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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 5, 2022 | 讬壮 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 91

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Marvin Stokar, Meir ben Aryeh Leib haLevi a”h. “Marvin was our honorary Zaidy, a role model in his love of Eretz Yisrael, Torah and our dear Bubby Fran. He was so proud of learning the Daf in Yerushalayim! May our learning be a zechut and source of nachat for his neshama.”

Is the braita that Rav Yosef quoted actually reflecting the same debate that Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanas were arguing about 鈥 whether in a case where one wife died before the husband died and another after the husband died, can the sons of the first one collect their ketuba of male children? Several alternative explanations are brought for the debate in the braita. Mar Zutra brings a ruling on this issue and the Gemara explains why he needed to rule about two issues 鈥 why couldn鈥檛 we have inferred one from the other? To collect the ketuba of male children, there needs to be one dinar more than the ketubas that need collecting. The orphans cannot try to inflate the amount to try to collect their ketuba. What if the amount of the estate went up or down in value after the death and there was/was not an extra dinar? Two stories are brought related to inflation of the value of a property (not in a case regarding orphans) and there were those who wanted to rule from our Mishna that inflation of property is not allowed. However, others differentiated between the case at hand and the one in the Mishna.

讜讛讻讗 讘讚讬谞专 诪拽专拽注讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽专拽注讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬

and here they disagree about a dinar鈥檚 worth of real estate: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of real estate, meaning that there was sufficient real estate to cover the sums specified in the marriage contracts and one dinar鈥檚 worth of land was still left over, then yes, each can claim his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, but if the surplus of the dinar was only in movable property, then no, they cannot; and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the heirs may claim the marriage contracts even if the surplus is in movable property.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谞谉 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讬转专 注诇 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (91a) that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as a guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, it is considered as nothing, unless there is property that serves as a guarantee for a loan with a promissory note, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讚讬谞专 诪砖注讘讚讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪砖注讘讚讬

Rather, here they disagree about a dinar of liened property: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of unsold property, then yes, each can claim the sum specified in his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, but if the surplus was only in liened property then no, he cannot. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was in the form of liened property.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If that is so, the baraita should not have stated Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion using the conditional: Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar. In this case such a surplus certainly exists, and therefore it should have said: Since there is a surplus of a dinar.

讗诇讗 讘驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚讬谞专 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专

Rather, the dispute can be explained differently: They disagree about a case where there is less than a dinar of surplus: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was worth a dinar, then yes, each can claim his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, but if it was less than a dinar then no, he cannot. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was less than a dinar.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬谞专 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬驻讜讱 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬谞专 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon said: If there is a surplus of a dinar, and not less. And if you would say: Reverse the interpretation of the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita cited above, that would be unacceptable, because the first tanna of the mishna (91a), who is presumably identical to the first tanna of the baraita, also said that the surplus must be at least one dinar.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛谞讱 转专讬 诇讬砖谞讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讜讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara concludes: Rather, the dispute in the baraita must be explained according to those first two formulations cited above, that they disagree about a surplus in movable property or about a surplus in liened property. And reverse the interpretation of the opinion of the first tanna, so that he holds that the sons of the first wife may collect her marriage settlement if there is a surplus in their father鈥檚 estate of one dinar worth of movable property or liened property, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that there must be a surplus of one dinar worth of land that is not liened.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛

Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The halakha in the case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death is that the sons of the first wife are entitled to the collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and furthermore, that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讬讻专讬谉 讜诇讗 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara wonders: Granted, if Mar Zutra would have taught us only that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and he would not have taught us that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, I would say that if there is a surplus of a dinar after the payment of both marriage settlements, then yes, the sons of the first wife can claim their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement, but if not, then no, they cannot.

讗诇讗 诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

However, let him teach us only that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and I would know that it is due to the fact that if one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to claim payment of the marriage contract concerning male children.

讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 砖转讬诐 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讜讛讱 讚诪讬讬转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗讜 讘转 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: If he would have taught us only that, that a marriage contract can serve as a surplus, I would say that this applies specifically in a case where an individual married three women, and two of them died in his lifetime and one after his death, and that wife who died after his death had given birth to a daughter but no sons, and the daughter does not inherit any part of the estate. Although the daughter is entitled to be sustained from her father鈥檚 estate, she has no claim to a share in the inheritance. Consequently, there is no concern for quarreling, as all the heirs are in the same situation.

讗讘诇 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讜讛讗 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

However, in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died after his death, where the one who died after his death had given birth to a son who is suing for his portion of the estate, one could say that there is a concern about quarreling arising from the complaints of the son of the second wife. Therefore, Mar Zutra mentions both halakhot explicitly in order to teach us that this concern is not taken into account.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讜讗 讜讬转讜诪讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘砖讜讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to two women and the women died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans of one of the wives are now seeking to collect the payment specified in their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, i.e., the marriage contract concerning male children, but there is only enough in the estate to pay the value of the two marriage contracts, the marriage contract concerning male children cannot be collected, and the sons distribute the estate equally among themselves according to the biblical laws of inheritance.

讛讬讛 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬诐 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬诐 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉

If there was a surplus of a dinar left there, in the estate, beyond the value of the two marriage contracts, then these sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract and those sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and the remaining property valued at a dinar is divided equally among all the sons.

讗诐 讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 诪注诇讬诐 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讘讬谞讜 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专 讻讚讬 砖讬讟诇讜 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

If the orphans who are entitled to receive the marriage settlement of greater value say: We inflate the value of our father鈥檚 property by a dinar, i.e., we agree to evaluate the property we will receive for our mother鈥檚 marriage settlement at a value higher than the market value so that there will be a dinar left in the estate after the two marriage contracts have been paid, so that they can collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, the court does not listen to them. Rather, the value of the property is appraised in court, and the distribution of the estate is based on that evaluation.

讛讬讜 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘专讗讜讬 讗讬谞谉 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

If there was potential inheritance there, meaning that there was no surplus of a dinar in the existing properties of the estate, but there was property that was expected to be paid to the estate and which would increase the overall value of the estate so that there would be a surplus of a dinar after the payment of the marriage contracts, these properties are not considered to be in the possession of the estate in determining the total value of the estate.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谞谉 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讬讜转专 注诇 砖转讬 讛讻转讜讘讜转 讚讬谞专

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, there in the estate, it does not have any impact on the value of the estate. The marriage contracts concerning male children are not collected unless there is property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讝讜 讗诇祝 讜诇讝讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讞诇拽讜 讘砖讜讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If this wife had a marriage contract valued at one thousand dinars and that wife had a marriage contract valued at five hundred dinars, if there is a surplus of one dinar, then these sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract and those sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract. And if not, they divide the inheritance equally.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜谞转诪注讟讜 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 诪讗讬

The Gemara notes: It is obvious that if there were abundant properties, i.e., there was a surplus of a dinar above the value of the two marriage settlements at the time of the man鈥檚 death, but they depreciated before the sons collected the marriage settlements, the heirs have already acquired rights to the marriage settlements. However, what is the halakha if the estate鈥檚 holdings were few, i.e., there was no surplus at the time of the man鈥檚 death, but they appreciated before the sons divided the estate, so that there was a surplus? Do the sons collect the mothers鈥 marriage settlements?

