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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 29, 2022 | 讚壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讙

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

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

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

Ketubot 85

Today’s daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her grandmother, Rose Shivak, Rachel Leah bat Aharon v鈥橤olda on her 37th yahrzeit. “We use her brass candlesticks on Shabbat. May her neshama have an aliyah.”
More cases are brought that relate to cases where someone seized items that they believed they were owed. One has to do with a woman who had seized documents she had been watching. Since that case had to do with a woman, two other unrelated cases are brought where a disagreement about money was with a woman. The issues brought up in these other cases relate to trust/distrust of particular people, writing a document verifying something before it happens. Another series of cases are brought where one was watching an item and the person watching died without telling his heirs about the ownership of the item he was watching. The heirs wanted to prove it was theirs and the original owner wanted to prove it was his. In each case, they allowed the original owner to claim back their item. On what basis did they rule in his favor? How did they know that he was the actual owner? In a similar situation where different people come forward and claim rights to the item, who takes precedence for receiving the item – a relative, neighbor, or Torah scholar? Is that effective if one sold a promissory note to another and then forgave the debt? If a wife brought a promissory note into marriage, can she forgive the debt?

诇讗 拽谞讛 转驻住讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬诪诇讞 诪诇讜讞讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪转讞 诇讛 讘讗砖诇讗 诪专 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽谞讬谞讗 诇讛 诇讻讜诇讛 讜诪专 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽谞讬谞讗 诇讛 诇讻讜诇讛

has not acquired it. He cannot act to the detriment of others without their consent, and his acquisition harms the other creditors. Those Sages were also owed money by that same man, so they both seized the boat for himself. Rav Pappa steered it with an oar, while Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, pulled it with a rope. This Sage said: I acquired all of it; and that Sage said: I acquired all of it.

驻讙注 讘讛讜 专讘 驻谞讞住 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 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 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讞专讬驻讜转讗 讚谞讛专讗 转驻讬住谞讗

Rav Pine岣s bar Ami encountered them and said to them: What of the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: And this, that whoever first takes possession has acquired them, is the halakha provided that the items are arranged in a pile and placed in the public domain, which is not the case with this boat? They said to him: We too seized it from the current of the river, i.e., the middle of the river, which has the status of a public domain.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讗拽讬 讞讬讜专讬 诪砖诇讞讬 讙诇讬诪讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讜讗 砖转驻住讛 诪讞讬讬诐

They came before Rava to ask him who had acquired the boat. He said to them: You are white geese [kakei 岣vvarei], in reference to their white beards, who remove people鈥檚 cloaks, i.e., your actions were unlawful from the start. This is what Rav Na岣an said: And this, that whoever takes possession has acquired them, is the halakha provided that one seized them from the debtor while he was alive. In this case, however, the boat was seized after the debtor鈥檚 death, when the heirs had already taken possession of it.

讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 砖讚专讬谞讛讜 讘讬讚 讞诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讛讜 讗讝诇 驻专注讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讟专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates another incident: Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed money to people from Bei 岣zai.He sent the money in the possession of 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Abbahu, who went and paid the money that Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed, and he then said to the people from Bei 岣zai: Give me back the document that shows that the person who sent me owes you money. They said to him: The money that you paid us was for side debts, i.e., money from a different debt, which was not written in a document. We accepted the money from you as payment of that debt. We will therefore not return the document to you, as he has yet to pay off the debt listed in the document.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讱 住讛讚讬 讚驻专注转讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪专 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜

This case came before Rabbi Abbahu. He said to 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Abbahu: Do you have witnesses that you paid them? He said to him: No. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: He could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. Since they can say: These matters never occurred, i.e., you never paid them anything, they can also say: These are side debts. Therefore, you cannot demand from them either the money or the document.

诇注谞讬谉 砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇讬讞 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 砖讟专讗 讜讛讘 讝讜讝讬 诪砖诇诐 讛讘 讝讜讝讬 讜砖拽讜诇 砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to the payment of the agent, what is the halakha? Must the agent reimburse the one who appointed him for his loss? Rav Ashi said: We see that if the one who appointed him said to him: Take the document from them and give them money, then the agent disobeyed his instructions by first paying the money and must pay back the one who appointed him. If, however, the one who appointed him said to the agent: Give the money and take the document, he does not pay, as the one who appointed him was not particular about instructing the agent to take the document before giving them money.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪砖诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬

The Gemara comments: And this is not so; Rav Ashi鈥檚 ruling is not accepted as halakha. Whether the instructions were given in this manner or whether the instructions were given in that manner, the agent must pay, as the one who appointed him can say to him: I sent you to act for my benefit, and not to my detriment. His right to act as an agent did not extend to a case where it was to the detriment of the one who designated him.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讛讜讜 诪讬驻拽讚讬 讙讘讛 诪诇讜讙讗 讚砖讟专讬 讗转讜 讬讜专砖讬诐 拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 诪讞讬讬诐 转驻讬住谞讗 诇讛讜 讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬转 诇讬讱 住讛讚讬 讚转讘注讜讛 诪讬谞讬讱 诪讞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讬转 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讬 转驻讬住讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜转驻讬住讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who had a bag [meloga] full of documents deposited with her. The heirs came and claimed it from her. She said to them: I seized the bag of documents from the deceased while he was alive, as he owed me money. They came before Rav Na岣an for judgment. He said to her: Do you have witnesses that the deceased claimed the bag from you while he was alive and you did not give it to him? She said to him: No, I do not have witnesses to this effect. He replied: If so, this is considered a case of seizing property after death, and seizing after death is nothing. As stated earlier, seizing property to recover a debt is effective only when done during the lifetime of the debtor. It is ineffective once he is dead and others have inherited his property.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讬讚注谞讗 讘讛 讚讞砖讜讚讛 讗砖讘讜注讛 讗驻讻讛 专讘讗 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗砖讻谞讙讚讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who was obligated to take an oath in order to avoid payment in Rava鈥檚 court. The daughter of Rav 岣sda said to Rava, her husband: I know that she is suspect with regard to taking a false oath. Rava reversed the obligation of the oath so that it fell onto the other party, who now had the option of taking an oath that the woman owes him money and collecting his debt. This is how to act when the court does not trust the one who is obligated to take an oath.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讗讬讬转讜 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚砖讟专讗 驻专讬注讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诪专 注讚 讗讞讚 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara continues: On another occasion, Rav Pappa and Rav Adda bar Mattana were sitting before Rava. A certain document was brought before Rava to be examined in court. Rav Pappa said to Rava: I know about this document, that it records a debt that has already been paid. Rava said to him: Is there another person who can testify with the Master about the document? He said to him: No, I am the only one who knows. Rava said to him: Although there is the Master here who attests that the document has been paid, one witness is nothing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讛 诪专 诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: And should Rav Pappa not be trusted like Rav 岣sda鈥檚 daughter, who as a woman is disqualified from testimony? Rava replied: I relied on Rav 岣sda鈥檚 daughter because I know with certainty about her that she is always truthful. However, I cannot rely on the Master because I do not know with the same degree of certainty about him that he is always truthful, and I cannot rule on the basis of one witness unless I have complete certainty.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗讘讗 诪专 讘专讬 讚拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 拽专注谞讗 砖讟专讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛

Rav Pappa said: Now that the Master, Rava, has said that the claim: I know with certainty about him, is a significant matter, i.e., a claim that can be used in court, if a judge knows that someone is telling the truth, although under normal circumstances his testimony would be inadmissible, in this case it does have a certain legal validity. For example, if Abba Mar, my son, about whom I know with certainty always tells the truth, claims that a document that records a debt has already been paid, then I can tear the document on the basis of his word.

