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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 13, 2022 | 讬状讝 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Ketubot 69

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer. “This is in honor of the start of shana baaretz learning of my daughter and my niece, granddaughters of Meryl Sasnowitz. May they deepen their connection to Eretz Yisrael and the passion for learning of their families, including their Safti.”聽

Can a daughter collect her dowry money from assets sold or used as collateral by the brothers? Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi says yes. Rabbi Yohanan ruled no. Did he not know Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s ruling (and if he had, he would change his mind) or did he know it and disagree? Does the daughter claim her dowry as an heir or as a debtor? What is the relevance of this question? Is it possible to recover the dowry from land or also from movables? It is told about Rabbi Anan who sent a question to Rabbi Huna and phrased his introduction in a disparaging manner. Rav Huna was angry with him and sent him back a disparaging reply. If the father said at the time of his death that he was designating money for his daughter and a specific person to buy her a field with that money, can she ask that the money be transferred to her husband instead of the person her father designated? To Rabbi Meir, the mitzvah is to fulfill the words of the person on one’s deathbed and therefore she cannot decide who gets the money. Rabbi Yossi holds that she has the right to transfer it to her husband. Do they disagree regarding a woman who is engaged or married? A minor or a grown woman? When Rabbi Yochanan rose to prominence and Ilfa did not (see the story Ta’anit 21), Ifla wanted to prove his abilities and stood on the mast of a ship and announced that if anyone bring before him a braita from Rabbi Chiya or Rabbi Oshaya, he will find a Mishna to support it. And if not, he will fall off the ship and die. They brought him a braita regarding the ruling to fulfill the words of a person on one’s deathbed, and Ilfa brought a proof from Rabbi Meir’s opinion in our Mishna.

 

 

转诇讛 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘讬 讘讬谞讬 讞讟讬 讛讗讞讬谉 砖砖讬注讘讚讜 诪讛讜 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻专讜 讗讜 诪砖讻谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谉 诪讻专讜 讘讬谉 砖诪砖讻谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讜转

Rav attached the following question for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi between the lines of a letter he sent him: With respect to brothers who mortgaged a certain property, what is the halakha? Is this property subject to seizure, if need be, for the benefit of the daughters鈥 dowries? Rabbi 岣yya was sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when the letter arrived. He said to him: What is meant in the question? Did they sell the property or did they pledge it as a guarantee, so that it has not yet been transferred? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: What difference does it make? Whether they sold it or pledged it, the court may appropriate the property for support for the daughters鈥 dowries, but the court may not appropriate it for their sustenance.

讜专讘 讗讬 诪讻专讜 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 谞讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 诪讻专讜 讗讬 诪砖讻谞讜 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 谞讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 诪砖讻谞讜

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav himself, if he is raising a dilemma about a case in which they sold the property, let him write explicitly that he is asking about an instance in which they sold the property. And if he is raising a dilemma about a case in which they pledged the property, let him write explicitly that he is asking about an instance in which they pledged the property. Why does Rav instead employ an ambiguous term?

专讘 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 讗讬 讻转讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讻专讜 讛讗 谞讬讞讗 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 讚诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 诪砖讻谞讜 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讻转讬 诪砖讻谞讜 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬

The Gemara answers: Rav was raising a dilemma about both cases and thought: If I write to him that they sold the property, then it works out well if he sends back to me the ruling that the court may appropriate the sold property for the daughters鈥 dowries. In that case, I would also understand that all the more so, if the brothers merely pledged the property, the court would appropriate it for the dowry. But if he sends to me the reply that the court does not appropriate sold property, still the case in which they pledged the property will be a dilemma for me.

讗讬 讻转讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讻谞讜 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 诪讻专讜 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讻转讬 诪讻专讜 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讗讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 砖讬注讘讚讜 讚诪砖诪注 讛讻讬 讜诪砖诪注 讛讻讬

Alternatively, if I write to him that the brothers pledged it, then if he sends to me the response that the court does not appropriate it, I can infer that all the more so if the brothers sold it we do not collect from the buyer. And if he sends me the response that the court does appropriate the land for the daughters鈥 dowries, still the case in which they sold the property will be a dilemma for me. Therefore, I will write to him that they mortgaged it, which implies this meaning and it implies that one, and in this way I will receive a complete answer to my question.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讜讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Whether it is this or whether it is that, the court does not appropriate assigned or sold properties for either the support or sustenance of the daughters. A dilemma was raised before them: Is it that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not hear this ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but had he heard it, he would have accepted it? Or, perhaps, is it that even if he had heard it, he would not have accepted it?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗转诪专 诪讬 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 砖转讬 讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讜拽讚诪讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜谞讟诇讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讙讘讜转 注讚 砖诪转 讛讘谉

