

讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗转讬 讘注诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转讬 讘注诇 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜诇讬讙讘讬 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜诇讬讛讚专 讜诇讬讙讘讬 谞讬讛诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an, what did you see that led you to establish that the owner of inferior-quality land will come and collect his debt first, as described above? Let the owner of intermediate-quality land come first and collect inferior-quality land from the other party, as that is all he possesses. In this scenario, the intermediate-quality land in the possession of the one who collected his debt will be classified as high quality, while his inferior-quality field will be considered of intermediate quality. And therefore let the other return and collect the same portion of land that he took from him. Once again, this is an apparently unnecessary exchange.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 转讘注讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗转讜 诇诪讙讘讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where the owner of the low-quality land happened to precede the other and claim from him first. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, when they come to collect their respective debts, they come together, which means that they will pass the same portion of land back and forth.

讗诇讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 注讬讚讬转 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 讝讬讘讜专讬转 诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉

Rather, the Gemara provides an alternative explanation: No, this dispute is necessary in a case where one has superior-quality land and intermediate-quality land, and the other one has only inferior-quality land. One Sage, Rav Na岣an, holds that one assesses the quality of land on the basis of his own fields. Consequently, the owner of the low-quality land stands to gain, as he collects intermediate-quality land from the other and pays low-quality land in return, regardless of the order of the claims. And one Sage, Rav Sheshet, holds that the court appraises the quality of land on the basis of the lands of all people, which means that they will be trading the same plot of land back and forth.

转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 转专讙诪讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讜讛 讝讛 诇注砖专 讜讝讛 诇讞诪砖

We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: This one collects his promissory note and that one collects his promissory note. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Sheshet. Rav Na岣an himself interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: This is referring to a situation, for example, where this one borrowed for a period of ten years and that one borrowed for five years. In this case it makes sense to say that each collects as stated in the promissory note in his possession.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讗砖讜谉 诇注砖专 讜砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗转讛 诇讜讛 诪诪谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 诇讞诪砖 讜砖谞讬 诇注砖专

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the first one borrowed for ten years and the second for five, is this the case in which Admon would say: If I owed you money, how is it that you are borrowing from me? After all, the due date has not yet arrived for the second person to pay his debt. Perhaps the other creditor needs money to sustain himself for the next five years. Rather, the first one borrowed for five years and the second for ten years.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讚诪讜谉

The Gemara continues to inquire: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the due date of the first promissory note had already arrived when the second loan was issued, what is the rationale for the ruling of the Rabbis? The second person should not have borrowed money from the first, as he should have instead collected payment on the debt owed to him. And if the due date had not yet arrived, the second person clearly cannot demand his money, as the due date had not yet arrived, and perhaps he simply was in need of available money. And if so, what is the rationale for the opinion of Admon?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讞诪砖 诪专 住讘专 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讝讬祝 诇讬讜诪讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讝讬祝 诇讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he came on exactly that day when the five years of the first loan were completed. The dispute is as follows: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a person will take out a loan even for one day, and one Sage, Admon, holds that a person will not take out a loan for one day, and therefore he would have waited one day to receive payment of the debt owed to him.

专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讬转诪讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬转诪讬 诪讬讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讗讙讘讜讬讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 专讗讜讬 诇讙讘讜转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜

Rami bar 岣ma stated a different answer: Here we are dealing with orphans, i.e., one of the debtors died without leaving any landed properties, as orphans collect debts owed to their father but others do not collect from them the debts their father owed. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis that each collects based on the document in his possession has practical ramifications. The Gemara asks: But the mishna teaches that this one collects his promissory note and that one collects his promissory note, whereas according to this interpretation only the orphans collect the debts they are owed. The Gemara answers: The mishna means that this one collects, and that one has the potential to collect but he does not have any land from which he may legally collect his debt.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜讝讛 讙讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 诇讙讘讬谞讛讜 讗专注讗 诇讬转诪讬 讜诇讬讛讚专 讜诇讬讙讘讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讘讞讜讘转 讗讘讬讛谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讞讜讝专 讜讙讜讘讛 讗讜转谉 诪讛谉 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: There are two responses to this explanation. One is that the mishna teaches that this one collects his promissory note and that one collects his promissory note, which indicates that each actually collects what is owed to him, not that one is entitled to collect it but may not do so in practice. And furthermore, let him give land to the orphans and return and collect it from them, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an. As Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With regard to orphans who collected land in payment of their father鈥檚 debt, a creditor may come back and collect it from them. The Gemara comments: This does pose a difficulty for the explanation of Rami bar 岣ma.