拽专注谞讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诪专注谞讗 砖讟专讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: How can it enter your mind that the court can tear a document based on the word of a single witness? Rather, the statement should be that I can weaken the document on the basis of his word, by not allowing it to be used for claiming payment without further proof.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讘注诇 讚讬谉 转讬转讬 讜转讬砖转讘注 讘诪转讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪讬讻住驻讗 讜诪讜讚讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 讻转讘讜 诇讬 讝讻讜讜转讗 讚讻讬 诪砖转讘注谞讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讻转讘讜 诇讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who was obligated to take an oath in Rav Beivai bar Abaye鈥檚 court. The opposing litigant said to the judges: Let her come and take an oath in the town. It is possible that she will be ashamed of her lies and will admit that she is liable. She said to the judges: Write a document of rights for me, so that when I take the oath they will give it to me, and I will then be willing to take an oath in the town. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said to them: Write the document for her.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬转讗

Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate peo-ple [de鈥檃titu mimmula鈥檈i] that you say unfortunate things? Rav Beivai was from the house of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age.

讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讗砖专转讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讚诪讬讻转讘讗 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讞讜讜 住讛讚讬 讗讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬讬讛讜 驻住讜诇讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗

Rav Pappi said that Rav Beivai bar Abaye was wrong to say what he said because of a statement of Rava. Didn鈥檛 Rava say: This ratification of judges, which was written on a document before the witnesses had seen and testified about their signature, is invalid, although the witnesses later attested that it was their signatures? Apparently, it has the appearance of falsehood because they affirmed the validity of a document before hearing the testimony. Here too, if the judges wrote a document of rights before the woman took her oath, the document would have the appearance of falsehood, and the court should not write a document of rights for her before she takes an oath.

讜诇讬转讗 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: And this halakha of Rava鈥檚 is not accepted because of a statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said: Rabbi Meir would say: Even if the husband found a bill of divorce with names identical to those of his and his wife鈥檚, in the garbage, and he had it signed by witnesses and gave it to his wife, it is valid. Rav Na岣an adds: And the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Meir, except in the case of bills of divorce of women, since the Rabbis hold that the writing of the bill of divorce needs to be done for the sake of the woman getting divorced. But for all other documents, they concede to him that it makes no difference when the document was written.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讟专 砖诇讜讛 讘讜 讜驻专注讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诇讜讛 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 讟注诪讗 讚谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 讗讘诇 诇诪讬讞讝讬

The proof of this is that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a document that one borrowed money based on it and then repaid the debt, he may not borrow money again based on it. This is because its lien has already been forgiven. Once the debt has been repaid, the lien resulting from the loan is no longer in force. The witnesses did not sign the document at the time of the second loan, so the lien will not be in effect, and the loan will have the status of one by oral agreement. The Gemara infers: The reason that he cannot reuse the document is because its lien has been forgiven, so that the document is no longer accurate; but as for the fact that it has the appearance

讻砖讬拽专讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

of falsehood, as it was written prior to the second loan, we are not concerned. So too here, the fact that the judges wrote the document before the event is not a matter of concern.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 砖讘 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讚爪讬讬专讬 讘住讚讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讻讬讘 专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讜诇讗 驻拽讬讚 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讘专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讗

The Gemara examines cases involving disputes concerning the property of the deceased. There was a certain man who deposited seven pearls [marganita] tied up in a sheet in the house of Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Meyasha passed away without instructing the members of his household on his deathbed, and without explaining to whom the gems belonged. Rabbi Meyasha鈥檚 family and the depositor came before Rabbi Ami to discuss the ownership of the gems. He said to them: They belong to the claimant, first of all, since I know about Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that he is not wealthy enough to be able to afford such gems. And furthermore, the depositor has provided a distinguishing mark that proves that he is the owner.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗驻拽讬讚 讜讗讬讛讜 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讗

The Gemara comments: And we said that a distinguishing mark is effective only if the claimant does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object, and he merely saw it there and was able to provide distinguishing marks.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘讬 讞住讗 砖讻讬讘 讞住讗 讜诇讗 驻拽讬讚 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讘讞住讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗驻拽讬讚 讜讗讬讛讜 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讗

