כתובות ט׳Ketubot 9

Mishnah

משנה: הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת וְאִם מֵתָה יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָתַב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. כָּתַב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עָלַיִיךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ וְאִם מֵתָה יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן עַד עוֹלָם. כָּתַב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵירֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיַּיִךְ וּבְמוֹתֵךְ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ וְאִם מֵתָה אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מֵתָה יוֹרְשָׁהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָטֵל.

MISHNAH: If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rebbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits.” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵם רִבִּי יַנַּיי. בְּשֶׁלֹּא כָנַס. אֲבָל אִם כָּנַס אֵין אָדָם מְאַבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן הַזֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה. הָאוֹמֵר. יָדַיי מְסוּלָּקוֹת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה הַזּוֹ וְרַגְלַיי מְסוּלָּקוֹת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה הַזּוֹ. לֹא אָמַר וְלֹא כְלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר חִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְאַבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן הַזֶּה. דְּתַנִינָן תַּמָּן. מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּמָכַר אֶת שָׂדֶהוּ וְכָתְבָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמָּךְ. הַשְּׁנִיָיה מוֹצִיאָה מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ. הָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּל גַּרְמָהּ אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְאַבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן הַזֶּה. אָלָּא כָאן אֲפִילוּ הַשְּׁנִיָיה לֹא תוֹצִיא מִיַּד הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְלָמָּה אֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוֹצִיאָה מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ. שֶׁכֵּן הִיא כוֹתֶבֶת לוֹ. כָּל עֶרֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בַשָּׂדֶה זוֹ אַל יְהִי לִי עִמָּךְ כְּלוּם.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he did not take her in. But if he took her in, nobody can lose his rights by these expressions. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is the word of Rebbi Ḥiyya: He who says that “my hands are removed from this field, my feet are removed from this field,” did not say anything. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a Mishnah imply that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions? Did we not state there: “If somebody was married to two wives when he sold a field and the first one wrote for the buyer: I have no claims on you, the second one can take it away from the buyer’s hands,” this implies, not the first one. He said to him, that text itself implies that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions, but here the second wife cannot take anything away from the first, and why can the first one not take it away from the buyer’s hands? For she writes to him: For any complaint I shall have regarding this field, I shall have nothing against you.

כָּתַב לָהּ וְכָתַבְתָּהּ לוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ כָּךְ אִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ מְאַבֶּדֶת זְכוּתָהּ. כָּתַב לָהּ מִן הָאֵירוּסִין וּמִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. פְּלוּגְתָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי תִּמְכּוֹר. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל לֹא תִמְכּוֹר.

If he wrote for her and she wrote for him. Just as he did not lose his rights so she did not lose her rights. If he wrote to her “from preliminary and definitive marriage”, that is the disagreement between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. In the opinion of the House of Shammai she shall sell; in the opinion of the House of Hillel she should not sell.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כָּתַב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ. וְנָפְלוּ לָהּ לְאַחַר מִיכֵּן. מָהוּ. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מִזְּכוּתוֹ אַתְּ לָמֵד חִייוּבוֹ. אֶלָּא לֹא כָתַב לָהּ שַׁנְיָיה [הִיא] אֵין לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. הֲוֵי מִזְּכוּתוֹ אַתְּ לָמֵד חִיּוּבוֹ. רִבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חַיְיתָא בְעָא. כָּתַב לָו. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִיךְ הָעֲתִידִין לִיפּוֹל לִיךְ. מָה הֵן. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָעוֹלָם.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” and she inherited properties afterwards, what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: From his rights you can infer his obligations. If he had not written to her, would it make any difference, would he not receive its yield? That means, from his rights you can infer his obligations. Rebbi Levi bar Ḥaita asked: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties which you shall inherit in the future,” what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence?

מָכְרָה פֵירוֹת מְחוּבָּרִין לְקַרְקַע. רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר. כְּמוֹכֶרֶת פֵּירוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּמוֹכֶרֶת אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה בַקַּרְקַע. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַכּוֹתֵב שָׂדֶה מַתָּנָה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינָהּ מוֹכֶרֶת פֵּירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. אֵילּוּ הֵן פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת. מוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת וְלוֹקֵחָ קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְעָא. אִילּוּ אַחֵר כּוֹתֵב לָהּ יֵשׁ לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. הוּא שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כוֹתֵב. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר לֹא. מַה בֵין כּוֹתֵב מַה בֵין מוֹכֵר. עִולָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהַבְרִיחַ מְזוֹנוֹת מִן הָאִשָּׁה.

If she sold produce connected to the ground: Rav Aḥa said, as if she sold harvested [produce]; Rebbi Yose said, as if she sold a tenth of the ground. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If somebody writes a field over to his wife, she cannot sell the produce. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita says so “What are revenues derived from revenues? He sells the produce, buys real estate, and eats its revenue.” Rebbi Immi asked: If another person had written [real estate] over to her, would he not receive the revenue? If he himself wrote, not so much more! He said only “wrote over”, but not “sold”. What is the difference between one who writes and one who sells? He tried to find a reason to hide food from the wife.