转讗 砖诪注 讚谞讬讻住讬 讚讘讬 讘专 爪专爪讜专 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 讛讜讜 讜讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗砖讙讞讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution based upon the following case: The properties of the house of bar Tzartzur were few, i.e., there was no surplus beyond his wives鈥 marriage settlements, and they appreciated. The sons of the two wives came before Rav Amram to discuss the matter. He said to the sons of the wife who had the more valuable marriage contract: Go appease the sons of the other wife and give them some of your share. They did not heed his advice.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬讬住讬转讜 诇讛讜 诪讞讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讘住讬诇讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘注 讚诪讗 砖讚专讬谞讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻砖诐 砖诪专讜讘讬谉 讜谞转诪注讟讜

He said to them: If you will not appease them, I will strike you with a thorn [silva] that does not draw blood, i.e., I will excommunicate you. He sent them before Rav Na岣an. Rav Na岣an said to them: Just as the halakha is that if the properties were abundant but depreciated,

讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讻讱 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉

the heirs acquired rights to the mothers鈥 marriage contracts due to the value of the estate when their father died, so too, in a case where the properties were few and the value subsequently appreciated, the heirs have acquired rights to divide the entire estate equally, due to the value of the estate when their father died.

(住讬诪谉 讗诇祝 讜诪讗讛 诪爪讜讛 讘讻转讜讘讛 讬注拽讘 讝拽祝 砖讚讜转讬讜 讘讚讘专讬诐 注住讬拽讬谉)

搂 This is a mnemonic device for the following halakhot, which are connected in one way or another to the problem being dealt with in the mishna: One thousand, and one hundred, mitzva, in the marriage contract, Ya鈥檃kov, set up, his fields, with words, disputants.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 讗驻讚谞讬 讝讘讬谞讛讜 讞讚讗 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讜讞讚讗 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专驻讗 诇讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讚专 拽讟专讬祝 诇讗讬讚讱

There was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one thousand dinars against him. He had two mansions [appedanei]. He sold them, one for five hundred and the other one also for five hundred. The creditor came and repossessed one of them from the purchaser, as the repayment of part of his debt. He subsequently sought to repossess the other mansion as well, in payment for the remainder of his debt.

砖拽诇 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讜拽讗 讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 砖讜讬讗 诇讱 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讬讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬住转诇拽

The purchaser took one thousand dinars and went to the creditor. He said to him: If the first mansion that you repossessed is worth one thousand dinars to you, very well, let it be yours in exchange for the entire sum that is owed to you, and if not, take these one thousand dinars and abrogate your rights to both of the mansions, leaving them both in my possession.

住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗谞讜 诪注诇讬谉 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讘讬谞讜 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专

Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that this case is identical to that which is taught in the mishna: If the orphans say: We inflate the value of our father鈥檚 property by a dinar, the court does not listen to them. This appears to be the case here as well, and the value of the mansion should not be assessed at higher than its market value.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬转诪讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讗诇驻讗 讬讛讬讘 讜讗诇驻讗 砖拽讬诇

Rava said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the mishna, the other orphans whose mother鈥檚 marriage contract was of lesser value will suffer a financial loss if the property is assessed at a value greater than it is actually worth. Here, in the case of the creditor, does he incur a loss? He lent one thousand dinars and took one thousand dinars; consequently, it would be cruel on his part to refuse to take the money and to insist on taking the second mansion from the purchaser.

讜讟讬专驻讗 讘讻诪讛 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: If the creditor decided to hold on to the first mansion and to forgive the remainder of the debt, what amount is written in the document of authorization to repossess liened property, through which the purchaser will claim compensation from the seller? The purchaser had paid only five hundred dinars for the mansion that was repossessed, but the repossession of that mansion earned the seller one thousand dinars, as his entire debt was paid off.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘讗诇驻讗 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讗诪专 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛

Ravina said: It is written for one thousand dinars. Rav Avira said: It is written for five hundred dinars; the fact that the creditor forgave the full amount of the debt in exchange for this house was his own personal decision and does not reflect an increase in the property value of the house. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that it is written for five hundred dinars.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 拽讟讬谞讬 讚讗专注讗 讞讚 讝讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞诪砖讬谉 讜讞讚 讘讞诪砖讬谉 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专驻讗 诇讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讚专 讗转讗 讜拽讟专讬祝 诇讗讬讚讱

It is also related that there was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one hundred dinars against him. He had two small tracts of land. He sold one for fifty and he also sold the other one for fifty. The creditor came and repossessed one of them from the purchaser as the collection of part of his debt. He subsequently came, seeking to repossess the other tract of land as well, as payment for the rest of the debt owed to him.

