Ketubot 94a — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said:

their dispute is:

for example, one of them is found,

from among the fields collected by the first three women,

a field that is not his,

that is to say: it became known that it is stolen property in the husband’s possession, and ultimately the owners will come to remove the field from their possession, but the owners have not yet removed the field.

And when the fourth came to collect from the fourth field in the orphans’ possession, this one who had collected the stolen field came and claimed, saying: Tomorrow the robbed owner will come and take his field from me, and if you take the land, I will then be left deprived from both sides. Therefore, my desire is that you swear to me that you did not collect your ketuba during the husband’s lifetime.

And the reason for the dispute between the first tanna and Ben Nannas, whether the fourth must swear before she takes the fourth field, is:

and

concerning the law

of a later creditor who preceded and collected,

whether indeed what he collected, he collected—and the earlier creditor will then be unable to remove the field from the fourth if they remove the stolen field from her—it is that

the first tanna and Ben Nannas dispute:

the first tanna and Ben Nannas:

the first tanna holds:

a later creditor who preceded and collected

what he collected, he did not collect—

Therefore the fourth does not need to swear, because if indeed the robbed owner comes and takes his field, then the one in whose possession the stolen field was will remove from the fourth the field that the fourth collected, since she precedes her. And although the later one already collected the field, the collection of a later creditor is not a collection.

And Ben Nannas holds:

a later creditor who preceded and collected

what he collected, he collected,

and if the fourth collects, she will then be unable to remove from her the field that she collected; therefore she makes the fourth swear first.

Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Rabba bar Avuha,

to explain: Indeed, our Mishna concerns one of the fields being found not to belong to the husband. However, the first tanna and Ben Nannas did not dispute whether the fourth’s collection is a collection, but rather:

everyone—

the first tanna and Ben Nannas—hold: a later creditor who preceded and collected,

what he collected, he did not collect,

and the second need not fear the fourth’s collection itself, because she will remove the field from her when the owners come and take the stolen field.

And here they dispute whether we fear

that perhaps, if the fourth collects the field without an oath, the fourth will understand that she differs from the others, in that she takes without an oath, certainly because the field will not remain in her possession and ultimately they will remove it from her, and because of this there is concern

that perhaps she will depreciate it,

the field, not guarding the field so that it will not deteriorate, but consuming as much as she can—

And concerning this reasoning

the first tanna and Ben Nannas dispute:

The one

One

Ben Nannas

holds: we fear that perhaps she will depreciate

the field; therefore they make her swear first, and she will then not depreciate the field.

And the other

the first tanna

holds: we do not fear that perhaps she will depreciate it.

Abaye said

to explain the dispute between the first tanna and Ben Nannas differently from how Shmuel explained it [concerning a field that is not his]. Rather, the oath over which the first tanna and Ben Nannas dispute is the oath of “one who comes to collect from the property of orphans”:

And the law

of senior Abaye is what distinguishes between them

between the first tanna and Ben Nannas:

for senior Abaye taught

a beraita:

“Orphans,” concerning whom

the Sages said that “one who comes to collect from them may collect only with an oath,” that is, with regard to orphans,

adults—and it is unnecessary to say

when he comes to collect from

minors.

The first tanna: he does not hold of senior Abaye,

and therefore the fourth does not need to swear to the orphans.

And Ben Nannas holds of senior Abaye,

and therefore the fourth must swear to the orphans.

Rav Huna said:

These two brothers

who are partners in their father’s inheritance,

and two partners [

or any other two partners],

who have a legal case with one,

who have a case according to Torah law with another concerning a matter belonging to the partnership—

and one of them went—

of the brothers or partners—

with him [

with that person]

to judgment,

and the partner was found liable—

the other cannot

brother or partner

say to him

to the litigant:

“You are not my litigant

in this case in which my fellow became liable; rather, I will litigate with you concerning my portion.”

Rather,

we say: that brother or partner who litigated with the litigant,

his agency

of the other who did not come to litigate, is what he

performed,

and the judgment binds both of them.

And when

Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura, they asked him [

when Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura, they asked him]:

in such a case—

in this situation of two brothers or partners, one of whom stood in judgment—

what

is the law? Can the other say: “You are not my litigant”?

Rav Naḥman said to them

Rav Naḥman to the people of Sura:

Our Mishna

our Mishna

is,

as we learned:

“The first swears to the second, and the second to the third,

and the third to the fourth.”

But as for the first,

swearing

to the third, it does not teach

that is to say: We find in our Mishna only that the second makes the first swear, but the third can no longer make the first swear—

And

for what reason!?

Is it not because she performed her agency,

and is the reason not that the second’s making the first swear is on behalf of the other women!? It follows that we say: She performed her agency!

And we reject this:

Are the cases comparable,

and is the matter taught in our Mishna similar to the uncertainty about which we were uncertain!?

But

there,

in our Mishna:

“An oath to one is an oath to one hundred

and it is as though she swore to each one.

But

here

can

say

one of the brothers or one of the partners who did not come to judgment:

“Had I been

there, I would have

argued more” [

had I been in the court, perhaps I would have argued better than my fellow and would have prevailed in the case].

The Gemara adds a detail concerning this law:

And we said this—

that the judgment does not bind the one who did not come to judgment—

only when he was not in the city

at the time of the judgment, when that one who did not come to litigate was not in the city in which the hearing took place.

But

if

he was in the city, he should have come,

but if that brother or partner was in the city at the time of the hearing, he should have come with his brother or partner to the hearing; and since he did not come, he can no longer claim anything at all.

It was stated: Two sale documents,

of sale,

issued

by one seller,

on one day,

concerning one field, to two different purchasers:

Rav said: They divide

the field between the two purchasers, since the rights of both in it are equal.

And Shmuel said: shuda de-dayyanei!

The judges shall decide, according to the considerations of merit and liability, which of the two will receive the field.

And we raise this concerning it:

Shall we say that Rav, who said

they divide, does so because he holds

like Rabbi Meir, who says: the witnesses of signing effect the severance.

They are the essential factor in giving validity to the get as a document of severance.