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who deposited a silver goblet in the house of the Sage 岣sa. 岣sa passed away without instructing anything about the goblet. They came before Rav Na岣an to discuss the ownership of the goblet. He said to them: I know about 岣sa that he is not wealthy, and this goblet would not have belonged to him. And furthermore, the depositor has provided a distinguishing mark. And we said so only if the claimant does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object and he merely saw it there.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 诪讟讻住讗 讘讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 住驻专讗 砖讻讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜诇讗 驻拽讬讚 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讘专讘 讚讬诪讬 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗驻拽讬讚 讜讗讬讛讜 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讗

The Gemara relates another similar story: There was a certain man who deposited silk [metakesa] in the house of Rav Dimi, brother of Rav Safra. Rav Dimi passed away without instructing anything about the silk. They came before Rabbi Abba to discuss the ownership of the silk. He said to them: It belongs to the claimant, first of all, since I know about Rav Dimi that he is not wealthy. And furthermore, he has provided a distinguishing mark. And we said so only if he does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exit there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object, and he merely saw it there.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讻住讬讬 诇讟讜讘讬讛 砖讻讬讘 讗转讗 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 讘讗 讟讜讘讬讛

The Gemara relates the story of a certain man who said to those present at his deathbed: My property should go to Toviya. He passed away, and Toviya came to claim his possessions. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Toviya has come, and there is no need to be concerned that he might have meant a different Toviya.

讗诪专 讟讜讘讬讛 讜讗转讗 专讘 讟讜讘讬讛 诇讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇专讘 讟讜讘讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讙讬住 讘讬讛 讛讗 讙讬住 讘讬讛 讗转讜 砖谞讬 讟讜讘讬讛 砖讻谉 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐 拽专讜讘 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐

The Gemara adds: If the deceased had said: My property should go to Toviya, and Rav Toviya came forward, it is assumed that this is not the person the deceased had in mind, for he said: My property should go to Toviya. He did not say: My property should go to Rav Toviya. But if Rav Toviya is a person who is familiar with the deceased, then it can be assumed that the deceased called him by his personal name and not by his title because he was familiar with him. If two men named Toviya came forward, and one of them was the deceased鈥檚 neighbor and the other a Torah scholar but not his neighbor, the Torah scholar takes precedence. Similarly, if one was a relative and the other a Torah scholar, the Torah scholar takes precedence.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻谉 讜拽专讜讘 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讟讜讘 砖讻谉 拽专讜讘 诪讗讞 专讞讜拽 砖谞讬讛诐 拽专讜讘讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 砖讻谞讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If two men have the same name and one was a neighbor and the other one was a relative, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Come and hear the solution from the following verse: 鈥淎 close neighbor is better than a distant brother鈥 (Proverbs 27:10). If they were both relatives, or both neighbors, or both scholars, there is no systematic way of determining who is entitled to the property, and the decision is left to the discretion of the judges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬诇转讗 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讻谞住转 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讘注诇讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜诪讞诇转讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚讜 讻讬讚讛

Rava said to the son of Rav 岣yya bar Avin: Come, and I will tell you something excellent that your father would say about that which Shmuel said: Shmuel said that in the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller went back and forgave the debtor his debt, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor鈥檚 heir can forgive the debt. With regard to this halakha, Rav 岣yya bar Avin said: Shmuel concedes with regard to a woman who brings in a promissory note to the marriage for her husband, and she went back and forgave the debtor his debt, that the debt is not forgiven.Why not? Because his hand is like her hand, i.e., the husband shares equal rights to her property, and she cannot unilaterally forgive the debt.