The Gemara proposes an answer, indicated by a dispute of amora鈥檌m: Come and hear a proof, as it was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed a certain case. The Sages debated the halakha with regard to one who died and left behind two daughters and a son, and the first daughter advanced and took one-tenth of the estate for her dowry, but the second daughter did not have enough time to collect her one-tenth before the son died. When the daughters divide the remaining assets, are they divided equally, or does the second daughter receive a slightly larger sum, commensurate with an additional portion earmarked for the dowry that she has not yet collected?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬讛 讜讬转专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讗转 讗诪专转 砖谞讬讛 讜讬转专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The second daughter forfeited her right to an equal one-tenth of the estate for a dowry. No specific funds are separated from the estate as a dowry before the inheritance is divided equally among the daughters. Rabbi 岣nina said: The Sages said something even greater than this with respect to her support: The court appropriates liened property for support, but it does not appropriate it for sustenance. And yet would you, Rabbi Yo岣nan, say that the second daughter forfeited her right to collect even when the property is not liened? It cannot be that her support is diminished merely because of her brother鈥檚 death.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 拽讘讬诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗

The Gemara understands that there is evidence within the exchange that Rabbi Yo岣nan knew Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion and nevertheless ruled against it. And if it is so, that Rabbi Yo岣nan never heard the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then let Rabbi Yo岣nan say to Rabbi 岣nina: Who stated that, that property is appropriated for the dowry? Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan must have known and rejected Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara rejects the proof: And perhaps he actually did not hear it; but had he heard it, he would have accepted it. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ruled as he did because it is different there, in the case in which the son died, since there is abundance in the house. Since the second daughter receives half of all the inheritance, she is not concerned about the one-tenth of the estate.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖讻讞讛 诪爪讬讗讛 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 诪讛谞讬 谞讻住讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, according to that logic, then if she had found a generic lost object, as there is abundance in the house due to the value of the newly found article, so too would we not give her one-tenth of the estate? Since finding a lost object, or similarly, being independently wealthy, does not actually change her right to collect her full dowry, it stands to reason that she should collect the full dowry even when she inherits half of the remaining estate. He said to him: I would say this is true of abundance in the house that comes from these properties of the estate. Because the matter depends upon her share of the inheritance, when she commands a sizeable portion of the inheritance, she does not quibble over the one-tenth of the inheritance earmarked for her dowry. However, if she has other resources unrelated to the inheritance, her independent wealth cannot diminish her share of the inheritance with respect to the dowry.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讘转 讬讜专砖转 讛讜讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讗讬诇讜 讘注讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讘讝讜讝讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 讘注讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讘讞讚讗 讗专注讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

搂 With regard to the fundamental right of daughters to receive the support of the dowry from the estate, Ameimar said: A daughter is considered an inheritor. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: According to your opinion, if another inheritor wants to remove her from among the inheritors by giving her money instead of inherited property, is he indeed unable to remove her? May she insist on receiving actual property from the estate for the purpose of her dowry? He said to him: Yes, she may insist on inherited property. Rav Ashi continued to ask Ameimar: If he wants to remove her by giving her one specific piece of land, is he also unable to remove her, since, as an inheritor, she has the right to collect portions of all the property? He said to him: Yes, he is limited in this way. She may insist on her right to inherit from the entire property.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘转 讘注诇转 讞讜讘 讛讜讬讗 讜讗祝 讗诪讬诪专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讬讞讜诪讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 讜讗转讗讬 讛讗讬 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讛讜转 拽讗 讘注讬讗 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讚注转讬讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讘讝讜讝讬 讛讜讬 诪住诇拽 诇讛 讚砖诪注讬 诪讗讞讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讛 诇谉 讝讜讝讬 住诇讬拽谞讗 讘讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

In contrast to Ameimar, Rav Ashi said: A daughter is legally considered a creditor with regard to the inheritance, and the inheritors may insist that they will provide her support by any means, without giving her a share of the actual inheritance. The Gemara notes: And even Ameimar retracted his opinion that she is an inheritor, as Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Ni岣mi, said: I was standing in front of Ameimar, and this woman came before him, as she was asking for one-tenth of her father鈥檚 estate. And I saw that his opinion was that if the inheritor wants to remove her by giving her money, he may remove her, as I heard from the woman鈥檚 brothers that they were saying to her: If we had sufficient money, we would pay your claims and remove you with our own money. And Ameimar was silent and did not say anything to them. Since Ameimar did not object to their suggestion in principle, evidently he agreed that her status was that of a creditor, who may be repaid in cash.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讘注诇转 讞讜讘 讛讜讬讗 讚讗讘讗 讗讜 讚讗讞讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讙讘讗 诇讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讘砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara comments: And now that you have reached a conclusion and said that the daughter is functionally a creditor, is she a creditor of the father or of the brothers? The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is there a practical difference? Either way, as the father has died, she receives her support from the estate. The Gemara answers: There is a difference with respect to collecting intermediate-quality land without an oath and inferior-quality land with an oath. If she is the father鈥檚 creditor, she may collect from the estate only the inferior-quality land with an oath. If, however, she is the brothers鈥 direct creditor, she may collect her claim in the same manner as standard creditors, collecting intermediate-quality land without an oath.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗讙讘讬讛 诇讘专转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诪讘专讬讛 讚专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讝讘讜专讬转 讘砖讘讜注讛

