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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 19, 2015 | 诇壮 讘砖讘讟 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 17

讻诇讛 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讛 谞讗讛 讜讞住讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 讞讬讙专转 讗讜 住讜诪讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讛 讻诇讛 谞讗讛 讜讞住讜讚讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诪讚讘专 砖拽专 转专讞拽 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诪讬 砖诇拽讞 诪拽讞 专注 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讬砖讘讞谞讜 讘注讬谞讬讜 讗讜 讬讙谞谞讜 讘注讬谞讬讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讬砖讘讞谞讜 讘注讬谞讬讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 转讛讗 讚注转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪注讜专讘转 注诐 讛讘专讬讜转

One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: 鈥淜eep you from a false matter鈥 (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person鈥檚 disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 诪砖专讜 拽诪讬 讻诇转讗 讘诪注专讘讗 诇讗 讻讞诇 讜诇讗 砖专拽 讜诇讗 驻讬专讻讜住 讜讬注诇转 讞谉 讻讬 住诪讻讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗 讻讞诇 讜诇讗 砖专拽 讜诇讗 驻讬专讻讜住 讜讬注诇转 讞谉

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is what they sing before brides in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. The Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Zeira, this is what they metaphorically sang with regard to him in his praise: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex.

讻讬 住诪讻讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜诇专讘讬 讗住讬 砖专讜 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讻诇 诪谉 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诪谉 讚讬谉 住诪讜讻讜 诇谞讗 诇讗 转住诪讻讜 诇谞讗 诇讗 诪谉 住专诪讬住讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 住专诪讬讟讬谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讗 诪谉 讞诪讬住讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讟讜专诪讬住讬谉

On a related note, the Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, this is what they sang to them: Anyone from people of this kind and anyone from people of that kind, ordain them for us. Do not ordain for us others, neither from those who corrupt [sarmisin] halakhot, nor from those who are worthless [sarmitin]. And some say: Not from those who provide only one-fifth [岣misin] of the reason for a halakha, and not from those whose knowledge is incomplete [turmisin].

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 诪诪转讬讘转讗 诇讘讬 拽讬住专 谞驻拽谉 讗诪讛转讗 讚讘讬 拽讬住专 诇讗驻讬讛 讜诪砖专讬谉 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 专讘讗 讚注诪讬讛 讜诪讚讘专谞讗 讚讗讜诪转讬讛 讘讜爪讬谞讗 讚谞讛讜专讗 讘专讬讱 诪转讬讬讱 诇砖诇诐

The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor鈥檚 house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace.

讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讗讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 讘讚 砖诇 讛讚住 讜诪专拽讚 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讛 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇讛 谞讗讛 讜讞住讜讚讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪专拽讚 讗转诇转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽讗 诪讻住讬祝 诇谉 住讘讗 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讬驻住讬拽 注诪讜讚讗 讚谞讜专讗 讘讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讙诪讬专讬 讚诇讗 讗驻住讬拽 注诪讜讚讗 讚谞讜专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 诇讞讚 讘讚专讗 讗讬 诇转专讬 讘讚专讗

With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle. Rabbi Zeira said: The old man is humiliating us, as through his conduct he is demeaning the Torah and the Torah scholars. It is further related: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k died, a pillar of fire demarcated between him and everyone else, and we learn through tradition that a pillar of fire demarcates only for either one person in a generation or for two people in a generation.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讛谞讬讬讛 诇讬讛 砖讜讟讬转讬讛 诇住讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖讟讜转讬讛 诇住讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖讬讟转讬讛 诇住讘讗

Rabbi Zeira said: His branch [shotitei] was effective for the old man, as it is due to this mitzva that he fulfilled so enthusiastically that he was privileged to receive this great reward. And some say that Rabbi Zeira said: His nonsense [shetutei] was effective for the old man. And some say that he said: His method [shittatei] was effective for the old man.

