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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 27, 2015 | 讞壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • 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 84

Study Guide Ketubot 84


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜住讘专 专讘 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rav actually hold that if one stipulates counter to Torah law, his condition is valid? But it was stated: One who says to another: I am selling this to you on the condition that you have no claim of fraud against me, i.e., though there is a prohibition against fraud by Torah law, the purchaser agrees to forgo his right to register a complaint on this basis. Rav said: He does have the right to a claim of fraud against him, and therefore the seller must reimburse the purchaser, as he cannot abrogate the Torah prohibition 鈥淎nd you shall not wrong one another鈥 (Leviticus 25:17). And Shmuel said: He does not have the right to a claim of fraud against him. It is evident from here that according to Rav, one cannot make a stipulation that contradicts Torah law.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诪转讛 讬讬专砖谞讛 讜专讘 住讘专 诪转讛 诇讗 讬讬专砖谞讛

Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: One who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if the wife died, he inherits from her, and Rav holds that if she died he does not inherit from her.

讛讗讬 诪讟注诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讻讛讬诇讻转讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: If this is what Rav meant, he should have said the opposite of what he said. This statement would be because of his line of reasoning but not in accordance with his halakha, whereas Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel but not because of his line of reasoning.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诐 诪转讛 讬讬专砖谞讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讛讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐 讜专讘 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇

Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if she died he inherits from her, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in a case where one stipulated counter to Torah law his condition is void, indicating that in a case where his stipulation was counter to rabbinic law his condition is valid; and Rav holds that even in a case where one stipulated counter to rabbinic law, his condition is void.

讛讗讬 讻讟注诪讬讛 讜讻讛讬诇讻转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘 诪讜住讬祝 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: This statement would be in accordance with his line of reasoning and in accordance with his halakha, and Rav is merely adding a detail to the halakha of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诐 诪转讛 讬讬专砖谞讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻诇 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讜专讘 住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚专讘谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注砖讜 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖诇 转讜专讛

Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if she died he inherits from her, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, and whoever stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void; and Rav holds that the inheritance of a husband is by rabbinic law, but his stipulation is nevertheless void, as the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with the severity of Torah law and ruled that their laws cannot be abrogated.

讜专讘 住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讬谞讻讛 诇讛谉 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And does Rav hold that the inheritance of a husband is by rabbinic law? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 52b) that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: One who inherits from his wife must return the property to her family members in the Jubilee Year and deduct for them part of the monetary value of the property? He can claim only part, but not all, of the property鈥檚 value from the wife鈥檚 relatives.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讚专讘谞谉 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜

And we discussed this halakha: What does Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka hold? If he holds that that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, why must he return the property to his wife鈥檚 relatives? An inheritance is not given back in the Jubilee Year. And if he holds that the inheritance is by rabbinic law, what is the purpose of the money that he receives from his wife鈥檚 relatives in exchange for the land? By Torah law, the property belongs to the woman鈥檚 family and they should not have to pay him anything.

讜讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜专讬砖转讜 讗砖转讜 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讬砖拽讜诇 讚诪讬 讜诇讬讛讚专

And Rav said: Actually, he holds that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, and he is discussing a case where his wife bequeathed to him her family鈥檚 graveyard. Due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name if the wife鈥檚 family would have to be buried in plots belonging to others, the Sages said that he should take compensation from them and return the graveyard to them.

讜诪讗讬 讬谞讻讛 诇讛谉 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讚诪讬 拽讘专 讗砖转讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 拽讘专讜 讜讚专讱 拽讘专讜 诪注诪讚讜 讜诪拽讜诐 讛住驻讬讚讜 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛

The Gemara continues: And what is the meaning of: And deduct for them part of the monetary value of the property? This is referring to the monetary value of his wife鈥檚 grave. A husband is obligated to pay for his wife鈥檚 burial, and therefore he must deduct the value of her burial plot from the value of the field. As it is taught in a baraita that there are halakhot connected with burial to uphold family honor: In the case of one who sells his grave, or the path to his grave, or the place where visitors would stand to comfort the mourners, or the place of his eulogies, the members of his family may come and bury him in his ancestral plot against the purchaser鈥檚 wishes due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name if a member of their family had to be buried in a graveyard of strangers. In any case, it is evident from here that Rav believes that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, in contrast to what the Gemara had said earlier.