砖拽诇 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讜拽讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 砖讜讬讗 诇讱 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讬讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽讜诇 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬住转诇拽

The purchaser took one hundred dinars and went to the creditor. He said to him: If this tract is worth one hundred dinars to you, very well, and if not, take one hundred dinars and abrogate your rights to both of the tracts, leaving them both in my possession.

住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬转诪讬 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讬讛讬讘 诪讗讛 砖拽讬诇

Rav Yosef thought to say that this case is identical to that which is taught in the mishna, whereby if the orphans say: We inflate the value of our father鈥檚 property by a dinar, the court does not listen to them. Abaye said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the mishna, the other orphans suffer a financial loss if the property is assessed at a value greater than it is actually worth; here, what loss does the creditor incur? He lent one hundred dinars and took one hundred dinars. It would be cruel on his part to refuse to take the money and to insist on taking the land from the purchaser.

讜讟讬专驻讗 讘讻诪讛 讻转讘讬谞谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诪讗讛 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讗诪专 讘讞诪砖讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讞诪砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: If the creditor decided to hold on to the first mansion and to forgive the remainder of the debt, what amount is written in the document of authorization to repossess liened property, through which the purchaser will claim compensation from the seller? Ravina said that it is written for one hundred. Rav Avira said it is written for fifty. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that it is written for fifty dinars.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 砖讻讬讘 砖讘拽 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗专注讗 讚讛讜讛 砖讜讬讗 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜拽讟专讬祝 诇讬讛 讗讝讜诇 讬转诪讬 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讛讚专 拽讟专讬祝 诇讛

The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one hundred dinars against him. He died and left a small tract of land worth fifty dinars. The creditor came and repossessed it. The orphans came and gave him fifty dinars and redeemed the property from him. He returned and repossessed it again in order to collect the remainder of the debt.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪爪讜讛 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇驻专讜注 讞讜讘 讗讘讬讛谉 讛谞讬 拽诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 注讘讚讬转讜 讛砖转讗 讻讬 讟专讬祝 讘讚讬谉 拽讟专讬祝

They came before Abaye to complain. He said to them: It is a mitzva for orphans to settle their father鈥檚 debt. Consequently, with the money you paid the creditor initially, you performed a mitzva, as you partially settled a debt your father owed. However, this payment did not cancel the lien on the property, and so now, when he repossesses the land, he is repossesses it lawfully.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬 讚讗专注讗 拽讟讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬 讗专注讗 拽讟讬谞讗 住诇讜拽讬 住诇拽讜讛

The Gemara notes: And we said this ruling only in a case where the orphans did not say to the creditor: These fifty dinars are payment for the small tract of land. However, if they said to him: These fifty dinars are payment for the small tract of land, they have successfully removed him from the land and he has no further claim to it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谞讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转讬讗 讗诐 讜诪注专注专讗 诇讗 诪驻爪讬谞讗 诇讱

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold the rights to his mother鈥檚 marriage contract for a certain financial advantage, i.e., he received a certain sum on the condition that if he would inherit his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, which would occur if his mother鈥檚 husband would die prior to his mother, the purchaser would obtain the right to collect the money. And he told the purchaser: If my mother comes and objects to the sale, I will not reimburse you for your purchase.

