# snc

lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k88a_1:" The husband whose plea is supported by one witness only."
,k88a_2:" Lit., 'bring her to the hands of'."
,k88a_3:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 553. n. 6."
,k88a_4:" A second time."
,k88a_5:" Who saw the first payment."
,k88a_6:" Should she deny having had her <i>kethubah</i> paid, he presents the two witnesses in support of his claim."
,k88a_7:" On account of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k88a_8:" Should she then deny receiving the money he may well impose upon her a Pentateuchal oath on the strength of the evidence of the first witness who was present when she received it. It is only in the case of a <i>kethubah</i> which is an hypothecary obligation (v. <i>supra</i>) that a witness cannot impose upon a defendant the Pentateuchal oath."
,k88a_9:" In view of the fact that the evidence of the one relates to a transaction at which the other was not present. The law of evidence demands that both witnesses testify to the same transaction. Should the woman he prepared to deny the second payment also, no Pentateuchal oath could be imposed upon her and she would thus be able to obtain a third payment also on taking a Rabbinical oath."
,k88a_10:" V. <i>supra</i> notes 1-8."
,k88a_11:" The first of which she had returned when she had received her first payment. As the first witness, who knows that the two payments were made to her in settlement of a <i>kethubah</i> would naturally corroborate her statement, the dispute would still relate to a <i>kethubah</i> and not to a loan. How then could a Pentateuchal oath be imposed upon her?"
,k88a_12:" The two witnesses."
,k88a_13:" Before he makes his second payment. As the first witness would thus be aware that the second payment is made solely for the purpose of imposing upon her a Pentateuchal oath in respect of the first payment which she fraudulently denied, he would refrain from giving evidence in her favour and the man would thus be able to recover his money. Her peculiar plea that she had two kethubahs would naturally be disregarded in the absence of all supporting evidence."
,k88a_14:" Shebu. 45a. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 548, n. 4."
,k88a_15:" Can they not 'exact payment etc.'."
,k88a_16:" Against whom they produce a bond of indebtedness bequeathed by their father."
,k88a_17:" Lit., 'now'."
,k88a_18:" As all creditors who produce a bond of indebtedness against a debtor."
,k88a_19:" Obviously not, since orphans would not be subject to a restriction from which their father was exempt."
,k88a_20:" Cf. Shebu. 47a."
,k88a_21:" That after taking an oath the orphans of a lender are entitled to receive payment of a bond they have inherited."
,k88a_22:" Of the borrower."
,k88a_23:" B.B. 6a, Shebu. 41b. If a man did not borrow he obviously did not repay; but since the bond shews that he did borrow, he must obviously be ordered to pay. How then could it be said that if the orphans pleaded that their father told them that he never borrowed they are exempt from payment?"
,k88a_24:" As the one attributed to R. Zerika."
,k88a_25:" That the orphans cannot exact payment of a bond they have inherited unless they first take an oath."
,k88a_26:" V. our Mishnah. Cut. edd. add here [H] MS.M. [H]."
,k88a_27:" A surname (v. Rashi). Cf. Neb. VII, 2, where Hananiah is so described."
,k88a_28:" Of a claim against an absent debtor."
,k88a_29:" So MS.M. and BaH. Cut. edd. omit 'Nappaha'."
,k88a_30:" The capital of Syria, on the river Orontes. It was founded by Seleucus Nicator and was at one time named Epidaphnes."
,k88a_31:" That a claimant may be authorized by a court to seize the property of a defendant in the latter's absence."
,k88a_32:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 532, n. 11f."
,k88a_33:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5."
,k88a_34:" Metaph. Undue difficulty in the collection of a debt would prevent people from risking their money in the granting of loans."
,k88a_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 558. n. 13."
,k88a_36:" For either claim the woman cannot recover from her absentee husband's property without an oath. >"
}

txt:
<p>
If he<a id="k88a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is clever he may bring her under the obligation<a id="k88a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of a Pentateuchal oath:<a id="k88a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He pays her<a id="k88a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the amount of her <i>kethubah</i> in the presence of one witness, associates the first witness<a id="k88a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; with the second<a id="k88a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and then treats his first payments<a id="k88a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; as a loan.<a id="k88a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: How can one associate the first witness with the second one?<a id="k88a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi, [he might proceed in this manner:]<a id="k88a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He pays her the amount of her <i>kethubah</i> in the presence of the first witness and a second one, and then treats his first payments as a loan. R. Ashi demurred: Might she not still assert that there were two kethubahs?<a id="k88a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Ashi: He might inform them<a id="k88a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the facts].<a id="k88a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FROM ASSIGNED PROPERTY. Elsewhere we have learned; And so also orphans cannot exact payment unless they first take an oath.<a id="k88a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; From whom?<a id="k88a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If it be suggested. From a borrower<a id="k88a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be objected;] Since<a id="k88a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; their father would have received payment without an oath<a id="k88a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; should they require an oath?<a id="k88a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is this, however, that was meant: And so also orphans cannot exact payment from orphans unless they first take an oath.<a id="k88a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zerika stated in the name of Rab Judah: This<a id="k88a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; has been taught only [in the case] where the orphans<a id="k88a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; stated, 'Father told us; I have borrowed and paid up'. If, however, they said, 'Father told us: I have never borrowed' [the others] cannot exact payment even if they take an oath. Raba demurred: On the contrary. wherever a man says. 'I have not borrowed', it is as if he had said, 'I have not paid'!<a id="k88a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The fact,] however, [is that] if such a statement<a id="k88a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; was at all made it was made in these terms: R. Zerika stated in the name of Rab Judah. This<a id="k88a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; has been taught only [in a case] where the orphans<a id="k88a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; stated, 'Father told us: I have borrowed and paid up'. If, however, they said &mdash; 'Father told us: I have never borrowed', [the orphans of the creditor] may exact payment from them without an oath, because to say, 'I have not borrowed' is equivalent to saying, 'I have not paid'.
</p><p>
	AND<a id="k88a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [FROM THE PROPERTY OF] AN ABSENT HUSBAND [A WOMAN] MAY NOT RECOVER [THE PAYMENT OF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH. R. Aha, the governor of the castle,<a id="k88a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; stated: A case<a id="k88a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; was once brought before R. Isaac Nappaha<a id="k88a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; at Antioch<a id="k88a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and he made this statement, 'This<a id="k88a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; has been taught only in respect of the <i>kethubah</i> of a woman [who receives preferential treatment] in order to maintain pleasant relations<a id="k88a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [between her and her husband] but not [in respect of] a creditor. Raba, however, stated in the name of R. Nahman; Even a creditor [has been given the same privilege],<a id="k88a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that every person shall not take his friend's money and abscond and settle in a country beyond the sea and thus [cause the creditor's] door to be shut in the face of intending borrowers.<a id="k88a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON RULED: WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> etc. What is R. Simeon referring to? &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied. To this; AND<a id="k88a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [FROM THE PROPERTY OF] AN ABSENT HUSBAND [A WOMAN] MAY NOT RECOVER [THE PAYMENT OF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH [which implies that] there is no difference between [a claim] for maintenance and one for a <i>kethubah</i>,'<a id="k88a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and [in opposition to this ruling] R. Simeon came to lay down the rule that WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k88b_1:" R. Simeon and the first Tanna."
,k88b_2:" Sc. when her husband dies and she claims her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k88b_3:" I.e., when he is still alive and she claims maintenance."
,k88b_4:" <i>Infra</i> 104b."
,k88b_5:" The first Tanna in our Mishnah."
,k88b_6:" Lit., 'that', i.e., if it is a case of a wife's claim for maintenance during her husband's lifetime."
,k88b_7:" The court. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k88b_8:" The preceding Mishnah."
,k88b_9:" <i>Supra</i> 86b, q.v. for notes."
,k88b_10:" Affirming faithful and honest administration."
,k88b_11:" R. Simeon and the first Tanna."
,k88b_12:" Git. 52b, q.v. for the reasons of the respective rulings."
,k88b_13:" Since the woman also has been appointed by the 'father of the orphans'."
,k88b_14:" Of the Mishnah cited."
,k88b_15:" Since R. Simeon relaxes the law in favour of the woman."
,k88b_16:" Then THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH, an expression which implies that R. Simeon is adding a restriction."
,k88b_17:" I.e., only if."
,k88b_18:" 'May an oath be exacted'. 'WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS&nbsp;&hellip; THE HEIRS MAY' implies that whereas the first Tanna exempted the woman from an oath even where she claimed her <i>kethubah</i>, R. Simeon differed from him and imposed upon her an oath 'WHEREVER SHE CLAIMS'."
,k88b_19:" <i>Supra</i> 86b q.v. for notes."
,k88b_20:" Which exempts the woman from an oath even when she seeks to recover payment from orphans."
,k88b_21:" Restricting the woman's privilege. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2f."
,k88b_22:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4."
,k88b_23:" R. Simeon and the first Tanna."
,k88b_24:" <i>Supra</i> 87a."
,k88b_25:" Of the Baraitha referred to."
,k88b_26:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4. The Rabbis having exempted the woman from the oath that the orphans might wish to impose upon her, R. Simeon laid down that WHEREVER etc."
,k88b_27:" What need was there for this statement which has no beating on what the Rabbis have said?"
,k88b_28:" I.e., R. Simeon differs from the views expressed in the two Mishnahs, <i>supra</i> 86b, and not only, as Abaye maintained, from those of the second Mishnah only. Contrary to what has been stated in these two Mishnahs, R. Simeon laid down that a wife's liability to take an oath is not determined by the action of the husband in granting her exemption and by the terms of that exemption, but is entirely dependent on whether the woman does or does not claim her <i>kethubah</i>. (V. Rashi and Tosaf'. s.v. [H] a.l.). [On this interpretation R. Papa does not disagree with Abaye but merely adds that R. Simeon's interpretation refers also to the second clause. This is supported by MS.M. which omits: The fact is however, (lit. 'but'), said R. Papa. For other interpretations v. Shittah Mekubbezeth]."
,k88b_29:" A woman who seeks to recover the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k88b_30:" I.e., the written marriage contract (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). It is now assumed that the woman asserts that the document was lost. "
}

txt:
<p>
BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> THE HEIRS CANNOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER. And they<a id="k88b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [in fact] differ on the same principles as those on which Hanan and the sons of the High Priests differed; for we learned: If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance, she must, Hanan ruled, take an oath at the end<a id="k88b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but not at the beginning.<a id="k88b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; The sons of the High Priests, however, differed from him and said that she must take an oath both at the beginning<a id="k88b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and at the end.<a id="k88b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon [is thus of the same opinion] as Hanan while the Rabbis<a id="k88b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [hold the same view] as the sons of the High Priests.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth demurred; Then<a id="k88b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [instead of saying,] THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER, It should have said, 'Beth din<a id="k88b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; may impose an oath upon her'! &mdash; The fact, however, is, said R. Shesheth.[that R. Simeon referred] to this:<a id="k88b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If she went from her husband's grave to her father's house, or returned to her father-in-law's house but was not made administratrix, the heirs are not entitled to impose an oath upon her; but if she was made administratrix the heirs may exact an oath from her in respect of [her administration] during the subsequent period but may not exact one concerning the past;<a id="k88b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and [in reference to this ruling] R. Simeon came to lay down the rule that WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> THE HEIRS MAY ENACT AN OATH FROM HER BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> THE HEIRS CANNOT IMPOSE AN OATH<a id="k88b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; UPON HER. And they<a id="k88b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the same principles as those on which Abba Saul and the Rabbis differed; for we have learned: An administrator whom the father of the orphans had appointed must take an oath,<a id="k88b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but one whom the <i>Beth din</i> have appointed need not take an oath. Abba Saul, however, said, The rule is to be reversed: If <i>Beth din</i> appointed him he must take an oath but if the father of the orphans appointed him he need not take an oath.<a id="k88b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon [thus holds the same view] as Abba Saul<a id="k88b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Rabbis [in our Mishnah hold the same view] as the Rabbis.<a id="k88b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye demurred: Then<a id="k88b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [rather than say,] WHEREVER SHE CLAIMS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k88b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it should have said,<a id="k88b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If<a id="k88b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; she claims'.<a id="k88b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; The fact, however, is, said Abaye, [that R. Simeon referred] to this: [If a husband] gave to his wife an undertaking in writing, 'I renounce my claim upon you for either vow or oath', he cannot impose an oath upon her etc. [If the written undertaking read,] 'Neither I nor my heirs nor my lawful successors will have any claim upon you. or your heirs or your lawful successors for either vow or oath', neither he nor his heirs nor his lawful successors may impose an oath either upon her or upon her heirs or upon her lawful successors;<a id="k88b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and [in reference to this ruling]<a id="k88b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon came to lay down the rule<a id="k88b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; that<a id="k88b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> THE HEIRS MAY ENACT AN OATH FROM HER.<a id="k88b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And they<a id="k88b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [consequently] differ on the same principles as those on which Abba Saul the son of Imma Miriam, and the Rabbis differed.<a id="k88b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon agreeing with Abba Saul and the Rabbis [of our Mishnah] with the Rabbis.<a id="k88b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa demurred: This would satisfactorily explain [the expression] WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>.<a id="k88b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, can be said [in justification of] BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>?<a id="k88b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; The fact, however, is, said R. Papa, [R. Simeon's ruling was intended] to oppose the views of both R. Eliezer and those who differed from him.<a id="k88b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF SHE<a id="k88b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; PRODUCED A LETTER OF DIVORCE WITHOUT A <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k88b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k89a_1:" Sc. the sum she claims. Should the husband plead that he already paid her that sum and that the document had been returned to him at the time and was then duly destroyed, his plea would be disregarded since the provision for a <i>kethubah</i> has the force of 'an act of a court', [H], and is as binding in the absence of a written document as if one had been actually in existence. Only the production of valid evidence could exempt the man from payment. Cf. B.M. 17b."
