Ketubot 95a (צה.) — the Talmud in English

And let us write for me a deed

deed

of foreclosure,

so that I can collect from the purchasers who bought the seller’s remaining properties,

from the month of Iyyar onward,

for surely, from the beginning of the month of Iyyar I certainly have a claim against them, even if my deed was dated at the end of Nisan.

Rav Yosef said to him:

The lien on the seller’s properties does not protect you here. For

the purchasers could

say to you:

“You are the son of one born on the first of Nisan,”

and the field belongs to you, and the second deed-holder evicted you unlawfully; therefore the seller’s properties are not liened to compensate you for a field that was stolen from you.

What is this man’s remedy

?

Let the two deed-holders write

one another

powers of attorney,

so that each one authorizes the other to act on his behalf; and in either event, the second can collect the value of his field from the seller’s liened properties.

Mishna:

If one was married to two wives and sold his field,

which was liened for the collection of both marriage contracts,

and

after the husband sold the field,

the wife who had married

the husband

first

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

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

Then the husband died, and the two wives had no property from which to collect their marriage contracts other than this field, whose value was sufficient to cover only one marriage contract:

The first wife cannot take the land from the purchaser, since she had removed herself from collecting her marriage contract from him. Rather,

the second

—who had not removed herself—

takes

the land

from the purchaser,

for it is liened even for her marriage contract.

And

once the second wife has taken the land from the purchaser, the

first

takes that same land

from the second,

for she has priority over the second.

And

the

purchaser

then takes the land

from the first wife,

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

And they go around and around:

the second wife collects from this one, the first wife collects from the second, and the 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 clause is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And the first wife wrote to the purchaser, “I have no legal claim or dealings with you”; the second takes the property from the purchaser:

The Gemara asks: Why should the first wife not take the field from the purchaser?

But when she wrote to him

the language, “I have no legal claim or dealings with you”—

what difference does it make, [

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

For

writing in this language is ineffective, as

it was taught: One who says to his fellow

concerning his own field:

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

is removed from it,” has said nothing,

since this language does not express a gift!?

And we answer:

Here,

in our Mishna,

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

that she performed an act of acquisition to that effect. And it was already explained above [at the beginning of the previous chapter, 83a] that whenever an act of acquisition was performed, “he acquired it from him through the substance of the land,” and not merely through a declaration that he had no legal claim or dealings.

The Gemara is still astonished:

But if they acquired it from her, what of it!?

For

say

[the woman could say] to the purchaser: I did not intend to remove myself from the land. My removal was merely because

the wife to the purchaser: I did not intend to remove myself from the land, and my relinquishment was not a relinquishment, for

it was

something I did to please my husband

by doing so, and I did not intend to remove myself from it!

Did we not learn

that we did not learn a Mishna in Gittin along these lines?

If a man purchased

land

from the husband

and

then purchased

that same land

from the wife,

as that field was liened for her marriage contract, then

his purchase is void

with regard to her inability to collect her marriage contract from the land!

Evidently,

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

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

and did not intend to ratify the sale!

We shall return to you, chapter “One Who Was Married.”

Just as the Sages instituted that a woman’s earnings belong to her husband in exchange for the sustenance that he provides her, so too the Sages said with regard to a widow who is sustained from the estate of her husband by the heirs. Therefore:

Mishna:

A widow is sustained from the property of [

land] of

the orphans

that they inherited from her husband—

her earnings belong to them.

And

however,

they are not obligated

the orphans

to bury her.

Although the husband had been obligated to bury her, because he became obligated to bury her in exchange for her dowry, which he inherited from her through her ketuba. But when the husband dies, and she or her heirs claim her ketuba, her burial is paid for from her estate—

Her heirs, the heirs of her ketuba—

they are

obligated to bury her.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma before them:

How is our Mishna to be read?

Is the phrase, “A widow

is sustained”—

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

is what we learned?

Or the phrase, “A widow

who

is sustained”—

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

is what we learned?

The Gemara explains the two possible readings:

Is the phrase, “A widow

is sustained,” is what we learned, and

our Mishna

follows the

custom of

the people of Galilee

—

and they have no choice but to give her [

for it is inconceivable that they should not provide her with sustenance; that is, they are obligated to provide her with sustenance], because this is what the people of Galilee would write in the ketuba: “You shall dwell in my house and be sustained from my property throughout all the days of your widowhood”?

Or perhaps the phrase, “A widow

who

is sustained,” is what we learned, and

our Mishna

follows the

custom of

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

[that is, they wrote: ‘You shall be supported from my property until the heirs wish to give you your ketuba.’]

And if they wish, they need not give her

—if the orphans wish not to provide her with sustenance but instead to give her the amount of her ketuba and dismiss her, they are entitled to do so. However, as long as they sustain her, her earnings belong to them.