专讘 讗讞讗 诪专讻讬讘 诇讛 讗讻转驻讬讛 讜诪专拽讚 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讗谞谉 诪讛讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讚诪讬讬谉 注诇讬讬讻讜 讻讻砖讜专讗 诇讞讬讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

Rav A岣 would place the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Sages said to him: What is the ruling? Is it permitted for us to do so as well? He said to them: If brides are comparable for you to a beam, fine, but if not, no, you may not.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 诇讛住转讻诇 讘驻谞讬 讻诇讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讻讚讬 诇讞讘讘讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: It is permitted to look at the face of a bride throughout all seven days of the wedding celebration, in order to endear her to her husband, whose appreciation of her beauty will be thereby enhanced. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as it is prohibited to look at any married woman, even a bride.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪诇驻谞讬 讻诇讛 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 讗讙专讬驻住 讛诪诇讱 砖注讘专 诪诇驻谞讬 讻诇讛 讜砖讘讞讜讛讜 讞讻诪讬诐

The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride. And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel. They said about King Agrippa [Agrippas] that although he was not required to do so, he rerouted his entourage before the wedding procession of a bride, and the Sages praised him for doing so.

砖讘讞讜讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚砖驻讬专 注讘讚 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞砖讬讗 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 讻讘讜讚讜 诪讞讜诇 诪诇讱 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 讗讬谉 讻讘讜讚讜 诪讞讜诇 讚讗诪专 诪专 砖讜诐 转砖讬诐 注诇讬讱 诪诇讱 砖转讛讗 讗讬诪转讜 注诇讬讱 驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara asks: The Sages praised him; is that to say by inference that he did well in yielding? But didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who said with regard to a Nasi who relinquishes the honor due him that his honor is relinquished, i.e., he may do so, with regard to a king who relinquishes the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished. As the Master said that the meaning of the verse 鈥淵ou shall place a king over you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:15) is that his awe shall be upon you. The Torah established that the subjects鈥 awe is an essential component of kingship and it is not the prerogative of the king to waive it. The Gemara answers: It was at a crossroads that he encountered the wedding procession, and the fact that he yielded to the bride was not obvious to onlookers. Therefore, the honor due the king was not compromised.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 诇讛讜爪讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讛讻谞住转 讻诇讛 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讘讟诇 转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 诇讛讜爪讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讛讻谞住转 讻诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讗讘诇 讬砖 注诪讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉

The Sages taught: One suspends the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would suspend the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. In what case is this statement said? In a case where there are not enough people with him, i.e., accompanying the corpse, to satisfy all his needs, i.e., to appropriately honor him. However, if there are enough people with him to satisfy all his needs, one does not suspend Torah study.

讜讻诪讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讬谞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讙讘专讬 讜砖讬转讗 讗诇驻讬 砖讬驻讜专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转诇讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讙讘专讬 讜诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖讬转讗 讗诇驻讬 砖讬驻讜专讬 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讞讬讬爪讬 讙讘专讬 诪讗讘讜诇讗 讜注讚 住讬讻专讗 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讟讬诇转讛 讻谞转讬谞转讛 诪讛 谞转讬谞转讛 讘砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 讗祝 谞讟讬诇转讛 讘砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讗谉 讚拽专讬 讜转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute all his needs? Rav Shmuel bar Eini said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and six thousand additional men each sounding a shofar to herald the approaching funeral procession. And some say: Thirteen thousand men and, among them, six thousand men sounding a shofar. Ulla said: All his needs means a crowd large enough so that the men in the funeral possession form a partition stretching from the gate of the city [abbula] until the cemetery. Rav Sheshet, and some say Rabbi Yo岣nan, said: The number of people required for taking of the Torah from the Jewish people with the death of a Torah scholar is equivalent to the number present at its giving to the Jewish people. Just as its giving took place with six hundred thousand men present at Sinai, so too, the taking of the Torah at the funeral of a Torah scholar is with six hundred thousand men. The Gemara notes: This applies only to one who read the Bible and studied mishna, i.e., one who is a student of Torah, and consequently worthy of that honor.

