Ketubot 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

Rav attached a note to Rabbi between the lines [

Rav sent Rabbi a letter, and between the lines of the letter he asked him this question]:

The brothers who mortgaged—

what is the halakha?

Can the daughters collect their support from the purchasers, or not?

Rabbi Hiyya was sitting before him,

Rabbi Hiyya was sitting before Rabbi when this question reached him, and

he said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya asked Rabbi what Rav intended by his question: Was the case one in which the orphans

sold

the properties outright,

or merely

only

mortgaged

them for a fixed period?

He said to him,

Rabbi said:

What difference is there?

After all,

whether they sold them or whether they mortgaged them,

the halakha is that

one collects for support, but one does not collect for sustenance!

And we raise an objection:

But Rav,

who asked this question,

if he was asking about “sold,” he should have written to him, “sold,”

and

if he was asking about “mortgaged,” he should have written to him, “mortgaged”?

And we answer:

Rav was asking about both, and he reasoned:

if I write to him, “sold,”

then

it is satisfactory if

he

sends me

an answer

that one collects

even when they sold the property; from this I will learn that

all the more so

if they merely

mortgaged it

for a fixed period, one collects from the purchaser.

But

if

he

sends me, “one does not collect,”

I would still be asking about the case of a mortgage;

what is its halakha?

And

if I write to him, “mortgaged,”

then

if he sends me that one does not collect, all the more so in the case of a sale.

But

if he sends me, “one collects,”

I would still be asking about the case of a sale.

Therefore,

I will write to him, “encumbered,” which can mean both this and that,

and he will answer me concerning both cases.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: In both this case and that case,

whether for sustenance or for support,

one does not collect

from encumbered properties.

They raised a dilemma

the amoraim were uncertain: Did

Rabbi Yohanan not hear this statement of Rabbi, and had he heard it, he would have accepted it?

Or perhaps he heard it, but did not accept it?

And we resolve the matter:

Come and hear

from this

as it was stated: If one died and left two daughters and a son, and the first daughter preceded the second and took one-tenth of the estate, but the second had not managed to collect before the son died,

and the inheritance then came before the daughters—

Rabbi Yohanan said: The second daughter relinquished her claim.

That is, she does not first take one-tenth of the estate and then divide the remainder equally; rather, the one who preceded her and married acquired her share. A daughter does not receive one-tenth of the estate in addition to another daughter, since they are equal with regard to the inheritance.

Rabbi Hanina said

to Rabbi Yohanan:

They said an even greater ruling,

that even if the brothers sold the property,

one collects

from the purchasers

for support, but one does not collect for sustenance, and

here, where the properties are still extant,

you say that the second daughter relinquished her claim?!

Surely she can collect one-tenth of the estate, and afterward they can divide it equally?

And the Gemara infers:

And if it is so

that Rabbi Yohanan had not heard Rabbi’s statement,

let him say

to him

Rabbi Hanina:

“Who said it?” [

Who is the one who said, “One collects for support”!?]

Rather, certainly Rabbi Yohanan had heard Rabbi’s statement and disagreed with him. Therefore, he also did not retract his statement concerning the two daughters in response to this objection.

And we reject this:

Perhaps, in fact, he had not heard it, and when he heard it, he accepted it.

Therefore, he did not say to Rabbi Hanina, “Who said it?” since he had already heard it and accepted it.

But there it is different

and nevertheless he held that she does not take one-tenth of the estate, because

there is an advantage to the household

since she takes half of the property, the Sages did not see a need to institute that she should also take one-tenth in addition to it .

In practice, the Gemara remained without a resolution concerning Rabbi Yohanan’s statement.

Rav Yemar said to Rav Ashi: If that is so,

now that this reasoning of “the advantage to the household” has been introduced, if she

happened to find a lost object

the daughter found a lost object in the marketplace,

because there is an advantage to the household, would we likewise not give her one-tenth of the estate?!

He said to him: I

who stated that there is a concept of

“the advantage to the household”—

only

from these properties

of the inheritance

did I mean.

But if she profited from other properties, she takes one-tenth of the estate .

Ameimar said: A daughter is an heir.

That is, she takes one-tenth of the estate by virtue of inheritance.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar,

according to your words:

if

they wished to discharge her claim with money, would they likewise be unable to discharge her claim [

if the brothers wished to give her money instead of property, could they really not give it to her, since you said that with regard to one-tenth of the estate she is an heir like them]?

He said to him,

Ameimar said:

Yes!

Indeed, they cannot discharge her claim with money.

Rav Ashi continued and asked: According to your words,

if they wished to discharge her claim with one parcel of land,

would

they likewise be unable to discharge her claim [

if the brothers wished to discharge her claim with a particular parcel of land of their choosing, could they not give it to her, since she is an heir from her father just as they are]?

He said to him,

Ameimar said:

Yes,

indeed!

Rav Ashi said: A daughter

is a creditor.

The practical difference is that the brothers can discharge her claim with money or with one parcel of land.

And Ameimar too retracted his view [

he retracted his statement].

