Ketubot 95a — the Talmud in English

And let us write for him a tirpa

a document

so that I can collect with it from the customers who purchased from the seller the remainder of his properties

so that I can collect with it from the customers who purchased from the seller the remainder of his properties

from Iyar onward,

for from the beginning of the month of Iyar I certainly have a guarantee, even if my document was at the end of Nisan.

Rav Yosef said to him:

The guarantee of the lien on the seller’s properties does not stand for you here. For

the customers

the customers

could say to you: “You are the son of one of Nisan; you are

and the field is yours, and the holder of the second document removed you unlawfully, and the seller’s properties are not liened to compensate you for a field that they robbed from you.

What is the remedy for

this man? —

Let the two holders of the documents write

the two holders of the documents

authorization for one another,

so that each one empowers the other, and in either event the second will be able to collect the value of his field from the liened properties of the seller.

Mishna:

One who was married to two women and sold his field,

which was liened for the collection of both marriage settlements.

And

after the husband sold the field

the

woman who had married him

first —

wrote to the purchaser: “I have no legal claim or dealings with you,”

and I will not collect my marriage settlement from the land in your possession!

And afterward the husband died, and the two women have no land for collecting their marriage settlements except this field, which contains enough for collecting only one marriage settlement:

The first cannot remove the land from the purchaser, since she removed herself from collecting her marriage settlement from him; rather,

the second —

who did not remove herself —

removes

the land

from the purchaser,

for it too is liened for her marriage settlement.

And

when the second has removed the land from the possession of the purchaser, the

first

removes that land

from the second,

for she has precedence over the second.

And

again the

purchaser

removes the land

from the first,

since she wrote to him, “I have no legal claim or dealings with you.”

And they return endlessly:

this second one collects from this one, and this first one collects from this one, and this purchaser collects from this one,

until they make a compromise

between them.

And likewise a female creditor, and likewise a wife who is a creditor,

this passage is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And the first wrote to the purchaser, “I have no legal claim or dealings with you”; the second removes it from the possession of the purchaser:

The Gemara is astonished: Why should the first not remove the field from the purchaser?

And when she wrote to him

the woman to the purchaser the wording, “I have no legal claim or dealings with you” —

what has happened,

what difference does it make that she wrote to him, “I have no legal claim or dealings with you”!?

And

surely writing in this wording is not effective, for

it was taught in a beraita: One who says to his fellow

concerning his field:

“I have no legal claim or dealings concerning this field, and I have no business in it, and my hand

is removed from it,” it means nothing,

since this wording does not contain the wording of a gift!?

And we answer:

Here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing? With a case where they acquired it from her,

where she performed an act of acquisition for this purpose; and it was already explained above [at the beginning of the previous chapter, 83a] that whenever they performed an act of acquisition, “they acquired from him from the body of the land,” and not merely through legal claim or dealings.

The Gemara is still astonished:

And when they acquired it from her, what has happened!?

But

let her say

to the purchaser: I did not intend to remove myself from the land, and what I removed myself from was not a removal, for

the desire to please

is what I

did for my husband

by this, and I did not intend to remove myself!

Did we not learn,

and did we not learn a Mishna in Gittin resembling this:

A man purchased

a person

from the husband

land,

and then purchased

that same land

from the wife,

when that field was liened for her marriage settlement; behold,

his purchase is void

with regard to her being unable to collect her marriage settlement from the land!

Evidently,

it is proven that even though he also purchased from the wife, his purchase is void, because

she can say: “I did this to please my husband”,

and I did not intend to validate the sale!

We have returned to you, chapter “One Who Was Married”

Just as the Sages instituted that the work of a woman’s hands belongs to her husband in exchange for the sustenance that he gives his wife, so the Sages also said concerning a widow who is sustained from the heirs from the property of her husband. And therefore:

Mishna:

A widow is sustained from the property of

[lands] of

the orphans

that they inherited from her husband —

the work of her hands belongs to them.

And

however,

they are not obligated

the orphans

in her burial.

Although the husband was obligated in her burial, because the husband became obligated in her burial in exchange for her dowry in her ketuba [which he inherits from her]. But when the husband dies, and she or her heirs claim her ketuba — her burial is paid for from her property —

her heirs, the heirs of her ketuba —

they are the

ones obligated in her burial.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma before them,

how was our Mishna taught:

Was “a widow

is sustained” —

whose meaning is: it is the law that the orphans must sustain her from their property —

is what we learned?

Or “a widow

who is

sustained” —

whose meaning is: if she was sustained from the property of the orphans —

is what we learned?

And the Gemara explains the two versions:

Was “a widow

is sustained” is what we learned, and

our Mishna

according to the

custom of

the people of Galilee

is,

and it is not sufficient that they do not give her

[that it is impossible that they not give her sustenance, and this means that they are obligated to give her sustenance], because this is how the people of Galilee would write in the ketuba: “You shall sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days of your widowhood”

—that is, the anonymous tan­ nai of the Mishna followed the people of Galilee, to say that the halakha is like them; so Rashi explained ; but Tosafot disagree with Rashi, and hold that the Gemara is not discussing according to whom the halakha is, but the Gemara’s doubt is whether the tan­ nai’s law was stated specifically for the people of Galilee, whereas for the people of Judea, who sustain her by their own choice, the work of her hands does not belong to them, or whether the law of the Mishna was also stated for the people of Judea; see their words. Or perhaps “a widow

who is

sustained” is what we learned, and

our Mishna

according to the

custom of

the people of Judea

is, who would write in the ketuba: “And she shall be sustained from my property until the heirs wish to give you your ketuba.”

And if they wish, they do not give her

—if the orphans wished not to give her sustenance, but to give her her ketuba and dismiss her, the authority is in their hands; only so long as they sustain her, the work of her hands belongs to them.