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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 7, 2015 | 讬状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 94

讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 讜讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讜讞专 砖拽讚诐 讜讙讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The case is where it is discovered that one of the fields in the estate is not his field, e.g., the husband had stolen it from someone else. Consequently, it is likely that the field will be repossessed, and if it is used to pay the marriage contract of one of the first three wives, that wife stands to lose out. And they disagree with regard to a creditor whose promissory note was dated later than that of another creditor, and yet he collected his debt before the other creditor, leaving nothing for the other creditor to collect. This is parallel to the case of the wives if the fourth wife collects her marriage contract and then one of the earlier wives loses the field she has been paid.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛

The first tanna holds that what the creditor has collected, he has not fully collected, i.e., he will have to give up the property he collected so that the creditor with the earlier promissory note can collect his debt. Similarly, if the property given to one of the first three wives is repossessed and there is nothing left for her to collect, the fourth wife will have to relinquish the property that she had been paid to accommodate the wife who preceded her.

讜讘谉 谞谞住 住讘专 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 讙讘讛

And ben Nanas holds that what the creditor has collected, he has collected, i.e., it is not taken from him in order to pay the earlier creditor. Consequently, according to the first tanna, there is no need for the fourth wife to take an oath before she collects the property, because whatever she collects can be taken from her in order to pay the other wives. According to ben Nanas, since the property the fourth wife collects cannot be taken from her, she must take an oath that she is collecting this property legally in order to ensure that none of the other wives will lose out because of what she collects.

(讗诪专) 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Everyone agrees that what the later creditor has collected, he has not collected, i.e., it may be repossessed by the earlier creditor. Rather, they disagree here as to whether we are concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field and cause its value to depreciate.

诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝

One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that we are concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field. If she is not required to take the oath, she will understand that her hold on the land is uncertain, as it is possible that one of the other wives will repossess it. Consequently, she will try to reap the maximum benefit from the field in the short term without investing in the field for the long term, and thereby depleting the field. The Sages therefore imposed an oath upon the fourth wife. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that we are not concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field and we can assume that it will retain its original value. Therefore, there is no reason to impose an oath upon the fourth wife.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 拽讟谞讬诐

Abaye said: There is a practical difference between them, the first tanna and ben Nanas, with regard to the ruling of Abaye the Elder, as Abaye the Elder taught: The orphans with regard to whom the Sages said that one cannot collect property from them without taking an oath include adult orphans, and, needless to say, orphans who are minors. Even adult orphans are not necessarily aware of the business affairs of their parents, and one can easily press claims against the estate that take advantage of their ignorance. Therefore, anyone who wishes to collect money from the estate is required to take an oath.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讜讘谉 谞谞住 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗

The first tanna does not accept the ruling of Abaye the Elder and therefore holds that the fourth wife does not have to take an oath when collecting her marriage contract. And ben Nanas accepts the ruling of Abaye the Elder and therefore holds that the fourth wife must take an oath before collecting part of the estate.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 转专讬 讗讞讬 讜转专讬 砖讜转驻讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬 讞讚 讜讗讝诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讬讚讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讚讬讚讬 讗转 讗诇讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 注讘讚

Rav Huna said: In a case of two brothers or two partners who have legal proceedings against another individual, and one of them went to attend to the legal proceedings against him and lost, the other brother or partner cannot say to the litigant: I am not legally answerable to you, i.e., I am not bound by the verdict because I was not represented in the legal proceedings. Rather, the brother or partner who appeared in court is considered to have acted as his agent.

讗拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 砖讬讬诇讜讛讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an once happened to come to Sura. They asked him: What is the halakha in a case like this one presented by Rav Huna, where only one of the two brothers or partners attends the court proceedings?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 谞砖讘注转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬诇讜 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讬讞讜转讛 注讘讚讛

He said to them: It is taught in a mishna: The woman he married first takes an oath to the woman he married second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth. But it does not teach that the first wife takes an oath to the third or the fourth. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that when the second wife requires the first to take an oath, she is acting as the third wife鈥檚 agent as well, since they both share the same concern regarding the first wife?