讗讘诇 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

However, for one who taught others, there is no measure for the number of people attending the funeral.

讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪转讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讛讬谞讜诪讗 住讜专讞讘 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 转谞讜专讗 讚讗住讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讬转讗 讚诪谞诪谞讛 讘讛 讻诇转讗

The mishna continues: And if there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: What is a hinnuma? Sur岣v bar Pappa said in the name of Ze鈥檈iri: It is a canopy of myrtle over the bride鈥檚 head. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is a veil [kerita] covering the bride鈥檚 face under which the bride dozes [menamna].

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讘讬讛讜讚讛 专讗讬讛 讘讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚专讚讜讙讬 讚诪砖讞讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪砖讞讗 讚讞驻讬驻讜转讗 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬转诪讗 诇讗 注讘讚讗 诇讱 讗诪讱 讚专讚讜讙讬 诪砖讞讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜讚专讚讬讙 诪砖讞讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain constitutes proof that she is a virgin. It was taught with regard to the mishna: In Judea, that is proof; however, what are the customs at the weddings of virgins in Babylonia? Rav said: Smearing fragrant oil on the heads of the Sages was customary. Rav Pappa, who was unfamiliar with that practice, said to Abaye: Is the Master saying oil for shampooing the hair? Calling him an orphan because he was ignorant of the custom, he said to him: Orphan, didn鈥檛 your mother perform for you smearing of oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of your wedding ceremony? As this was the case when one of the Sages who arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rabba bar Ulla attended the wedding, and some say that it was Rabba bar Ulla who arranged for his son to marry into the family of one of the Sages; and he smeared oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of the wedding ceremony.

讗专诪诇转讗 诪讗讬 转讗谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讻讬住谞讬

The Gemara asks: What is the custom at the wedding of a widow? Rav Yosef taught: A widow does not have roasted grain [kisanei] distributed at her wedding.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讜壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讚讛 讝讜 砖诇讱 讛讬转讛 讜诇拽讞转讬讛 诪诪讱

The mishna continues: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let the mishna teach: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to you, and I purchased it from you.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞转讬讛 诪诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: Although Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that his claim is accepted even in that latter case, he addressed the case where the field originally belonged to the father due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause that if there are witnesses that it was the father鈥檚 field, and he says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible. That is the halakha only with regard to a field that belonged to the father, and not to the claimant himself. Were it referring to a field that he purchased from the claimant, what are the circumstances?

讗讬 讚讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

If it is a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? After three years of unchallenged possession, the purchaser鈥檚 claim is sufficient to establish ownership without documentation. And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. Since the distinction between a case where witnesses are present and a case where there are no witnesses present does not apply when the field in question was the property of the claimant, the tanna cited a case where the field belonged to the father.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讗讘讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara asks: If so, the same difficulty may be raised with regard to a field belonging to the claimant鈥檚 father as well: If the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. The latter clause is no more applicable to the father鈥檚 field than it is to the claimant鈥檚 field. Why did the tanna prefer to cite a case where the field belonged to the claimant鈥檚 father?

讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讗讘讬讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讛 砖转讬诐 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讞转 讘讞讬讬 讘谞讜 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇

The Gemara answers: Granted, with regard to the case where the field belonged to his father, a circumstance can be found where there is uncertainty with regard to the presumptive ownership of the field, where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership during the lifetime of the father and one year during the lifetime of the son after the death of his father. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: One cannot establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. This is because the minor is unaware of the property owned by his father, the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing. Therefore, only two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership have passed.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讬讜拽讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And since the mishna can be explained only in the case delineated by Rav Huna, did Rav Huna come to teach us a mishna? There is no need for an amora to teach matters that appear in a mishna, as the content of mishnayot is known by all. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav Huna is stating the inference from the mishna, as the circumstances are not written explicitly in the mishna. And if you wish, say instead that he is teaching us that even if during the year after the father died his son was no longer a minor, one may not establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. From the mishna, one could learn only a case where, during the third year the son was still a minor.

