Ketubot 91b (צא:) — the Talmud in English

He said to them Rav Naḥman:

Rav Naḥman:

Just as when they were numerous and became fewer

they acquired them at the time of death,

the

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

of the larger marriage contract acquired the right to the inheritance designated by the “sons’ marriage-契约” provision.

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 all other inheritances, through an equal division, and not to give them “Ketubat Benei Dikhrin.”

of the smaller marriage contract acquire them like all other inheritances, through an equal division, and the “sons’ marriage-contract” provision is not given.

Mnemonic

for the following traditions:

a.

One thousand;

b.

and one hundred;

c.

mitzva;

d.

with the ketuba;

e.

Jacob;

f.

he assessed;

g.

his fields;

h.

with words;

i.

occupied.

a.

One thousand:

a. If a borrower has no means with which to pay, the court writes the creditor a “deed of authorization to seize property” (shtar adrakhta), authorizing him to search for land encumbered by a lien that the borrower sold to others. When the creditor finds land, the court appraises it and announces that anyone who wishes to purchase it should come and purchase it. The court sells it to the highest bidder, and the money received in exchange for the land is used to repay the debt; alternatively, 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 “deed of final confirmation” (shtar ḥaltata), which establishes the field in the possession of the purchaser who bought it.

An incident involving

a certain man who was liable to pay one thousand dinars [who owed one thousand dinars]—

who owed one thousand dinars]—

He had two mansions

[the borrower had two houses ],

and he sold them

[he sold them] to one person,

one

of the houses for

one hundred

dinars, and

one

of them for

five hundred

dinars.

A creditor came and seized one of them

[the creditor came and seized one of them from the purchaser], and this seizure was carried out by order of the court, but the court had not yet “confirmed” the mansion in the creditor’s possession.

He then returned and seized the other one,

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—

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—

then so be it,

that is good!

But 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 was entitled to compel the creditor to choose one of the alternatives that he proposed to him, and therefore the purchaser said 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 would likewise have been obligated to take it from me at the value of one thousand dinars [even though its true value was only five hundred], or we would sell the mansion to that other person for one thousand dinars; and now too, since you have already seized it, the court has not yet confirmed the mansion in your possession. Anyone can still come and raise its price, and I can compel you either to take the mansion at the value set by the purchaser, or to let that other person take it in exchange for the one thousand dinars he offers. Your debt would then be paid with the one thousand dinars that the purchaser pays, and you would withdraw from 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 thereby to compel you to choose one of the two alternatives I proposed to you.

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say

that

this is the same as our Mishna,

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

For we learned:

“If the orphans say: We will appraise our father’s property as being worth an additional dinar

so that they may receive their mother’s ketuba, they are not heeded,” and here too, the purchaser cannot raise the price of the mansion.

Rava said to him: Is this comparable

to the law in our Mishna!?

There,

in our Mishna—through raising the price of the property

the orphans suffer a loss

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

But

does the creditor suffer a loss here

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

he gave one thousand

[he lent one thousand dinars],

and he receives one thousand

[he receives one thousand dinars from the purchaser]. Indeed, the creditor, who did not wish to withdraw from the mansion in exchange for the 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 the guarantee undertaken by the borrower who sold the property, should the mansion be seized from the purchaser: What is the law in our case, where a mansion worth five hundred was paid for with five hundred, yet it covered a debt of one thousand dinars?

And

a deed of

seizure

that the court writes for the purchaser, authorizing him to seize land from the borrower’s property because of the seller’s liability

for how much do we write it,

according to what value should the court write the deed of seizure for this purchaser: according to the value of the money the purchaser paid for the one mansion that was taken from him, or according to the value of the loan, for the repayment of all of which this field was seized?

The amoraim disagreed about this:

Ravina said:

They write a deed of seizure for him

for one thousand

dinars, corresponding to the debt that was paid through the creditor’s seizure from the purchaser.

Rav Avira said:

They write a deed of seizure for him only

for five hundred

dinars, corresponding to the value of the land.

And the halakha is: for five hundred

dinars, corresponding to the value of the land.

b.

And one hundred:

There was another similar incident, and Rav Yosef and Abaye disagreed about it as Rami bar Ḥama and Rava disagreed:

A certain man who was liable to pay one hundred dinars

[who owed one hundred dinars], and

he had

the borrower

two small plots of land

[two small fields],

one he sold for fifty and the other for fifty,

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

A creditor came and seized one of them

[the creditor seized one of the fields], and

then he came back and seized the other one

[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 creditor],

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

then so be it

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

but 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 the same as our Mishna: If the orphans say

“We will appraise our father’s property as being worth an additional dinar so that they may receive their mother’s ketuba, they are not heeded,” and here too, the purchaser is not heeded.

Abaye said to him: Is this incident comparable

to our Mishna!? For

there,

in our Mishna,

the orphans suffer a loss

in that they will lose “Ketubat Benei Dikhrin” to the sons of the other woman, but

what loss does he suffer here

the creditor, through raising the price of the land!?

For

he gave one hundred,

and

he receives one hundred

[he lent one hundred and received one hundred].

And the deed of seizure,

for the liability resulting from 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 is: For fifty.

c.

Mitzva:

An incident involving

a certain man who was liable to pay one hundred dinars

[who owed one hundred dinars].

He died

and

left a small plot of land worth fifty dinars

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

A 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 they were giving it 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 their father owed.

And again

he returned

[the creditor returned] and

seized it

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

They came

the orphans

before Abaye

[before Abaye].

He said to them

Abaye: Surely

a mitzva

is incumbent

upon orphans to repay

the

debt of their father,

out of respect for him.

If so, we should assume that the money you gave was not given for the purpose of purchasing the field, but rather

with those first coins you performed the mitzva

[those fifty dinars that you initially gave were money with which you performed the mitzva], to repay your father’s debt. For whenever someone gives money to another person without specifying the purpose, and he has a mitzva to give him money, we assume that he presumably gave it for the purpose of the mitzva.

If so,

now, when he seizes it, he seizes it lawfully

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

And we said this

that the money was given as repayment of the debt, because of the mitzva, and not for 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 someone who sold it to them.

4.

In the ketubba:

An incident

concerning

a certain man

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

who sold

that field designated for

his mother's ketubba—

for nominal consideration [the son sold the field designated for his mother's ketubba for a small amount], and this sale was made with liability, so that if it were seized from him, the seller would compensate him.

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 buyer: Although I accepted liability for any seizure by others, I exclude my mother from this liability, and

if my 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 ketubba,

I will not compensate you,

I will not compensate you for this.

And

his mother died and did not contest it [the mother died and did not seize the field].

And he came

the son came, as his mother's heir,

and contested it,

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

And the question arose in the beit-midrash: How should this seizure be regarded? Is it like the seizure by any other person, for which he is liable if the land is seized from the buyer, or is he excluded from the liability, just as his mother was excluded from it, since he comes to seize the land by virtue of her?

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

He stands in his mother's place, and is not included in the liability for others, but rather in the liability of his mother, which the seller did not accept upon himself.

Rava said

to Rami bar Hama:

Granted that he did not accept liability for her seizure; did he not accept liability for his own seizure

Even though he did not accept liability for his mother's seizure, did he not accept liability for his own seizure!?

[Although he did not accept liability for the seizure by his mother, did he not accept liability for his own seizure]!?

5.

Yaakov: Rami bar Hama said:

Reuven sold a field to Shimon without liability,

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

And Shimon came and sold it to Reuven

Shimon then resold it to Reuven, to whom he sold it,

with liability.