砖讻讬讘讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬注专注专讗 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜拽讗 诪注专注专 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讛讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬诪讬讛 拽讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 谞讛讬 讚讗讞专讬讜转 讚讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 拽讘讬诇

His mother died after her husband died, and had not objected to the sale. He, however, came and contested the sale. Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that he stands in his mother鈥檚 place and since he is her proxy, he has the right to object to the sale. Rava said to him: Granted that he did not take upon himself to guarantee the sale against his mother鈥檚 objections, but did he not take upon himself to guarantee it against his own objections? When he sold the right to collect the marriage contract, he most certainly guaranteed that he would not renege on the sale.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗转讗 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讻专讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转

The Gemara relates a similar discussion. Rami bar 岣ma said: If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee, and Shimon came and sold the field back to Reuven, but he sold it with a guarantee that if the field is repossessed, he will compensate the buyer for his loss,

  • 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...

Ketubot 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 91

讜讛讻讗 讘讚讬谞专 诪拽专拽注讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽专拽注讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬

and here they disagree about a dinar鈥檚 worth of real estate: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of real estate, meaning that there was sufficient real estate to cover the sums specified in the marriage contracts and one dinar鈥檚 worth of land was still left over, then yes, each can claim his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, but if the surplus of the dinar was only in movable property, then no, they cannot; and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the heirs may claim the marriage contracts even if the surplus is in movable property.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谞谉 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讬转专 注诇 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (91a) that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as a guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, it is considered as nothing, unless there is property that serves as a guarantee for a loan with a promissory note, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讚讬谞专 诪砖注讘讚讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪砖注讘讚讬

Rather, here they disagree about a dinar of liened property: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of unsold property, then yes, each can claim the sum specified in his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, but if the surplus was only in liened property then no, he cannot. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was in the form of liened property.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If that is so, the baraita should not have stated Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion using the conditional: Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar. In this case such a surplus certainly exists, and therefore it should have said: Since there is a surplus of a dinar.

讗诇讗 讘驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚讬谞专 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专

Rather, the dispute can be explained differently: They disagree about a case where there is less than a dinar of surplus: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was worth a dinar, then yes, each can claim his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, but if it was less than a dinar then no, he cannot. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was less than a dinar.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬谞专 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬驻讜讱 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬谞专 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon said: If there is a surplus of a dinar, and not less. And if you would say: Reverse the interpretation of the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita cited above, that would be unacceptable, because the first tanna of the mishna (91a), who is presumably identical to the first tanna of the baraita, also said that the surplus must be at least one dinar.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛谞讱 转专讬 诇讬砖谞讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讜讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara concludes: Rather, the dispute in the baraita must be explained according to those first two formulations cited above, that they disagree about a surplus in movable property or about a surplus in liened property. And reverse the interpretation of the opinion of the first tanna, so that he holds that the sons of the first wife may collect her marriage settlement if there is a surplus in their father鈥檚 estate of one dinar worth of movable property or liened property, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that there must be a surplus of one dinar worth of land that is not liened.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛

Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The halakha in the case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death is that the sons of the first wife are entitled to the collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and furthermore, that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讬讻专讬谉 讜诇讗 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara wonders: Granted, if Mar Zutra would have taught us only that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and he would not have taught us that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, I would say that if there is a surplus of a dinar after the payment of both marriage settlements, then yes, the sons of the first wife can claim their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement, but if not, then no, they cannot.

讗诇讗 诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

However, let him teach us only that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and I would know that it is due to the fact that if one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to claim payment of the marriage contract concerning male children.

讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 砖转讬诐 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讜讛讱 讚诪讬讬转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗讜 讘转 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: If he would have taught us only that, that a marriage contract can serve as a surplus, I would say that this applies specifically in a case where an individual married three women, and two of them died in his lifetime and one after his death, and that wife who died after his death had given birth to a daughter but no sons, and the daughter does not inherit any part of the estate. Although the daughter is entitled to be sustained from her father鈥檚 estate, she has no claim to a share in the inheritance. Consequently, there is no concern for quarreling, as all the heirs are in the same situation.