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗讞讚 讜砖讘讜注讛 诇诪讗讛 讛讻讗 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讟注讬谞谞讗 讟驻讬

The Gemara responds: Is it comparable? There, in the case of the mishna, an oath to one is equal to an oath to one hundred, and there is no need for the first wife to take multiple oaths about the same matter. Here, however, in the case of the brothers or business partners, the second brother or partner can say: Had I been there, I would have presented a more convincing claim.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讗讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讬

The Gemara notes: We said that this doubt is taken into account only if the second brother or partner is not in town when the legal proceedings take place. However, if he is in town, he should come to court to participate in the legal proceedings, and if he fails to do so, it is clear that he is content to allow his brother or partner to represent him in court.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 专讘 讗诪专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

It was stated that in a case of two deeds that are issued, i.e., dated, on the same day, e.g., where an individual gave or sold the same item to two different people, Rav said: They divide it between them, as it is impossible to determine who it belongs to, and Shmuel said: The item is awarded according to the discretion [shuda] of the judges.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction? Here, since the seller or the giver of the field did not ask the signatory witnesses to note the exact time, it implies that he wished to give it to two people, but did not want to reveal that he was giving it to both of them.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

And Shmuel said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that witnesses of the transmission effect the transaction, i.e., the act of transferring the legal document to the beneficiary causes the transaction to take effect. Therefore, the fact that the two documents bear the same date is of no consequence because the documents were presumably not given to their beneficiaries simultaneously, and the property belongs exclusively to the individual who received his document first. Consequently, there is no reason to divide the property.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讞诇讜拽讛 注讚讬驻讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 注讚讬驻讗

The Gemara responds: No, it is possible to say that everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and here they disagree about the following: Rav holds that in a case of a doubt that cannot be resolved with regard to monetary law, division is preferable, and Shmuel holds that leaving the decision to the discretion of the judges is preferable.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讟专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 住讘专 讘砖讟专讜转 诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: Can you really establish that the opinion of Rav is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce? And Rav Yehuda related further: When I said this halakha in the presence of Shmuel, he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar even with regard to other legal documents as well. By inference, it is apparent that Rav holds that with regard to other legal documents, no, the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. Rather, it is clear that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇拽讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of two deeds that are issued dated the same day, the recipients of the deeds divide the property equally. Is this not a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers that Shmuel could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and I said my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻转讘 诇讗讞讚 讜诪住专 诇讗讞专 讝讛 砖诪住专 诇讜 拽谞讛 讜讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 拽谞讛 讛讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara continues to ask: If this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If he wrote a deed to one individual and then transmitted it to another individual, the one to whom the deed was transmitted has acquired the property. If the baraita is following the opinion of Rabbi Meir, why did the latter individual acquire the property? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that the signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction and not the witnesses to its transmission?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讛砖诇讬砖 讬注砖讛

The Gemara responds: The baraita cited above is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. However, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to money whose ownership is uncertain, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where an individual sent a sum of money to another via a messenger, and by the time the messenger arrived, the intended recipient had died, and in the meantime, the individual who had sent the money also died, the tanna鈥檌m disagree about what to do with the money. The Rabbis say: The heirs of the sender and the heirs of the intended recipient should divide the money. And here, in Babylonia, they said: The third party, i.e., the messenger, can do as he pleases with the money, a ruling that is comparable to the solution of leaving the decision to the discretion of the judges.

讗诪讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘爪驻专讗 诇讗讜专转讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗

The Gemara relates that the mother of Rami bar 岣ma wrote a deed in the morning transferring ownership of her property to Rami bar 岣ma, and in the evening she wrote another deed transferring her property to another of her sons, Mar Ukva bar 岣ma.

讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讗 讗转讗 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讗 讗转讗 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬

Rami bar 岣ma came before Rav Sheshet and the latter established his right to the property. Mar Ukva, his brother, came before Rav Na岣an and the latter established his right to the property. Rav Sheshet came before Rav Na岣an and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did this, i.e., why did you issue this ruling? Rav Na岣an said to him: And what is the reason that the Master did this, i.e., why did you rule as you did?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚拽讚讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讘讬谞谉 讚讻转讘讬谞谉 砖注讜转 讗诇讗 诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