讜诇讜拽诪讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 注讬讚讬转 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讗讝诇讬 讬转诪讬 讙讘讜 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜诪讙讘讜 诇讬讛 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讛讗 讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讝讬讘讜专讬转

搂 The Gemara asks: And let us establish the mishna as referring to a case where the orphans have inferior-quality land, and he himself, the other creditor, has both superior-quality land and intermediate-quality land. In this scenario the orphans go and collect intermediate-quality land from him, while they give him inferior-quality land in payment of the debt owed to him by their father. The reason is that even if the halakha is that one assesses the quality of land on the basis of the lands of all people, and therefore the other creditor should be able to collect intermediate-quality land from the orphans, there is a principle that one collects a debt from the property of orphans only from inferior-quality land.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 转驻住 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转驻住 转驻住

The Gemara answers: This applies only to a case where the lender has not as yet seized any land from the orphans in payment of his debt. However, where he has seized intermediate-quality land, he has seized that land. Since he is already in possession of a field, it is not taken from him. In these circumstances there is no significance to each party collecting from the other.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 讜诪讻专讱 诇讻专讱 讗讘诇 讘讗讜转讛 讛讗专抓 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 讜诪讻专讱 诇讻专讱

MISHNA: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to marriage: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If a man marries a woman in one of these lands he may not remove her from one town to another town in another of these lands or from one city to another city, i.e., he cannot compel her to move to another land. However, in the same land one may remove her from one town to another town or from one city to another city.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注讬专 诇讻专讱 讜诇讗 诪讻专讱 诇注讬专

However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town.

诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪谞讜讛 讛专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 诪谞讜讛 专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讬驻讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 讘讜讚拽

The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e., one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻专讱 诇注讬专 讚讘讻专讱 砖讻讬讞讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬专 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗诇讗 诪注讬专 诇讻专讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that one may not force one鈥檚 spouse to move from a city to a town or from a town to a city, the Gemara asks: Granted, one may not remove her from a city to a town, as all items are readily available in a city, whereas in a town all items are not as available, and therefore the wife can argue that living in a town is inconvenient for her. However, what is the reason that the husband cannot compel her to move from a town to the city?

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讬砖讬讘转 讻专讻讬诐 拽砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘专讻讜 讛注诐 诇讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐 诇砖讘转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, as Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in cities is difficult? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem鈥 (Nehemiah 11:2). This shows that living in a city is difficult, due to the noise and the general hubbub of an urban area.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬谞讜讬 讜住转 转讞诇转 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讘谉 住讬专讗 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬谞讜讬 讜住转 转讞诇转 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one鈥檚 eating habits [veset] or in one鈥檚 place of residence is the start of intestinal disease. Similarly, it is written in Sefer Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. And yet there are Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor eat well. Once again, the Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one鈥檚 eating habits or in one鈥檚 place of residence is the start of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the better.

讘谉 住讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讬诇讜转 讘砖驻诇 讙讙讬诐 讙讙讜 讜讘诪专讜诐 讛专讬诐 讻专诪讜 诪诪讟专 讙讙讬诐 诇讙讙讜 讜诪注驻专 讻专诪讜 诇讻专诪讬诐

Since the Gemara quoted from Sefer Ben Sira, it cites the rest of the passage concerning the terrible days of the poor. Ben Sira says: Even the nights of the poor are bad. His roof is at the low point of the roofs, i.e., his residence is at the lowest point in the city, and his vineyard is at the mountain peaks, at the highest point of the slope, which means that the rain of roofs washes down to his roof, and the soil of his vineyard to other vineyards, i.e., the rain washes away the soil in his vineyard and carries it away to the vineyards below.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛谞砖讬诐

MISHNA: All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one鈥檚 family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙专砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙专砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讙专砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讙专砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗

The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia.

讙诪壮 讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna stated: All can force the members of their family to ascend. The Gemara asks: This inclusive phrase serves to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include slaves, i.e., Hebrew slaves as well may be coerced to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael with their master鈥檚 family against their will.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one whose text of the mishna expressly teaches the case of slaves, this phrase comes to include what case? As stated later in the Gemara, there are some editions of the mishna that state that this halakha applies equally to men, women, and slaves. The Gemara answers: It comes to include one who moves from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence, i.e., one may coerce his family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael even from a good residence abroad to an inferior one in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讘谞讬讛 讛讻讗 讜讝讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讬讘转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

搂 The mishna further taught: But all may not remove others. Once again the Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a Canaanite slave who ran away from his master and came from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, as we say to the master: Sell your slave here, in Eretz Yisrael, and then you may go and return abroad, but you may not take the slave abroad with you, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛

搂 The mishna taught: All may force others to ascend to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks once again: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a move from a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Jerusalem.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讜讛 讛专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉

搂 The mishna taught: And all may not remove them from Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include even a move from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence. The Gemara adds: And since the tanna of the mishna taught: But one may not remove, in the first clause, he also taught: But one may not remove, in the latter clause, despite the fact that this halakha could have been inferred from the first clause.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇注诇讜转 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 砖诇讗 诇注诇讜转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇注诇讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转爪讗 讘诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇注诇讜转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 诇注诇讜转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇注诇讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

The Sages taught: If the husband says that he wishes to ascend, i.e., to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and his wife says that she does not wish to ascend, one forces her to ascend. And if she will not do so, as she resists all attempts to force her to make the move, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract, i.e., she forfeits her rights to the benefits outlined in the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and he says that he does not wish to ascend, one forces him to ascend. And if he does not wish to immigrate, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇爪讗转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转爪讗 讘诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇爪讗转 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讗转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

If she says that she wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he says that he does not wish to leave, one forces her not to leave. And if she does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael and resists all attempts to force her to stay, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract. If he says that he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael and she says that she does not wish to leave, one forces him not to leave. And if he does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讻讜壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗

搂 The mishna taught that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he must pay her the marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. The same is true if he married her in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the rulings provided by the mishna.

拽转谞讬 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙专砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 砖讬注讘讜讚讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讙专砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara elaborates: The mishna first teaches that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the customs of the place of the lien, i.e., he pays with the currency of the location of the wedding, where the obligation came into force. Now, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the place of the collection of the money.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讻转讜讘讛 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 拽住讘专 讻转讜讘讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rabba said: The Sages taught here one of the leniencies that apply to a marriage contract. The leniency is that the husband pays with the less valuable currency of Eretz Yisrael in both cases, whether the wedding or the divorce occurred there. This is because the tanna of this mishna holds that a marriage contract applies by rabbinic law.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪诪注讜转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 拽住讘专 讻转讜讘讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

搂 The mishna taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he pays her the marriage contract in the currency of Cappadocia. The Gemara explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a marriage contract applies by Torah law, which means that its debt must be paid according to its highest possible value. Consequently, one follows the place in which the obligation was formed, which is the halakha for all deeds and contracts, and there is no room for leniency in this matter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讘讘诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讘讘诇 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讜讘 讘讜 住转诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讘讘诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讘讘诇 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讛讜 诪诪注讜转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讻住祝 住转诐 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 诇讜讛 诪讙讘讛讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讻转讜讘讛

The Sages taught: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, if Babylonia is written in it, he pays it with the currency of Babylonia; if Eretz Yisrael is written in it, he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. In a case where it is written without specification as to where the document was written, if he produced it in Babylonia he pays it with the currency of Babylonia and if he produced it in Eretz Yisrael he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. If the note mentions money without specification of what type of coins are to be used, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes, even the smallest denomination available. However, this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract.

讗讛讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻转讜讘讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to this last statement, that this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract: To which part of the baraita is this referring? Rav Mesharshiyya said: It is referring back to the first clause, that if the promissory note mentions Babylonia one pays with Babylonian currency. This indicates that one invariably pays based on the place where the document was written. The tanna adds that this principle does not apply to a marriage contract, as one pays based on the place where a marriage contract was written only if this would lead to a leniency, as explained above (Rid). This ruling comes to exclude the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that that a marriage contract applies by Torah law and must always be paid in the currency of the place in which the obligation was first formed.

讻转讜讘 讘讜 讻住祝 住转诐 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 诇讜讛 诪讙讘讛讜 讜讗讬诪讗 谞住讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讟讘注 讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讬讟讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻专讬讟讬 讚讻住驻讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬

搂 The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita, which teaches: If the note mentions money [kesef ] without specification, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes. The Gemara asks: But can鈥檛 one say that perhaps the document was not speaking of coins but of silver [kesef ] strips? Rabbi Elazar said: The baraita is referring to a case in which it is written in the document: Coins, although it does not specify which ones. The Gemara further asks: And can鈥檛 one say that one may pay off the debt with perutot, a small denomination? Rav Pappa said: People do not ordinarily mint perutot of silver, as they reserve silver for larger denominations.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讬讚讜专 讗讚诐 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讗诇 讬讚讜专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻诇 讛讚专 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇讜讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇转转 诇讻诐 讗转 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 诇讛讬讜转 诇讻诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐

搂 In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: 鈥淭o give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God鈥 (Leviticus 25:38).

讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讚专 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讚专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讘讚讜讚 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讙专砖讜谞讬 讛讬讜诐 诪讛住转驻讞 讘谞讞诇转 讛壮 诇讗诪专 诇讱 注讘讜讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讚讜讚 诇讱 注讘讜讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讚专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: 鈥淔or they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods鈥 (I聽Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 拽诪砖转诪讬讟 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘注讗 诇诪讬住拽 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诪讘讘诇 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讜讘专 讘注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated:

Scroll To Top