讗讘诇 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讜讛讗 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

However, in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died after his death, where the one who died after his death had given birth to a son who is suing for his portion of the estate, one could say that there is a concern about quarreling arising from the complaints of the son of the second wife. Therefore, Mar Zutra mentions both halakhot explicitly in order to teach us that this concern is not taken into account.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讜讗 讜讬转讜诪讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘砖讜讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to two women and the women died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans of one of the wives are now seeking to collect the payment specified in their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, i.e., the marriage contract concerning male children, but there is only enough in the estate to pay the value of the two marriage contracts, the marriage contract concerning male children cannot be collected, and the sons distribute the estate equally among themselves according to the biblical laws of inheritance.

讛讬讛 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬诐 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬诐 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉

If there was a surplus of a dinar left there, in the estate, beyond the value of the two marriage contracts, then these sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract and those sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and the remaining property valued at a dinar is divided equally among all the sons.

讗诐 讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 诪注诇讬诐 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讘讬谞讜 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专 讻讚讬 砖讬讟诇讜 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

If the orphans who are entitled to receive the marriage settlement of greater value say: We inflate the value of our father鈥檚 property by a dinar, i.e., we agree to evaluate the property we will receive for our mother鈥檚 marriage settlement at a value higher than the market value so that there will be a dinar left in the estate after the two marriage contracts have been paid, so that they can collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, the court does not listen to them. Rather, the value of the property is appraised in court, and the distribution of the estate is based on that evaluation.

讛讬讜 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘专讗讜讬 讗讬谞谉 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

If there was potential inheritance there, meaning that there was no surplus of a dinar in the existing properties of the estate, but there was property that was expected to be paid to the estate and which would increase the overall value of the estate so that there would be a surplus of a dinar after the payment of the marriage contracts, these properties are not considered to be in the possession of the estate in determining the total value of the estate.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谞谉 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讬讜转专 注诇 砖转讬 讛讻转讜讘讜转 讚讬谞专

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, there in the estate, it does not have any impact on the value of the estate. The marriage contracts concerning male children are not collected unless there is property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讝讜 讗诇祝 讜诇讝讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讞诇拽讜 讘砖讜讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If this wife had a marriage contract valued at one thousand dinars and that wife had a marriage contract valued at five hundred dinars, if there is a surplus of one dinar, then these sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract and those sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract. And if not, they divide the inheritance equally.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜谞转诪注讟讜 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 诪讗讬

The Gemara notes: It is obvious that if there were abundant properties, i.e., there was a surplus of a dinar above the value of the two marriage settlements at the time of the man鈥檚 death, but they depreciated before the sons collected the marriage settlements, the heirs have already acquired rights to the marriage settlements. However, what is the halakha if the estate鈥檚 holdings were few, i.e., there was no surplus at the time of the man鈥檚 death, but they appreciated before the sons divided the estate, so that there was a surplus? Do the sons collect the mothers鈥 marriage settlements?

转讗 砖诪注 讚谞讬讻住讬 讚讘讬 讘专 爪专爪讜专 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 讛讜讜 讜讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗砖讙讞讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution based upon the following case: The properties of the house of bar Tzartzur were few, i.e., there was no surplus beyond his wives鈥 marriage settlements, and they appreciated. The sons of the two wives came before Rav Amram to discuss the matter. He said to the sons of the wife who had the more valuable marriage contract: Go appease the sons of the other wife and give them some of your share. They did not heed his advice.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬讬住讬转讜 诇讛讜 诪讞讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讘住讬诇讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘注 讚诪讗 砖讚专讬谞讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻砖诐 砖诪专讜讘讬谉 讜谞转诪注讟讜

He said to them: If you will not appease them, I will strike you with a thorn [silva] that does not draw blood, i.e., I will excommunicate you. He sent them before Rav Na岣an. Rav Na岣an said to them: Just as the halakha is that if the properties were abundant but depreciated,

讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讻讱 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉

the heirs acquired rights to the mothers鈥 marriage contracts due to the value of the estate when their father died, so too, in a case where the properties were few and the value subsequently appreciated, the heirs have acquired rights to divide the entire estate equally, due to the value of the estate when their father died.