What is the halakha? Whose creditor is she? The Gemara responds: Come and hear a proof, as Ravina provided one-tenth of the estate for the daughter of Rav Ashi from two sources. From Mar, son of Rav Ashi, Ravina gave her intermediate-quality land without an oath. He collected another portion of the property from the orphan son of Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, who was an inheritor of the same estate from his grandfather. This portion was provided of inferior-quality land, with an oath. Since, with regard to the property that Rav Ashi鈥檚 daughter was collecting from an orphan, Ravina required an oath and allowed her to collect only low-grade land, it appears that Ravina treated the daughter as the creditor of the sons and not of the father.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讜讟讗 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 讛讗 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讱 讗讙讘讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注诪诇讗 讚讘讬转讬

The Gemara records a number of related incidents. Rav Ne岣mya, son of Rav Yosef, sent a message to Rabba bar Rav Huna the Small, of Neharde鈥檃: When this woman bearing this letter comes before you, provide her one-tenth of her father鈥檚 estate, providing a percentage even of the land upon which sits the millstone [itzterubela], as this is also real estate. Rav Ashi said: When we were students in Rav Kahana鈥檚 house, we would collect the one-tenth of the estate for the dowry even from the income from the rental fees for houses in the estate. Since this money is earned from the real estate itself, it too is considered in calculating the appropriate dowry.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 注谞谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 砖诇诐 讻讬 讗转讬讗 讛讗 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讱 讗讙讘讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讜讘砖诪转讗 讬讛讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞谉 注谞谉 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讗讜 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜诪讗谉 讬转讬讘 讘讬 诪专讝讬讞讗 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara recounts an interaction between Rav Anan and Rav Huna. Rav Anan sent the following letter to Rav Huna: Huna, our friend, we wish you peace. When this woman bearing this letter comes before you, provide her one-tenth of her father鈥檚 estate. Rav Sheshet was sitting before him, and Rav Huna said to him: Go and say to Rav Anan my reply. Knowing that Rav Sheshet may be hesitant to relay the sharp language of the reply, Rav Huna cautioned him: And whoever does not say to him my exact words is in a state of excommunication: Anan, Anan, should the one-tenth be provided from real estate or from movable property? And, incidentally, tell me who sits at the head in the house of a marzei岣?

讗讝诇 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 专讘讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜砖诪讜转讬 砖诪讬转 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖诪讬转 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 注谞谉 注谞谉 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讗讜 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜诪讗谉 讬转讬讘 讘讬 诪专讝讬讞讗 讘专讬砖讗

Rav Sheshet went before Rav Anan and reverentially said to him, addressing him in the third person: My Master is a teacher, but Rav Huna is the teacher of the teacher. Moreover, he readily excommunicates whoever does not say to him, i.e., to you, my teacher, his precise message, and if it were not that he would excommunicate me, I would not say his words: Anan, Anan, should the one-tenth be provided from real estate or from movable property? And, incidentally, tell me who sits at the head in the house of a marzei岣?

讗讝诇 专讘 注谞谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讬讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注谞谉 注谞谉 讜注讜讚 诪专讝讬讞讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讬 [诇讗 讬讚注谞讗] 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬

Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva to consult with him about Rav Huna鈥檚 reply. He said to him: Let the Master see how Rav Huna sent me an offensive message, addressing me as Anan, Anan. Moreover, with regard to this word marzei岣 in the letter that he sent me, I do not know what it is. Mar Ukva said to him: Say to me, my friend [izi],

讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪专讝讬讞讗 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讗讬 诪专讝讬讞讗 讗讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 转讘讗 讘讬转 诪专讝讞 讜讙讜壮

how the incident itself happened. What are the particulars of your exchange that brought about this end result? He said to him: Such and such was the incident, and Rav Anan related the details to Mar Ukva. He said to him: A man who does not know what a marzei岣 is sends a letter to Rav Huna addressing him as Huna, our friend? It is not your place to take such liberties in your correspondence with him, and Rav Huna was justifiably offended. The Gemara explains: What is a marzei岣? A mourner, as it is written: 鈥淔or so says the Lord: Enter not into the house of mourning [marze鈥檃岣], neither go to lament, neither bemoan them鈥 (Jeremiah 16:5).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘诇 砖诪讬住讘 讘专讗砖 砖谞讗诪专 讗讘讞专 讚专讻诐 讜讗砖讘 专讗砖 讜讗砖讻讜谉 讻诪诇讱 讘讙讚讜讚 讻讗砖专 讗讘诇讬诐 讬谞讞诐 讬谞讞诐 讗讞专讬诐 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬谞讞诐 讻转讬讘

Rabbi Abbahu said concerning the same topic: From where is it derived that a mourner sits at the head? As it is stated: 鈥淚 chose out their way, and sat as chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that would comfort [yena岣m] the mourners鈥 (Job 29:25). The Gemara challenges the proof: The word yena岣m implies one comforting others and not the mourner being comforted. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Since it is written without vowels, the word can be read as if it were written 鈥渨ould be comforted [yinna岣m],鈥 which describes the mourner who is being comforted.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜住专 诪专讝讞 住专讜讞讬诐 诪专 讜讝讞 谞注砖讛 砖专 诇住专讜讞讬诐