,k89a_2:" 'Before I collected my kethubah'."
,k89a_3:" The husband."
,k89a_4:" 'Which was given to me at the time I paid the amount of the kethubah'. His wife, he alleges. had produced at that time her letter of divorce only asserting that her written <i>kethubah</i> was lost. As is the procedure in such cases, he maintains, the letter of divorce was duly destroyed in order to prevent the woman from claiming therewith a second payment at another court of law, while he was furnished with a quittance as a protection for his heirs should the woman produce her <i>kethubah</i> after his death, and, denying that she was ever divorced, claim the amount of her <i>kethubah</i> as the widow of the deceased."
,k89a_5:" After the Sabbatical year when all debts must be released (v. Deut. XV. 2)."
,k89a_6:" Pleading that the <i>prosbul</i> was lost, while the debtor asserts that such a document had never been made out and that he was consequently released from his debt by the Sabbatical year. [H], a form of declaration which enables a creditor to retain his rights to the collection of his debts even after the Sabbatical year. (V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and cf. Git. 34b)."
,k89a_7:" Lit., 'behold these'."
,k89a_8:" The Hadrianic persecutions that followed the rebellion of Bar Cochba (132-135 C.E.) when all religious practices were forbidden on the penalty of death and it was hazardous to preserve a letter of divorce or a <i>prosbul</i>."
,k89a_9:" The ruling in out Mishnah that the amount of a <i>kethubah</i> may be collected by a woman who produces her letter of divorce only, even if, under the plea that she lost it, she does not surrender her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k89a_10:" In lieu of the return of the original document, such as the <i>kethubah</i> or any bond of indebtedness."
,k89a_11:" Despite the pleas of the defendant who objects to become the custodian of a quittance and demands the return of the original record of his obligations or, in its absence, exemption from payment."
,k89a_12:" As a widow (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 562, n. 6 ad fin.)."
,k89a_13:" As this possibility is disregarded it follows that a quittance may well be written despite the defendant's objection. But how is this ruling to be reconciled with the accepted view of the authority (B.B. 171b) who holds that the defendant may rightly object to have to 'guard his quittance from mice'?"
,k89a_14:" In our Mishnah."
,k89a_15:" The women relying on the general provision of the Rabbis which entitles every wife to a <i>kethubah</i>."
,k89a_16:" Cf. <i>supra</i> notes 2 and 3."
,k89a_17:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9."
,k89a_18:" MS.M.: Samuel."
,k89a_19:" Samuel also is thus of the opinion that a quittance may not be written, as was laid down in B.B. 171b, while our Mishnah, according to his interpretation, refers both to places where a <i>kethubah</i> is written as well as to those where a <i>kethubah</i> is not written. The woman IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> even if she fails to produce the document when, in the former case, she produced valid proof that her husband did not write one for her, and, in the latter case, where the man failed to produce valid proof that he did write one for her."
,k89a_20:" Who first restricted the ruling of our Mishnah to a place where no <i>kethubah</i> is written."
,k89a_21:" Lit., 'root', i.e., the amount of two hundred and a hundred <i>zuz</i> to which a virgin and a widow respectively are entitled."
,k89a_22:" The first clause of our Mishnah thus refers to the statutory <i>kethubah</i> which may be collected with a letter of divorce, while the second clause refers to the additional jointure, both clauses applying to all localities irrespective of whether the custom of the place was to write a <i>kethubah</i> or not to write one."
,k89a_23:" Sc. no possible objection could be raised to this view, since the woman would never be able to collect mote than what is her due."
,k89a_24:" Who allows the statutory <i>kethubah</i> as well as the additional jointure to be collected on the strength of a letter of divorce."
,k89a_25:" Both the additional and the statutory jointure, on the evidence of the letter of divorce. Should the woman subsequently produce a written <i>kethubah</i> without her letter of divorce, payment, as stated in our Mishnah, might justly be refused if the husband pleads that he had already paid her all that was due to her, at the time she produced her letter of divorce, that her letter of divorce was then destroyed and that a quittance was given to him. The ruling that she NEED NOT BE PAID is consequently quite logical."
,k89a_26:" Who allows only the statutory <i>kethubah</i> to be collected on the production of a letter of divorce."
,k89a_27:" When she produces her written <i>kethubah</i> alone."
,k89a_28:" Because she might have already collected it with her letter of divorce (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 564, n. 5)."
,k89a_29:" Which is at all events due to her (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 564. n' 5). As our Mishnah, however, ruled that she NEED NOT BE PAID anything at all, an objection against Rab's view thus arises."
,k89a_30:" In the statement of our Mishnah under discussion."
,k89a_31:" And thereby procured exemption from payment of the <i>kethubah</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
SHE IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>.<a id="k89a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF SHE, HOWEVER, PRODUCED HER] <I>KETHUBAH</I> WITHOUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND, WHILE SHE PLEADS, MY LETTER OF DIVORCE WAS LOST',<a id="k89a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; HE<a id="k89a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; PLEADS, 'MY QUITTANCE<a id="k89a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS LOST', AND SO ALSO A CREDITOR WHO PRODUCED<a id="k89a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS THAT WAS UNACCOMPANIED BY A <I>PROSBUL</I>,<a id="k89a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THESE<a id="k89a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE NOT PAID. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED; SINCE THE TIME OF DANGER<a id="k89a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WITH OUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND A CREDITOR IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT [HIS DEBT] WITHOUT A <I>PROSBUL</I>.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. This<a id="k89a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; implies [does it not] that a quittance<a id="k89a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; may be written;<a id="k89a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; for if a quittance may not be written would not the possibility have been taken into consideration that the woman might produce her <i>kethubah</i> [after her husband's death] and<a id="k89a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; collect therewith [a second time]?<a id="k89a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab replied: We are dealing<a id="k89a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; with a place where no <i>kethubah</i> is written.<a id="k89a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel, however, said: [Our Mishnah refers] also to a place where a <i>kethubah</i> is written.