(住讬诪谉 讗诇祝 讜诪讗讛 诪爪讜讛 讘讻转讜讘讛 讬注拽讘 讝拽祝 砖讚讜转讬讜 讘讚讘专讬诐 注住讬拽讬谉)

搂 This is a mnemonic device for the following halakhot, which are connected in one way or another to the problem being dealt with in the mishna: One thousand, and one hundred, mitzva, in the marriage contract, Ya鈥檃kov, set up, his fields, with words, disputants.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 讗驻讚谞讬 讝讘讬谞讛讜 讞讚讗 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讜讞讚讗 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专驻讗 诇讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讚专 拽讟专讬祝 诇讗讬讚讱

There was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one thousand dinars against him. He had two mansions [appedanei]. He sold them, one for five hundred and the other one also for five hundred. The creditor came and repossessed one of them from the purchaser, as the repayment of part of his debt. He subsequently sought to repossess the other mansion as well, in payment for the remainder of his debt.

砖拽诇 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讜拽讗 讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 砖讜讬讗 诇讱 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讬讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬住转诇拽

The purchaser took one thousand dinars and went to the creditor. He said to him: If the first mansion that you repossessed is worth one thousand dinars to you, very well, let it be yours in exchange for the entire sum that is owed to you, and if not, take these one thousand dinars and abrogate your rights to both of the mansions, leaving them both in my possession.

住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗谞讜 诪注诇讬谉 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讘讬谞讜 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专

Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that this case is identical to that which is taught in the mishna: If the orphans say: We inflate the value of our father鈥檚 property by a dinar, the court does not listen to them. This appears to be the case here as well, and the value of the mansion should not be assessed at higher than its market value.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬转诪讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讗诇驻讗 讬讛讬讘 讜讗诇驻讗 砖拽讬诇

Rava said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the mishna, the other orphans whose mother鈥檚 marriage contract was of lesser value will suffer a financial loss if the property is assessed at a value greater than it is actually worth. Here, in the case of the creditor, does he incur a loss? He lent one thousand dinars and took one thousand dinars; consequently, it would be cruel on his part to refuse to take the money and to insist on taking the second mansion from the purchaser.

讜讟讬专驻讗 讘讻诪讛 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: If the creditor decided to hold on to the first mansion and to forgive the remainder of the debt, what amount is written in the document of authorization to repossess liened property, through which the purchaser will claim compensation from the seller? The purchaser had paid only five hundred dinars for the mansion that was repossessed, but the repossession of that mansion earned the seller one thousand dinars, as his entire debt was paid off.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘讗诇驻讗 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讗诪专 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讞诪砖 诪讗讛

Ravina said: It is written for one thousand dinars. Rav Avira said: It is written for five hundred dinars; the fact that the creditor forgave the full amount of the debt in exchange for this house was his own personal decision and does not reflect an increase in the property value of the house. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that it is written for five hundred dinars.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 拽讟讬谞讬 讚讗专注讗 讞讚 讝讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞诪砖讬谉 讜讞讚 讘讞诪砖讬谉 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专驻讗 诇讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讚专 讗转讗 讜拽讟专讬祝 诇讗讬讚讱

It is also related that there was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one hundred dinars against him. He had two small tracts of land. He sold one for fifty and he also sold the other one for fifty. The creditor came and repossessed one of them from the purchaser as the collection of part of his debt. He subsequently came, seeking to repossess the other tract of land as well, as payment for the rest of the debt owed to him.

砖拽诇 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讜拽讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 砖讜讬讗 诇讱 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讬讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽讜诇 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬住转诇拽

The purchaser took one hundred dinars and went to the creditor. He said to him: If this tract is worth one hundred dinars to you, very well, and if not, take one hundred dinars and abrogate your rights to both of the tracts, leaving them both in my possession.