讜诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讛 砖转讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讘专讞

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach the halakha in a case where the one in possession of the field says that he purchased the field from the claimant himself. And let him establish the mishna in a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce in the presence of the claimant, who was the original owner of the field, for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, and consumed its produce not in his presence for one year. And that scenario is in a case where the claimant fled and therefore, the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing.

讘专讞 诪讞诪转 诪讗讬 讗讬 讚讘专讞 诪讞诪转 谞驻砖讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讞讬 讜讗讬 讚讘专讞 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛

The Gemara asks: That scenario is referring to one who fled due to what reason? If it is that he fled due to the fact that his life was in jeopardy, it is obvious that the one claiming presumptive ownership is not deemed credible, since the owner of the field is unable to protest, as he fears for his life. And if he fled due to money that he owes, and that is why he does not return to protest the possessor鈥檚 occupation of the field, he ought to protest from afar, as we maintain that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest. He could have lodged in a court in his place of exile his protest against the illegal occupation of his field.

讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讞讝拽讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讛讬讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讙诇讬诇 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛

This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 38a): There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the original owner of the field was in Judea and another occupied his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another occupied his field in Judea, that does not establish presumptive ownership, until the one occupying the field will be with the original owner in the same country.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

And we discussed that mishna: What does this tanna hold? If he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee the protest should also be legitimate. And if he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is not a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea as well, the protest should also not be legitimate.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 砖谞讜

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: Actually the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, and the Sages taught this mishna with regard to a crisis period, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted from Judea to the Galilee. Therefore, although no protest was received from the original owner, the occupier does not establish presumptive ownership of the field, because the lack of protest can be attributed to the perilous situation.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讚谞拽讟

The Gemara asked: And if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that the protest is ineffective, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited specifically these two lands? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted, the same halakha would apply.

  • 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 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 17

讻诇讛 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讛 谞讗讛 讜讞住讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 讞讬讙专转 讗讜 住讜诪讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讛 讻诇讛 谞讗讛 讜讞住讜讚讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诪讚讘专 砖拽专 转专讞拽 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诪讬 砖诇拽讞 诪拽讞 专注 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讬砖讘讞谞讜 讘注讬谞讬讜 讗讜 讬讙谞谞讜 讘注讬谞讬讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讬砖讘讞谞讜 讘注讬谞讬讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 转讛讗 讚注转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪注讜专讘转 注诐 讛讘专讬讜转

One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: 鈥淜eep you from a false matter鈥 (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person鈥檚 disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 诪砖专讜 拽诪讬 讻诇转讗 讘诪注专讘讗 诇讗 讻讞诇 讜诇讗 砖专拽 讜诇讗 驻讬专讻讜住 讜讬注诇转 讞谉 讻讬 住诪讻讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗 讻讞诇 讜诇讗 砖专拽 讜诇讗 驻讬专讻讜住 讜讬注诇转 讞谉

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is what they sing before brides in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. The Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Zeira, this is what they metaphorically sang with regard to him in his praise: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex.

讻讬 住诪讻讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜诇专讘讬 讗住讬 砖专讜 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讻诇 诪谉 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诪谉 讚讬谉 住诪讜讻讜 诇谞讗 诇讗 转住诪讻讜 诇谞讗 诇讗 诪谉 住专诪讬住讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 住专诪讬讟讬谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讗 诪谉 讞诪讬住讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讟讜专诪讬住讬谉

On a related note, the Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, this is what they sang to them: Anyone from people of this kind and anyone from people of that kind, ordain them for us. Do not ordain for us others, neither from those who corrupt [sarmisin] halakhot, nor from those who are worthless [sarmitin]. And some say: Not from those who provide only one-fifth [岣misin] of the reason for a halakha, and not from those whose knowledge is incomplete [turmisin].