专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not proof that Rav himself is of the opinion that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, as Rav spoke in accordance with the reasoning of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. In other words, he was explaining the reason for the ruling of the tanna, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 驻拽讚讜谉 讗讜 诪诇讜讛 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讬谞转谞讜 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who died and left behind a wife, and a creditor to whom he owed money, and heirs, all of whom claim payment from his property, and he had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others, Rabbi Tarfon says: The deposit or the loan will be given to the weakest one of them, i.e., the one most in need of the money. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. If the halakha is that it belongs to one party, one follows the halakha and leaves aside considerations of mercy. Rather, the halakha is that the money will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath. They therefore have a more absolute right than the others to their father鈥檚 property.

讛谞讬讞 驻讬专讜转 转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讘讛谉 讝讻转讛 讗砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讻转讜讘转讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜转专 注诇 讞讜讘讜 讛诪讜转专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讬谞转谞讜 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讻讜诇诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛

If the deceased left behind produce that was detached from the ground, whoever first took possession of them as compensation for what was owed, whether the creditor, the wife, or the heirs, acquired the produce. If the wife acquired this produce and it was worth more than the payment of her marriage contract, or the creditor acquired this produce and it was worth more than the value of his debt, what should be done with the surplus? Rabbi Tarfon says: It will be given to the weakest one of them, either the creditor or the wife, depending on the circumstances. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. Rather, it will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 诪诇讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诪诇讜讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 讗讘诇 驻拽讚讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the wording of the mishna: Why do I need the tanna to teach this halakha in the case of a loan, and why do I need him to teach it in the case of a deposit? Either example alone would have sufficed. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, for if he had taught the halakha only in the case of a loan, one could have said: In that case Rabbi Tarfon says what he says due to the fact that a loan is given to be spent. Since there is no already existing property here, but only an obligation to pay back the loan, it can be given to the weakest party. However, in the case of a deposit, which exists in its pure, unadulterated form and not just as an obligation, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Akiva that it belongs to the heirs.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the tanna had taught that halakha only in the case of a deposit, one could have said that in that case Rabbi Akiva says his ruling that the deposit belongs to the heirs. However, in this case of a loan, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Tarfon that the loan is given to the weakest party. It is therefore necessary for the halakha to be taught in both cases.

诪讗讬 诇讻讜砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘专讗讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗

The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Tarfon, the money should be given to the weakest party. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: To the weakest? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: It means that the money is given to the one whose proof is the weakest, i.e., the one with the latest date on the document attesting to the debt. His document is the weakest, as one can collect from property that was sold by the deceased only if it was sold subsequent to his incurring the debt. Therefore, the others can collect from property that has been sold before the date listed on his document. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is referring to the wife鈥檚 marriage contract. The Sages instituted halakhot in marriage contracts that were to the advantage of women and to make them feel more secure in their marriages, due to the fact that they wanted men to find favor in the eyes of women.

讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讗讜诪专 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘专讗讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讻砖专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗

The Gemara comments: This discussion is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: Rabbi Binyamin says: The money is given to the one whose proof is the weakest, and this is the proper way to act. Rabbi Elazar says: It is referring to the wife鈥檚 marriage contract, due to the fact that they wanted men to find favor with women.