住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬转诪讬 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讬讛讬讘 诪讗讛 砖拽讬诇

Rav Yosef thought to say that this case is identical to that which is taught in the mishna, whereby if the orphans say: We inflate the value of our father鈥檚 property by a dinar, the court does not listen to them. Abaye said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the mishna, the other orphans suffer a financial loss if the property is assessed at a value greater than it is actually worth; here, what loss does the creditor incur? He lent one hundred dinars and took one hundred dinars. It would be cruel on his part to refuse to take the money and to insist on taking the land from the purchaser.

讜讟讬专驻讗 讘讻诪讛 讻转讘讬谞谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诪讗讛 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讗诪专 讘讞诪砖讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讞诪砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: If the creditor decided to hold on to the first mansion and to forgive the remainder of the debt, what amount is written in the document of authorization to repossess liened property, through which the purchaser will claim compensation from the seller? Ravina said that it is written for one hundred. Rav Avira said it is written for fifty. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that it is written for fifty dinars.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讜 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 砖讻讬讘 砖讘拽 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗专注讗 讚讛讜讛 砖讜讬讗 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜拽讟专讬祝 诇讬讛 讗讝讜诇 讬转诪讬 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讛讚专 拽讟专讬祝 诇讛

The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one hundred dinars against him. He died and left a small tract of land worth fifty dinars. The creditor came and repossessed it. The orphans came and gave him fifty dinars and redeemed the property from him. He returned and repossessed it again in order to collect the remainder of the debt.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪爪讜讛 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇驻专讜注 讞讜讘 讗讘讬讛谉 讛谞讬 拽诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 注讘讚讬转讜 讛砖转讗 讻讬 讟专讬祝 讘讚讬谉 拽讟专讬祝

They came before Abaye to complain. He said to them: It is a mitzva for orphans to settle their father鈥檚 debt. Consequently, with the money you paid the creditor initially, you performed a mitzva, as you partially settled a debt your father owed. However, this payment did not cancel the lien on the property, and so now, when he repossesses the land, he is repossesses it lawfully.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬 讚讗专注讗 拽讟讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬 讗专注讗 拽讟讬谞讗 住诇讜拽讬 住诇拽讜讛

The Gemara notes: And we said this ruling only in a case where the orphans did not say to the creditor: These fifty dinars are payment for the small tract of land. However, if they said to him: These fifty dinars are payment for the small tract of land, they have successfully removed him from the land and he has no further claim to it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谞讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转讬讗 讗诐 讜诪注专注专讗 诇讗 诪驻爪讬谞讗 诇讱

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold the rights to his mother鈥檚 marriage contract for a certain financial advantage, i.e., he received a certain sum on the condition that if he would inherit his mother鈥檚 marriage contract, which would occur if his mother鈥檚 husband would die prior to his mother, the purchaser would obtain the right to collect the money. And he told the purchaser: If my mother comes and objects to the sale, I will not reimburse you for your purchase.

砖讻讬讘讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬注专注专讗 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜拽讗 诪注专注专 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讛讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬诪讬讛 拽讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 谞讛讬 讚讗讞专讬讜转 讚讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 拽讘讬诇

His mother died after her husband died, and had not objected to the sale. He, however, came and contested the sale. Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that he stands in his mother鈥檚 place and since he is her proxy, he has the right to object to the sale. Rava said to him: Granted that he did not take upon himself to guarantee the sale against his mother鈥檚 objections, but did he not take upon himself to guarantee it against his own objections? When he sold the right to collect the marriage contract, he most certainly guaranteed that he would not renege on the sale.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗转讗 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讻专讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转

The Gemara relates a similar discussion. Rami bar 岣ma said: If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee, and Shimon came and sold the field back to Reuven, but he sold it with a guarantee that if the field is repossessed, he will compensate the buyer for his loss,

Scroll To Top