拽专讬讘转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讘讬谞转讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬讙专砖讛 讜砖讻讬讘讛 讗转讜 拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讛 诇讘专转讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讬讻讗 讚诇讬住讘讗 诇讛 注爪讛

The Gemara relates an incident: A relative of Rav Na岣an sold her marriage contract for financial advantage. In other words, she received a sum of money and in exchange agreed that if she were to be divorced and become entitled to her marriage contract, the money would belong to the purchaser of the rights to her marriage contract. She was subsequently divorced from her husband and died, leaving the right to her marriage contract to her daughter. The purchasers came and claimed the value of the marriage contract from her daughter. Rav Na岣an said to the people around him: Is there no one who can give the daughter advice,

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

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 85-92 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about loans, oaths, and inheritance. The Gemara teaches when the orphans can make their mother...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 85: To the Rightful Owner

How do we establish ownership of property? Consider a good number of cases demonstrating practical financial law -- and precedent....
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Gefet 43 – Do You Need to Repent for Sins Committed as a Child?

https://youtu.be/mrst0LdMW7k
anonymous

Daddy’s Girl

Of the many wives in Rabbinic literature, few are called by their proper names. We know about Bruria and Rachel,...

Ketubot 85

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 85

诇讗 拽谞讛 转驻住讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬诪诇讞 诪诇讜讞讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪转讞 诇讛 讘讗砖诇讗 诪专 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽谞讬谞讗 诇讛 诇讻讜诇讛 讜诪专 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽谞讬谞讗 诇讛 诇讻讜诇讛

has not acquired it. He cannot act to the detriment of others without their consent, and his acquisition harms the other creditors. Those Sages were also owed money by that same man, so they both seized the boat for himself. Rav Pappa steered it with an oar, while Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, pulled it with a rope. This Sage said: I acquired all of it; and that Sage said: I acquired all of it.

驻讙注 讘讛讜 专讘 驻谞讞住 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 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 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讞专讬驻讜转讗 讚谞讛专讗 转驻讬住谞讗

Rav Pine岣s bar Ami encountered them and said to them: What of the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: And this, that whoever first takes possession has acquired them, is the halakha provided that the items are arranged in a pile and placed in the public domain, which is not the case with this boat? They said to him: We too seized it from the current of the river, i.e., the middle of the river, which has the status of a public domain.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讗拽讬 讞讬讜专讬 诪砖诇讞讬 讙诇讬诪讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讜讗 砖转驻住讛 诪讞讬讬诐

They came before Rava to ask him who had acquired the boat. He said to them: You are white geese [kakei 岣vvarei], in reference to their white beards, who remove people鈥檚 cloaks, i.e., your actions were unlawful from the start. This is what Rav Na岣an said: And this, that whoever takes possession has acquired them, is the halakha provided that one seized them from the debtor while he was alive. In this case, however, the boat was seized after the debtor鈥檚 death, when the heirs had already taken possession of it.

讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 砖讚专讬谞讛讜 讘讬讚 讞诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讛讜 讗讝诇 驻专注讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讟专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates another incident: Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed money to people from Bei 岣zai.He sent the money in the possession of 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Abbahu, who went and paid the money that Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed, and he then said to the people from Bei 岣zai: Give me back the document that shows that the person who sent me owes you money. They said to him: The money that you paid us was for side debts, i.e., money from a different debt, which was not written in a document. We accepted the money from you as payment of that debt. We will therefore not return the document to you, as he has yet to pay off the debt listed in the document.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讱 住讛讚讬 讚驻专注转讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪专 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜

This case came before Rabbi Abbahu. He said to 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Abbahu: Do you have witnesses that you paid them? He said to him: No. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: He could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. Since they can say: These matters never occurred, i.e., you never paid them anything, they can also say: These are side debts. Therefore, you cannot demand from them either the money or the document.