Mar Zutra said: That the mourner sits at the head may be derived from here: 鈥淎nd the revelry [mirza岣] of those who stretched themselves shall pass away [sar]鈥 (Amos 6:7). The word mirza岣 may alternatively be read as two distinct words: Bitter [mar] and flustered [za岣], and the word sar has a homonym that means ruler. Read this way, the verse indicates: One who is bitter and flustered, i.e., the mourner, is made the ruler of those who sit, i.e., the visitors who come to comfort him and sit with him. Therefore, he sits at the head.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛

The Gemara reports the conclusion of the earlier discussion: Rava said: The halakha is that one may collect from the inheritors from real estate and not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for support, referring to the dowry.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖诇讬砖 诪注讜转 诇讘转讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 谞讗诪谉 讘注诇讬 注诇讬 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 砖讚讛 讜讛讬讗 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诪讻讜专讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who transfers money by means of a third party for his daughter to purchase a field after she marries, is the daughter allowed to assert control over the money? If she says after she marries: My husband is trustworthy for me, so give him the money to buy the property for me, her wishes are not honored. The third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The daughter has authority: And were it only a field and she wanted to sell it, it could be sold immediately. Just as she would have authority to control the field, she may control the money assigned for her. The mishna qualifies: In what case is this statement said? With respect to an adult woman. But with respect to a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing from a legal standpoint; a minor would have no authority in this matter.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖诇讬砖 诪注讜转 诇讞转谞讜 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 砖讚讛 诇讘转讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讬谞转谞讜 诇讘注诇讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 拽讟谞讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta (6:9): In the case of one who transfers money by means of a third party for his son-in-law, in order to purchase with it a field for his daughter, and she says: Let the money be given directly to my husband to invest as he sees fit, whether or not the court heeds her depends upon the circumstances. If she makes her appeal from the beginning of the marriage and onward, she has the authority to dictate the terms. If she makes her appeal from the time of the betrothal until the marriage, the third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: With respect to the adult woman, whether the statement is from the marriage or from the betrothal, she has authority. In the case of a minor girl, whether from the time of the marriage or from the betrothal, the third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽讟谞讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 谞诪讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 拽讟谞讛 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies: In the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, what is the practical difference between them? If we say: The practical difference between them pertains to the authority of a minor girl from the time of the marriage and onward, as Rabbi Meir holds she has authority, and Rabbi Yosei comes to say that also, even from the time of the marriage, yes, an adult woman may dictate terms, but a minor girl may not, this answer is untenable.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 诪专讬砖讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 砖讚讛 讜讛讬讗 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诪讻讜专讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讚讘转 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讝讘讬谞讬 讛讬讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But with respect to a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing. But who teaches this? If we say it is Rabbi Yosei, but you already learn this principle from the first clause, as Rabbi Yosei said: And were it only a field and she wanted to sell it, it could be sold immediately. This is true of adults: In the case of an adult woman, who is capable of selling, yes, her sale is valid. However, in the case a minor girl, who is not capable of selling, no, her sale is invalid.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, the latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power. In what case is this statement said? From the betrothal. However, from the marriage she has the authority to dictate terms. In what case is this statement said? For an adult woman. However, for a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing. Rabbi Meir agrees that a minor does not have the authority to transfer the money to her husband. What, then, is the practical difference between them? Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to an adult woman from the time of betrothal until the marriage. Rabbi Meir holds that before marriage, she does not have the authority, and Rabbi Yosei holds that she does.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

It was stated that the matter was debated by amora鈥檌m: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗讬诇驻讗 转诇讗 谞驻砖讬讛 讘讗讬住拽专讬讗 讚诪讻讜转讗 讗诪专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗转讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟谞讗 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞驻讬诇讗 诪讗住拽专讬讗 讜讟讘注谞讗

搂 Once, it was decided to appoint Rabbi Yo岣nan to be head of the yeshiva over another candidate, the Sage Ilfa, because the latter was not in the vicinity. Suspecting that some would interpret this appointment as a sign that he was less qualified than Rabbi Yo岣nan, Ilfa suspended himself from the mast [iskarya] of a ship [makhuta]. He said: If there is someone who comes, who tells me a matter taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya, and I do not resolve it and demonstrate that the same teaching can be derived from a mishna, I will fall from the mast and drown.

讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 砖拽诇 诇讘谞讬 讘砖讘转 讜专讗讜讬谉 诇讬转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诇 转转谞讜 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖拽诇 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖拽诇 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诐 诪转讜 讬讬专砖讜 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛诐 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专 讗诇 转转谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖拽诇

A certain older man came and taught before him (Tosefta 6:10): With regard to one who says upon his deathbed: Give a shekel to my sons for each week, the court assesses the sons鈥 needs. And if it is appropriate that the court gives them a sela, which is worth two shekels, the court gives them a sela. Had the father known they would need the additional money, he would not have begrudged them. But if he said: Give them only a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel. Because their father spoke explicitly, there is no room to question his intentions. If they need more, they should take charitable aid. And if he said: If they die without inheritors, others should inherit in their stead, then whether he said: Give a shekel or whether he said: Don鈥檛 give more than a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel, since it is clear that he wants the inheritance to be doled out in such a way that it will remain intact for whoever will receive it. The older man asked Ilfa where this halakha is indicated in the Mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬

Ilfa said to him: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 63-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn about the 鈥渞ebellious wife鈥, why she is called rebellious and what are the...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 69: Last of the Tannaim, First of the Amoraim

A dispute and conversation between R. Yehudah HaNasi and Rav on the inheritance and transference of property - with an...

Ketubot 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 69

转诇讛 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘讬 讘讬谞讬 讞讟讬 讛讗讞讬谉 砖砖讬注讘讚讜 诪讛讜 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻专讜 讗讜 诪砖讻谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谉 诪讻专讜 讘讬谉 砖诪砖讻谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讜转

Rav attached the following question for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi between the lines of a letter he sent him: With respect to brothers who mortgaged a certain property, what is the halakha? Is this property subject to seizure, if need be, for the benefit of the daughters鈥 dowries? Rabbi 岣yya was sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when the letter arrived. He said to him: What is meant in the question? Did they sell the property or did they pledge it as a guarantee, so that it has not yet been transferred? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: What difference does it make? Whether they sold it or pledged it, the court may appropriate the property for support for the daughters鈥 dowries, but the court may not appropriate it for their sustenance.

讜专讘 讗讬 诪讻专讜 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 谞讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 诪讻专讜 讗讬 诪砖讻谞讜 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 谞讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 诪砖讻谞讜

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav himself, if he is raising a dilemma about a case in which they sold the property, let him write explicitly that he is asking about an instance in which they sold the property. And if he is raising a dilemma about a case in which they pledged the property, let him write explicitly that he is asking about an instance in which they pledged the property. Why does Rav instead employ an ambiguous term?

专讘 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 讗讬 讻转讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讻专讜 讛讗 谞讬讞讗 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 讚诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 诪砖讻谞讜 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讻转讬 诪砖讻谞讜 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬

The Gemara answers: Rav was raising a dilemma about both cases and thought: If I write to him that they sold the property, then it works out well if he sends back to me the ruling that the court may appropriate the sold property for the daughters鈥 dowries. In that case, I would also understand that all the more so, if the brothers merely pledged the property, the court would appropriate it for the dowry. But if he sends to me the reply that the court does not appropriate sold property, still the case in which they pledged the property will be a dilemma for me.

讗讬 讻转讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讻谞讜 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 诪讻专讜 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讻转讬 诪讻专讜 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讗讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 砖讬注讘讚讜 讚诪砖诪注 讛讻讬 讜诪砖诪注 讛讻讬

Alternatively, if I write to him that the brothers pledged it, then if he sends to me the response that the court does not appropriate it, I can infer that all the more so if the brothers sold it we do not collect from the buyer. And if he sends me the response that the court does appropriate the land for the daughters鈥 dowries, still the case in which they sold the property will be a dilemma for me. Therefore, I will write to him that they mortgaged it, which implies this meaning and it implies that one, and in this way I will receive a complete answer to my question.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讜讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Whether it is this or whether it is that, the court does not appropriate assigned or sold properties for either the support or sustenance of the daughters. A dilemma was raised before them: Is it that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not hear this ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but had he heard it, he would have accepted it? Or, perhaps, is it that even if he had heard it, he would not have accepted it?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗转诪专 诪讬 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 砖转讬 讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讜拽讚诪讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜谞讟诇讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讙讘讜转 注讚 砖诪转 讛讘谉

The Gemara proposes an answer, indicated by a dispute of amora鈥檌m: Come and hear a proof, as it was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed a certain case. The Sages debated the halakha with regard to one who died and left behind two daughters and a son, and the first daughter advanced and took one-tenth of the estate for her dowry, but the second daughter did not have enough time to collect her one-tenth before the son died. When the daughters divide the remaining assets, are they divided equally, or does the second daughter receive a slightly larger sum, commensurate with an additional portion earmarked for the dowry that she has not yet collected?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬讛 讜讬转专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讗转 讗诪专转 砖谞讬讛 讜讬转专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The second daughter forfeited her right to an equal one-tenth of the estate for a dowry. No specific funds are separated from the estate as a dowry before the inheritance is divided equally among the daughters. Rabbi 岣nina said: The Sages said something even greater than this with respect to her support: The court appropriates liened property for support, but it does not appropriate it for sustenance. And yet would you, Rabbi Yo岣nan, say that the second daughter forfeited her right to collect even when the property is not liened? It cannot be that her support is diminished merely because of her brother鈥檚 death.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 拽讘讬诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗

The Gemara understands that there is evidence within the exchange that Rabbi Yo岣nan knew Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion and nevertheless ruled against it. And if it is so, that Rabbi Yo岣nan never heard the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then let Rabbi Yo岣nan say to Rabbi 岣nina: Who stated that, that property is appropriated for the dowry? Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan must have known and rejected Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara rejects the proof: And perhaps he actually did not hear it; but had he heard it, he would have accepted it. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ruled as he did because it is different there, in the case in which the son died, since there is abundance in the house. Since the second daughter receives half of all the inheritance, she is not concerned about the one-tenth of the estate.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖讻讞讛 诪爪讬讗讛 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 诪讛谞讬 谞讻住讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, according to that logic, then if she had found a generic lost object, as there is abundance in the house due to the value of the newly found article, so too would we not give her one-tenth of the estate? Since finding a lost object, or similarly, being independently wealthy, does not actually change her right to collect her full dowry, it stands to reason that she should collect the full dowry even when she inherits half of the remaining estate. He said to him: I would say this is true of abundance in the house that comes from these properties of the estate. Because the matter depends upon her share of the inheritance, when she commands a sizeable portion of the inheritance, she does not quibble over the one-tenth of the inheritance earmarked for her dowry. However, if she has other resources unrelated to the inheritance, her independent wealth cannot diminish her share of the inheritance with respect to the dowry.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讘转 讬讜专砖转 讛讜讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讗讬诇讜 讘注讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讘讝讜讝讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 讘注讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讘讞讚讗 讗专注讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

搂 With regard to the fundamental right of daughters to receive the support of the dowry from the estate, Ameimar said: A daughter is considered an inheritor. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: According to your opinion, if another inheritor wants to remove her from among the inheritors by giving her money instead of inherited property, is he indeed unable to remove her? May she insist on receiving actual property from the estate for the purpose of her dowry? He said to him: Yes, she may insist on inherited property. Rav Ashi continued to ask Ameimar: If he wants to remove her by giving her one specific piece of land, is he also unable to remove her, since, as an inheritor, she has the right to collect portions of all the property? He said to him: Yes, he is limited in this way. She may insist on her right to inherit from the entire property.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘转 讘注诇转 讞讜讘 讛讜讬讗 讜讗祝 讗诪讬诪专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讬讞讜诪讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 讜讗转讗讬 讛讗讬 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讛讜转 拽讗 讘注讬讗 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讚注转讬讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇住诇讜拽讛 讘讝讜讝讬 讛讜讬 诪住诇拽 诇讛 讚砖诪注讬 诪讗讞讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讛 诇谉 讝讜讝讬 住诇讬拽谞讗 讘讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

In contrast to Ameimar, Rav Ashi said: A daughter is legally considered a creditor with regard to the inheritance, and the inheritors may insist that they will provide her support by any means, without giving her a share of the actual inheritance. The Gemara notes: And even Ameimar retracted his opinion that she is an inheritor, as Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Ni岣mi, said: I was standing in front of Ameimar, and this woman came before him, as she was asking for one-tenth of her father鈥檚 estate. And I saw that his opinion was that if the inheritor wants to remove her by giving her money, he may remove her, as I heard from the woman鈥檚 brothers that they were saying to her: If we had sufficient money, we would pay your claims and remove you with our own money. And Ameimar was silent and did not say anything to them. Since Ameimar did not object to their suggestion in principle, evidently he agreed that her status was that of a creditor, who may be repaid in cash.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讘注诇转 讞讜讘 讛讜讬讗 讚讗讘讗 讗讜 讚讗讞讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讙讘讗 诇讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讘砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara comments: And now that you have reached a conclusion and said that the daughter is functionally a creditor, is she a creditor of the father or of the brothers? The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is there a practical difference? Either way, as the father has died, she receives her support from the estate. The Gemara answers: There is a difference with respect to collecting intermediate-quality land without an oath and inferior-quality land with an oath. If she is the father鈥檚 creditor, she may collect from the estate only the inferior-quality land with an oath. If, however, she is the brothers鈥 direct creditor, she may collect her claim in the same manner as standard creditors, collecting intermediate-quality land without an oath.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗讙讘讬讛 诇讘专转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诪讘专讬讛 讚专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讝讘讜专讬转 讘砖讘讜注讛

What is the halakha? Whose creditor is she? The Gemara responds: Come and hear a proof, as Ravina provided one-tenth of the estate for the daughter of Rav Ashi from two sources. From Mar, son of Rav Ashi, Ravina gave her intermediate-quality land without an oath. He collected another portion of the property from the orphan son of Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, who was an inheritor of the same estate from his grandfather. This portion was provided of inferior-quality land, with an oath. Since, with regard to the property that Rav Ashi鈥檚 daughter was collecting from an orphan, Ravina required an oath and allowed her to collect only low-grade land, it appears that Ravina treated the daughter as the creditor of the sons and not of the father.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讜讟讗 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 讛讗 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讱 讗讙讘讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注诪诇讗 讚讘讬转讬