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 诪诪转讬讘转讗 诇讘讬 拽讬住专 谞驻拽谉 讗诪讛转讗 讚讘讬 拽讬住专 诇讗驻讬讛 讜诪砖专讬谉 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 专讘讗 讚注诪讬讛 讜诪讚讘专谞讗 讚讗讜诪转讬讛 讘讜爪讬谞讗 讚谞讛讜专讗 讘专讬讱 诪转讬讬讱 诇砖诇诐

The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor鈥檚 house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace.

讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讗讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 讘讚 砖诇 讛讚住 讜诪专拽讚 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讛 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇讛 谞讗讛 讜讞住讜讚讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪专拽讚 讗转诇转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽讗 诪讻住讬祝 诇谉 住讘讗 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讬驻住讬拽 注诪讜讚讗 讚谞讜专讗 讘讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讙诪讬专讬 讚诇讗 讗驻住讬拽 注诪讜讚讗 讚谞讜专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 诇讞讚 讘讚专讗 讗讬 诇转专讬 讘讚专讗

With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle. Rabbi Zeira said: The old man is humiliating us, as through his conduct he is demeaning the Torah and the Torah scholars. It is further related: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k died, a pillar of fire demarcated between him and everyone else, and we learn through tradition that a pillar of fire demarcates only for either one person in a generation or for two people in a generation.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讛谞讬讬讛 诇讬讛 砖讜讟讬转讬讛 诇住讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖讟讜转讬讛 诇住讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖讬讟转讬讛 诇住讘讗

Rabbi Zeira said: His branch [shotitei] was effective for the old man, as it is due to this mitzva that he fulfilled so enthusiastically that he was privileged to receive this great reward. And some say that Rabbi Zeira said: His nonsense [shetutei] was effective for the old man. And some say that he said: His method [shittatei] was effective for the old man.

专讘 讗讞讗 诪专讻讬讘 诇讛 讗讻转驻讬讛 讜诪专拽讚 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讗谞谉 诪讛讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讚诪讬讬谉 注诇讬讬讻讜 讻讻砖讜专讗 诇讞讬讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

Rav A岣 would place the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Sages said to him: What is the ruling? Is it permitted for us to do so as well? He said to them: If brides are comparable for you to a beam, fine, but if not, no, you may not.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 诇讛住转讻诇 讘驻谞讬 讻诇讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讻讚讬 诇讞讘讘讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: It is permitted to look at the face of a bride throughout all seven days of the wedding celebration, in order to endear her to her husband, whose appreciation of her beauty will be thereby enhanced. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as it is prohibited to look at any married woman, even a bride.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪诇驻谞讬 讻诇讛 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 讗讙专讬驻住 讛诪诇讱 砖注讘专 诪诇驻谞讬 讻诇讛 讜砖讘讞讜讛讜 讞讻诪讬诐

The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride. And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel. They said about King Agrippa [Agrippas] that although he was not required to do so, he rerouted his entourage before the wedding procession of a bride, and the Sages praised him for doing so.

砖讘讞讜讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚砖驻讬专 注讘讚 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞砖讬讗 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 讻讘讜讚讜 诪讞讜诇 诪诇讱 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 讗讬谉 讻讘讜讚讜 诪讞讜诇 讚讗诪专 诪专 砖讜诐 转砖讬诐 注诇讬讱 诪诇讱 砖转讛讗 讗讬诪转讜 注诇讬讱 驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara asks: The Sages praised him; is that to say by inference that he did well in yielding? But didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who said with regard to a Nasi who relinquishes the honor due him that his honor is relinquished, i.e., he may do so, with regard to a king who relinquishes the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished. As the Master said that the meaning of the verse 鈥淵ou shall place a king over you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:15) is that his awe shall be upon you. The Torah established that the subjects鈥 awe is an essential component of kingship and it is not the prerogative of the king to waive it. The Gemara answers: It was at a crossroads that he encountered the wedding procession, and the fact that he yielded to the bride was not obvious to onlookers. Therefore, the honor due the king was not compromised.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 诇讛讜爪讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讛讻谞住转 讻诇讛 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讘讟诇 转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 诇讛讜爪讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讛讻谞住转 讻诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讗讘诇 讬砖 注诪讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉

The Sages taught: One suspends the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would suspend the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. In what case is this statement said? In a case where there are not enough people with him, i.e., accompanying the corpse, to satisfy all his needs, i.e., to appropriately honor him. However, if there are enough people with him to satisfy all his needs, one does not suspend Torah study.

讜讻诪讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讬谞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讙讘专讬 讜砖讬转讗 讗诇驻讬 砖讬驻讜专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转诇讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讙讘专讬 讜诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖讬转讗 讗诇驻讬 砖讬驻讜专讬 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讞讬讬爪讬 讙讘专讬 诪讗讘讜诇讗 讜注讚 住讬讻专讗 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讟讬诇转讛 讻谞转讬谞转讛 诪讛 谞转讬谞转讛 讘砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 讗祝 谞讟讬诇转讛 讘砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讗谉 讚拽专讬 讜转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute all his needs? Rav Shmuel bar Eini said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and six thousand additional men each sounding a shofar to herald the approaching funeral procession. And some say: Thirteen thousand men and, among them, six thousand men sounding a shofar. Ulla said: All his needs means a crowd large enough so that the men in the funeral possession form a partition stretching from the gate of the city [abbula] until the cemetery. Rav Sheshet, and some say Rabbi Yo岣nan, said: The number of people required for taking of the Torah from the Jewish people with the death of a Torah scholar is equivalent to the number present at its giving to the Jewish people. Just as its giving took place with six hundred thousand men present at Sinai, so too, the taking of the Torah at the funeral of a Torah scholar is with six hundred thousand men. The Gemara notes: This applies only to one who read the Bible and studied mishna, i.e., one who is a student of Torah, and consequently worthy of that honor.

讗讘诇 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

However, for one who taught others, there is no measure for the number of people attending the funeral.

讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪转讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讛讬谞讜诪讗 住讜专讞讘 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 转谞讜专讗 讚讗住讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讬转讗 讚诪谞诪谞讛 讘讛 讻诇转讗

The mishna continues: And if there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: What is a hinnuma? Sur岣v bar Pappa said in the name of Ze鈥檈iri: It is a canopy of myrtle over the bride鈥檚 head. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is a veil [kerita] covering the bride鈥檚 face under which the bride dozes [menamna].

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讘讬讛讜讚讛 专讗讬讛 讘讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚专讚讜讙讬 讚诪砖讞讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪砖讞讗 讚讞驻讬驻讜转讗 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬转诪讗 诇讗 注讘讚讗 诇讱 讗诪讱 讚专讚讜讙讬 诪砖讞讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜讚专讚讬讙 诪砖讞讗 讗专讬砖讗 讚专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain constitutes proof that she is a virgin. It was taught with regard to the mishna: In Judea, that is proof; however, what are the customs at the weddings of virgins in Babylonia? Rav said: Smearing fragrant oil on the heads of the Sages was customary. Rav Pappa, who was unfamiliar with that practice, said to Abaye: Is the Master saying oil for shampooing the hair? Calling him an orphan because he was ignorant of the custom, he said to him: Orphan, didn鈥檛 your mother perform for you smearing of oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of your wedding ceremony? As this was the case when one of the Sages who arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rabba bar Ulla attended the wedding, and some say that it was Rabba bar Ulla who arranged for his son to marry into the family of one of the Sages; and he smeared oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of the wedding ceremony.