诇注谞讬谉 砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇讬讞 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 砖讟专讗 讜讛讘 讝讜讝讬 诪砖诇诐 讛讘 讝讜讝讬 讜砖拽讜诇 砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to the payment of the agent, what is the halakha? Must the agent reimburse the one who appointed him for his loss? Rav Ashi said: We see that if the one who appointed him said to him: Take the document from them and give them money, then the agent disobeyed his instructions by first paying the money and must pay back the one who appointed him. If, however, the one who appointed him said to the agent: Give the money and take the document, he does not pay, as the one who appointed him was not particular about instructing the agent to take the document before giving them money.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪砖诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬

The Gemara comments: And this is not so; Rav Ashi鈥檚 ruling is not accepted as halakha. Whether the instructions were given in this manner or whether the instructions were given in that manner, the agent must pay, as the one who appointed him can say to him: I sent you to act for my benefit, and not to my detriment. His right to act as an agent did not extend to a case where it was to the detriment of the one who designated him.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讛讜讜 诪讬驻拽讚讬 讙讘讛 诪诇讜讙讗 讚砖讟专讬 讗转讜 讬讜专砖讬诐 拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 诪讞讬讬诐 转驻讬住谞讗 诇讛讜 讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬转 诇讬讱 住讛讚讬 讚转讘注讜讛 诪讬谞讬讱 诪讞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讬转 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讬 转驻讬住讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜转驻讬住讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who had a bag [meloga] full of documents deposited with her. The heirs came and claimed it from her. She said to them: I seized the bag of documents from the deceased while he was alive, as he owed me money. They came before Rav Na岣an for judgment. He said to her: Do you have witnesses that the deceased claimed the bag from you while he was alive and you did not give it to him? She said to him: No, I do not have witnesses to this effect. He replied: If so, this is considered a case of seizing property after death, and seizing after death is nothing. As stated earlier, seizing property to recover a debt is effective only when done during the lifetime of the debtor. It is ineffective once he is dead and others have inherited his property.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讬讚注谞讗 讘讛 讚讞砖讜讚讛 讗砖讘讜注讛 讗驻讻讛 专讘讗 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗砖讻谞讙讚讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who was obligated to take an oath in order to avoid payment in Rava鈥檚 court. The daughter of Rav 岣sda said to Rava, her husband: I know that she is suspect with regard to taking a false oath. Rava reversed the obligation of the oath so that it fell onto the other party, who now had the option of taking an oath that the woman owes him money and collecting his debt. This is how to act when the court does not trust the one who is obligated to take an oath.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讗讬讬转讜 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚砖讟专讗 驻专讬注讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诪专 注讚 讗讞讚 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara continues: On another occasion, Rav Pappa and Rav Adda bar Mattana were sitting before Rava. A certain document was brought before Rava to be examined in court. Rav Pappa said to Rava: I know about this document, that it records a debt that has already been paid. Rava said to him: Is there another person who can testify with the Master about the document? He said to him: No, I am the only one who knows. Rava said to him: Although there is the Master here who attests that the document has been paid, one witness is nothing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讛 诪专 诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: And should Rav Pappa not be trusted like Rav 岣sda鈥檚 daughter, who as a woman is disqualified from testimony? Rava replied: I relied on Rav 岣sda鈥檚 daughter because I know with certainty about her that she is always truthful. However, I cannot rely on the Master because I do not know with the same degree of certainty about him that he is always truthful, and I cannot rule on the basis of one witness unless I have complete certainty.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗讘讗 诪专 讘专讬 讚拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 拽专注谞讗 砖讟专讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛

Rav Pappa said: Now that the Master, Rava, has said that the claim: I know with certainty about him, is a significant matter, i.e., a claim that can be used in court, if a judge knows that someone is telling the truth, although under normal circumstances his testimony would be inadmissible, in this case it does have a certain legal validity. For example, if Abba Mar, my son, about whom I know with certainty always tells the truth, claims that a document that records a debt has already been paid, then I can tear the document on the basis of his word.

拽专注谞讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诪专注谞讗 砖讟专讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: How can it enter your mind that the court can tear a document based on the word of a single witness? Rather, the statement should be that I can weaken the document on the basis of his word, by not allowing it to be used for claiming payment without further proof.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讘注诇 讚讬谉 转讬转讬 讜转讬砖转讘注 讘诪转讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪讬讻住驻讗 讜诪讜讚讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 讻转讘讜 诇讬 讝讻讜讜转讗 讚讻讬 诪砖转讘注谞讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讻转讘讜 诇讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who was obligated to take an oath in Rav Beivai bar Abaye鈥檚 court. The opposing litigant said to the judges: Let her come and take an oath in the town. It is possible that she will be ashamed of her lies and will admit that she is liable. She said to the judges: Write a document of rights for me, so that when I take the oath they will give it to me, and I will then be willing to take an oath in the town. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said to them: Write the document for her.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬转讗

Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate peo-ple [de鈥檃titu mimmula鈥檈i] that you say unfortunate things? Rav Beivai was from the house of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age.

讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讗砖专转讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讚诪讬讻转讘讗 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讞讜讜 住讛讚讬 讗讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬讬讛讜 驻住讜诇讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗

Rav Pappi said that Rav Beivai bar Abaye was wrong to say what he said because of a statement of Rava. Didn鈥檛 Rava say: This ratification of judges, which was written on a document before the witnesses had seen and testified about their signature, is invalid, although the witnesses later attested that it was their signatures? Apparently, it has the appearance of falsehood because they affirmed the validity of a document before hearing the testimony. Here too, if the judges wrote a document of rights before the woman took her oath, the document would have the appearance of falsehood, and the court should not write a document of rights for her before she takes an oath.

讜诇讬转讗 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: And this halakha of Rava鈥檚 is not accepted because of a statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said: Rabbi Meir would say: Even if the husband found a bill of divorce with names identical to those of his and his wife鈥檚, in the garbage, and he had it signed by witnesses and gave it to his wife, it is valid. Rav Na岣an adds: And the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Meir, except in the case of bills of divorce of women, since the Rabbis hold that the writing of the bill of divorce needs to be done for the sake of the woman getting divorced. But for all other documents, they concede to him that it makes no difference when the document was written.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讟专 砖诇讜讛 讘讜 讜驻专注讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诇讜讛 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 讟注诪讗 讚谞诪讞诇 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 讗讘诇 诇诪讬讞讝讬

The proof of this is that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a document that one borrowed money based on it and then repaid the debt, he may not borrow money again based on it. This is because its lien has already been forgiven. Once the debt has been repaid, the lien resulting from the loan is no longer in force. The witnesses did not sign the document at the time of the second loan, so the lien will not be in effect, and the loan will have the status of one by oral agreement. The Gemara infers: The reason that he cannot reuse the document is because its lien has been forgiven, so that the document is no longer accurate; but as for the fact that it has the appearance

讻砖讬拽专讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

of falsehood, as it was written prior to the second loan, we are not concerned. So too here, the fact that the judges wrote the document before the event is not a matter of concern.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 砖讘 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讚爪讬讬专讬 讘住讚讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讻讬讘 专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讜诇讗 驻拽讬讚 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讘专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讗

The Gemara examines cases involving disputes concerning the property of the deceased. There was a certain man who deposited seven pearls [marganita] tied up in a sheet in the house of Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Meyasha passed away without instructing the members of his household on his deathbed, and without explaining to whom the gems belonged. Rabbi Meyasha鈥檚 family and the depositor came before Rabbi Ami to discuss the ownership of the gems. He said to them: They belong to the claimant, first of all, since I know about Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that he is not wealthy enough to be able to afford such gems. And furthermore, the depositor has provided a distinguishing mark that proves that he is the owner.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗驻拽讬讚 讜讗讬讛讜 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讗

The Gemara comments: And we said that a distinguishing mark is effective only if the claimant does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object, and he merely saw it there and was able to provide distinguishing marks.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘讬 讞住讗 砖讻讬讘 讞住讗 讜诇讗 驻拽讬讚 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讘讞住讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗驻拽讬讚 讜讗讬讛讜 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讗

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who deposited a silver goblet in the house of the Sage 岣sa. 岣sa passed away without instructing anything about the goblet. They came before Rav Na岣an to discuss the ownership of the goblet. He said to them: I know about 岣sa that he is not wealthy, and this goblet would not have belonged to him. And furthermore, the depositor has provided a distinguishing mark. And we said so only if the claimant does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object and he merely saw it there.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 诪讟讻住讗 讘讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 住驻专讗 砖讻讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜诇讗 驻拽讬讚 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讘专讘 讚讬诪讬 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 专讙讬诇 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗驻拽讬讚 讜讗讬讛讜 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讗