The Gemara records a number of related incidents. Rav Ne岣mya, son of Rav Yosef, sent a message to Rabba bar Rav Huna the Small, of Neharde鈥檃: When this woman bearing this letter comes before you, provide her one-tenth of her father鈥檚 estate, providing a percentage even of the land upon which sits the millstone [itzterubela], as this is also real estate. Rav Ashi said: When we were students in Rav Kahana鈥檚 house, we would collect the one-tenth of the estate for the dowry even from the income from the rental fees for houses in the estate. Since this money is earned from the real estate itself, it too is considered in calculating the appropriate dowry.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 注谞谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 砖诇诐 讻讬 讗转讬讗 讛讗 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讱 讗讙讘讛 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讜讘砖诪转讗 讬讛讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞谉 注谞谉 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讗讜 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜诪讗谉 讬转讬讘 讘讬 诪专讝讬讞讗 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara recounts an interaction between Rav Anan and Rav Huna. Rav Anan sent the following letter to Rav Huna: Huna, our friend, we wish you peace. When this woman bearing this letter comes before you, provide her one-tenth of her father鈥檚 estate. Rav Sheshet was sitting before him, and Rav Huna said to him: Go and say to Rav Anan my reply. Knowing that Rav Sheshet may be hesitant to relay the sharp language of the reply, Rav Huna cautioned him: And whoever does not say to him my exact words is in a state of excommunication: Anan, Anan, should the one-tenth be provided from real estate or from movable property? And, incidentally, tell me who sits at the head in the house of a marzei岣?

讗讝诇 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 专讘讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜砖诪讜转讬 砖诪讬转 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖诪讬转 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 注谞谉 注谞谉 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讗讜 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜诪讗谉 讬转讬讘 讘讬 诪专讝讬讞讗 讘专讬砖讗

Rav Sheshet went before Rav Anan and reverentially said to him, addressing him in the third person: My Master is a teacher, but Rav Huna is the teacher of the teacher. Moreover, he readily excommunicates whoever does not say to him, i.e., to you, my teacher, his precise message, and if it were not that he would excommunicate me, I would not say his words: Anan, Anan, should the one-tenth be provided from real estate or from movable property? And, incidentally, tell me who sits at the head in the house of a marzei岣?

讗讝诇 专讘 注谞谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讬讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注谞谉 注谞谉 讜注讜讚 诪专讝讬讞讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讬 [诇讗 讬讚注谞讗] 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬

Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva to consult with him about Rav Huna鈥檚 reply. He said to him: Let the Master see how Rav Huna sent me an offensive message, addressing me as Anan, Anan. Moreover, with regard to this word marzei岣 in the letter that he sent me, I do not know what it is. Mar Ukva said to him: Say to me, my friend [izi],

讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪专讝讬讞讗 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讗讬 诪专讝讬讞讗 讗讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 转讘讗 讘讬转 诪专讝讞 讜讙讜壮

how the incident itself happened. What are the particulars of your exchange that brought about this end result? He said to him: Such and such was the incident, and Rav Anan related the details to Mar Ukva. He said to him: A man who does not know what a marzei岣 is sends a letter to Rav Huna addressing him as Huna, our friend? It is not your place to take such liberties in your correspondence with him, and Rav Huna was justifiably offended. The Gemara explains: What is a marzei岣? A mourner, as it is written: 鈥淔or so says the Lord: Enter not into the house of mourning [marze鈥檃岣], neither go to lament, neither bemoan them鈥 (Jeremiah 16:5).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘诇 砖诪讬住讘 讘专讗砖 砖谞讗诪专 讗讘讞专 讚专讻诐 讜讗砖讘 专讗砖 讜讗砖讻讜谉 讻诪诇讱 讘讙讚讜讚 讻讗砖专 讗讘诇讬诐 讬谞讞诐 讬谞讞诐 讗讞专讬诐 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬谞讞诐 讻转讬讘

Rabbi Abbahu said concerning the same topic: From where is it derived that a mourner sits at the head? As it is stated: 鈥淚 chose out their way, and sat as chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that would comfort [yena岣m] the mourners鈥 (Job 29:25). The Gemara challenges the proof: The word yena岣m implies one comforting others and not the mourner being comforted. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Since it is written without vowels, the word can be read as if it were written 鈥渨ould be comforted [yinna岣m],鈥 which describes the mourner who is being comforted.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜住专 诪专讝讞 住专讜讞讬诐 诪专 讜讝讞 谞注砖讛 砖专 诇住专讜讞讬诐

Mar Zutra said: That the mourner sits at the head may be derived from here: 鈥淎nd the revelry [mirza岣] of those who stretched themselves shall pass away [sar]鈥 (Amos 6:7). The word mirza岣 may alternatively be read as two distinct words: Bitter [mar] and flustered [za岣], and the word sar has a homonym that means ruler. Read this way, the verse indicates: One who is bitter and flustered, i.e., the mourner, is made the ruler of those who sit, i.e., the visitors who come to comfort him and sit with him. Therefore, he sits at the head.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛

The Gemara reports the conclusion of the earlier discussion: Rava said: The halakha is that one may collect from the inheritors from real estate and not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for support, referring to the dowry.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖诇讬砖 诪注讜转 诇讘转讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 谞讗诪谉 讘注诇讬 注诇讬 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 砖讚讛 讜讛讬讗 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诪讻讜专讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who transfers money by means of a third party for his daughter to purchase a field after she marries, is the daughter allowed to assert control over the money? If she says after she marries: My husband is trustworthy for me, so give him the money to buy the property for me, her wishes are not honored. The third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The daughter has authority: And were it only a field and she wanted to sell it, it could be sold immediately. Just as she would have authority to control the field, she may control the money assigned for her. The mishna qualifies: In what case is this statement said? With respect to an adult woman. But with respect to a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing from a legal standpoint; a minor would have no authority in this matter.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖诇讬砖 诪注讜转 诇讞转谞讜 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 砖讚讛 诇讘转讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讬谞转谞讜 诇讘注诇讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 拽讟谞讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta (6:9): In the case of one who transfers money by means of a third party for his son-in-law, in order to purchase with it a field for his daughter, and she says: Let the money be given directly to my husband to invest as he sees fit, whether or not the court heeds her depends upon the circumstances. If she makes her appeal from the beginning of the marriage and onward, she has the authority to dictate the terms. If she makes her appeal from the time of the betrothal until the marriage, the third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: With respect to the adult woman, whether the statement is from the marriage or from the betrothal, she has authority. In the case of a minor girl, whether from the time of the marriage or from the betrothal, the third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽讟谞讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 谞诪讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 拽讟谞讛 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies: In the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, what is the practical difference between them? If we say: The practical difference between them pertains to the authority of a minor girl from the time of the marriage and onward, as Rabbi Meir holds she has authority, and Rabbi Yosei comes to say that also, even from the time of the marriage, yes, an adult woman may dictate terms, but a minor girl may not, this answer is untenable.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 诪专讬砖讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 砖讚讛 讜讛讬讗 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诪讻讜专讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讚讘转 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讝讘讬谞讬 讛讬讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But with respect to a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing. But who teaches this? If we say it is Rabbi Yosei, but you already learn this principle from the first clause, as Rabbi Yosei said: And were it only a field and she wanted to sell it, it could be sold immediately. This is true of adults: In the case of an adult woman, who is capable of selling, yes, her sale is valid. However, in the case a minor girl, who is not capable of selling, no, her sale is invalid.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讬注砖讛 讛砖诇讬砖 诪讛 砖讛讜砖诇砖 讘讬讚讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, the latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power. In what case is this statement said? From the betrothal. However, from the marriage she has the authority to dictate terms. In what case is this statement said? For an adult woman. However, for a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing. Rabbi Meir agrees that a minor does not have the authority to transfer the money to her husband. What, then, is the practical difference between them? Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to an adult woman from the time of betrothal until the marriage. Rabbi Meir holds that before marriage, she does not have the authority, and Rabbi Yosei holds that she does.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

It was stated that the matter was debated by amora鈥檌m: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗讬诇驻讗 转诇讗 谞驻砖讬讛 讘讗讬住拽专讬讗 讚诪讻讜转讗 讗诪专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗转讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟谞讗 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞驻讬诇讗 诪讗住拽专讬讗 讜讟讘注谞讗

搂 Once, it was decided to appoint Rabbi Yo岣nan to be head of the yeshiva over another candidate, the Sage Ilfa, because the latter was not in the vicinity. Suspecting that some would interpret this appointment as a sign that he was less qualified than Rabbi Yo岣nan, Ilfa suspended himself from the mast [iskarya] of a ship [makhuta]. He said: If there is someone who comes, who tells me a matter taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya, and I do not resolve it and demonstrate that the same teaching can be derived from a mishna, I will fall from the mast and drown.

讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 砖拽诇 诇讘谞讬 讘砖讘转 讜专讗讜讬谉 诇讬转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诇 转转谞讜 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖拽诇 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖拽诇 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诐 诪转讜 讬讬专砖讜 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛诐 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专 讗诇 转转谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖拽诇

A certain older man came and taught before him (Tosefta 6:10): With regard to one who says upon his deathbed: Give a shekel to my sons for each week, the court assesses the sons鈥 needs. And if it is appropriate that the court gives them a sela, which is worth two shekels, the court gives them a sela. Had the father known they would need the additional money, he would not have begrudged them. But if he said: Give them only a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel. Because their father spoke explicitly, there is no room to question his intentions. If they need more, they should take charitable aid. And if he said: If they die without inheritors, others should inherit in their stead, then whether he said: Give a shekel or whether he said: Don鈥檛 give more than a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel, since it is clear that he wants the inheritance to be doled out in such a way that it will remain intact for whoever will receive it. The older man asked Ilfa where this halakha is indicated in the Mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬

Ilfa said to him: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?

Scroll To Top