讗专诪诇转讗 诪讗讬 转讗谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讻讬住谞讬

The Gemara asks: What is the custom at the wedding of a widow? Rav Yosef taught: A widow does not have roasted grain [kisanei] distributed at her wedding.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讜壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讚讛 讝讜 砖诇讱 讛讬转讛 讜诇拽讞转讬讛 诪诪讱

The mishna continues: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let the mishna teach: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to you, and I purchased it from you.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞转讬讛 诪诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: Although Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that his claim is accepted even in that latter case, he addressed the case where the field originally belonged to the father due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause that if there are witnesses that it was the father鈥檚 field, and he says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible. That is the halakha only with regard to a field that belonged to the father, and not to the claimant himself. Were it referring to a field that he purchased from the claimant, what are the circumstances?

讗讬 讚讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

If it is a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? After three years of unchallenged possession, the purchaser鈥檚 claim is sufficient to establish ownership without documentation. And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. Since the distinction between a case where witnesses are present and a case where there are no witnesses present does not apply when the field in question was the property of the claimant, the tanna cited a case where the field belonged to the father.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讗讘讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara asks: If so, the same difficulty may be raised with regard to a field belonging to the claimant鈥檚 father as well: If the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. The latter clause is no more applicable to the father鈥檚 field than it is to the claimant鈥檚 field. Why did the tanna prefer to cite a case where the field belonged to the claimant鈥檚 father?

讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讗讘讬讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讛 砖转讬诐 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讞转 讘讞讬讬 讘谞讜 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇

The Gemara answers: Granted, with regard to the case where the field belonged to his father, a circumstance can be found where there is uncertainty with regard to the presumptive ownership of the field, where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership during the lifetime of the father and one year during the lifetime of the son after the death of his father. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: One cannot establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. This is because the minor is unaware of the property owned by his father, the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing. Therefore, only two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership have passed.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讬讜拽讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And since the mishna can be explained only in the case delineated by Rav Huna, did Rav Huna come to teach us a mishna? There is no need for an amora to teach matters that appear in a mishna, as the content of mishnayot is known by all. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav Huna is stating the inference from the mishna, as the circumstances are not written explicitly in the mishna. And if you wish, say instead that he is teaching us that even if during the year after the father died his son was no longer a minor, one may not establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. From the mishna, one could learn only a case where, during the third year the son was still a minor.

讜诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讛 砖转讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讘专讞

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach the halakha in a case where the one in possession of the field says that he purchased the field from the claimant himself. And let him establish the mishna in a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce in the presence of the claimant, who was the original owner of the field, for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, and consumed its produce not in his presence for one year. And that scenario is in a case where the claimant fled and therefore, the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing.

讘专讞 诪讞诪转 诪讗讬 讗讬 讚讘专讞 诪讞诪转 谞驻砖讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讞讬 讜讗讬 讚讘专讞 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛

The Gemara asks: That scenario is referring to one who fled due to what reason? If it is that he fled due to the fact that his life was in jeopardy, it is obvious that the one claiming presumptive ownership is not deemed credible, since the owner of the field is unable to protest, as he fears for his life. And if he fled due to money that he owes, and that is why he does not return to protest the possessor鈥檚 occupation of the field, he ought to protest from afar, as we maintain that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest. He could have lodged in a court in his place of exile his protest against the illegal occupation of his field.

讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讞讝拽讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讛讬讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讙诇讬诇 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛

This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 38a): There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the original owner of the field was in Judea and another occupied his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another occupied his field in Judea, that does not establish presumptive ownership, until the one occupying the field will be with the original owner in the same country.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

And we discussed that mishna: What does this tanna hold? If he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee the protest should also be legitimate. And if he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is not a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea as well, the protest should also not be legitimate.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 砖谞讜

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: Actually the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, and the Sages taught this mishna with regard to a crisis period, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted from Judea to the Galilee. Therefore, although no protest was received from the original owner, the occupier does not establish presumptive ownership of the field, because the lack of protest can be attributed to the perilous situation.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讚谞拽讟

The Gemara asked: And if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that the protest is ineffective, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited specifically these two lands? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted, the same halakha would apply.

Scroll To Top