</p><p>
	May then<a id="k89a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; a quittance be written according to Samuel?<a id="k89a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Anan replied, This was explained to me by Mar Samuel;<a id="k89a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Where it is the custom not to write [a <i>kethubah</i>] and [the husband] asserted, 'I have written one' it is he who must produce the proof, where it is the usage to write one and she pleads. 'He did not write one for me' it is she that must produce the proof.<a id="k89a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab<a id="k89a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; also withdrew from [his previously expressed opinion]. For Rab had stated: Both in a place where [a <i>kethubah</i>] is written and in one where it is not written, a letter of divorce [enables a woman to] collect her statutory<a id="k89a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kethubah</i> [while the written document of the] <i>kethubah</i> [enables her to] collect the additional jointure;<a id="k89a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and whosoever wishes to raise any objection may come and do so.<a id="k89a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learned: [A WOMAN, HOWEVER, WHO PRODUCED HER] <I>KETHUBAH</I> WITHOUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND, WHILE SHE PLEADS, 'MY LETTER OF DIVORCE WAS LOST HE PLEADS, 'MY QUITTANCE WAS LOST'. AND SO ALSO A CREDITOR WHO PRODUCED A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS WITHOUT A <I>PROSBUL</I>, THESE ARE NOT PAID. Now, according to Samuel<a id="k89a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; this statement is quite intelligible since one might interpret it as applying to a locality where it is the practice to write [no <i>kethubah</i>] and the husband pleaded. 'I did write one'. In such a case [the man] might justly be told, 'Produce your evidence', and should he fail to do so he might well be told, 'Go and pay up'.<a id="k89a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; According to Rab,<a id="k89a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; however, [the question arises,] granted that she<a id="k89a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is not to collect her statutory <i>kethubah</i>,<a id="k89a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; let her at least collect the additional jointure!<a id="k89a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Joseph replied: Here<a id="k89a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; we are dealing with a case where no witnesses to the divorce were present. Since [the husband] could have pleaded. 'I have not divorced her',<a id="k89a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k89b_1:" His plea is accepted because by abstaining from the use of the false though convenient plea, 'I have not divorced her at all', he has established his reputation for honesty."
,k89b_2:" It is obvious, therefore, that witnesses were available; contrary to R. Joseph's interpretation (<i>supra</i> 89a ad fin.)."
,k89b_3:" Since it is possible that she had already collected it once on the strength of her letter of divorce."
,k89b_4:" After receiving payment of her <i>kethubah</i> on the evidence of the witnesses who testified to the death of her husband."
,k89b_5:" Before another court."
,k89b_6:" Her statutory <i>kethubah</i>."
,k89b_7:" Where it is well known that she was not divorced by him."
,k89b_8:" So that the fact would remain unknown."
,k89b_9:" By consenting to a secret divorce."
,k89b_10:" The answer previously given, which well explains the case of a widow after her marriage, is inapplicable here since a betrothed man and woman do not live together."
,k89b_11:" And not as has been first suggested, 'where she lived with her husband'."
,k89b_12:" Of the difficulty pointed out by R. Kahana and R. Assi."
,k89b_13:" Had no quittance been allowed in such instances claimants would be deprived unjustly of their legitimate rights."
,k89b_14:" In localities where no <i>kethubah</i> is written."
,k89b_15:" Lit., 'but it is certain'."
,k89b_16:" Even where the man did not write one for her. That this is the case is apparent from the previous discussion where the husband's liability has been tacitly assumed. Had not a betrothed woman been allowed a <i>kethubah</i> unless she possessed also a written document, the objection that she might collect her <i>kethubah</i> mote than once could must have been advanced, since the document would have been destroyed as soon as payment had been made."
,k89b_17:" I.e., both her statutory <i>kethubah</i> and her additional jointure."
,k89b_18:" <i>Supra</i> 47b, 54b, B.M. 17b."
,k89b_19:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>., and since be died before he married her she, it might have been thought, is only entitled to her statutory <i>kethubah</i> but not to the additional jointure. Hence it was necessary for the ruling that she 'is entitled to collect all (that is due to her)'."
,k89b_20:" That the case dealt with is one 'where the man had actually written a <i>kethubah</i> for her'."
,k89b_21:" The reason being that the man had expressly promised her in writing not only the statutory <i>kethubah</i> but also the additional jointure."
,k89b_22:" One hundred if she married as a widow, and two hundred if as a virgin."
,k89b_23:" I.e., the statutory <i>kethubah</i> only and nothing more."
,k89b_24:" That a woman who was widowed after her betrothal is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> (v. <i>supra</i> p. 567, n. 2)."
,k89b_25:" The reading elsewhere (cf. B.M. 18a, Sanh. 28b) is 'Ammi'."
,k89b_26:" Before the marriage took place."
,k89b_27:" A mourner during the period between the death and burial of certain relatives is called onan (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) and is subject to a number of restrictions. A priest whose betrothed wife died may, unlike one whose married wife died, partake of sacrificial meat or any other holy food."
,k89b_28:" If he is a priest."
,k89b_29:" Cf. Lev. XXI, 1ff."
,k89b_30:" She is allowed to partake of holy food."
,k89b_31:" Unlike a married wife whose duty it is to attend to the burial of her husband."
,k89b_32:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 10. The laws of defilement do not apply to women. Cf., however, <i>infra</i> n. 22."
,k89b_33:" Aliter; 'Nor may she defile herself for him', i.e., during a festival when not only priests but also Israelites and women are forbidden to attend on the corpses of those who are not their near relatives (v. R.H. 16b)."
,k89b_34:" Unlike a husband who is heir to his wife (v. B.B. 111b)."
,k89b_35:" Yeb. 29b, B.M. 18a."
,k89b_36:" Which is not obvious. And since the case where 'she deed' had to be stated, the one where 'he died', though self-evident, had, by way of contrast, also to be mentioned."
,k89b_37:" As soon as payment is made."
,k89b_38:" By using it as evidence that she had been legally divorced."
,k89b_39:" If the date of the first <i>kethubah</i> is earlier than that of the first divorce and that of the second <i>kethubah</i> is earlier than that of the second divorce."
,k89b_40:" Because it is assumed that after he had once divorced her the man had remarried her and then divorced her again. The kethubahs are consequently both due to her."
,k89b_41:" The dates of both kethubahs being earlier than that of the letter of divorce, so that both obviously refer to the same marriage."
,k89b_42:" I.e., the man married her after she had once been divorced by him, but did not write for her a second <i>kethubah</i> before he again divorced her."
,k89b_43:" If the order was marriage, divorce, remarriage, death."
,k89b_44:" I.e., that she should be entitled only to the first <i>kethubah</i>."
,k89b_45:" WHO PRODUCED TWO KETHUBAHS AND ONE LETTER OF DIVORCE."
,k89b_46:" Since our Mishnah does not specify which of the two kethubahs is to be used, the choice is evidently left to the woman."
,k89b_47:" I.e., either with the <i>kethubah</i> that bears the earlier, or with the one that bears the later date. Should she prefer to use that of the earlier date she would obviously be able to seize even such property as her husband had sold after the earlier, though prior to the later, date."
,k89b_48:" Signed by the same person and referring to the same transaction."
,k89b_49:" Sc. the date on the one is later than on the other."
,k89b_50:" <i>Supra</i> 44a; and the holder of the two bills is entitled to seize only such property as the defendant had sold subsequent to the later date. This then is in contradiction, is it not, to the ruling in out Mishnah which authorizes the woman (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 569, n. 11) to make use of her earlier <i>kethubah</i>?"
,k89b_51:" A seller or donor."
,k89b_52:" That was not included in the bill of the earlier date."
,k89b_53:" The second bill."
,k89b_54:" And not with the intention of annulling the first one."
,k89b_55:" Cf <i>supra</i> n. 7. Hence the ruling that the woman may collect payment with either of the two kethubahs. She may not collect, however, with both kethubahs unless the second document contained a specific insertion to the effect that it was the husband's desire that the second one shall form an addition to the first. In the absence of such an insertion the woman may collect either (a) the smaller amount contained in the first <i>kethubah</i> and enjoy the right of seizing all property her husband had sold since that date or (b) the bigger amount in the second <i>kethubah</i> and restrict her right of seizure to such property only as bad been sold after the second date. By the issue of a second <i>kethubah</i>, containing an addition to the first one without the specific insertion mentioned, a husband is assumed to have conferred upon his wife the right of choosing between the respective advantages and disadvantages of the two documents. Where the second <i>kethubah</i>, however, contains no addition at all, the latter document is assumed to have been intended as a cancellation of the first, since otherwise it need not have been issued, and seizure of property is restricted to the later date."
,k89b_56:" Claiming one <i>kethubah</i> as a divorcee from her first marriage and the other as a widow from her second marriage. >"
}

txt:
<p>
he is also entitled to plead, 'I have divorced her but I have already paid her the kethubah'.<a id="k89b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But since it was stated in the final clause, R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: SINCE THE TIME OF DANGER A WOMAN IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WITHOUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND A CREDITOR IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT [HIS DEBT] WITHOUT A <I>PROSBUL</I>, [it follows that] we are dealing with a case where witnesses to the divorce are present; for had no such witnesses been present whereby could she have collected [her <i>kethubah</i>]?<a id="k89b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The fact], however, is that the entire Mishnah represents the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but some clauses are missing, the correct reading being the following: NEED NOT BE PAID'. This applies only where no witnesses to the divorce are present, but if such witnesses are present she is entitled to collect her additional jointure. As to the statutory <i>kethubah</i>, if she produces her letter of divorce she may collect it, but if she does not produce her letter of divorce she may not collect it.<a id="k89b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Since the time of danger, however, a woman may collect her <i>kethubah</i> even if she does not produce her letter of divorce, for R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED; SINCE THE TIME OF DANGER A WOMAN IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WITHOUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND A CREDIT OR [IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HIS DEBT] WITHOUT A PROSBUL'.
</p><p>
	R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab; According to the ruling you have laid down that the statutory <i>kethubah</i> is collected by the letter of divorce, [the question arises,] whereby does a woman who was widowed after her marriage collect her <i>kethubah</i>? [Obviously] through the witnesses [who testify to the] death [of her husband]. Should we not, however, take into consideration the possibility that her husband might have divorced her and that she might subsequently<a id="k89b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; produce the letter of divorce<a id="k89b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and collect<a id="k89b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; with it also? &mdash; [A widow may collect her <i>kethubah</i> only] if she lived with her husband.<a id="k89b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it not possible that he might have divorced her near the time of his death?<a id="k89b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [In such a case] it is he<a id="k89b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; who has brought the loss upon himself.
</p><p>
	Whereby does a woman who was widowed after her betrothal collect her <i>kethubah</i>? [Obviously] by the witnesses [who testify to the man's] death. Should we not, however, take into consideration the possibility that the man might have divorced her and that she would subsequently produce her letter of divorce and collect with it also?<a id="k89b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This],<a id="k89b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; however, [is the explanation:]<a id="k89b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Where no other course is possible a quittance may be written.<a id="k89b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; For were you not to admit this [the objection might be raised even in respect of] the very witnesses [who testify to her husband's] death:<a id="k89b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The possibility should be considered that the woman might present [one pair of] witnesses to [her husband's] death before one court and so collect [her <i>kethubah</i>] and then present [another pair] before another court and collect it [again]. It must he obvious, therefore,<a id="k89b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; that where no other course is possible a quittance may be written.
</p><p>
	Said Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda to R. Ashi: Whence is it derived that a woman who was widowed after her betrothal is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k89b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If it be suggested [that it may he derived] from this passage: 'A woman who was widowed or divorced either after her betrothal or after her marriage is entitled to collect all<a id="k89b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [that is due to her]',<a id="k89b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is it not possible [it may be retorted that this applies to a case] where the man had written a <i>kethubah</i> for her? And were you to argue. 'If he has written one for her, what need was there to tell [such an obvious rule?' It could be retorted that it serves the purpose] of rejecting the view of R. Eleazar b. Azariah who maintained that 'the man wrote the [additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her'.<a id="k89b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The inference too [from the Mishnah cited leads to the same conclusion].<a id="k89b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; For it has been stated, '[She] is entitled to collect all [that is due to her]'. Now if you agree that [this is a case where] the man had written [a <i>kethubah</i>] for her one can well understand why she 'is entitled to collect all [that is due to her]'.<a id="k89b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If you submit, however, that the man did not write a <i>kethubah</i> for her, what [it may be objected is the justification for the expression.] 'is entitled to collect all', seeing that she is only entitled to one hundred or two hundred<a id="k89b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>zuz</i>?<a id="k89b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [Should it,] however, [be suggested that the law<a id="k89b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; may be derived] from that which R. Hiyya b. Abin<a id="k89b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; taught: 'In the case of a betrothed wife<a id="k89b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [a husband] is neither [subject to the laws of] onan<a id="k89b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may he<a id="k89b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; defile himself for her,<a id="k89b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and she likewise is not subject to the laws of the onan<a id="k89b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; nor is she<a id="k89b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; obliged<a id="k89b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; to defile herself for him;<a id="k89b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; if she died he<a id="k89b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; does not inherit from her though if he died she is entitled to collect the amount of her kethubah',<a id="k89b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is it not possible [it might be retorted that this refers only to a case] where the man had written a <i>kethubah</i> for her? And should you argue. 'If he had written one for her what need was there to state [such an obvious ruling?' It might be replied that] 'it was necessary [in order to inform us that if] she died he does not inherit from her'.<a id="k89b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said to R. Huna: According to Rab who laid down that a letter of divorce [enables a woman to] collect her statutory <i>kethubah</i>, is there no cause to apprehend that she might produce the letter of divorce at one court of law and collect her <i>kethubah</i> therewith and then again produce it at another court of law and collect therewith [a second time]? And should you reply that it might be torn up,<a id="k89b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; could she not [it may be retorted] demand, 'I need [it to be enabled] thereby<a id="k89b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; to marry again? &mdash; [What we do is,] we tear it up and endorse on the back of it: 'This letter of divorce has been torn by us, not because it is an invalid document but in order to prevent the woman from collecting therewith a second payments.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [A WOMAN WHO PRODUCED] TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE AND TWO KETHUBAHS MAY<a id="k89b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; COLLECT PAYMENT OF THE TWO KETHUBAHS.<a id="k89b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF SHE PRODUCES, HOWEVER.] TWO KETHUBAHS AND ONE LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k89b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; OR ONE <I>KETHUBAH</I> AND TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE,<a id="k89b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A <I>KETHUBAH</I>, A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND [EVIDENCE OF HER HUSBAND'S] DEATH,<a id="k89b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY COLLECT PAYMENT FOR ONE <I>KETHUBAH</I> ONLY, FOR ANY MAN WHO DIVORCES HIS WIFE AND THEN REMARRIES HER CONTRACTS HIS SECOND MARRIAGE ON THE CONDITION OF THE FIRST <I>KETHUBAH</I>.<a id="k89b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. If she desired it, she<a id="k89b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; could [evidently]<a id="k89b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; collect [payment of her <i>kethubah</i>] either with the one <i>kethubah</i> or with the other.<a id="k89b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; May it not then be argued that this ruling presents an objection against the ruling which R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel? For R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: Where two bills<a id="k89b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; are issued one after the other<a id="k89b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; the latter annuls the former!<a id="k89b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Has it not been stated in connection with this ruling that R. Papa said: 'R. Nahman in fact admits that if one<a id="k89b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; has added in the [second] bill one palm-tree<a id="k89b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is assumed that] he has written it<a id="k89b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; for the sake of that addition',<a id="k89b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; so also here [it is a case] where the husband has added something for her [in the second <i>kethubah</i>].<a id="k89b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If [a woman] produced a letter of divorce, a <i>kethubah</i> and [evidence of her husband's] death<a id="k89b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k91a_1:" The first Tanna."
,k91a_2:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k91a_3:" As in the case under dispute the surplus consisted of movables the first Tanna denies the sons of the first wife all rights to their mother's <i>kethubah</i>,"
,k91a_4:" R. Simeon,"
,k91a_5:" Hence his ruling that where there is a surplus (even if it consists of movables) the sons of the first wife, like those of the second, are entitled to the payment of their mother's <i>kethubah</i>,"
,k91a_6:" That R. Simeon regards movables also as a surplus."
,k91a_7:" Lit., 'property which has no security'."
,k91a_8:" As far as the calculation of a surplus is concerned,"
,k91a_9:" V. the Mishnah <i>infra</i>."
,k91a_10:" R. Simeon and the first Tanna."
,k91a_11:" The first Tanna,"
,k91a_12:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k91a_13:" R. Simeon."
,k91a_14:" That the Baraitha under discussion deals with a case where there is a surplus of one <i>denar</i> and that R. Simeon relaxes the ruling of the first Tanna by regarding that <i>denar</i> as surplus even if it represents mortgaged property."
,k91a_15:" The first Tanna."
,k91a_16:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k91a_17:" R. Simeon."
,k91a_18:" I.e., that in the opinion of the first Tanna the sons of the first wife are deprived of their mother's <i>Kethubah</i> (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 578, n. 7) only where there is no surplus at all, but if there is one, even if of less than a <i>denar</i>, they are entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>, while according to R. Simeon they are entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> only if the surplus amounts to a <i>denar</i> (so Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l. contrary to Rashi)."
,k91a_19:" <i>Infra</i>, who is in dispute with R. Simeon and who is identical with the first Tanna of the Baraitha (<i>supra</i> 90b) under discussion."
,k91a_20:" How' then can it be suggested (cf. <i>supra</i> note 4) that the first Tanna admits a surplus of less than a dear?"
,k91a_21:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4 mutatis mutandis. The first Tanna deprives the sons of the first wife of her <i>kethubah</i> only where there is no surplus at all but if there is one, even though it consists of movables or mortgaged property. they are to receive her <i>kethubah</i>, while R. Simeon allows them their mother's <i>kethubah</i> only where the <i>denar</i> surplus consists of landed and free property (cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H]). The previous objection against the expressions 'if' instead of 'since' (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 579' n. 16) does not arise since R. Simeon is more restrictive than the first Tanna."
,k91a_22:" That is paid to the heirs of the wife who bad survived her husband and whose <i>kethubah</i> has the status of a debt."
,k91a_23:" Lit., 'if there is a surplus of a <i>denar</i>, 'yes'; if not, 'not'. Hence one can well understand the necessity for the statement of the second law also."
,k91a_24:" Lit., 'and I would know'."
,k91a_25:" Since it is such a case only. where one <i>kethubah</i> has the status of a debt, that could give rise to this law. Where both wives died doting their husband's lifetime the sons of both have obviously equal rights of inheritance and the question of surplus to satisfy the Pentateuchal law of inheritance does not arise."
,k91a_26:" In respect of her father's estate. As her claim is restricted to bet mother's <i>kethubah</i> alone, not being entitled to a share in the residue of bet father's estate after her mother's <i>kethubah</i> had been paid. no quarrels between bet and the sons of the two other wives could possibly arise on that account. Hence it is lawful for the sons whose mother's <i>kethubah</i> was larger to collect their due by pointing to the sum paid to the daughter (in settlement of her mother's <i>kethubah</i> which has the status of a debt) as the surplus which satisfied the Pentateuchal law of inheritance."
,k91a_27:" Between that son and his brothers, all of whom have the same rights to their father's estate; v. <i>supra</i> p. 574. n. 8."
,k91a_28:" I.e., it might have been presumed that in order to obviate such a quarrel it may have been enacted that in such a case the second <i>kethubah</i> is not regarded as a surplus and all the sons share equally, after the payment of the second <i>kethubah</i>, the residue of their father's estate."
,k91a_29:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 580, n. 8."
,k91a_30:" The possibility of a quarrel does not affect the rights of the sons of the first wife."
,k91a_31:" Whose <i>kethubah</i> was for a larger sum than that of the other."
,k91a_32:" As heirs of their mother, by virtue of the 'male children' clause (v. Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 52b); while the other heirs demand a division in equal portions on the ground that, irrespective of their mother's 'male children' kethubahs, as sons of the deceased they are entitled to equal shares in his estate."
,k91a_33:" Lit., 'and there is not there but'."
,k91a_34:" So that, if their demand is complied with, the brothers would be receiving their respective shares of their mother's kethubahs in virtue of the 'male children' clause, thus allowing no scope for the operation of the Biblical law of succession."
,k91a_35:" As heirs of their father with equal rights to his estate."
,k91a_36:" After the two kethubahs had been paid."
,k91a_37:" So that the pentateuchal law of succession could be applied to it."
,k91a_38:" Lit., 'these &hellip; and these'."
,k91a_39:" And the residue of the estate (amounting to not less than one <i>denar</i>) is then divided between all the sons in equal portions."
,k91a_40:" V. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k91a_41:" Cf. <i>supra</i> notes 4-9 and text."
,k91a_42:" Lit., 'they do not listen to them'."
,k91a_43:" Lit., 'but'."
,k91a_44:" Lit., 'there were there'."
,k91a_45:" Such, for instance, as an expected inheritance from the orphan's grandfather who survived their father, or an outstanding debt of their father's which would fall due only at some time in the future."
,k91a_46:" The existing estate must accordingly be divided equally amongst all the sons of the deceased though the addition of the prospective property would have provided a surplus."
,k91a_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 579, n. 9."
,k91a_48:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 10."
,k91a_49:" Lit., 'to this',"
,k91a_50:" Lit., 'these &hellip; and these'."
,k91a_51:" At the time the father died,"
,k91a_52:" I.e., its value exceeded the total amount of the <i>kethubah</i> by not less than a <i>denar</i>,"
,k91a_53:" When it was valued at the court."
,k91a_54:" So that no surplus remained after deduction of the amounts of the kethubahs,"
,k91a_55:" At the moment of their father's death, when there was a surplus (v. <i>supra</i> note 4)."
,k91a_56:" The sons of the wife whose <i>kethubah</i> was for the larger amount are, therefore, entitled to the larger sum though at the time of the division of the property there was no longer any surplus."
,k91a_57:" V. <i>supra</i> notes 2-5. Are the sons who claim the larger <i>kethubah</i> now entitled to it as if the surplus had been available at the time of their father's death, or is a claim once lost never recoverable?"
,k91a_58:" Lit., 'go'."
,k91a_59:" The sons of the woman whose <i>kethubah</i> was for the larger amount,"
,k91a_60:" Metaph. He would place them under the ban. "
}

txt:
<p>
but they differ here on [the question whether it is necessary for the surplus] <i>denar</i> to consist of real estate. The one Master<a id="k91a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that only real estate is regarded as a surplus<a id="k91a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but not movables<a id="k91a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other Master<a id="k91a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that even movables [are regarded as surplus].<a id="k91a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But can you say so?<a id="k91a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Have we not learned, R. Simeon ruled: Even if there was movable property<a id="k91a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it is of no avail<a id="k91a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; unless there was landed property [of the Value of] one <i>denar</i> more than [the total amount of] the two kethubahs?<a id="k91a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The fact,] however, is that they<a id="k91a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; differ here on [the question whether] a <i>denar</i> of mortgaged property [is regarded as a surplus]. One Master<a id="k91a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that only free property constitutes a surplus<a id="k91a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but not mortgaged property, and the other Master<a id="k91a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that mortgaged property also [constitutes a surplus]. If so,<a id="k91a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [instead of stating,] 'R. Simeon ruled: If there is a surplus of one denar', should it not have been stated, 'Since there is a surplus of one denar'? &mdash; The fact, however, is that they<a id="k91a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on [the question whether a sum] less than a <i>denar</i> [constitutes a surplus]. One Master<a id="k91a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that only a <i>denar</i> constitutes a surplus<a id="k91a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but not a sum less than a <i>denar</i>, and the other Master<a id="k91a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that even less than a <i>denar</i> [constitutes a surplus]. But did not R. Simeon, however, say 'a denar'? And were you to reply. 'Reverse [their views]',<a id="k91a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; does not the first Tanna of the Mishnah<a id="k91a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be retorted] also speak of a <i>denar</i>?<a id="k91a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact, however, [is that we must follow] on the lines of the first two explanations. and reverse [the views].<a id="k91a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra stated in the name of R. Papa: The law [is that where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>, and that one <i>kethubah</i><a id="k91a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as the surplus over the other. [Now] granted that if we had been told that '[where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the "male children" kethubah', but had not been told that 'one <i>kethubah</i> is regarded as the surplus over the other' it might have been presumed [that the former law applied] Only where the surplus amounted to a <i>denar</i> but not otherwise.<a id="k91a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [Why,] however, could we [not have] been informed [of the second law only, viz., that] 'one <i>kethubah</i> is regarded as the surplus over the other', and it would have been self-evident,<a id="k91a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [would it not, that this ruling was] due to [the law that 'where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the "male children" kethubah'?<a id="k91a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If we were given the information in such a manner, [the law] might have been presumed [to apply to a case,] for instance, where a man had married three wives of whom two died during his lifetime and one after his death, and the last mentioned had given birth to a daughter who is not entitled to heirship.<a id="k91a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but [not to the case where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death and the latter had given birth to a son, [since in this case] the possibility of a quarrel<a id="k91a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; might have to be taken into consideration,<a id="k91a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we were taught [that even in this case one <i>kethubah</i><a id="k91a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as surplus over the other].<a id="k91a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES AND THEY DIED, AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE HIMSELF DIED, AND THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES]<a id="k91a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; CLAIM THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH<a id="k91a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [BUT THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED HUSBAND] IS ONLY ENOUGH<a id="k91a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE] TWO KETHUBAHS<a id="k91a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [ALL THE ORPHANS] RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES.<a id="k91a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THERE WAS A SURPLUS<a id="k91a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; OF [A MINIMUM OF] ONE DEN A R,<a id="k91a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; EACH GROUP OF SONS<a id="k91a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; RECEIVE THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> OF THEIR MOTHER.<a id="k91a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES]<a id="k91a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID, 'WE ARE OFFERING FOR OUR FATHER'S ESTATE ONE DEN AR MORE [THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE KETHUBAHS]', IN ORDER THAT THEY [MIGHT THEREBY BE ENABLED TO] TAKE THEIR MOTHER'S <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k91a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED<a id="k91a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; AND<a id="k91a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; THE ESTATE IS [PROPERLY] VALUED AT THE <I>BETH DIN</I>. IF THE ESTATE INCLUDED<a id="k91a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; PROSPECTIVE PROPERTY,<a id="k91a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS NOT [REGARDED] AS [PROPERTY HELD] IN ACTUAL POSSESSION.<a id="k91a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF THERE WAS MOVABLE PROPERTY<a id="k91a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS OF NO AVAIL<a id="k91a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; UNLESS THERE WAS LANDED PROPERTY [WORTH] ONE <I>DENAR</I> MORE THAN [ THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF] THE TWO KETHUBAHS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: If one wife had<a id="k91a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; [a <i>kethubah</i> for] a thousand [<i>zuz</i>] and the other for five hundred, each group of sons<a id="k91a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; receive the <i>kethubah</i> of their mother provided a surplus of one <i>denar</i> was available; otherwise, they must divide the estate in equal proportions.
