Ketubot 69a — the Talmud in English

Rav attached it 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 encumbered [the property]—

what is [the law]?

Whether the daughters can collect from the purchasers for their support 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 about Rav’s intention in his question: Is it referring to a case in which the orphans

sold

the properties completely,

or

only

mortgaged

them for a fixed period?

He said to him

Rabbi:

What practical difference is there?

After all,

whether they sold them or whether they mortgaged them,

the law 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 it was “they sold” that he was asking about, he should have written to him, “they sold,”

and

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

And we answer:

Rav was asking about both, and he reasoned:

if I write to him, “they sold,”

then

this is satisfactory if

he

sends me

an answer

that one collects

even when they sold them; I will learn from here that

all the more so

if they only

mortgaged them

for a fixed period, one collects from the purchaser.

But

if

he

sends me, “one does not collect,” then

I am still asking about “they mortgaged,”

what is its law.

And

if I write to him, “they mortgaged,”

then

if he sends me that one does not collect, all the more so when they sold them.

But

if he sends me, “one collects,” then

I am still asking about “they sold.”

Therefore

I will write to him, “they encumbered [the property],” because it can mean this and it can mean this,

and he will answer me concerning both.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Both this and that

both for sustenance and for support

one does not collect

from encumbered properties.

They raised a question

the amoraim were uncertain:

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

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

And we resolve it:

Come and hear

from this

that was stated: If one died and left two daughters and a son, and the first daughter preceded [the second] and took a tenth of the assets, and the second had not managed to collect before the son died,

and the inheritance fell before the daughters—

Rabbi Yohanan said: The second relinquished [her claim].

That is, she does not first take a tenth of the assets and then divide equally; rather, the one who preceded and married gained [her share]. A daughter after the daughter has no tenth of the assets, since both of them are equal in the inheritance.

Rabbi Hanina said

to Rabbi Yohanan:

They said [a ruling] greater than this,

that even if the brothers sold [the properties],

one collects

from the purchasers

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

here, where the properties are still present,

you say that the second relinquished [her claim]?!

Surely she can collect a tenth of the assets, and afterward they divide?

And the Gemara infers:

And if it is so

if it is said that Rabbi Yohanan did not hear Rabbi’s statement,

let him say

to him

to Rabbi Hanina—

“Who said it?”

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

Rather, certainly Rabbi Yohanan heard Rabbi’s statement and disagreed with him! Therefore, he also did not retract his statement concerning the two daughters as a result of this objection.

And we reject this:

Perhaps, in truth he did not hear it, and when he heard it, he accepted it.

And 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

nevertheless, he held that she does not take a tenth of the assets, because

there is gain to the household

since she takes half of them, the Sages did not see a need to institute for her that she should also take a tenth in addition to this.

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

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If so,

now that the reasoning of “gain to the household” has been introduced, if

she happened upon an ordinary lost item

the daughter found a lost item in the marketplace,

since there is gain to the household, is it likewise the case that we do not give her a tenth of the assets?!

He said to him: I

who said that there is an aspect of

“gain to the household”

specifically

from these properties

of the inheritance

am speaking.

But if she gained from other properties, she takes a tenth of the assets.

Ameimar said: A daughter is an heir.

That is, she takes the tenth of the assets by virtue of inheritance.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar,

according to your words,

if

they wanted to remove her with money, is it likewise the case that they cannot remove her

if the brothers want to give her money instead of properties—can they really not give it to her, since you said that she is an heir with respect to the tenth of the assets, like them?

He said to him

Ameimar:

Yes!

Indeed, they cannot remove her with money.

Rav Ashi continued and asked: According to your words,

if they wanted to remove her with one field,

is it

likewise the case that they cannot remove her

if the brothers want to remove her with a particular parcel of land of their choice—can they not give it to her, since she is an heir from her father, like them?

He said to him

Ameimar:

Yes,

indeed!

Rav Ashi said: A daughter—

she is a creditor.

