Ketubot 91b — the Talmud in English

He said to them

Rav Naḥman:

Just as when they were numerous and became few ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

they acquired them

at the time of death, the

heirs

of the larger ketuba acquired the right to the inheritance of the “Ketubat Benei Dikhrin.”

So too, when they were few and became numerous, they acquired them

at the time of death, the

heirs

of the smaller ketuba acquired the right to inherit like the other inheritances, in an equal division, and not to give the “Ketubat Benei Dikhrin.”

Mnemonic

for the following reports:

a.

A thousand;

b.

and one hundred;

c.

mitzva;

d.

in the ketuba;

e.

Jacob;

f.

upright;

g.

his fields;

h.

in words;

i.

occupied.

a.

A thousand:

a. A borrower who has nothing with which to pay, the court writes for the creditor a “shtar adrakhta,” so that he may search for mortgaged lands that were sold by the borrower to others. When the creditor finds land, the court appraises the land and announces that whoever wishes to purchase should come and purchase, and the court sells it to whoever offers the highest price. The money received in exchange for the land goes toward repayment of the debt, or the creditor himself may take it and his debt will be paid through this seizure.

b. The creditor may not take it for less than the highest price offered for the land.

c. At the end of the process, the court issues a “shtar ḥaltata,” which establishes the field in the possession of the purchaser who took it.

An incident involving

a certain man who was indebted to them for a thousand dinars [he owed one thousand dinars]—

who owed one thousand dinars]—

He had two mansions

[the borrower had two houses ],

he sold them

[he sold the two houses] to one person,

one

of the houses for

one hundred

dinars, and

one

of them

for five hundred

dinars.

The creditor came and seized one of them

[the creditor came and seized one of them from the purchaser], and this seizure was according to the court, but the court had not yet “established” the mansion in the creditor’s possession.

He then returned and seized the other,

that is: the creditor came and wished to seize the second mansion as well, for the remainder of his debt.

The purchaser took

the purchaser

one thousand dinars and went to him

the creditor [the purchaser took one thousand dinars and went to the creditor], and

said to him

the purchaser said to the creditor:

If it is worth for you—

the first mansion that you already took—

one thousand dinars,

the amount of your debt, and you will not seize the second one at all—

so be it,

that is good!

And if not, take one thousand dinars and withdraw

[take one thousand dinars and withdraw] from both mansions together and leave them in my possession.

The purchaser’s right is to compel the creditor to carry out one of the alternatives that he proposes to him, and therefore the purchaser says to the creditor:

Just as, had another person who was prepared to pay one thousand dinars for the first mansion come before you seized the land from me, you too would have been required to take it from me for the value of one thousand dinars [even though its true value is only five hundred], or we would sell the mansion to that other person for one thousand dinars; so now too, since you have already seized it, the court has not established the mansion in your possession, and anyone may still come and raise its price. I can compel you to take the mansion at the value established by the purchaser, or that other person may take it in exchange for the one thousand dinars that he offers. Then your debt will be paid with those one thousand dinars that the purchaser will pay, and you will be cleared of both mansions.

If so, I too am no worse than another person who raises the price of the mansion and wishes to purchase it for one thousand dinars. I myself am offering to purchase the first mansion for one thousand dinars, and consequently to compel you to accept one of the two alternatives that I proposed to you.

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say,

that

this is our Mishna,

from our Mishna one can learn that the purchaser cannot raise the price of the first mansion beyond its value.

For we learned:

“If the orphans said, ‘We are raising the value of our father’s property by one dinar

so that they may take their mother’s ketuba, we do not heed them,” and here too the purchaser cannot raise the price of the mansion.

Rava said to him: Are these comparable

this law and our Mishna!?

There,

in our Mishna, through raising the value of the property,

the orphans suffer a loss

[the orphans]—the sons of the woman with the second ketuba—suffer a loss, for they will have to give the sons of the first [woman] the “Ketubat Benei Dikhrin” beyond their proportional share in the inheritance.

But

here, does he suffer a loss

[and does the creditor suffer a loss]? The purchaser’s essential claim is that, through raising the price of the mansion, he wishes to remove him from both mansions and give him one thousand dinars in exchange. If so, there is no loss here for the creditor, for

he gave one thousand

[he lent one thousand dinars],

and takes one thousand

[he receives one thousand dinars from the purchaser]. Indeed, the creditor, who did not wish to withdraw from the mansion for money as the purchaser proposed, accepted the first mansion for one thousand dinars and removed himself from the second mansion without compensation.

The Gemara raises a doubt concerning the liability for guarantee that the borrower-seller undertakes if the mansion is seized from the purchaser: what is the law in the case before us, where a mansion worth five hundred, for which five hundred was paid, covered a debt of one thousand dinars owed by the borrower?

And

the document of

seizure

that the court writes for the purchaser, so that he may seize land from the borrower’s property on account of his guarantee,

for how much do we write it,

according to what value should they write the document of seizure for this purchaser? Is it according to the value of the money that the purchaser paid for the one mansion that was taken from him, or according to the value of the loan, for the whole of which they seized this field?

And the amoraim disagreed concerning this:

Ravina said:

They write for him a document of seizure

for one thousand

dinars, according to the value of the debt that was repaid through the creditor’s seizure from the purchaser.

Rav Avira said:

They write for him a document of seizure only

for five hundred

dinars, according to the value of the land.

And the halakha: for five hundred

dinars, according to the value of the land.

b.

