Ketubot 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

Let her go

the daughter,

and let her petition

forgive

the ketuba of her mother with regard to her father,

for the ketuba is nothing other than a promissory note that the woman holds against her husband, and we say: even an heir can forgive a debt.

And

after her father’s death,

she will inherit it from him.

She will inherit it from him. And this is referring to a case in which she had no other brothers who would inherit from him.

She heard

the daughter the words of Rav Naḥman,

she went and forgave it.

And she went and forgave the ketuba, in accordance with his advice.

Rav Naḥman said: We have made ourselves like advocates,

who come to demonstrate the grounds for acquitting one of the litigants. And the Sages said: “Do not make yourself like advocates.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

At first,

when he gave her this advice,

what did he think, and ultimately

when he regretted it,

what did he think?

And we say:

At first he thought—

“You shall not hide yourself from your own flesh,”

and since she was his relative, he was obligated to assist her.

And ultimately he thought—

I am a distinguished person,

and he must take greater care, lest people learn from him and come to assist even those who are not their relatives.:

The Gemara presents the actual substance of the discussion:

The body of the matter: Shmuel said—

“One who sells a promissory note to another, and afterward

the seller

forgives it—

it is forgiven. And even an heir can forgive it.”

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said—

And if he is clever

that is, the purchaser,

he jingles coins before him and has him write a promissory note in his name.

He gives the debtor money before the seller and debtor can make a collusive arrangement between themselves, so that the debtor will write him a promissory note in his own name; in that case, the seller cannot forgive it.

Ameimar said: According to the one who adjudicates the law of dina de-garmei, he collects from him the full value of the promissory note.

According to the one who says that one who damages another through garmei is liable to pay, here too, the seller who forgave his promissory note and thereby caused the purchaser a loss is obligated to pay the purchaser the value of the promissory note.

And

according to the one who does not adjudicate the law of dina de-garmei, he collects from him merely the value of the paper,

meaning, he says that he sold him only the paper, and it is in his possession.

There was an incident:

An incident occurred involving one who sold a promissory note to another and then forgave it, and the case came before Rav Ashi;

and Rafram compelled Rav Ashi,

Rafram surrounded Rav Ashi with proofs,

and he collected from him as one collects a beam for carving,

that is, a complete collection under the law of dina de-garmei—like one who purchases a beam in order to carve figures into it, as the purchaser is careful to take one that is straight and smooth.:

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Hama—

With regard to this person who has a woman’s ketuba and a creditor against him,

one who owes money for a ketuba and to a creditor,

and he has

land, and he has money,

he has land and money, but he cannot give both of them money or land. What should he do?

To the creditor—

we remove him with money.

And

to the woman—

we remove her with land.

This one

the creditor

according to his law,

for he lent money, and therefore receives money.

And this one

the ketuba

according to her law,

for she relied on the lien on the land, and she gave nothing; therefore, she receives from the land.

And if he has only one piece of land, and it is suitable for only one of them,

and if he has only land suitable for only one of them—

we give it to the creditor,

and

we do not give it to the woman.

And

what is the reason

that they gave it to the creditor and not to the woman?

Because

more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married.

And we are not concerned that women will no longer wish to marry. This is not so with regard to a creditor, for there is concern that if his debt is not repaid, prospective borrowers will find the door closed before them.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Hama: Is it certain that you said in the name of Rava

is it true that we heard this from you in the name of Rava—

with regard to this person who is pursued

one who owed money and had creditors

by creditors for money, and he has land. And a creditor came and was demanding it from him

his debt.

And he said to him,

the debtor:

Go and take it from the land!

Go and collect your debt from my land.

We say to him—

You go, sell it, and bring the money and give it to him!

You go and sell your land and pay your debt. The creditor need not concern himself with selling your land.

He said to him,

Rav Hama said to Rav Pappa:

No,

I did not say this.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Hama:

Tell me: What was the actual incident?

What was the actual course of the incident from which this report in your name developed?

He said to him—

Indeed, a case came before me involving a debtor who had land, and I compelled him to sell it, but this was because

he was attributing his money to a gentile;

that is, he had money in his possession, but said that it belonged to gentiles.

And therefore, since

he acted improperly, they consequently acted improperly toward him

and compelled him to sell his land and pay his debt.

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: According to you, who say that “repayment of a creditor is a mitzva,”

if

the debtor says

the debtor—

“I do not wish to perform a mitzva,” what is the law?

Do we compel him to trouble himself to obtain money with which to repay his debt?

He said to him—

but we have already

learned: “When do these matters apply

that he receives forty lashes and is released?

With regard to a negative commandment. But with regard to a positive commandment, for example, when they say to him: Make a sukka! and he does not do so,

take

a lulav! and he does not do so—