The practical difference is that the brothers can remove her with money, and with one field.

And Ameimar too retracted his position

he retracted his statement.

And the proof is:

For Rav Minyomi, son of Rav Nahumi, said: I was standing before Ameimar, and this woman came before him, who was requesting a tenth of the assets

I was before Ameimar, and a woman who wished to collect a tenth of the assets came before him.

And I saw his opinion, that if they wanted to remove her with money—

he would remove her

and I understood that, according to Ameimar, if the brothers wanted to remove her with money, they could, since

I heard the brothers, who were saying to her: If we had money, we would remove you with money. And he was silent

Ameimar,

and he said nothing to them

I heard the brothers say to her: If we had money, we would give you money and not land. And Ameimar was silent and said nothing. This proves that he retracted his statement.

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

one must be uncertain: Is she a creditor

of the father, or of the brothers?

What practical difference is there?—

To collect from intermediate-quality land without an oath, and inferior-quality land with an oath.

For if the brothers are the ones who owe her, she collects intermediate-quality land from them and without an oath, as is the general law concerning collection by a creditor.

But if the father is the one who owes her, she collects from the brothers under the law of “collection from the properties of orphans,” and one collects from the properties of orphans only from inferior-quality land, and with an oath.

What [is the answer]?

Come and hear

from this

that Ravina collected

collected

for the daughter

for the daughter

of Rav Ashi, from Mar, the son of Rav Ashi,

a tenth from the properties, from intermediate-quality land,

and without an oath.

Whereas

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

This was the incident: Rav Ashi had two sons; one was named Mar, 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.

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

Ravina took from the properties of Mar, her brother, intermediate-quality land and without an oath. Whereas from the son of Rav Sama, he collected inferior-quality land, and with an oath.

And it is explained that only with regard to collection from the son of Rav Sama was the law “collection from orphans”; but from her brother she collected according to the ordinary law of collection by a creditor.

And the uncertainty is resolved: It is proven that the daughter is like a creditor against the brothers.

Introduction:

In the earlier passage (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 revolve around this matter:

Rav Nehemiah, son of Rav Yosef, sent to Rabbah bar Rav Huna the younger of Nehardea: When this woman comes before you, collect for her a tenth of the assets even from the millstone

when this woman comes before you, give her a tenth of the assets even from the socket of the millstone, which is not ממש land, but is attached to the land; nevertheless, something 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 these words:

Huna, our colleague, greetings

My colleague Huna, greetings.

When this woman comes before you, collect for her a tenth of the assets

When this woman comes before you, give her a tenth of the assets.

When Rav Huna received the letter, he was angry with Rav Anan for addressing him in the language “Huna, our colleague.”

Rav Sheshet was sitting before him

Rav Sheshet was sitting before him.

He said to him

Rav Huna said to Rav Sheshet, his student:

Go, tell him, and let whoever does not tell him be under a ban

Go to Rav Anan and tell him what I command you to tell him, and you shall be under a ban if you do not tell him so.

1.

Anan, Anan,

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

land or movable property?

2. 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 important mourner among the members of the household would sit at the head. And he wished to hint to him that he was angry with him for having slighted him.

Rav Sheshet went before Rav Anan.

And

he said to him

in such language, so that Rav Anan would not be angry with him:

Master—

Rabbah, and Rav Huna—

Rabbah’s teacher. And I have placed under a ban whoever does not tell him. And if he had not placed me under a ban, I would not have said it!

You are the master, and Rav Huna is your teacher. And Rav Huna commanded me under a ban to tell you these things; had he not commanded me to do so under a ban, I would not have said them, and this is how he sent me to tell you:

1.

Anan, Anan! Land or movable property?

2.

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 to me

May the Master see how Rav Huna sent 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 about who sits at the head of the house,

“the house of mourning,” which he sent to me—

I do not know what it is!

I do not know what its meaning is!

He said to him

Mar Ukva said to Rav Anan:

Tell me a little: