Ketubot 17b — the Talmud in English

And this applies only according to one who reads and learns,

to others,

there is no measure to it!

And it follows automatically that with regard to one who neither reads nor learns, they do not interrupt if he has people occupied with his burial. Rashi. And Tosafot wrote that with regard to interrupting work, they interrupt even for one who neither reads nor learns.]

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if there are witnesses that she went out with a hinuma,” etc.:

And the Gemara explains:

What is a hinuma? Surḥav bar Pappa said in the name of Ze’eiri: a myrtle canopy

a canopy of myrtle].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: a kiryata

a veil]

with which the bride was veiled:

And further we learned:

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says

even the distribution of roasted grain is evidence”

etc.:

And we raised the matter:

The tanna

of the Mishna

was speaking in Judea,

and there the distribution of roasted grain was

evidence,

but

in Babylonia, what

sign did they give for virgins?

Rav said: They would drip perfumed oil onto the heads of the Sages.

The women would place on the heads of the students the oil designated for the wedding canopy and rub it into them.]

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Is the master speaking of the oil for washing?!

Would they give them the oil designated for the wedding canopy? But they are not the celebrants, whose heads are washed with this oil?]

He said to him

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

Orphan! —

You are an orphan with regard to the custom! What,

did your mother not drip perfumed oil onto the heads of the Sages at the time of the event

that is, at the time of the wedding canopy]?!

As in the case of a certain Sage who arranged a match for his son

he betrothed his son’s match]

with Rabbah bar Ulla; and some say, Rabbah bar Ulla arranged a match for his son with a certain Sage, and he dripped oil onto the heads of the Sages at the time of the event.

And the Gemara challenges: In Judea, where there was only a distribution of roasted grain,

what about a widow?

What sign would they give for a widow, indicating that she was a widow? For they would often distribute roasted grain, and it was possible that they would mistakenly distribute it also at the marriage of a widow?

Rav Yosef taught: A widow has no roasted grain!

That is, they were extremely careful not to distribute roasted grain at the marriage of a widow.:

We learned in our Mishna:

“And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes when one says to his fellow

‘This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him,’ that he is deemed reliable”:

etc.:

And we challenge:

And let it teach: “Rabbi Yehoshua concedes when one says

to his fellow, ‘This field was yours and I purchased it from you,’”

and why did Rabbi Yehoshua speak only of a case in which he claims to him, “This field belonged to your father” ?

And we answer: He stated, “This field belonged to your father,”

because he wished to teach

in the

latter clause —

“If there are witnesses that it was his, and he says, ‘I purchased it from him,’ he is not deemed reliable.”

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances

in which he is not deemed reliable to say, “I purchased it from him”?

If he consumed its produce

the possessor for three

years of חזקה [חזקה means established possession],

of

established possession, why is he not deemed reliable

to claim that it was purchased by him? For after three years during which he consumed produce from the land without protest, he no longer needs to preserve his deed, since a person does not take such great care with his deeds?

And if he did not consume

the possessor

three years of established possession, it is obvious that he is not deemed reliable!

And therefore Rabbi Yehoshua stated a claim against him: “This field belonged to your father.”

And we challenge:

If so, with regard to his father also: if he consumed it for three years of established possession, why is he not deemed reliable? And if he did not consume it for three years of established possession, it is obvious that he is not deemed reliable!

And we answer:

Granted, with regard to his father, you can find

a novelty in the Mishna,

for example, he consumed

the produce of

the

field

that he

culti

vated for two years during the father’s lifetime and one during the son’s lifetime

when he was a minor.

And this is in accordance with Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: One does not establish possession

that is, there is no law of established possession]

with regard to the property of a minor, even if he grew up,

since he does not know how to protest; and even if he remained in this field many more years, it is not established possession, since its beginning was at a time when he was a minor. Therefore here he is not deemed reliable .

And we challenge:

A

then

did Rav Huna come to teach us the Mishna?!

Surely our Mishna is certainly not dealing with Rav Huna’s law, for if so, what did Rav Huna teach us?

And we answer: In truth, the Mishna is dealing with Rav Huna’s law. And as for what you asked, what did Rav Huna teach us,

if you wish, say —

Rav Huna stated the inference of the Mishna,

and indeed he did not come to innovate anything beyond the Mishna.

And if you wish, say —

Rav Huna came to teach us the law that

“even if he grew up

he has no established possession,”

he teaches us this.

And

we challenge: Still,

let it teach it

in the latter clause of the Mishna

itself, and

as for what you asked, if so, in what manner is he not deemed reliable? —

Let us establish it, for example, as one who consumed

the possessor

two

years

in his presence, and

one

year not in his presence, and for example, he

during that year

fled

the seller to another place, and therefore his possession is not established possession, since the seller was unable to protest before him during that year.

And we answer: It is impossible to establish it with “fled” in the manner of this

“fled”

in which you established the latter clause of our Mishna.

Because of what

did he flee?

If

it is speaking

of one who fled because of

pursuit of

lives, it is obvious that he is not deemed reliable! For

he

could not protest

even from the place where he was staying, since he feared that they might discover where he was hiding and kill him! And if so, there is still no novelty in the latter clause of the Mishna.

And if

the latter clause of the Mishna is speaking of a case

in which he fled because of

debts of

money,

his flight does not nullify the established possession, since he still

should have protested

from the place where he was staying,

for

it is

established for us

that

a protest not in his presence is a protest,

and one fleeing because of money is not afraid that people will know where he currently lives.

And therefore the latter clause of our Mishna cannot be established in a case where he consumed it for three years in his presence; rather, it is necessary to establish it as one who consumed it before his father, as was explained above. And on account of the latter clause, Rabbi Yehoshua also stated in the first clause the wording, “This field belonged to your father.”

And the Gemara brings proof that a protest not in his presence is effective:

For we learned: Three lands

are considered separate from one another

with

regard to

established possession: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee,

and therefore if

the

first owner of the field

was in Judea, and the purchaser established possession

of the field

in the Galilee,

or the owner of the field was

in the Galilee, and the purchaser established possession

there

in Judea, it is not established possession until he is with him in the same country.

And we raised the matter: What is the view

of this tanna who said that the purchaser’s established possession in another land is ineffective?

If he holds

that

a protest not in his presence is a protest,

then

even

if the seller was

in Judea and

the purchaser in the

Galilee as well,

it should be established possession, since the seller was required to protest from his place.

And if he holds

that

a protest not in his presence is not a protest,

then

even

if the seller was in one city in

Judea and

the purchaser in another city in

Judea as well, it should not

be established possession until he comes to protest in his presence?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: In truth, he holds

that this tanna

holds that a protest not in his presence is a protest, and the Mishna

which said that in Judea and the Galilee it is not established possession

was taught in a time of emergency,

when caravans were not found between them, and the possessor could say, “I did not hear the seller’s protest, and therefore I did not preserve my deed.”

And

we challenge: If so,

what is different about Judea and the Galilee that he stated,

for in a time of emergency there is no established possession even in two towns within the same country?