The Gemara relates another similar story: There was a certain man who deposited silk [metakesa] in the house of Rav Dimi, brother of Rav Safra. Rav Dimi passed away without instructing anything about the silk. They came before Rabbi Abba to discuss the ownership of the silk. He said to them: It belongs to the claimant, first of all, since I know about Rav Dimi that he is not wealthy. And furthermore, he has provided a distinguishing mark. And we said so only if he does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exit there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object, and he merely saw it there.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讻住讬讬 诇讟讜讘讬讛 砖讻讬讘 讗转讗 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 讘讗 讟讜讘讬讛

The Gemara relates the story of a certain man who said to those present at his deathbed: My property should go to Toviya. He passed away, and Toviya came to claim his possessions. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Toviya has come, and there is no need to be concerned that he might have meant a different Toviya.

讗诪专 讟讜讘讬讛 讜讗转讗 专讘 讟讜讘讬讛 诇讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇专讘 讟讜讘讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讙讬住 讘讬讛 讛讗 讙讬住 讘讬讛 讗转讜 砖谞讬 讟讜讘讬讛 砖讻谉 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐 拽专讜讘 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐

The Gemara adds: If the deceased had said: My property should go to Toviya, and Rav Toviya came forward, it is assumed that this is not the person the deceased had in mind, for he said: My property should go to Toviya. He did not say: My property should go to Rav Toviya. But if Rav Toviya is a person who is familiar with the deceased, then it can be assumed that the deceased called him by his personal name and not by his title because he was familiar with him. If two men named Toviya came forward, and one of them was the deceased鈥檚 neighbor and the other a Torah scholar but not his neighbor, the Torah scholar takes precedence. Similarly, if one was a relative and the other a Torah scholar, the Torah scholar takes precedence.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻谉 讜拽专讜讘 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讟讜讘 砖讻谉 拽专讜讘 诪讗讞 专讞讜拽 砖谞讬讛诐 拽专讜讘讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 砖讻谞讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If two men have the same name and one was a neighbor and the other one was a relative, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Come and hear the solution from the following verse: 鈥淎 close neighbor is better than a distant brother鈥 (Proverbs 27:10). If they were both relatives, or both neighbors, or both scholars, there is no systematic way of determining who is entitled to the property, and the decision is left to the discretion of the judges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬诇转讗 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讻谞住转 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讘注诇讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜诪讞诇转讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚讜 讻讬讚讛

Rava said to the son of Rav 岣yya bar Avin: Come, and I will tell you something excellent that your father would say about that which Shmuel said: Shmuel said that in the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller went back and forgave the debtor his debt, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor鈥檚 heir can forgive the debt. With regard to this halakha, Rav 岣yya bar Avin said: Shmuel concedes with regard to a woman who brings in a promissory note to the marriage for her husband, and she went back and forgave the debtor his debt, that the debt is not forgiven.Why not? Because his hand is like her hand, i.e., the husband shares equal rights to her property, and she cannot unilaterally forgive the debt.

拽专讬讘转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讘讬谞转讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬讙专砖讛 讜砖讻讬讘讛 讗转讜 拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讛 诇讘专转讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讬讻讗 讚诇讬住讘讗 诇讛 注爪讛

The Gemara relates an incident: A relative of Rav Na岣an sold her marriage contract for financial advantage. In other words, she received a sum of money and in exchange agreed that if she were to be divorced and become entitled to her marriage contract, the money would belong to the purchaser of the rights to her marriage contract. She was subsequently divorced from her husband and died, leaving the right to her marriage contract to her daughter. The purchasers came and claimed the value of the marriage contract from her daughter. Rav Na岣an said to the people around him: Is there no one who can give the daughter advice,

Scroll To Top