נִיחָא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּשֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבַפֵּירוֹת. אֵין לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כָתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְשָׂדֶה זוֹ וּבְפֵירוֹתֶיהָ. אֵין לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. נִיחָא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין בְּשֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְשָׂדֶה זוֹ וּבְפֵירוֹתֶיהָ. יֵשׁ לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כָתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבַפֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן. יֵשׁ לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. דָּמַר רַב זְעִירָא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַכּוֹתֵב שָׂדֶה מַתָּנָה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן פֵּירֵי פֵירוֹת. מוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת וְלוֹקֵחַ קַרְקַע וְאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבַפֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן. לֹא כְּכוֹתֵב שָׂדֶה מַתָּנָה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הוּא. אַתְּ אָמַר. לֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא פֵירֵי פֵירוֹת. הֲוֵי לֹא שַׁנְיָיא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּשֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן. בְּשֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבַפֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן. אֵין לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ לְרַבָּנִן לֹא שַׁנְיָיא. בֵּין שֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ וּבַפֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן. בֵּין שֶׁכָּתַב. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בַשָּׂדֶה זוֹ וּבְפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן. יֵשׁ לוֹ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת.

It is reasonable according to Rebbi Jehudah, if he wrote: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and the revenues,” that he cannot take the revenues. Even if he wrote: “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” he cannot eat its yield. It is reasonable according to the rabbis; if he wrote: “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” can he eat its yield? Even if he wrote, “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and its yields,” can he eat its yield? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah said in the name of Rav: If somebody writes a field over to his wife, he has no right to its yield. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita says so “What are revenues derived from revenues? He sells the produce, buys real estate, and eats its revenue.” Since he wrote, “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and their yields,” is that not as if he wrote a field over to his wife, and you say, he has neither revenue nor revenue from revenue! That means, there is no difference in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah whether he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” or he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and their revenues,” he cannot take any revenue. Similarly, for the rabbis it makes no difference whether he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and their revenues,” or he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” he can take its yield.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיָין דְּבָרִים. הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר. אִם מֵתָה יְרוֹשְׁתָהּ. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָטֵל. בִּתְנָאֵי גּוּף. אֲבָל בִּתְנָאֵי מָמוֹן תְּנָאוֹ קַיָים. וְזֶה תְנַאי מָמוֹן הוּא. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ. תְּנָאוֹ בָטֵל. שֶׁבְּסוֹף הוּא זָכָה בָהֶן. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה שֶׁיְּהֵא מִכְרָהּ קַיָים. שֶׁבְּסוֹף הוּא זוֹכֶה בָהֶן. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ בָטֵל. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא אִשָּׁה מוֹכֶרֶת נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁלְּבַעֲלָהּ וְאוֹמֶרֶת. שֶׁלִּי הֵן.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but not in the matter of words. Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for he said, if she dies he inherits from her, but in matters of words, “since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid,” in personal matters. But in money matters, one’s stipulations are valid and that is a money matter! Why did we say that the condition is invalid? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The law should have been that if she sold or gave it away it should be valid, for [the buyer] acquired it. Why did they say it is invalid? That a wife should not sell her husband’s property and say, it is mine.

רִבִּי [יוֹסְטִינֵי] הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא וּשְׁאִיל לְרַבָּנִין. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. פּוּק מִנְּכָסֵיךְ. שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. עוּל בִּנְכָסֵיךְ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הֵיי לוֹן רַבָּנִין. הָא רַב הָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. רַבָּנִין דְּרִבִּי יוֹסְטִינֵה.

Rebbi Justinus had a case and he asked the rabbis who told him, leave you properties. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Who are those rabbis? What about Rav, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He said to him, Rebbi Justinus’s rabbis.

בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. מֵתָה מִי יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִלֵּין. אֲחֶיהָ יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתָהּ.

They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Following the Sages, if she died who inherits from her? Those, her brothers, inherit from her.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. יֵעָשׂוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּכְרוּ וְלֹא תְהֵא נִיזּוֹנֶת מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא. מָכְרוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן מָכְרוּ.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the brothers divided [the inheritance], the widow is supported by them. For you should not say, they should be considered as if they had sold the properties and the widow would not be supported by these, since it is obvious that if they sold, they sold their own property.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. כְּתִיב אִם יִהְיֶה הַיּוֹבֵל לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג הַנְחָלוֹת חוֹזְרוֹת וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג אֵין הַנְחָלוֹת חוֹזְרוֹת. אַדְּרַבָּה. אָתָא מֵימַר לָךְ. אֲפִילוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג וְהַנְחָלוֹת חוֹזְרוֹת יְרוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת.

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: It is written: “If the Jubilee will happen for the Children of Israel.” If the institution of the Jubilee exists, inheritances return; if the institution of the Jubilee does not exist, inheritances do not return. It is the opposite way, it comes to tell you that even if the institution of the Jubilee exists and inheritances return, inheritance by biblical law does not return!

רִבִּי הִלֵּל בַּר פָּזִי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָכַר הוּא וּמֵתָה הִיא. אָמַר לוֹ. מִכְרֹה בָטֵל. לְבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו וּמֵת אָבִיו. מָכְרָה הִיא וּמֵת הוּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכְרָהּ קַיָים. לְאָב שֶׁמָּכַר בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ וּמֵת בְּנוֹ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר מַרְיָיא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹנָה. מָכְרָה לְבַעֲלָהּ מָהוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִדְּאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי (יוּדָה). הָדָא אָמְרָה מִכְרָהּ מֶכֶר. תַּנֵּי. הָאוֹמֵר. יִינָתְנוּ נְכָסַיי לִפְלוֹנִי. מֵת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי. [מֵת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי.]. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יִינָתְנוּ לַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יִינָתְנוּ לַשְּׁלִישִׁי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי בְחַיֵי הָרִאשׁוֹן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בָהֶן הַשֵּׁינִי לֹא זָכָה בָהֶן הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּךְ פִּירֵשׁ רִבִי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֲבִי הַמִּשְׁנָה. אַחֲרָיו לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַחֲרָיו לִפְלוֹנִי. אִילּוּ אָמַר. מֵת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בְחַיֵי שֵׁינִי. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בָהֶן הַשֵּׁינִי לֹא זָכוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין יְאוּת אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. אַחֲרָיו לִפְלוֹנִי אַחֲרָיו לִפְלוֹנִי. תַּנֵּי. הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹכֵר קַרְקַע וְלוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִן מַה דְּאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין לֹו כְמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. הָכָא אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָדָא אִשָּׁה מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עַל בַּעֲלָהּ לֹא כְמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע הִיא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עַל בַּעֲלָהּ בְּרָאוּי לָהּ. מַאֲכָל מְשַׁח וּמֶלַח. וְהִיא בָעְיָיא מְזַבְּנָה וּמֵיכַל תַּרְנוגֹלִין. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאִם בִּיקֵּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן מְזַבְּנָה וּמֵיכַל תַּרְנוגֹלִין יִזְבַּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. תַּנֵּי תַּמָן. קְבוּרָה כִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אֲמַר תַּמָּן. מוֹכֵר קַרְקַע וְלוֹקֵחַ מְזוֹנוֹת. אַף הָכָא. מוֹכֵר קַרְקַע וְלוֹקֵחַ קְבוּרָה.