The proof is

from what Rav Minyomi, son of Rav Nehumi, said: I was standing before Ameimar, and a woman came before him who was seeking one-tenth of the estate [

I was before Ameimar, and a woman came before him wishing to collect one-tenth of the estate].

And I observed his position, that if they wished to discharge her claim with money—

he would discharge her claim [

and I understood that according to Ameimar, if the brothers had wished to discharge her claim with money, they could have done so, since]

I heard the brothers say to her: “If we had money, we would discharge your claim with money.” And Ameimar was silent

Ameimar

and did not say anything to them [

I heard the brothers say to her: “If we had money, we would give you money, rather than land.” And Ameimar remained silent and said nothing]. This proves that he retracted his statement .

And now that you have said that she is a creditor,

it remains uncertain: Is she a creditor

of the father, or of the brothers?

What difference is there?—

To collect from intermediate-quality land without an oath, or low-quality land with an oath.

For if the brothers are the ones obligated to her, she collects intermediate-quality land from them without an oath, as is the general law governing the collection of a creditor.

But if the father is the one obligated to her, she collects from the brothers under the law of “collection from the property of orphans”; one collects from the property of orphans only from low-quality land, and with an oath.

What is the halakha?

Come and hear

from this:

Ravina collected

from

the daughter

of

Rav Ashi, from Mar, son of Rav Ashi,

one-tenth of the estate in intermediate-quality land

and without an oath.

But

from the son of Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, he collected low-quality land, with an oath. [

This was the incident: Rav Ashi had two sons; one was named Mar and the other Rav Sama, and he also had a daughter.

Rav Sama died during the lifetime of his father, Rav Ashi, and left behind a son, Rav Ashi’s grandson.

Afterward Rav Ashi died. His daughter came to collect her support from Mar, her brother, and from the son of Rav Sama, who had inherited his father’s share in the inheritance of his grandfather, Rav Ashi.

Ravina took from Mar, her brother, intermediate-quality land without an oath. But from the son of Rav Sama, he collected low-quality land, with an oath.]

It is thus clear that only the collection from the son of Rav Sama had the status of “collection from orphans,” whereas from her brother she collected under the ordinary law governing the collection of a creditor.

The uncertainty is resolved: It is demonstrated that a daughter has the status of a creditor with regard to the brothers.

Introduction:

In the earlier sugya (51a), Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagreed whether one collects for support from movable property or only from land. And we conclude in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that one collects only from land. The statements of the amoraim below concern this matter:

Rav Nehemya, son of Rav Yosef, sent to Rabba bar Rav Huna the younger of Nehardea: When this woman comes before you, collect one-tenth of the estate for her even from the millstone [

when this woman comes before you, give her one-tenth of the estate even from the base of the millstone, which is not actual land but is attached to the land; nevertheless, anything attached to the land is considered land]. But one does not collect from movable property.

Rav Ashi said: When we were at the academy of Rav Kahana, we would collect even from the rent of houses [

from the rental fees of the houses]. Since the source of the money is land, it is considered land .

Rav Anan sent to Rav Huna

a letter, in the following wording:

Huna, our colleague, greetings [

My colleague Huna, greetings].

When this woman comes before you, collect one-tenth of the estate [

when this woman comes before you, give her one-tenth of the estate].

When Rav Huna received the letter, he was angered at Rav Anan for addressing him with the expression “Huna, our colleague.”

Rav Sheshet was sitting before him [

he was sitting before Rav Huna].

He said to him

Rav Huna said to his student Rav Sheshet:

Go, tell him, and may whoever does not tell him be placed under a ban [

go to Rav Anan and tell him what I command you to tell him, and may you be under a ban if you do not tell him so ]:

a.

Anan, Anan,

from where do you say that she should be given her collection—

from land or from movable property?

b. And I have another question for you:

And who sits first in the house of mourning [

who sits at the head in the house of mourning]?

For their custom was that the most distinguished mourner among the members of the household would sit at the head. He wished to hint to him that he was angered by the disrespect he had shown him.

Rav Sheshet went before Rav Anan.

And

he said to him

in this manner, so that Rav Anan would not be angered at him:

The Master—

Rabba, and Rav Huna—

Rabba’s teacher. And I have placed under a ban whoever does not tell him. And were it not that I had been placed under a ban, I would not have said it! [

You are the Master, and Rav Huna is your teacher. Rav Huna commanded me, under threat of a ban, to tell you these things, and were it not that he commanded me to do so under threat of a ban, I would not have said them; this is how he sent me to speak to you]:

a.

Anan, Anan! From land or from movable property?

b.

And who sits first in the house of mourning.

Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva,

and

he said to him: “See, Master, how Rav Huna sent me [

see, Master, how Rav Huna sent word to me]:

First, he addressed me by my name, without calling me “Rav,”

“Anan, Anan,”

which is an expression of disrespect.

And furthermore,

his question concerning who sits at the head of the house was,

“marzeḥa,” which he sent to me—

I do not know what that is! [

I do not know what it means]!”

Mar Ukva said to him

Mar Ukva said to Rav Anan:

Tell me a little: