Ketubot 96b — the Talmud in English

budut li

imushchestva nakhodyatsya vo vladenii naslednikov

[imushchestvo nakhoditsya vo vladenii naslednikov, poskolku prinadlezhit im]],

i

togda

na

vdovu

voznikaet obyazannost predstavit dokazatelstvo,

tak kak kazhdyi, kto trebuet vydat emu chto-libo ot drugogo, dolzhen predstavit dokazatelstvo.

Ili, mozhet byt, imushchestvo nakhodyatsya vo vladenii vdovy

potomu chto ono bylo obremeneno v ee polzu usloviem suda,

i na naslednikakh lezhit obyazannost predstavit dokazatelstvo,

that they had already paid what they owed her.

Rassmotrim dokazatelstvo

iz etogo

istochnika, peredannogo Levi,

v kotorom privoditsya baraita, pryamogo otnosyashchayasya k etomu voprosu:

Esli vdova eshche ne vykhodila zamuzh,

posle smerti muzha, —

na naslednikakh lezhit obyazannost predstavit dokazatelstvo,

that they gave her sustenance.

No esli ona

vykhodila zamuzh

posle smerti muzha i teper prikhodit trebuet sredstva na soderzhanie za proshlye gody, —

na nei lezhit obyazannost predstavit dokazatelstvo,

tak kak posle togo, kak ona uzhe vykhodila zamuzh, imushchestvo bolshe ne nakhodytsya v ee rasporiazhenii.

Skazal Rabbi Shimi bar Ashi:

somnenie, kotorym zadalsya Rabbi Yohanan,

zavisit ot spora tannaitov

— tannai razoshlis vo mneniyakh po etomu voprosu!

Tak kak v baraita skazano:

vdova prodaiot

zemelnye uchastki, chtoby poluchit iz nih sredstva na soderzhanie ili oplatu po ketube,

i zapisyvaet

v dogovore kupli-prodazhi:

“Eti

uchastki

ya prodala dlya soderzhaniya, a eti

uchastki

ya prodala dlya oplaty po ketube”, — takovo mnenie Rabbi Yehudy.

The Gemara initially thought to explain Rabbi Yehuda’s reason as follows: He holds that specifying in the deed that she is selling the property for sustenance is beneficial to her, because if she does not specify that she is selling it for sustenance, perhaps the heirs will say: “You sold it for your ketuba,” while they had already given her the sustenance, and they will be believed. Therefore, she writes that she sold it for sustenance, and they still owe her payment of her ketuba.

A Rabbi Yosi govorit: ona prodaiot i zapisyvaet bez ukazaniya prichiny, i takim obrazom

— blagodaria tomu, chto ona ne utochnyaet,

ee pravo poluchit sredstva ukreplyaetsya

silnee.

The reason is—as Abaye the Elder explains it later in the sugya—that we hold: sustenance for a woman is not collected from liened property, whereas her ketuba can be collected even from liened property. Thus, when the orphans’ property is exhausted and she has no place from which to collect except liened property, it is beneficial for her to be able to claim—even though she in fact sold the property for her ketuba—that she has still not received payment of her ketuba, and that what she sold was sold for sustenance , so that she would still have a ketuba debt against the orphans, which she could collect from liened property.

Ne v tom li sostoyat raznoglasiya:

Po mneniyu Rabbi Yehudy, kotoryi govorit: “Nuzhno ukazyvat prichinu prodazhi”,

potomu chto, po ego mneniyu, eto ukazanie bolee vyгодno ей, tak kak on

schitaet:

Imushchestvo nakhodytsya vo vladenii naslednikov, i vdova dolzhna predstavit dokazatelstvo,

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says: She must specify,

A

esli by

Rabbi Yosi,

kotoryi

schitaet, chto ne nuzhno ukazyvat prichinu prodazhi,

if it were

Imushchestvo nakhodytsya vo vladenii vdovy, i nasledniki dolzhny predstavit dokazatelstvo, —

holds that she need not specify, but that leaving the purpose unspecified is more beneficial to her, he would hold:

The property is presumed to be in the possession of the widow, and the orphans must produce proof, and she will always be believed to say: “I did not receive my sustenance,” and will suffer no loss.

Gemara otvergayet:

Na kakom osnovanii

mozhno skazat, chto tannai razoshlis imenno v etom voprose?

can it be established

Mozhet byt, v deistvitelnosti

vse soglasny

— i Rabbi Yehuda, i Rabbi Yosi, —

imushchestvo nakhodytsya vo vladenii vdovy, i nasledniki dolzhny predstavit dokazatelstvo,

i imenno poetomu Rabbi Yosi ne opasaetsya, chto ona ponyoset ubytok, esli ne ukazhet prichinu prodazhi.