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִילֵּין דְּכָּתְבִין. אִין מִיתַת דְּלָא בְנִין יְהֵא מִדְּלָהּ חֲזַר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. תְּנָאי מָמוֹן הוּא וּתְנָאוֹ קַיָים.

Rebbi Yose said: Those who write “if she should die childless, her property should return to her father’s family” write a monetary condition which is a valid condition.

Mishnah

משנה: מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַעַל חוֹב וְיוֹרְשִׁין וְהָיָה לוֹ פִיקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִלְוָה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר יִינָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין אֶלָּא יִינָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁכּוּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה.

MISHNAH: If somebody died and left his wife, a creditor, and heirs, and he was owed a deposit or a debt by a third party, Rebbi Ṭarphon says, these should be given to the weakest among them. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But these should be given to the heirs for all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

Halakhah

הלכה: מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אִשָּׁה כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה אָמַר. לַכּוֹשֶׁל שֶׁבִּרְאָיוֹתָיו. כְּגוֹן מַלְוֶה בְעֵדִים וּמַלְוֶה בִשְׁטָר יִינָּתְנוּ לְמַּלוֶה בְעֵדִים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לַכּוֹשֵׁל בְּגוּפוֹ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ הֲוָה עָתִיר. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין דְּבַר אַנְדְּרַאי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. לַכּוֹשֵׁל בְּגוּפוֹ וְעָנִי. כְּהָדָא. קְּרֵיבָתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא יְהָבוּ לֵיהּ מִשֵּׁם כּוֹשֵׁל. אַייתֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עַבְדּוֹי דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיָיא וַאַפִּיק מִינֵּיהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה מִיסְתַּמֵּיךְ עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה נַעֲשֶׂה בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעֲנִיָיה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַייתֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עַבְדּוֹי דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיָיא וַאַפִּיק מִינָּהּ. וְיָפֶה נַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אִי נֹאמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם טָעוּ בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִירִין. מִדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה מַחֲזִירִין. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּטָעוּת מִשְׁנָה. שֶׁרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּטָעוּת מִשְׁנָה שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. טָעוּת מִשְׁנָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. הִיא טָעוּת מִשְׁנָה הִיא טָעוּת זְקֵינִים.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody died and left a wife,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the weakest in his claim. For example, one lent before witnesses, the other lent on a mortgage document; it should be given to the one who lent before witnesses. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the weakest in his body. Think about it, if he is rich, like those of the family Andreas. Rebbi Aḥa said, the weakest in his body and poor. As the following: They gave to a relative of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba as the weakest. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, what was done with that poor woman? He said to him, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Was he justified in doing this? Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should we say that Rebbi Joḥanan follows his doctrine and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish his own? Since they disagree: Everybody agrees that if they err in arguments, one does not reverse. In the words of the Torah, one reverses. Where do they disagree? If one errs in a Mishnah, for Rebbi Joḥanan says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in arguments, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in words of the Torah. What is said of the Mishnah is also said of words of the Elders.

הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה. זוֹ תוֹרָה וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה.

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing? One is biblical, the other is not biblical.

Mishnah

משנה: הִנִּיחַ פֵּירוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. זָכְתָה הָאִשָּׁה יוֹתֵר מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּבַעַל חוֹב יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ. הַמּוֹתָר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר יִינָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין אֶלָּא יִינָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁכּוּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה.

MISHNAH: If he left produce taken from the ground, the one who takes them first acquires them. If the widow acquired more than her ketubah sum, or the creditor more than his claim, the remainder, Rebbi Ṭarphon says, should be given to the weakest among them. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But it should be given to the heirs since all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

Halakhah

הלכה: הִנִּיחַ פֵּירוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין כול׳. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בִּצְבוּרִין בְּסוּרְקִי. אֲבָל אִם צְבָרָן בְּבֵיתוֹ זָכָה לוֹ בֵיתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וַאֲפִילוּ צְבוּרִין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ לֹא זָכָה לוֹ בֵיתוֹ. דַּהֲוָה סְבַר דְּאִינּוּן דִּידֵּהּ וְלֵית אִינּוּן דִּידֵּהּ. וַאֲתֵי בַעַל הַבַּיִת זָכָה בְּפֵירוֹתָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. מִשֶּׁיִּתְּנֵם לְתוֹךְ כֵּילָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲפִילוּ נְתָנָן לְתוֹךְ כֵּלָיו לֹא זָכָה בָהֶן. דַּהֲוָה סְבַר מֵימַר דְּאִינּוּן דִּידֵּיהּ וְלֵית אִינּוּן דִּידֵּהּ.

