Ketubot 82a — the Talmud in English

Here too it must be rejected —

perhaps

the Mishna is according to

Rabbi Natan,

as it was taught: Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know concerning

one who

was owed a hundred zuz by his fellow, and his fellow was owed by his fellow—from where do we know that they take it from this one [namely, from the last one],

that is, from the last debtor],

and give it to this one [the first one]?

the first creditor]?

The verse states:

“And he shall give it to the one to whom he is indebted”—

and it is not written, “to the one who is his creditor.” And we expound it: to the one to whom the principal belongs, namely, the first creditor.

And here too, since the deceased owed a ketuba to his wife, and his brother owed him, now they take the debt from the yavam and give the debt to the woman.

Rather,

for this reason it is not a Mishna, because

we do not find

any

tannai who is stringent with two stringencies regarding a ketuba, [we do not find anyone who is stringent both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Natan],

we do not find anyone who is stringent both in accordance with Rabbi Meir and in accordance with Rabbi Natan].

but either according to Rabbi Meir,

that movable property is enslaved for a ketuba,

or according to Rabbi Natan,

who innovated the law of the “enslavement of Rav Natan.” But the tanna of the beraita adopted both stringencies together. Therefore it is not a Mishna.

Rava said: If so, this is what I understood when I heard Abaye say, “This is not a Mishna,” but I did not know what it was. [When I heard these words, I understood Abaye’s words when he said, “This is not a Mishna,” but I did not know why.]

When I heard these statements, I understood Abaye’s words when he said, “This cannot be the Mishna,” but I did not know why.]

And the Gemara continues on the same subject:

There was an incident involving

a certain man whose yevama fell before him in Mata Meḥasya [his brother died childless in Mata Meḥasya, and his wife fell before him for yibbum, since he was the eldest brother].

His brother died childless in Mata Meḥasya, and his wife fell before him for yibbum, since he was the eldest brother].

His brother sought to disqualify her from him by means of a get [one of the brothers wanted to give her a get, so that the elder brother would not be able to perform yibbum with her, and they would divide their brother’s assets].

One of the brothers wanted to give her a bill of divorce so that the eldest would be unable to perform yibbum with her, and they could divide their brother’s assets].

His elder brother said to him—

elder brother

What is your intention? Because of the assets? I will divide the assets with you. [If your wish is to divide the assets, let me perform yibbum with her, and I will give you a share of the assets.]

If you wish to share in the assets, allow me to perform yibbum with her, and I will give you a portion of the assets.]

He said to him, “I am afraid that you will do to me as did

the deceitful Pumbeditan.” [I am afraid that you will do as did that Pumbeditan mentioned above, who promised his brother that he would divide with him, but in the end did not divide with him.]

I am afraid that you will act like that Pumbeditan mentioned above, who promised his brother that he would share the assets with him but ultimately did not share them with him.]

He said to him, “If you wish, divide your share with yourself from now.” [If you wish, acquire your share from now, and even though at present it is not acquired by you until I perform yibbum or halitza, nevertheless, when I perform yibbum and acquire it, you will immediately acquire the share that you acquired now].

If you wish, acquire your portion from this moment. Although it does not presently belong to you until I either consummate the marriage or perform ḥalitza, nevertheless, when I consummate the marriage and acquire the assets, you will immediately acquire the portion that you acquired now].

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

the acquisition was ineffective.

For

although when Rav Dimi came [when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia],

when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia],

he said

to us in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“One who says to his fellow, ‘Go and pull this cow, and it shall not be acquired by you except after thirty days,’ after thirty days he acquires it, even if it is standing in a marsh,”

and if so, seemingly here too he can acquire the land for him from now, to take effect after he performs yibbum,

nevertheless, there is a distinction:

there

he can specifically acquire it for him after a time, because

it is in his power

to acquire it for him even now. Therefore the acquisition that they performed today takes effect after a time. But

here it is not in his power

to acquire the inheritance for him now, and therefore the acquisition that they performed now is nothing.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words:

How did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that it is possible to acquire an object after thirty days,

but when Ravin came [when Ravin came],

when Ravin came],

he said

to us in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan

that in such a case

he does not acquire it?

And if so, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements contradict one another?

And we answer:

It is not difficult!

This

statement in which Rabbi Yoḥanan said, “He acquires it,” refers to a case

in which he said to him, “Acquire it from now,”

and

this

statement in which he said, “He does not acquire it,” refers to a case

in which he did not say to him, “Acquire it from now”.

They asked Ulla, [they asked Ulla]:

They questioned Ulla]:

If he performed yibbum and afterward divided

the assets of his brother,

what is the ruling?

Did his gift take effect?

He said to them:

He did nothing at all.

Like Rav Yosef mentioned above.

They asked him further—and if

he divided and afterward performed yibbum, what is the ruling?

Did his actions take effect?

He said to them:

He did nothing at all.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection to this: Now, if he performed yibbum and afterward divided, he did nothing at all; if he divided and afterward performed yibbum, is it necessary to ask?!

All the more so he did nothing, and why did they return and ask him?

And we answer:

There were two incidents.

When Ravin came, he said that Reish Lakish said—

whether he performed yibbum and afterward divided, or whether he divided and afterward performed yibbum, he did nothing at all.

And the halakha is: He did nothing at all:

We learned in the Mishna—

“And the Sages say: The produce attached to the ground is his

[that of the yavam] .”

And we raise a difficulty—

Why? But all his assets are responsible and guarantee the payment of her ketuba,

and that which is attached to the ground is like land?

Reish Lakish said: Read [let us read in the Mishna]

let us read in the Mishna]

“hers.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he took her in, she is like his wife.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty—

For what halakhic purpose [what was innovated by this law]?

what new point is taught by this ruling]?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: To say that he divorces her with a get

and not by means of halitza,

and takes her back [meaning, he may take her back after the divorce like any woman, and she does not remain forbidden to him as a brother’s wife].

that is, he may remarry her after the divorce like any other wife, and she is not prohibited to him as the wife of a brother].

And we raise a difficulty: What is the innovation in the fact that

he divorces her with a get?

It is obvious,

for she is like any married woman who is divorced with a get.