讛谞讬讞 驻讬专讜转 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讜转专 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讚讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讜转专 转谞讗 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna taught that if the husband left behind produce that was detached, the claimant who first seizes it acquires it, and there is a dispute as to what should be done with the surplus. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, why discuss specifically this case of the surplus? All of the produce, not only the surplus, also belongs to the heirs, as he holds that the entire property goes to the heirs, even if the others took possession of it first. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Certainly Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between a deposit and detached produce, but since Rabbi Tarfon spoke of a surplus, he also taught his halakha with regard to a surplus. However, according to Rabbi Akiva, the halakha is the same with regard to detached produce.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转驻讬住讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讜讗 砖转驻住 诪讞讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, is the seizure of a debtor鈥檚 assets by a creditor, though there are others who have a more immediate right to the assets, not effective at all? Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: And this, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that the seizure of assets is effective, is the case provided that one seized the property from the debtor while he was alive. However, after his death the assets belong to the heirs.

讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚诪谞讞讬 讛讬讻讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讗 砖爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讘住讬诪讟讗 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讬诪讟讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that whoever first takes possession of the produce has acquired it, where was this produce placed? The Gemara presents a dispute: There is the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: And this, that whoever first takes possession of the produce has acquired it, is the halakha provided that the produce is arranged in a pile and placed in the public domain. Since the public domain is not a suitable location for an act of acquisition, anyone can take the produce and acquire it. However, if it is situated in an alley [simta], a place adjacent to the public domain that is rarely frequented by the public, the produce does not belong to the first one who obtains it. Because an acquisition can be performed in an alley, any items that had belonged to the deceased are immediately acquired by the heirs. And there is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, who both say: Even if one seizes produce left in an alley, he acquires it.

讚讜谉 讚讬讬谞讬 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇注讜讘讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讬转 讻砖诇 转讜专讛

The Gemara relates: There were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action. He dismissed the judges鈥 decision and restored the money to the heirs, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yo岣nan criticized his ruling and said to him: You acted in this case like one acts with regard to a ruling of Torah law, where any incorrect action taken by the court must be corrected.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜诪专 住讘专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is not revoked.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪专讘讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讘讜

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, it can be explained that according to everyone, where the judge erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague, but not in his disputes with his teacher, and Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 teacher. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva even in his disputes with his teacher.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪专讘讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 专讘讜 讛讜讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讛

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague but not in his disputes with his teacher. And here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 teacher, and one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was his colleague.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讗讬转诪专 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讟讬谉 讗讬转诪专

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 colleague, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the principle that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva was stated as the halakha. And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that what was stated was that one is inclined to follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, although Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion is followed ab initio, the halakha was never established conclusively in accordance with it. As such, if judges went against the principle that the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva in opposition to his colleague, the Sages do not revoke their decision.

拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转驻讜住 驻专讛 讚讬转诪讬 诪住讬诪讟讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 转驻住转讜讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讗讛讚讜专 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讻谞讙讚讬 讞诇讜拽 注诇讬

The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yo岣nan seized a cow of orphans from an alley because the orphans鈥 father owed them money. They came before Rabbi Yo岣nan for judgment, and he said to them: It is well that you seized the cow and it is yours, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon. They subsequently came before Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said to them: Go and return the cow to the orphans. They again came before Rabbi Yo岣nan, complaining that Reish Lakish had told them they must give back the cow, in opposition to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling. He said to them: What can I do, as one whose stature corresponds to my stature disagrees with me, and I cannot dismiss his opinion.

讛讛讜讗 讘拽专讗 讚讬转诪讬 讚转驻住讬 转讜专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 诪讞讬讬诐 转驻讬住谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讘拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转驻住讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讱 住讛讚讬 讚转驻住讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 诇拽讜讞 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讬 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪讞讬讬诐 转驻讬住谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain herdsman caring for the cattle of orphans from whom a creditor seized an ox as payment for a debt of the orphans鈥 father. The creditor said: I seized it from the herdsman while the debtor was still alive. In such a case, the action is effective even according to Rabbi Akiva, as stated earlier. And the herdsman said: He seized it after the debtor鈥檚 death. They came before Rav Na岣an for a ruling. Rav Na岣an said to the herdsman: Do you have witnesses that he seized the ox from you? He said to him: No. Rav Na岣an said to him: In that case, since the claimant can say: It is in my possession because it was purchased by me, as there is no proof that he gained possession of the ox unlawfully, he can also say: I seized it from the herdsman while the deceased was still alive.

讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 砖讗谞讬 转讜专讗 讚诪住讬专讛 诇专讜注讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say that moving livestock, e.g., sheep and oxen, provide no presumption of ownership to whoever is in possession of them? Since they wander from place to place, a person cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The Gemara answers: An ox is different from other livestock, as it is handed over to a shepherd, who does not let it wander off. Consequently, possession of an ox does establish a presumption of ownership.

讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 转驻讜住 讗诪转讗 讚讬转诪讬 诪住讬诪讟讗 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 转驻住讬转讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讞谞驻讬转讜 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 讚讜谉 讚讬讬谞讬 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讜讘讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates another incident: The members of the house of the prince of Eretz Yisrael seized hold of a maidservant of orphans in an alley, as payment for a debt owed to them by the orphans鈥 father. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were sitting as judges, and Rabbi Abba was sitting with them. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: It is well that you seized the maidservant. Rabbi Abba said to the judges: Just because they are members of the house of the prince, will you curry favor with them by rendering an incorrect verdict? Isn鈥檛 it the halakha that there were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action, indicating that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon?

讬讬诪专 讘专 讞砖讜 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘讬拽 讗专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诇讜讞讬讛 讝讬诇 转驻住讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗讝诇 转驻住讛 驻讙注讜 讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗转 转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara relates another incident: A man called Yeimar bar 岣shu was owed money by a certain man who died and left behind a boat. Yeimar bar 岣shu said to his agent: Go and seize the boat for me. The agent went and seized it. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, encountered him. They said to him: You are seizing assets for a creditor in a situation where your action will cause a disadvantage for others, as the debtor owed money to other people as well. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said that one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others

  • 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: 77-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that the Sages can force a man to divorce his wife if he develops a...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 84: When the Sages Disagree (Whom Do We Follow?)

A new mishnah: what happens when a person dies and several people have claims on his money - whose claim...

Ketubot 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 84

讜住讘专 专讘 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rav actually hold that if one stipulates counter to Torah law, his condition is valid? But it was stated: One who says to another: I am selling this to you on the condition that you have no claim of fraud against me, i.e., though there is a prohibition against fraud by Torah law, the purchaser agrees to forgo his right to register a complaint on this basis. Rav said: He does have the right to a claim of fraud against him, and therefore the seller must reimburse the purchaser, as he cannot abrogate the Torah prohibition 鈥淎nd you shall not wrong one another鈥 (Leviticus 25:17). And Shmuel said: He does not have the right to a claim of fraud against him. It is evident from here that according to Rav, one cannot make a stipulation that contradicts Torah law.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诪转讛 讬讬专砖谞讛 讜专讘 住讘专 诪转讛 诇讗 讬讬专砖谞讛

Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: One who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if the wife died, he inherits from her, and Rav holds that if she died he does not inherit from her.

讛讗讬 诪讟注诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讻讛讬诇讻转讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: If this is what Rav meant, he should have said the opposite of what he said. This statement would be because of his line of reasoning but not in accordance with his halakha, whereas Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel but not because of his line of reasoning.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诐 诪转讛 讬讬专砖谞讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讛讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐 讜专讘 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇

Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if she died he inherits from her, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in a case where one stipulated counter to Torah law his condition is void, indicating that in a case where his stipulation was counter to rabbinic law his condition is valid; and Rav holds that even in a case where one stipulated counter to rabbinic law, his condition is void.

讛讗讬 讻讟注诪讬讛 讜讻讛讬诇讻转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘 诪讜住讬祝 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: This statement would be in accordance with his line of reasoning and in accordance with his halakha, and Rav is merely adding a detail to the halakha of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诐 诪转讛 讬讬专砖谞讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻诇 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讜专讘 住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚专讘谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注砖讜 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖诇 转讜专讛

Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if she died he inherits from her, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, and whoever stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void; and Rav holds that the inheritance of a husband is by rabbinic law, but his stipulation is nevertheless void, as the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with the severity of Torah law and ruled that their laws cannot be abrogated.

讜专讘 住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讬谞讻讛 诇讛谉 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And does Rav hold that the inheritance of a husband is by rabbinic law? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 52b) that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: One who inherits from his wife must return the property to her family members in the Jubilee Year and deduct for them part of the monetary value of the property? He can claim only part, but not all, of the property鈥檚 value from the wife鈥檚 relatives.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讚专讘谞谉 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜

And we discussed this halakha: What does Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka hold? If he holds that that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, why must he return the property to his wife鈥檚 relatives? An inheritance is not given back in the Jubilee Year. And if he holds that the inheritance is by rabbinic law, what is the purpose of the money that he receives from his wife鈥檚 relatives in exchange for the land? By Torah law, the property belongs to the woman鈥檚 family and they should not have to pay him anything.

讜讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讬专讜砖转 讛讘注诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜专讬砖转讜 讗砖转讜 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讬砖拽讜诇 讚诪讬 讜诇讬讛讚专

And Rav said: Actually, he holds that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, and he is discussing a case where his wife bequeathed to him her family鈥檚 graveyard. Due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name if the wife鈥檚 family would have to be buried in plots belonging to others, the Sages said that he should take compensation from them and return the graveyard to them.

讜诪讗讬 讬谞讻讛 诇讛谉 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讚诪讬 拽讘专 讗砖转讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 拽讘专讜 讜讚专讱 拽讘专讜 诪注诪讚讜 讜诪拽讜诐 讛住驻讬讚讜 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛

The Gemara continues: And what is the meaning of: And deduct for them part of the monetary value of the property? This is referring to the monetary value of his wife鈥檚 grave. A husband is obligated to pay for his wife鈥檚 burial, and therefore he must deduct the value of her burial plot from the value of the field. As it is taught in a baraita that there are halakhot connected with burial to uphold family honor: In the case of one who sells his grave, or the path to his grave, or the place where visitors would stand to comfort the mourners, or the place of his eulogies, the members of his family may come and bury him in his ancestral plot against the purchaser鈥檚 wishes due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name if a member of their family had to be buried in a graveyard of strangers. In any case, it is evident from here that Rav believes that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, in contrast to what the Gemara had said earlier.

专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not proof that Rav himself is of the opinion that the inheritance of a husband is by Torah law, as Rav spoke in accordance with the reasoning of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. In other words, he was explaining the reason for the ruling of the tanna, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 驻拽讚讜谉 讗讜 诪诇讜讛 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讬谞转谞讜 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who died and left behind a wife, and a creditor to whom he owed money, and heirs, all of whom claim payment from his property, and he had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others, Rabbi Tarfon says: The deposit or the loan will be given to the weakest one of them, i.e., the one most in need of the money. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. If the halakha is that it belongs to one party, one follows the halakha and leaves aside considerations of mercy. Rather, the halakha is that the money will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath. They therefore have a more absolute right than the others to their father鈥檚 property.

讛谞讬讞 驻讬专讜转 转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讘讛谉 讝讻转讛 讗砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讻转讜讘转讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜转专 注诇 讞讜讘讜 讛诪讜转专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 讘讚讬谉 讗诇讗 讬谞转谞讜 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讻讜诇诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讘讜注讛

If the deceased left behind produce that was detached from the ground, whoever first took possession of them as compensation for what was owed, whether the creditor, the wife, or the heirs, acquired the produce. If the wife acquired this produce and it was worth more than the payment of her marriage contract, or the creditor acquired this produce and it was worth more than the value of his debt, what should be done with the surplus? Rabbi Tarfon says: It will be given to the weakest one of them, either the creditor or the wife, depending on the circumstances. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. Rather, it will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 诪诇讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诪诇讜讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 讗讘诇 驻拽讚讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the wording of the mishna: Why do I need the tanna to teach this halakha in the case of a loan, and why do I need him to teach it in the case of a deposit? Either example alone would have sufficed. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, for if he had taught the halakha only in the case of a loan, one could have said: In that case Rabbi Tarfon says what he says due to the fact that a loan is given to be spent. Since there is no already existing property here, but only an obligation to pay back the loan, it can be given to the weakest party. However, in the case of a deposit, which exists in its pure, unadulterated form and not just as an obligation, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Akiva that it belongs to the heirs.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the tanna had taught that halakha only in the case of a deposit, one could have said that in that case Rabbi Akiva says his ruling that the deposit belongs to the heirs. However, in this case of a loan, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Tarfon that the loan is given to the weakest party. It is therefore necessary for the halakha to be taught in both cases.

诪讗讬 诇讻讜砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘专讗讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗

The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Tarfon, the money should be given to the weakest party. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: To the weakest? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: It means that the money is given to the one whose proof is the weakest, i.e., the one with the latest date on the document attesting to the debt. His document is the weakest, as one can collect from property that was sold by the deceased only if it was sold subsequent to his incurring the debt. Therefore, the others can collect from property that has been sold before the date listed on his document. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is referring to the wife鈥檚 marriage contract. The Sages instituted halakhot in marriage contracts that were to the advantage of women and to make them feel more secure in their marriages, due to the fact that they wanted men to find favor in the eyes of women.

讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讗讜诪专 诇讻讜砖诇 砖讘专讗讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讻砖专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗

The Gemara comments: This discussion is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: Rabbi Binyamin says: The money is given to the one whose proof is the weakest, and this is the proper way to act. Rabbi Elazar says: It is referring to the wife鈥檚 marriage contract, due to the fact that they wanted men to find favor with women.

讛谞讬讞 驻讬专讜转 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讜转专 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讚讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讜转专 转谞讗 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna taught that if the husband left behind produce that was detached, the claimant who first seizes it acquires it, and there is a dispute as to what should be done with the surplus. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, why discuss specifically this case of the surplus? All of the produce, not only the surplus, also belongs to the heirs, as he holds that the entire property goes to the heirs, even if the others took possession of it first. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Certainly Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between a deposit and detached produce, but since Rabbi Tarfon spoke of a surplus, he also taught his halakha with regard to a surplus. However, according to Rabbi Akiva, the halakha is the same with regard to detached produce.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转驻讬住讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讜讗 砖转驻住 诪讞讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, is the seizure of a debtor鈥檚 assets by a creditor, though there are others who have a more immediate right to the assets, not effective at all? Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: And this, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that the seizure of assets is effective, is the case provided that one seized the property from the debtor while he was alive. However, after his death the assets belong to the heirs.

讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚诪谞讞讬 讛讬讻讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讗 砖爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讘住讬诪讟讗 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讬诪讟讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that whoever first takes possession of the produce has acquired it, where was this produce placed? The Gemara presents a dispute: There is the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: And this, that whoever first takes possession of the produce has acquired it, is the halakha provided that the produce is arranged in a pile and placed in the public domain. Since the public domain is not a suitable location for an act of acquisition, anyone can take the produce and acquire it. However, if it is situated in an alley [simta], a place adjacent to the public domain that is rarely frequented by the public, the produce does not belong to the first one who obtains it. Because an acquisition can be performed in an alley, any items that had belonged to the deceased are immediately acquired by the heirs. And there is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, who both say: Even if one seizes produce left in an alley, he acquires it.

讚讜谉 讚讬讬谞讬 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇注讜讘讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讬转 讻砖诇 转讜专讛

The Gemara relates: There were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action. He dismissed the judges鈥 decision and restored the money to the heirs, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yo岣nan criticized his ruling and said to him: You acted in this case like one acts with regard to a ruling of Torah law, where any incorrect action taken by the court must be corrected.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜诪专 住讘专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is not revoked.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪专讘讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讘讜

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, it can be explained that according to everyone, where the judge erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague, but not in his disputes with his teacher, and Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 teacher. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva even in his disputes with his teacher.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪专讘讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 专讘讜 讛讜讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讛

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague but not in his disputes with his teacher. And here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 teacher, and one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was his colleague.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讗讬转诪专 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讟讬谉 讗讬转诪专

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 colleague, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the principle that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva was stated as the halakha. And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that what was stated was that one is inclined to follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, although Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion is followed ab initio, the halakha was never established conclusively in accordance with it. As such, if judges went against the principle that the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva in opposition to his colleague, the Sages do not revoke their decision.

拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转驻讜住 驻专讛 讚讬转诪讬 诪住讬诪讟讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 转驻住转讜讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讗讛讚讜专 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讻谞讙讚讬 讞诇讜拽 注诇讬

The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yo岣nan seized a cow of orphans from an alley because the orphans鈥 father owed them money. They came before Rabbi Yo岣nan for judgment, and he said to them: It is well that you seized the cow and it is yours, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon. They subsequently came before Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said to them: Go and return the cow to the orphans. They again came before Rabbi Yo岣nan, complaining that Reish Lakish had told them they must give back the cow, in opposition to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling. He said to them: What can I do, as one whose stature corresponds to my stature disagrees with me, and I cannot dismiss his opinion.

讛讛讜讗 讘拽专讗 讚讬转诪讬 讚转驻住讬 转讜专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 诪讞讬讬诐 转驻讬住谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讘拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转驻住讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讱 住讛讚讬 讚转驻住讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 诇拽讜讞 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讬 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪讞讬讬诐 转驻讬住谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain herdsman caring for the cattle of orphans from whom a creditor seized an ox as payment for a debt of the orphans鈥 father. The creditor said: I seized it from the herdsman while the debtor was still alive. In such a case, the action is effective even according to Rabbi Akiva, as stated earlier. And the herdsman said: He seized it after the debtor鈥檚 death. They came before Rav Na岣an for a ruling. Rav Na岣an said to the herdsman: Do you have witnesses that he seized the ox from you? He said to him: No. Rav Na岣an said to him: In that case, since the claimant can say: It is in my possession because it was purchased by me, as there is no proof that he gained possession of the ox unlawfully, he can also say: I seized it from the herdsman while the deceased was still alive.

讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 砖讗谞讬 转讜专讗 讚诪住讬专讛 诇专讜注讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say that moving livestock, e.g., sheep and oxen, provide no presumption of ownership to whoever is in possession of them? Since they wander from place to place, a person cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The Gemara answers: An ox is different from other livestock, as it is handed over to a shepherd, who does not let it wander off. Consequently, possession of an ox does establish a presumption of ownership.

讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 转驻讜住 讗诪转讗 讚讬转诪讬 诪住讬诪讟讗 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 转驻住讬转讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讞谞驻讬转讜 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 讚讜谉 讚讬讬谞讬 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讜讘讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates another incident: The members of the house of the prince of Eretz Yisrael seized hold of a maidservant of orphans in an alley, as payment for a debt owed to them by the orphans鈥 father. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were sitting as judges, and Rabbi Abba was sitting with them. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: It is well that you seized the maidservant. Rabbi Abba said to the judges: Just because they are members of the house of the prince, will you curry favor with them by rendering an incorrect verdict? Isn鈥檛 it the halakha that there were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action, indicating that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon?

讬讬诪专 讘专 讞砖讜 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘讬拽 讗专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诇讜讞讬讛 讝讬诇 转驻住讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗讝诇 转驻住讛 驻讙注讜 讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗转 转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara relates another incident: A man called Yeimar bar 岣shu was owed money by a certain man who died and left behind a boat. Yeimar bar 岣shu said to his agent: Go and seize the boat for me. The agent went and seized it. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, encountered him. They said to him: You are seizing assets for a creditor in a situation where your action will cause a disadvantage for others, as the debtor owed money to other people as well. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said that one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others

Scroll To Top