HALAKHAH: “If he left produce taken,” etc. Both Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, if they were collected at a trading place. But if somebody collected it in his house, his house acquired for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he collected it in his house, his house did not acquire for him. For he thinks that they are his but they are not his. Does from this follow how the owner acquires his produce in a Sabbatical year? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, from the moment he put them into his vessel. Rebbi Yose said, even if he put them into his vessel he did not acquire, for he thinks that they are his but they are not his.

הִיא אַרְמָלְתָא תְּפָסָת אַמְהָתָא. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִצְחָק. אָמַר. תְּפָסָת תְּפָסָת. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַפִּיק מִינָּהּ. דְּהִיא סָבְרָה דִידָּהּ וְלֵית אִינּוּן דִּידָּהּ. כְּהָדָא. אִילֵּין בְּנֵי שַׁמַּי דִּדְמָךְ אֲבוּהוֹן שְׁבַק לָהוֹן אֲבוּהוֹן עֵז. אָתָא מָרִי חוֹבָה וּנְסָתָהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְאָמַר. דִּידֵּהּ נְסַב. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. יוֹרֵשׁ וּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקָּדַם אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְתָפַס [אֵין] מוֹצִיאין מִיָּדוֹ. דַּהֲווֹן סָבְרִין דְּאִינּוּן דִּידְּהוֹן וְלֵית אִינּוּן דִּידְּהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ שֶׁאִם מְכָרוּהָ אוֹ מַשְׁכְּנוּהָ אוֹ טִילְטְלוּהָ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעַל חוֹב וְתָפַס מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ.

That widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. A similar case: The father of the sons of Shammai died and bequeathed a goat to them. The creditor came and took it. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said, he took his own property. Did we not state that if either an heir or a creditor came and took, one does [not] remove from his hand; for they thought they were theirs but they were not theirs. Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi said, Rebbi Abbahu agrees that if they sold it, or gave it as a pledge, or moved it to another place, if then the creditor came and took it one removes it from his possession.

הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה. זוֹ תוֹרָה וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה.

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing? One is biblical, the other is not biblical.

Mishnah

משנה: הַמּוֹשִׁיב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ חֶנְוָונִית אוֹ שֶׁמִּינָּהּ אֶפִּיטְרוֹפְּיָא הֲרֵי זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעָהּ כָּל זְמָן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ עַל פִּילְכָּהּ וְעַל עִיסָּתָהּ.

MISHNAH: If somebody engages his wife as grocer or appoints her as steward, he can make her swear any time he wants. Rebbi Eliezer says, even about her distaff and her dough.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַמּוֹשִׁיב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ חֶנְוָונִית כול׳. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן אֵין שָׁלוֹם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ לְעוֹלָם. שִׁיבְּרָה אֶת הַכֵּלִים מֵה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. כְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת חִנָּם אוֹ כְשׁוֹמֶרֶת שָׂכָר. מִסְתַּבְּרָא מֵיעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת שָׂכָר. אָמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ כְשׁוֹמֶרֶת חִנָּם אֵינָהּ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן אֵין שָׁלוֹם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ לְעוֹלָם.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody engages his wife as grocer,” etc. Is Rebbi Eliezer not correct? What is the rabbis’ reason? If you say so, there never would be peace in his house. If she broke vessels, is she responsible as an unpaid or a paid trustee? It would be reasonable to consider her a paid trustee. They said, she is not even an unpaid trustee, for if you say so, there never would be peace in his house.

Mishnah

משנה: כָּתַב לָהּ נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִיךְ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ אֲבָל מַשְׁבִּיעַ הוּא אֶת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְאֵת הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. שְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִיךְ וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִיךְ וְעַל הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתֵיךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ לֹא אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא אֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא אֶת הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ אֲבָל יוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֵת הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ.

MISHNAH: If he wrote to her: “I have no vow or oath against you,” he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates. “I have no oath against you, or your heirs, or your business associates,” he cannot ask an oath from her, or her heirs, or her business associates, but the heirs can ask an oath from her, or her heirs, or her business associates.

Halakhah

הלכה: כָּתַב לָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִיךְ כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּטָה בָהֶן בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בִּנְכָסִין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּטָה בָהֶן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote to her: “I have no vow or oath against you,” etc. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, not only about properties over which she exercised control during her husband’s lifetime but even about properties over which she exercised control after her husband’s death are the heirs prevented from making her swear.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ יִשְׁבַּע הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁמֵּתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל יְשַׁלֵּם לַשּׂוֹכֵר. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לֹו רְשׁוּת לְהַשְׁאִיל לָאֲחֵרִים. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר וְלֹא הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל. וְלֹא מִי שֶׁהוֹפְקַד אֶצְלוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְהַפְקִיד אֶצֶל אַחֵר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מֵהַבְּעָלִים. וְכוּלָּם שֶׁשִּׁינּוּ אֶת שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים חַיָיבִין. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לֹא אֲפִילוּ לֹא שִׁינָּה חַיָיב. אֶלָּא בְּגִין דְּתַנִּינָן. מַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאָתָא מֵימַר לָךְ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַשּׁוֹאֵל. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. כָּתַב לָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִיךְ. אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ אֲבָל מַשְׁבִּיעַ הוּא אֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֵת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאִם בִּיקְּשׁוּ לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַשּׁוֹאֵל הוּא מַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. הַָדָא יָלְפָה מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יָלְפָה מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יָלְפָה מִן הַהִיא. שֶׁאִם בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַשּׁוֹאֵל מַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְהַהִיא יָלְפָה מִן הָדָא. שֶׁאִם בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַאִשָּׁה (שֶׁלֹּא) מַשְׁבִּיעָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. לָא צוֹרְכַת מֵילַף הָדָא מִן הַהִיא. וּמַה צוֹרְכָה תֵּילַף הַהִיא מִן הָדָא. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהַשְׁאִיל. וְהָכָא. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ רְשׁוּת שֶׁיְּהוּ בָנֶיהָ אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר כָּל זְמָן שֶׁהִיא שְׂכוּרָה אֶצְלוֹ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אֲבוּנָא. שְׁאָלוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וָמֵתָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אֲנָן אָמְרִין. אֲכָלוּהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבוּן. אָכְלוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן אָכְלוּ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי יָסָא. הֵיךְ עָבְדִין עוֹבְדָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תְּרֵיי כָּלקֳבֵל אַרְבָּעָה וְלָא עָבְדִין עוֹבְדָא כְסוּגְיָיא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תְּרֵיי כָּל קֳבֵל תְּרֵיי אִינּוּן. רַבִּי לָעְזָר תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. רִבִי יוֹחָנָן תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Mishnah

משנה: נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי לֹא לִי וְלֹא לְיוֹרְשַׁיי וְלֹא לַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִי עָלַיִךְ וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִךְ וְעַל הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתֵיךְ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ לֹא הוּא וְלֹא יוֹרְשִׁין וְלֹא הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ לֹא אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא אֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא אֶת הַבָּאִים לִרְשׁוּתָהּ הָלְכָה מִקֶּבֶר בַּעֲלָהּ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ אוֹ שֶׁחָזְרָה לְבֵית חָמִיהָ וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם נַעֲשֵׂית אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְשֶׁעָבַר.

MISHNAH: “I have no vow or oath against you, neither I, nor my heirs, nor my business associates, against you, or your heirs, or your business associates,” he cannot ask an oath from her, neither he, nor the heirs, nor the business associates, from her, or her heirs, or her business associates. If she went from her husband’s grave to her family, or she remained in her in-law’s family but was not appointed as steward, the heirs cannot make her swear. But if she was appointed as steward, the heirs can make her swear for the future, but they cannot make her swear about the past.

Halakhah

הלכה: נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי וּלְיוֹרְשַׁיי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. וְהִיא שֶׁעָשָׂת אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ. אֲבָל אִם עָשָׂת אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. דּוּ מַתְנִיתָא. לֹא עָשָׂת אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מִַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם עָשָׂת אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא. וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֵיזֶהוּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. מִשְּׂעַת מִיתָה עַד שְׁעַת קְבוּרָה. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲפִיוּלוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶפִּטְרָפּוֹס לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעֲלָהּ אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן לֹא עָשְׂתָהּ אֶפִּטְרָפּוֹס אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם עָשָׂת אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְעָתִיד לָבֹא וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. פָּתַר לָהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ. וְאִין עַל רֹאשָׁהּ כְּהָדָא. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּטָה בָהֶן בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ נְכָסִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּטָה בָהֶן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. פָּתַר לָהּ מִשְּׂעַת מִיתָה עַד שְׁעַת קְבוּרָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי אַבָהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִשְּׂעַת מִיתָה עַד שְׁעַת קְבוּרָה אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מַנִיחָתוֹ וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְבֵית אָבִיהָ.

HALAKHAH: ““I have no vow or oath against you,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, only if she was made a steward during her husband’s lifetime. But if she was appointed as a steward after her husband’s death, the heirs can(not) make her swear. That is the Mishnah: if she was not appointed a steward, the heirs cannot make her swear. If she was appointed a steward, the heirs can make her swear for the future, but they cannot make her swear about the past. What is “about the past”? From the time of death to the time of burial. And Rebbi Yose said, even if he appointed her as steward after her husband’s death, the heirs can make her swear. But did we not state: “If he did not appoint her as steward, the heirs cannot make her swear. If he appointed her as steward, the heirs can make her swear for the future but cannot make her swear for the past.” He explains it about the first case. But if it is about the first case, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, not only about property over which she had control during her husband’s lifetime but even about property over which she acquired control after her husband’s death the heirs cannot make her swear. Explain it, from the time of death to the time of burial. For Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The heirs cannot make her swear from the time of death to the time of burial. Bar Qappara stated: That she should not abandon him and leave for her family.

Mishnah

משנה: הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וּמִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From orphans’ property, or from encumbered property, in his absence she shall not be able to collect without an oath.

Halakhah

הלכה: הָלְכָה מִקֶּבֶר בַּעֲלָהּ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כְּעֵין שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה יָרְדָה לָהֶן. כְּתוּבָּה הוּחְזְקָה בְיָדָהּ לְגַבּוֹת. כְּמִי שֶׁגָּבָה. וְהוּא כָתוּב עִם הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּמָאתַיִם פָּרוּעַ. וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת מְנָה. לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה.

HALAKHAH: “If she went from her husband’s grave to her family,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ura said, this came down in the manner of a biblical oath. The ketubah is acknowledged in her hand for collection; it is as if collected. But since with the document of 200 there is an acknowledment of payment and she says, one mina [is due to her], she cannot be paid without an oath.

תַּנֵּי הַפּוֹגֶמֶת. לֹא הַפּוֹחֶתֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת מְנָה. נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מַה בֵין פּוֹגֶמֶת מָה בֵין פּוֹחֶתֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. פּוֹגֶמֶת בָּא מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן בֵּנְתַיִים. פּוֹחֶתֶת לֹא בָא מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן בֵּנְתַיִים.

It was stated “compromised”. Not that she reduced her ketubah. If her ketubah was 200 but she claims a mina, she is paid without an oath. What is the difference between one who compromises and one who claims less? Rebbi Ḥanina said, if she compromises there was a transaction between them; if she claims less there was no transaction between them.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אֲמַר תַּמָן. עֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְחוּתָה לֹא תִפְחוֹת אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְחוּתָה בְעֵד אֶחָד מַכְחִישׁ אֶת שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵין עֵד אֶחָד מַכְחִישׁ אֶת שְׁנַיִם.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since we stated there: “If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” should it be similar that if one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was reduced, she shall not be able to collect the reduced sum without an oath? Rebbi Yose said, at the moment that one witness testifies that the amount should be reduced, he is like a single witness who contradicts the testimony of two [witnesses] but no single witness can contradict the testimony of two.

תַּנֵּי. יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁפָּגַם אָבִיו שְׁטָר חוֹבוֹ הַבֶּן גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. בְּזֶה יָפֶה כֹחַ הַבֶּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב. שֶׁהַבֶּן גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְאָב אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וְנִשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעַת יוֹרֵשׁ. שֶׁלֹּא פִּיקְּדָנוּ אַבָּא. שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא. שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁלָּאַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בְעָא. מַתְנִיתָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. נוֹטֶלֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְלֹא שוֹתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן טָעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. הָבִיאוּ בַעֲלִי וַאֲנִי שׁוֹתָה. בְּרַם הָכָא. בְּדִין הָיָה אֲפִילוּ אָבִיו לֹא יִשְׁבַּע. תַּקָּנָה תִיקְּנוּ בוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁבַּע. בּוֹ תִיקְּנוּ. בִּבְנוֹ לֹא תִיקְּנוּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת הֶעֱמַדְתָּה אֶת בְּנוֹ עַל דִּין תּוֹרָה.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a compromised promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In that the son’s power is greater than the father’s, since the son collects without swearing while the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: Bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted that for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

נִתְחַיֵיב אָבִיו שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּמֵת אֵין בְּנוֹ גוֹבֶה. דִּלֹ כֶן מָה אֲנָן אָמְרִין. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָתוֹ לִבְנוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אַתְּ אָמַרְתְּ. פָּגַם אָבִיו שְׁטָרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אֵין בְּנוֹ גוֹבֶה. רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעָא. בְּגִין דַּהֲלַךְ אִילֵּין תַּרְתֵּי פְסִיעָתָא הוּא מַפְסִיד. אִילּוּ פְגָמוֹ חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין אַתְּ אֲמַר. גּוֹבֶה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפְּגָמוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אַתְּ אֲמַר. אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה.

If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rebbi Avin said, you mean, if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked those two steps, he loses? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?

הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה כול. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵין פּוֹרְעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁטָר שֶׁהָרִיבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בּוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אַף לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. מִפְּנֵי מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. מָאן חָשׁ לִמְזוֹנוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בְּמִגְבָּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. מַאי כְדוֹן. מִפְּנֵי חִינָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּל קוֹפְצִין עְלֶיהָ לִישָּׂאֶנָּה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אַף לִגְזֵילָה וְלִנְזִיקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַף אֲנָן נַמֵּי תַנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן. לִגְזֵילָה מִן הָדָא. אִם הָיָה דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת חַיָיב לְשַׁלֵּם. לִנְזִיקִין מִן הָדָא. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוֹרִית. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין לִנְזִיקִין אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוֹרִית. וְהָא תַנֵּי. עָמַד הַבֶּן תַּחַת הָאָב הַנִיזָּקִין שָׁמִין בַּעִדִּית וּבַעֲלֵי הַחוֹב בַּבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּזִיבּוֹרִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כָּאן בְּיָתוֹם גָּדוֹל. כָּאן בְּיָתוֹם קָטוֹן.

“If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.

Mishnah

משנה: הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתוּבָּתֵיךְ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי אֶלָּא מְנָה לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה כֵיצַד. הָיְְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתוּבָּתֵיךְ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים הַמְשׁוּעְבָּדִים כֵּיצַד. מָכַר נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הָלָקוֹחוֹת לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כֵּיצַד. מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו לִיתוֹמִים וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַיְּתוֹמִים לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו כֵּיצַד. הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, how is that? If her ketubah was 1‘000 zuz and he said to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received only one mina, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, how is that? If her ketubah was 1‘000 zuz and he said to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received nothing, and one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, how is that? If he sold his real estate to others and she collects from the buyers, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From orphans’ property, how is that? If he died and left his estate to the orphans, if she is paid out by the orphans she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Not in his presence, how is that? If he went overseas and she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Rebbi Simeon says, any time she asks for her ketubah, the heirs can require an oath from her. If she does not ask for her ketubah, the heirs cannot require an oath from her.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז כול׳. וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה.

HALAKHAH: “If she had compromised her ketubah, how is that? If her ketubah was l‘000 zuz,” etc. “If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.”

וְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְנִפְרָעִין מֵאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁהָרִיבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בּוֹ. וּבֵית דִּין גּוֹבִין רִבִּית. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁעָרַב לוֹ מִן הַגּוֹי.