And one hundred:

There was also a similar incident, and Rav Yosef and Abaye disagreed in it as Rami bar Ḥama and Rava disagreed:

a certain man who was indebted to them for one hundred dinars

[they were creditors to the amount of one hundred dinars], and

he had

the borrower

two small plots of land

[two small fields],

one he sold for fifty and one for fifty,

[and he sold them to one person, each field for fifty].

The creditor came and seized one of them

[the creditor seized one of the fields], and

then came again and seized the other

[and came to seize the second one as well];

the purchaser took

the purchaser

one hundred dinars and went to him

[the purchaser took one hundred dinars and went to the purchaser],

and said to him: If it is worth one hundred dinars for you—

so be it

[if the land that you seized is worth one hundred dinars for you, that is good],

and if not, take one hundred dinars and withdraw

[and if not, take one hundred dinars and withdraw from both fields].

Rav Yosef thought to say

that

this is our Mishna: If the orphans said

“We are raising the value of our father’s property by one dinar so that they may take their mother’s ketuba, we do not heed them,” and here too we do not heed the purchaser.

Abaye said to him: Are this comparable

this incident and our Mishna!? For

there,

in our Mishna,

the orphans suffer a loss,

for they will lose the “Ketubat Benei Dikhrin” to the sons of the other [woman], but

here, what loss does he suffer

the creditor through raising the price of the land!?

For

he gave one hundred,

and

takes one hundred

[he lent one hundred and received one hundred].

And the document of seizure,

on account of the guarantee for the seizure of that single field,

for how much do we write it?

Ravina said: For one hundred; Rav Avira said: For fifty; and the halakha: For fifty.

c.

Mitzva:

An incident involving

a certain man who was indebted to them for one hundred dinars

[they were creditors to the amount of one hundred dinars].

He died

and

left a small plot of land that was worth fifty dinars

[the borrower died and left the orphans a small plot of land that was worth fifty dinars].

The creditor came and seized it,

the creditor came and wished to seize that land which the borrower had bequeathed to his orphans—for half of his debt.

The orphans went and gave him fifty dinars

[the orphans went and gave him fifty dinars], but they did not tell him for what purpose they were giving him the money: whether in order to remove him from the land, as though they were “purchasing” it from him, or whether they were giving the money toward repayment of the debt that their father owed.

And again

he returned

[the creditor returned] and

seized it

from the orphans, since from this land or from the money given to him he had collected only fifty dinars, whereas the father had owed one hundred dinars.

They came

the orphans

before Abaye

[before Abaye].

He said to them

Abaye: Behold,

a mitzva

is incumbent

upon orphans to repay

the

debt of their father

because of his honor.

And if so, it must be assumed that you gave the money not for the purpose of purchasing the field, but

with these first [fifty] you performed a mitzva

[the fifty dinars that you initially gave were used by you to perform a mitzva]—to repay your father’s debt. For whenever one gives a person money without specification, and there is a mitzva incumbent upon him to give him money, we say that presumably he gave it for the purpose of the mitzva.

And if so,

now, when he seized it, he seized it lawfully

[and it follows that now the creditor’s seizure of the land was lawful], that is: if so, it emerges that he has a right to this land for repayment of his debt.

And we said this only

that the money was given as repayment of the debt and because of the mitzva, and not because of the purchase of the land, only in a case

where they did not say to him

the orphans, when they gave him the fifty dinars:

These fifty dinars are the price of the small plot of land

[these fifty dinars are the price of the land].

But

if

they said to him

the orphans, when they gave the fifty dinars to the creditor:

These fifty dinars are the price of the small plot of land

they are [these fifty dinars are the price of the land].

They removed him

the orphans removed the creditor from this land, and he may no longer return and collect the land from them, since this is like one who sold it to them.

4.

In the ketubah:

An incident

involving

a certain man

who inherited from his father the land that his father had designated for the ketubah of his widowed mother, while his mother had still not collected her ketubah, but she could collect from this land even if it were sold to someone else—

who sold to

the same field designated for

his mother's ketubah—

for benefit [

the son sold that same field designated for his mother's ketubah for a small amount], and this sale was with responsibility, so that if it were seized from him, the seller would compensate him.

And he said to him

the seller said to the purchaser: although I accepted responsibility upon myself for every seizure by others, I exclude my mother from the responsibility, and

if the mother comes and contests [

if my mother comes and contests this sale], that is: if she comes and seizes from you the land designated for her in order to collect her ketubah,

I will not compensate you,

I will not compensate you for this.

And

his mother died and did not contest [

the mother died and did not seize the field].

And he came [

the son came], who inherited his mother's ketubah,

and contested,

that is: he came to seize the field in order to collect the ketubah of his mother, which he inherited upon her death.

And the question arose in the beit-midrash: how should this seizure be regarded? Should it be regarded as the seizure of any other person, for which he is responsible if it is seized from the purchaser, or is he excluded from the responsibility just as his mother was excluded from the responsibility, since he comes by her force?

Rami bar Hama thought to say: He stands in his mother's place [

he stands in his mother's place], and he is not included in the responsibility for others, but rather in his mother's responsibility, which he did not accept upon himself.

Rava said to

Rami bar Hama:

Granted that he did not accept responsibility for hers, did he not accept responsibility for his own [

although he did not accept upon himself responsibility for his mother's seizure, did he not accept responsibility for his own seizure]!?

5.

Jacob: Rami bar Hama said:

Reuben sold a field to Simeon without responsibility,

so that even if the land were taken from him by law, the seller would not return his money to him—

And Simeon came and sold it to Reuben [

Simeon returned and sold it to Reuben, to whom he sold it]

with responsibility.