Ketubot 109b — the Talmud in English

For Rabbi Hiyya taught: The witnesses may sign a document only if they have read it ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

but the judges sign

the confirmation of the witnesses’ signatures

even though they have not read it

the document itself.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he made

the person in possession of the field

a marker

for

a field

belonging to another,

and the claimant signed the document, he can no longer raise a claim.

Abaye said: They taught this

that the claimant forfeited his right

only

when the person in possession made it a marker

for

another person

belonging to another,

because the claimant should not have signed such a document. And if he signed, he acknowledged that it belonged to the person in possession of it.

But

if the person in possession made the field over which the claimant was raising a claim a marker

for himself,

for the claimant—for example, the person in possession sold the claimant another field, and he marked its boundary with the field that the claimant claims is his [and the person in possession wrote that it belonged to him]—

he did not forfeit his right,

when he did not protest what was stated in the document.

Because of

what

the claimant said:

If he had not done this for me,

if I had agreed to accept this document only if I protested that the person in possession had written in it that my field was his, and had marked with it the field that he was selling to me,

he would not have sold it to me.

What can you say to this?

What can you claim against me—that

I should have delivered a declaration

of protest, privately before two witnesses, that I did not agree to what was stated in the document concerning the field over which I was raising a claim?

This is not an argument against me, since

your friend—

he has a friend, and your friend’s friend—

has a friend,

and my protest would eventually become known, and he would no longer sell me his field.

That

case

in which the person in possession made

the claimant’s field

a marker for another.

And afterward

the claimant raised a claim

the witness who had signed the document, that that field belonged to him,

and he became ill

and died,

and they appointed a guardian,

and they appointed a guardian over the property of the claimant who had died.

The guardian came before Abaye,

to raise a claim concerning the field, in order to place it in the possession of the heirs.

He said to him

Abaye: If

he made

the person in possession

a marker for another—

the claimant

who signed this document as a witness

forfeited his right.

The

guardian

said: If the father of these orphans had been alive, he would have claimed and said,

“Only concerning

one furrow

at the edge

I did this for you”—that is, by my signature on the document I acknowledged to you only one furrow at the edge of my field [over which I am raising a claim], and I agreed that this furrow at the edge of my field should be a marker for the boundary of the field sold by you! For the purpose of marking the boundary, one furrow adjacent to the field sold in this document is sufficient.

He said to him

Abaye:

You have spoken well! For Rabbi Yohanan said: If he claimed and said

the claimant who signed the document [in which his field was marked by the person in possession of it as the field of the person in possession, and it was a marker for the field sold]:

“One furrow

only

I did for you

as a marker for the boundary of the field sold, and I did not waive my right to the rest of the field,” he is

trusted.

And if so, after you succeed in your claim and remove the dead man’s field from the person in possession who robbed it,

go, give it to him

the person in possession from whom you removed it

at least,

at least

one furrow,

which the dead man acknowledged belonged to the person in possession, after he signed a document in which this furrow belonged to him and was the marker for the other field sold in the document.

There was a row of date palms upon it,

there was a row of date palms standing one upon another on this furrow.

He said to him

the guardian to Abaye:

If the father of these orphans

had been

alive, he would have claimed and said:

“I returned and purchased it from him”—I purchased this furrow from him after I had acknowledged that it was his, and he was trusted concerning this [see Tosafot, why should he be trusted concerning this]!

this furrow, after I acknowledged that it belonged to him, and he was believed concerning that [see Tosafot, which discusses why he should be believed]!

He said to him

Abaye:

You have spoken well.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: If he claimed and said, “I returned and purchased it from him”—

he is trusted.

Abaye said: As for one who appoints a guardian, let him appoint one such as this

guardian,

who knows how to turn matters in favor of the orphans’ rights.

Mishna:

One who went overseas, and the

the

way

that led to

his field

among the fields surrounding his field was lost.

Admon says:

He has the right to receive back into his possession a way to his field.

But he may not take a lengthy way; rather,

he shall go by the

way

that is shortest

of all, which leads to his field.

And the Sages say:

This person forfeited his right to a way to his field, and therefore

he shall purchase for himself

from his neighbors

a way for one hundred maneh

[that is, even at an expensive and excessive price],

or he shall fly through the air.

Gemara:

And the Gemara now assumes that the fields surrounding his field all belonged to one neighbor. Therefore the Gemara asks:

What is the reason of the Rabbis?

But

Admon has spoken well,

for he can claim a way for himself through his field, since he certainly had a way there within this person’s fields.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is speaking

of a case in which four people surrounded it from its four sides.

And the Gemara asks:

If so, what is the reason of Admon,

who says that he should go by the shortest way? For how does he know that the way to his field passes through this neighbor’s field?

Rava said: With four

neighbors

who derive their title from four,

who purchased their fields from four people, and each of them comes by virtue of a separate person from whom he purchased.

And

likewise,

four

separate neighbors

who come

even

by virtue of

one seller

alone—

everyone agrees that

each of them

can send him away.

They disagree—

with

one neighbor

who comes by virtue of four,

who purchased the four fields from four people.

Admon holds: In any event,

in either case,

“I have a way with you,”

for you alone possess my way.

And the Rabbis hold

that the other can claim: You lost your way in the field.

And therefore,

if you remain silent—

remain silent.

I am prepared to sell you a way to your field cheaply.

But if not—

I shall return

the four

documents to their owners,

each field to its seller,

and you will not be able to conduct a legal argument with them.

And you will not be able to claim against them that the way to your field is situated among them.

And it turns out that you lost your way, while I come by virtue of all four of them, and each one individually could have sent you away. And I purchased from each of them the right of each one of the sellers of the fields.

There was one who said to them

as a bequest to his heirs at the time of his death:

“A date palm

shall be

for my daughter,”

for my daughter.

The orphans went and divided the property,

and

did not give her a date palm,

because each one sent her to his brother, saying that she should take the date palm in his field.

Rav Yosef thought to say: This is our Mishna,

for the Rabbis hold that each of the four neighbors can send him to the others.

Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable?

Is the law of our Mishna comparable to a testamentary bequest?

There,

in the case of one whose way to his field was lost,

each and every one

of the neighbors

can send him away

to the other neighbor.

But

here,

with the heirs,

the date palm—

it is in their possession.

For all the property was together when he commanded them, and to all of them together he commanded that they give her a date palm!

What is their remedy?

That is, which of them shall we obligate to give it to her—

They should annul the division of the property,

give her a date palm,

and give her any date palm, as though they had not yet divided the inheritance.

And they should return,

and return,

and divide,

and divide the inheritance

from the beginning,

from the start.

There was one who said to them

to his heirs in his testament:

“A date palm for my daughter.”

He became ill,

and died,

and left

and left among the date palms that he had bequeathed

two half-date-palms,

he had a partnership in two date palms, and in them he owned only half of each, and there is greater labor in growing them and harvesting their fruits, since from two such trees one receives only the quantity of one tree.

And the orphans gave her the two halves of the date palms as one date palm in accordance with their father’s testament.

Rav Ashi was sitting, and this was difficult for him:

Do

people

call

it customary for people to call

two half-date-palms “a date palm,”

or not?

For if it is not customary for people to say so, then he bequeathed in his testament a date palm, and not two half-date-palms!

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagrונya said in the name of Rava:

Indeed,

people call two half-date-palms “a date palm.”

And therefore she loses, because she comes to extract from the orphans who are in possession through the inheritance, and she must bring proof that her father intended one entire date palm בלבד.