A Rabbi Yehuda,

kotoryi trebuyet ukazat, dlya chego ona prodala imushchestvo, delayet eto ne iz-za opaseniya ubytka, a

isklyuchitelno kak poleznyi sovet

v obshchem smysle:

eto soobshchaetsya

zhenshchine, prodaiushchei mnogo zemli, chast dlya oplaty po ketube, a chast dlya soderzhaniya, chtoby ona soobshchila i obyavila, chto ne vse prodaiot dlya soderzhaniya,

so that they will not call her voracious

[so that they will not call her voracious], and no one will subsequently marry her.

Esli zhe ty ne skazhesh tak,

to osnovanie mneniya Rabbi Yehudy — poleznyi sovet, —

to voznikayet trudnost:

vot vopros, kotoryi zadal Rabbi Yohanan,

o tom, mogut li nasledniki zasvidetelstvovat: «My vydali sredstva na soderzhanie», ili net. No pochemu on zadal etot vopros? Ved on mog by

vyvesti otvet iz Mishna

nizhe, gde my uchim:

Vdova prodaiot

zemliu

dlya soderzhaniya bez suda i zapisyvaet: “Eti uchastki ya prodala dlya soderzhaniya”. Nesomnenno, ona zapisyvaet eto imenno dlya togo, chtoby nasledniki ne skazali: «Ty prodala zemliu dlya oplaty po ketube, a sredstva na tvoe soderzhanie my uzhe pogasili». Esli tak, vopros Rabbi Yohanana ne imel by mesta, ved on, konechno, znal etu Mishnu, tak kak polozheniya Mishna byli izvestny vsem.

Certainly, she writes this so that the orphans will not say: “You sold it for your ketuba, and we already paid your sustenance.” If so, there would be no basis for Rabbi Yohanan’s question, since he certainly knew this Mishna, as the Mishnayot were familiar to everyone.

No

neizbezhno sleduet skazat, chto

iz Mishna nelzia sdelat vyvod,

potomu chto

zdes soobshchaetsya tolko poleznyi sovet.

Esli tak,

zdes takzhe

v baraita mozhno skazat, chto

soobshchaetsya tolko poleznyi sovet.

Ili inache, Gemara po-drugomu obyasnyaet raznoglasie Rabbi Yehudy i Rabbi Yosi, tak chto vopros Rabbi Yohanana ne zavisit ot spora tannaitov:

the Gemara explains the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei differently, so that Rabbi Yohanan’s question will not be subject to a dispute between tannaim:

Vse soglasny

— i Rabbi Yehuda, i Rabbi Yosi, —

imushchestvo nakhodytsya vo vladenii naslednikov,

i eto osnovanie mneniya Rabbi Yehudy, kotoryi schitaet, chto vdova prodaiot imushchestvo i ukazyvaet, dlya chego imenno ona ego prodala, chtoby ne ponyesti ubytok v otnoshenii oplaty po ketube, kak bylo obyasneno.

A vot osnovanie mneniya Rabbi Yosi

who holds that she should not specify the purpose of the sale, even though at times she will suffer a loss as a result: On the other hand, she gains by not specifying the purpose, and this gain is preferable for her. For if the reason is that she will be able to claim with regard to property sold for sustenance that she did not sell it for the ketuba, she can have witnesses observe the property sold for sustenance, and if necessary they will come and testify.

I

tak

obyasnil

Abaye Starshii

etu vygodu, kotoruyu ona poluchaet, ne ukazyvaya tsel prodazhi:

skazal Abaye Starshii: primer mneniya Rabbi Yosi,

kotoryi skazal: «Tak ee pravo ukreplyaetsya», kogda ona ne utochnyaet tsel prodazhi,

kakomu primeru eto podobno?

To a terminally ill person who said: “Give

v podarok

dvesti zuzov takomu-to, moemu dolzhniku” —

esli on zakhochet

— chtoby poluchit eti dvesti zuzov, kotorye emu dolzhny, iz svobodnogo imushchestva, —

v schet dolga,

to

on poluchit ikh

as payment of his debt, and forfeits the gift, since a gift cannot be collected from liened property.

A esli

on zakhochet

poluchit eti dvesti zuzov iz svobodnogo imushchestva, ostavlennogo umiraiushchim,

v kachestve podarka, —

on poluchit ikh,

a dolg vzyshet s imushchestva, obremennogo v polzu tretikh lits.