“If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah says, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain it that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

כְּהָדָא אַלֶכְסָא. אֲמַר לוֹ רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲנָן עָבְדִין טָבוֹת סַגִיא מִינְּכוֹן. אֲנָן כָתְבִין דִּין מוּגְמָרִין. אִין אֲתָא טַבָּאוֹת. וְאִין לָא אֲנָן מַחְלִטִין נִיכְסַיָיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אַף אֲנָן עָבְדִין כֵן. אֲנָן מְשַׁלְּחִין בַּתְרֵיהּ תְּלָת אִיגְרִין. אִין אֲתָא הָא טַבָּאוֹת. וְאִין לָא אֲנָן מַחְלִטִין נִיכְסַיָיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דַּהֲוָה בַאֲתָר רְחִיק. אֲנָן מְשַׁלְּחִין בַּתְרֵיהּ תְּלָת אִיגְרִין. חָדָא גַוְא תַּלְתִין וְחָדָא גַוְ תַּלְתִין וְחָדָא גַוְ תַּלְתִין. אִין אֲתָא הָא טַבָּאוֹת. וְאִילָא אֲנָן מַחְלִטִין נִיכְסַיָיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. וְהוּא שֶׁעָמַד בַּדִין וּבָרַח. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָמַד בַּדִין וּבָרַח לֵית כָּאן מַחְלִטִין אֶלָּא מַכְרִזִין.

Alexis said before Rebbi Mana: We act much better than you do. We send edicts. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He answered him, we also act in this way, we have the herald announce for thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He said to him, think of it, if he was in distant corners. He said to him, we send three letters, one after thirty days, one after the next thirty days, and one after the next thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is, if he was present at the trial and then fled. But if he was not present at the trial, we cannot irrevocably give away, but only announce.

אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. חָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. כְּמַה דָמַר (רִבִּי) חָנָן. לֹא תִשְׁבַּע אֶלָּא בְסוֹף. כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. לֹא תִשְׁבַּע אֶלָּא בְסוֹף. כְּמָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר. הֲלָכָה כְחָנָן. וְהָכָא הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

You find that one may say that Ḥanan and Rebbi Simeon said the same thing. Just as Ḥanan said, she shall swear only at the end, so Rebbi Simeon says, she shall swear only at the end. Just as you say, practice follows Ḥanan, so here practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Mishnah

משנה: הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ גּוֹבָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ. כְּתוּבָּה וְאֵין עִמָּהּ גֵּט הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אָבַד גִּיטִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אָבַד שׁוֹבָרִי וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב וְאֵין עִמּוֹ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לֹא יִפָּרֵעוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִן הַסַּכָּנָה וָאֵילָךְ אִשָּׁה גוֹבָה בְלֹא גֵט וּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִפְרוֹזְבּוֹל.

MISHNAH: If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah. A ketubah without the bill of divorce when she says, I lost my bill of divorce but he says, I lost my receipt; similarly, the holder of an instrument of debt not accompanied by a prozbol; these shall not be paid. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, since the times of the persecution, a woman collects without the bill of divorce and the creditor collects without prozbol.

Halakhah

הלכה: מִנְּכָסִים הַמְשׁוּעְבָּדִים כֵּיצַד. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַקּוֹרֵא עֶרֶר עֵל מַעֲשֶׂה בֵית דִּין לֹא הַכֹּל הֵימֶינּוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אַבָּא. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְּתוּבָּה גּוֹבָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בִּבְלָיָיא. מִן דִּגְלִית לָךְ חַסְפָּא מִן מַרְגָלִיתָא אַתְּ אֲמַר לִי. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. רַב אָמַר. בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה מַה דְהִיא מַפְקָה הִיא גוֹבָה. חָזַר וְאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין כְתוּבָּה גּוֹבָה הִיא. מָן רַב חֵיילֵהּ מִתְבָה יְתִיב. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָא תַנֵּי. גּוֹבָה גִיטָּהּ וּמַטְמֶנֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְחוֹזֶרֶת וְגוֹבָה. אֵין שָׁם בֵּית דִּין. בְּאִינּוּן רמֵתוֹן. וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים. הָבוּ. בְּשֶׁהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם. אֵין שָׁם אוֹמוֹלוֹגִיָיה. וְלֵית רַב אוֹלוֹמוֹלוֹגִיָיא. אִית רַב אוֹמוֹלוֹגִיָיא. כָּהֵן דָּמַר. אבר ברטסין עֲבַד חוֹרָן. אִית לֵיהּ כְּהַהִיא דַּאֲמַר. אִי אֲבַד פֶרְונֵא עֲבַד חוֹרָן. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא. דְּהָא תַנֵּי. גּוֹבָה בְגִיטָּהּ וּמַטְמֶנֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּמַמְתֶּנֶת עַד שֵׁיָּמוּת וְחוֹזָרֶת וְגוֹבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְלֹא עָלֵיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשַׁמְּשָׁתוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּת.

HALAKHAH: “From encumbered property, how is that?” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody disputes a court document, he is not trustworthy. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Is that not the Mishnah? “If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah”! Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Babylonian, after I removed the clay from the pearl, you say to me: Is that not the Mishnah? Rav said, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she produces she collects. He changed his mind and said, she collects even at a place where one writes a ketubah; let anyone powerful object to this! Rebbi Yose objected: Was it not stated: She might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, and collect a second time? If those died. Are there not witnesses? Bring them! They went overseas. Is there not an agreement? Is there no registrar of agreements? There is a registrar of agreements; as you say, if a document is lost, one writes a replacement. This is what one says, if the ketubah was lost, one writes a new one. Rebbi Abba objected: Was it not stated, she might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, wait until he dies, and collect a second time? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said to him: Would she not have to prove that she lived with him until he died?

רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי אַבּוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה. הוּא אוֹמֵר. כָּתַבְתִּי. וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. לֹא כָתַבְתָּ. עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁלֹּא כָתַב. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. כָּתַבְתִּי. וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. לֹא כָתַבְתָּ. עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁכָּתַב.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rav: At a place where one writes ketubah documents, if he says I wrote, but she says you did not write, the burden of proof is on her to prove that he did not write. But at a place where one does not write ketubah documents, if he says I wrote, but she says you did not write, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he wrote.

רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אַבָּא אַשְׁכָּח פְּרוֹזְבּוֹלָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָתָן וַהֲוָה פָרִי מִיתַּן לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית אֲנָא צְרִיךְ לֵיהּ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. נֶאֱמָן הַמַּלְוֶה לוֹמַר. שְׁטָר זֶה פְרַעְתִּיו וּקְרַעְתִּיו. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. מִן הַסַּכָּנָה וָאֵילָךְ הָאִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּגֵט וּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִפְרוֹזְבּוֹל. וְאֶיפְשַׁר כֵן. לֹא פְרַעְתִּיו וּקְרַעְתִּיו. וְהָכָא פְרַעְתִּיו וּקְרַעְתִּיו.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba found Rebbi Jonathan’s prozbol and ran to give it to him. He said to him, I do not need it, as it was stated: The creditor can be believed if he says, I discarded this document and tore it up. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The Mishnah says so: “Since the times of the persecution, a woman collects without the bill of divorce and the creditor collects without prozbol.” Is that not impossible? I tore it without discarding? Here, I discarded and tore it.

Mishnah

משנה: שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין וּשְׁנֵי כְתוּבּוֹת גּוֹבָה שְׁתֵּי כֻתוּבּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי כְתוּבּוֹת וְגֵט אֶחָד אוֹ כְתוּבָּה וּשְׁנֵי גִיטִּין אוֹ כְתוּבָּה וְגֵט וּמִיתָה אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא כְתוּבָּה אַחַת שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמַחֲזִירָהּ עַל מְנָת כְּתוּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֶחֱזִירָהּ. קָטָן שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוֹ אָבִיו כְּתוּבָּתָהּ קַיֶימֶת שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְימָהּ. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ קַיֶימֶת שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְימָהּ.

MISHNAH: Two bills of divorce and two ketubot, she collects two ketubot. Two ketubot and one bill of divorce, or one ketubah and two bills of divorce, or one ketubah, and a bill of divorce, and death; she collects only one ketubah since a person who divorces his wife and takes her back, takes her back on the basis of her prior ketubah. If a minor was married off by his father, [his wife’s] ketubah is valid since he kept her by that understanding. If a proselyte converted together with his wife, her ketubah is valid since he kept her by that understanding.

Halakhah

הלכה: הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְּתוּבָה גּוֹבָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ כול׳. שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין וּשְׁתֵּי כְּתוּבּוֹת כול׳. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִכְּתוּבָּה לִכְתוּבָּה. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשָׁווֹת. הָיָה בְזוֹ מְנָה וּבְזוֹ מָאתַיִם. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יִרְמְיָה וְרַב חִסְדָּא. חַד אָמַר. גּוֹבָה בָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וָחָרָנָה אָמַר. גּוֹבָה בִשְׁנִיָיה. וְהַתּוֹסֶפֶת גּוֹבָה מִן זְמַנָּהּ שֶׁלַּשְּׁנִיָיה.

HALAKHAH: “If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah,” etc. “Two bills of divorce and two ketubot” etc. But only if the bill of divorce is dated between the two ketubot. So far if they are equal. If one was for a mina, the other for 200 [ zuz]? Rav Huna and Rav Jeremiah and Rav Ḥisda. One said, she collects the first one. The other said, she collects the second one and the excess she collects from the date of the second.

אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֵית הָדָא אָמְרָה. הָהֵן דְּיָזִיף מִן חַבְרֵיהּ וְחָזַר וְיָזִיף מִינֵיהּ צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. לְבַד מִן כַּרְטִּוסָה קָדֳמַיָיא דְּאִית לִי גַבָּךְ. אוֹרְחָא דְאִיתְּתָא מֵימַר. אֲבַד פֶורְנֵה עֲבִיד חוֹרָן. אֶלָּא כִי אוֹרְחָא דְבַר נַשָּׁא מֵימַר. אֲבַד כַּרְטִיסוֹ עֲבַד חוֹרָן. אֶלָּא כִי אֶיפְשָׁר יוֹדֵי לֵיהּ.

Rebbi Ḥanaiah said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not mean that if a person borrows from another, and then he borrows again, he has to declare “in addition to the first paper you have on me”? It is frequent that a woman says, my ketubah is lost, write me another. Is it frequent that a man say, my paper is lost, write me another? But it is possible that he should declare for him.

רִבִּי יוּדָן בַר שִׂיקִלִי אֲעִיל עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָוה בוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ אַל יִלְוֶה בוֹ בְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּאן בְּשֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא פְרָעוֹ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי הִילָא. תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרִין. חַד אָמַר. לִכְתוּבָּה אֲבָל לֹא לִתְנָאִין. וֶחָרָנָה אָמַר. בִּין בִּכְתוּבָה בֵין לִתְנָאִין.

Rebbi Yudan from Sicily brought this case before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nobody should use a paper on which he borrowed and paid the loan back to take out another loan on the same day? He said to him, here if he had paid back, there if he did not pay back. Rebbi Ḥanin stated before Rebbi Hila: Two Amoraïm, one said for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, the other said, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations.

נִיחָא גֵּר. קָטָן. וְקָטָן מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. קִיַימְתִיהָ כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְהוּא שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ מִשֶּׁנִּתְפַּקֵּחַ וּמִשֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּפֶּה. וָכָא הוּא שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל.

One understands a proselyte. A minor? Can a minor divorce? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained it following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her when he regained sight or became sane mentally. And here, if he slept with her after he reached adulthood.