Rav Sheshet said to him: Because Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 deed preceded that of Mar Ukva. Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: Is that to say that we are sitting in Jerusalem, that we write the hours on our legal documents? The halakha is that in any place where the hours are not recorded on legal documents, it does not matter when during the day a document was written. Rav Sheshet asked Rav Na岣an: But what is the reason that the Master did this, ruling as you did? Rav Na岣an said to him: It was the discretion of the judges, i.e., I ruled this way since it seemed to me that this is the way the mother wanted it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讚讗谞讗 讚讬讬谞讗 讜诪专 诇讗讜 讚讬讬谞讗 讜注讜讚 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘转讜专转 讛讻讬 讗转讬转 诇讛

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Na岣an: I also applied the principle of the discretion of the judges and ruled as I did. Rav Na岣an said to him: One response to your point is that I am a judge, and the Master is not a judge, as Rav Sheshet did not serve in the official capacity of a judge. Furthermore, at the outset, you did not arrive at your conclusion for this reason, but due to your own theory with regard to the dating of the documents, which proved to be incorrect.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讚 讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讞诪砖讗 讘谞讬住谉 讜讞讚 讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讬讛 讘谞讬住谉 住转诪讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讛讛讜讗 讚讞诪砖讗 讘谞讬住谉 讘谞讻住讬诐

The Gemara relates another incident in which an individual wrote two deeds about the same piece of property: There were these two deeds that came before Rav Yosef. In one deed, it was written that the owner of the field sold it to a particular individual on the fifth of Nisan, and in the other one it was written that he sold the same property to someone else in Nisan, without specifying on which day in Nisan the sale took place. Rav Yosef established that the one whose deed said the fifth of Nisan had the right to the property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讜讗谞讗 讗驻住讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讬讚讱 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 讘专 注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘谞讬住谉 讗转

The other claimant said to Rav Yosef: Should I lose? After all, it is possible that my deed was written prior to the other deed. Rav Yosef said to him: You are at a disadvantage, because there is no specific date in your deed, allowing one to say that your deed is from the twenty-ninth of Nisan. Since you have no way to prove otherwise, the property is awarded to the one who has a more specific date recorded in his deed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜谞讻转讜讘 诇讬 诪专

The man said to him: Let the Master write me

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 94

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 94

讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 讜讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讜讞专 砖拽讚诐 讜讙讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The case is where it is discovered that one of the fields in the estate is not his field, e.g., the husband had stolen it from someone else. Consequently, it is likely that the field will be repossessed, and if it is used to pay the marriage contract of one of the first three wives, that wife stands to lose out. And they disagree with regard to a creditor whose promissory note was dated later than that of another creditor, and yet he collected his debt before the other creditor, leaving nothing for the other creditor to collect. This is parallel to the case of the wives if the fourth wife collects her marriage contract and then one of the earlier wives loses the field she has been paid.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛

The first tanna holds that what the creditor has collected, he has not fully collected, i.e., he will have to give up the property he collected so that the creditor with the earlier promissory note can collect his debt. Similarly, if the property given to one of the first three wives is repossessed and there is nothing left for her to collect, the fourth wife will have to relinquish the property that she had been paid to accommodate the wife who preceded her.

讜讘谉 谞谞住 住讘专 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 讙讘讛

And ben Nanas holds that what the creditor has collected, he has collected, i.e., it is not taken from him in order to pay the earlier creditor. Consequently, according to the first tanna, there is no need for the fourth wife to take an oath before she collects the property, because whatever she collects can be taken from her in order to pay the other wives. According to ben Nanas, since the property the fourth wife collects cannot be taken from her, she must take an oath that she is collecting this property legally in order to ensure that none of the other wives will lose out because of what she collects.

(讗诪专) 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Everyone agrees that what the later creditor has collected, he has not collected, i.e., it may be repossessed by the earlier creditor. Rather, they disagree here as to whether we are concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field and cause its value to depreciate.

诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝

One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that we are concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field. If she is not required to take the oath, she will understand that her hold on the land is uncertain, as it is possible that one of the other wives will repossess it. Consequently, she will try to reap the maximum benefit from the field in the short term without investing in the field for the long term, and thereby depleting the field. The Sages therefore imposed an oath upon the fourth wife. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that we are not concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field and we can assume that it will retain its original value. Therefore, there is no reason to impose an oath upon the fourth wife.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 拽讟谞讬诐

Abaye said: There is a practical difference between them, the first tanna and ben Nanas, with regard to the ruling of Abaye the Elder, as Abaye the Elder taught: The orphans with regard to whom the Sages said that one cannot collect property from them without taking an oath include adult orphans, and, needless to say, orphans who are minors. Even adult orphans are not necessarily aware of the business affairs of their parents, and one can easily press claims against the estate that take advantage of their ignorance. Therefore, anyone who wishes to collect money from the estate is required to take an oath.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讜讘谉 谞谞住 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗

The first tanna does not accept the ruling of Abaye the Elder and therefore holds that the fourth wife does not have to take an oath when collecting her marriage contract. And ben Nanas accepts the ruling of Abaye the Elder and therefore holds that the fourth wife must take an oath before collecting part of the estate.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 转专讬 讗讞讬 讜转专讬 砖讜转驻讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬 讞讚 讜讗讝诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讬讚讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讚讬讚讬 讗转 讗诇讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 注讘讚

Rav Huna said: In a case of two brothers or two partners who have legal proceedings against another individual, and one of them went to attend to the legal proceedings against him and lost, the other brother or partner cannot say to the litigant: I am not legally answerable to you, i.e., I am not bound by the verdict because I was not represented in the legal proceedings. Rather, the brother or partner who appeared in court is considered to have acted as his agent.

讗拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 砖讬讬诇讜讛讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an once happened to come to Sura. They asked him: What is the halakha in a case like this one presented by Rav Huna, where only one of the two brothers or partners attends the court proceedings?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 谞砖讘注转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬诇讜 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讬讞讜转讛 注讘讚讛

He said to them: It is taught in a mishna: The woman he married first takes an oath to the woman he married second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth. But it does not teach that the first wife takes an oath to the third or the fourth. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that when the second wife requires the first to take an oath, she is acting as the third wife鈥檚 agent as well, since they both share the same concern regarding the first wife?

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗讞讚 讜砖讘讜注讛 诇诪讗讛 讛讻讗 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讟注讬谞谞讗 讟驻讬

The Gemara responds: Is it comparable? There, in the case of the mishna, an oath to one is equal to an oath to one hundred, and there is no need for the first wife to take multiple oaths about the same matter. Here, however, in the case of the brothers or business partners, the second brother or partner can say: Had I been there, I would have presented a more convincing claim.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讗讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讬

The Gemara notes: We said that this doubt is taken into account only if the second brother or partner is not in town when the legal proceedings take place. However, if he is in town, he should come to court to participate in the legal proceedings, and if he fails to do so, it is clear that he is content to allow his brother or partner to represent him in court.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 专讘 讗诪专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

It was stated that in a case of two deeds that are issued, i.e., dated, on the same day, e.g., where an individual gave or sold the same item to two different people, Rav said: They divide it between them, as it is impossible to determine who it belongs to, and Shmuel said: The item is awarded according to the discretion [shuda] of the judges.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction? Here, since the seller or the giver of the field did not ask the signatory witnesses to note the exact time, it implies that he wished to give it to two people, but did not want to reveal that he was giving it to both of them.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

And Shmuel said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that witnesses of the transmission effect the transaction, i.e., the act of transferring the legal document to the beneficiary causes the transaction to take effect. Therefore, the fact that the two documents bear the same date is of no consequence because the documents were presumably not given to their beneficiaries simultaneously, and the property belongs exclusively to the individual who received his document first. Consequently, there is no reason to divide the property.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讞诇讜拽讛 注讚讬驻讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 注讚讬驻讗

The Gemara responds: No, it is possible to say that everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and here they disagree about the following: Rav holds that in a case of a doubt that cannot be resolved with regard to monetary law, division is preferable, and Shmuel holds that leaving the decision to the discretion of the judges is preferable.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讟专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 住讘专 讘砖讟专讜转 诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: Can you really establish that the opinion of Rav is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce? And Rav Yehuda related further: When I said this halakha in the presence of Shmuel, he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar even with regard to other legal documents as well. By inference, it is apparent that Rav holds that with regard to other legal documents, no, the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. Rather, it is clear that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇拽讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of two deeds that are issued dated the same day, the recipients of the deeds divide the property equally. Is this not a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers that Shmuel could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and I said my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻转讘 诇讗讞讚 讜诪住专 诇讗讞专 讝讛 砖诪住专 诇讜 拽谞讛 讜讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 拽谞讛 讛讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara continues to ask: If this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If he wrote a deed to one individual and then transmitted it to another individual, the one to whom the deed was transmitted has acquired the property. If the baraita is following the opinion of Rabbi Meir, why did the latter individual acquire the property? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that the signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction and not the witnesses to its transmission?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讛砖诇讬砖 讬注砖讛

The Gemara responds: The baraita cited above is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. However, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to money whose ownership is uncertain, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where an individual sent a sum of money to another via a messenger, and by the time the messenger arrived, the intended recipient had died, and in the meantime, the individual who had sent the money also died, the tanna鈥檌m disagree about what to do with the money. The Rabbis say: The heirs of the sender and the heirs of the intended recipient should divide the money. And here, in Babylonia, they said: The third party, i.e., the messenger, can do as he pleases with the money, a ruling that is comparable to the solution of leaving the decision to the discretion of the judges.

讗诪讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘爪驻专讗 诇讗讜专转讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗

The Gemara relates that the mother of Rami bar 岣ma wrote a deed in the morning transferring ownership of her property to Rami bar 岣ma, and in the evening she wrote another deed transferring her property to another of her sons, Mar Ukva bar 岣ma.

讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讗 讗转讗 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讗 讗转讗 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬

Rami bar 岣ma came before Rav Sheshet and the latter established his right to the property. Mar Ukva, his brother, came before Rav Na岣an and the latter established his right to the property. Rav Sheshet came before Rav Na岣an and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did this, i.e., why did you issue this ruling? Rav Na岣an said to him: And what is the reason that the Master did this, i.e., why did you rule as you did?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚拽讚讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讘讬谞谉 讚讻转讘讬谞谉 砖注讜转 讗诇讗 诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬

Rav Sheshet said to him: Because Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 deed preceded that of Mar Ukva. Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: Is that to say that we are sitting in Jerusalem, that we write the hours on our legal documents? The halakha is that in any place where the hours are not recorded on legal documents, it does not matter when during the day a document was written. Rav Sheshet asked Rav Na岣an: But what is the reason that the Master did this, ruling as you did? Rav Na岣an said to him: It was the discretion of the judges, i.e., I ruled this way since it seemed to me that this is the way the mother wanted it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 砖讜讚讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讚讗谞讗 讚讬讬谞讗 讜诪专 诇讗讜 讚讬讬谞讗 讜注讜讚 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘转讜专转 讛讻讬 讗转讬转 诇讛

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Na岣an: I also applied the principle of the discretion of the judges and ruled as I did. Rav Na岣an said to him: One response to your point is that I am a judge, and the Master is not a judge, as Rav Sheshet did not serve in the official capacity of a judge. Furthermore, at the outset, you did not arrive at your conclusion for this reason, but due to your own theory with regard to the dating of the documents, which proved to be incorrect.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讚 讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讞诪砖讗 讘谞讬住谉 讜讞讚 讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讬讛 讘谞讬住谉 住转诪讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讛讛讜讗 讚讞诪砖讗 讘谞讬住谉 讘谞讻住讬诐

The Gemara relates another incident in which an individual wrote two deeds about the same piece of property: There were these two deeds that came before Rav Yosef. In one deed, it was written that the owner of the field sold it to a particular individual on the fifth of Nisan, and in the other one it was written that he sold the same property to someone else in Nisan, without specifying on which day in Nisan the sale took place. Rav Yosef established that the one whose deed said the fifth of Nisan had the right to the property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讜讗谞讗 讗驻住讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讬讚讱 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 讘专 注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘谞讬住谉 讗转

The other claimant said to Rav Yosef: Should I lose? After all, it is possible that my deed was written prior to the other deed. Rav Yosef said to him: You are at a disadvantage, because there is no specific date in your deed, allowing one to say that your deed is from the twenty-ninth of Nisan. Since you have no way to prove otherwise, the property is awarded to the one who has a more specific date recorded in his deed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜谞讻转讜讘 诇讬 诪专

The man said to him: Let the Master write me

Scroll To Top