</p><p>
	It is obvious [that if<a id="k91a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; the estate was] large<a id="k91a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and<a id="k91a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; it depreciated,<a id="k91a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; the heirs have already<a id="k91a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; acquired ownership thereof.<a id="k91a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; What, [however, is the ruling where the estate was] small and it appreciated?<a id="k91a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear the case of the estate of the house of Bar Zarzur which was small and it appreciated, and when [the heirs] came [with their suit] before R. Amram he said to them, 'It is your duty<a id="k91a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; to satisfy them'.<a id="k91a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; As they disregarded [his ruling] he said to them, 'If you will not satisfy them I will chastise you with a thorn that causes no blood to flow'.<a id="k91a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon he sent them to R. Nahman, who said to them 'Just as [in the case where an estate was] large and it depreciated
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k91b_1:" Whose mother's <i>kethubah</i> was for the smaller amount."
,k91b_2:" At the moment their father died, when there was 110 surplus."
,k91b_3:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 8 mutatis mutandis,"
,k91b_4:" The words or phrases of the mnemonic correspond to striking terms in the successive rulings that follow,"
,k91b_5:" To one person after he had incurred his debt."
,k91b_6:" The sum which the seller owed him,"
,k91b_7:" I.e., 'give up both mansions',"
,k91b_8:" As the offer of the orphans is rejected on account of its excessive nature, so is the purchaser's demand of the excessive valuation of the one mansion also to be rejected."
,k91b_9:" Our Mishnah."
,k91b_10:" The sons of the woman whose <i>kethubah</i> was for the lesser amount."
,k91b_11:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to seize'), a document issued by a court of law to a claimant (e.g.. a creditor, or a purchaser on whom, as in this case, the seller's creditor has distrained) who is unable to collect his due from the defendant (in this case, the seller), authorizing him to trace his property (including any land the defendant may have sold after the liability in question had been incurred by him) for the purpose of seizing it eventually in payment of his claim."
,k91b_12:" Lit., 'do we write'. Where the creditor was willing to accept the one mansion from the purchaser in settlement of his claim of one thousand <i>zuz</i>, is it for the five hundred <i>zuz</i> which the purchaser has actually lost, or is it for the one thousand <i>zuz</i>, the amount of the debt he has settled?"
,k91b_13:" The sum which the seller owed him."
,k91b_14:" I.e., return both plots."
,k91b_15:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 584. nn. 5-9 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k91b_16:" Though such a duty cannot be enforced by a court of law."
,k91b_17:" As a mark of respect for his memory."
,k91b_18:" Since a debtor's landed property is pledged for his debts."
,k91b_19:" The creditor, when they paid him the first fifty <i>zuz</i>."
,k91b_20:" Thus pointing out that the money was not intended as a payment of the debt."
,k91b_21:" He cannot again seize the land which is now the absolute property of the orphans."
,k91b_22:" Whose mother married again after his father's death."
,k91b_23:" During her second husband's lifetime."
,k91b_24:" [H] (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 542, n. 4). A very small price only would be paid for such a <i>kethubah</i>, the purchase of which must be in the nature of a mere speculation, since the mother might die during the lifetime of her husband who would inherit it or the son might pre-decease his mother and never come Into Its possession. in both of which eases the purchaser would lose all he paid."
,k91b_25:" Lit., 'I will not come to your rescue' (rt. [H] in Pa. 'to free, save, rescue separate by force'). i.e., he accepted no responsibility whatsoever for the safety of the money advanced."
,k91b_26:" As the heir of his mother."
,k91b_27:" Contending that as he had accepted no responsibility he may now, like his mother, himself object to the sale and thus procure the amount of the <i>kethubah</i> for himself."
,k91b_28:" The son."
,k91b_29:" Of course he did. Though he may well cancel the sale on the ground that it was invalid because it had taken place before he (the seller) was in possession of the inheritance (cf. B.M. 16a), he must nevertheless refund to the buyer the full price he had received whatever it may have been. (For an alternative interpretation v. Rashi a.l., second explanation. and cf. Tosaf s.v. [H] a.l.)."
,k91b_30:" The names of the first two sons of Jacob (cf. Gen. XXIX, 32f) are taken as fictitious names for 'seller' and 'buyer' respectively."
,k91b_31:" For compensation in ease of distraint by a creditor. "
}

txt:
<p>
the heirs have already acquired ownership thereof, so [also where the estate was] small and it appreciated the other heirs<a id="k91b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; have already<a id="k91b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; acquired ownership thereof.<a id="k91b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic:<a id="k91b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; A thousand and a hundred duty in a <i>kethubah</i>, Jacob put up his fields by words [of] claimants.) A man against whom there was a claim of a thousand <i>zuz</i> had two mansions each of which he sold<a id="k91b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for five hundred <i>zuz</i>. The creditor thereupon came and distrained on one of them and then he was going to distrain on the other. [Whereupon the purchaser] took one thousand <i>zuz</i>, and went to [the creditor] and said to him, 'If [the one mansion] is worth to you one thousand <i>zuz</i>, well and good; but if not, take your thousand<a id="k91b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>zuz</i> and go'.<a id="k91b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rami b. Hama [in dealing with the question] proposed that this case was exactly analogous to that in our Mishnah: IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES] SAID, 'WE ARE OFFERING FOR OUR FATHER'S ESTATE ONE <I>DENAR</I> MORE'.<a id="k91b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But Raba said to him, 'Are the two cases at all alike? There<a id="k91b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the orphans<a id="k91b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; would be suffering a loss, but here, does the creditor suffer any loss? He only advanced a thousand <i>zuz</i> and a thousand <i>zuz</i> he receives
</p><p>
	And for what amount is the tirpa<a id="k91b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; made out?<a id="k91b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabina said: For a thousand <i>zuz</i>. R. 'Awira said: For five hundred. And the law is [that the tirpa is made out] for five hundred.
</p><p>
	A certain man against whom someone had a claim for a hundred <i>zuz</i> had two small plots of land each of which he sold<a id="k91b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for fifty <i>zuz</i>. His creditor came and distrained on one of them and then he came again to distrain on the other. [The purchaser. thereupon.] took a hundred <i>zuz</i> and went to him and said, 'If [one of the plots] is worth a hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k91b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to you. well and good; but if not, take the one hundred <i>zuz</i> and go'.<a id="k91b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph [in considering the question] proposed to say that this was a case exactly analogous to that in our Mishnah: IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES] SAID<a id="k91b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. But Abaye said to him, 'Are the two cases at all alike? There the orphans would have suffered a loss, but here, what loss would [the creditor] have? He lent a hundred and receives a hundred'.
</p><p>
	For what amount is the tirpa made out? &mdash; Rabina said: For a hundred. R. 'Awira said: For fifty. And the law is [that it is made out] for fifty. 
</p><p>
	A certain man against whom there was a claim for a hundred <i>zuz</i> died and left a small plot of land that was worth fifty <i>zuz</i>. As his creditor came and distrained on it the orphans went to him and handed to him fifty <i>zuz</i>. Thereupon he distrained on it again. When they came [with this action] before Abaye. he said to them, 'It is a moral duty incumbent upon orphans<a id="k91b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to pay the debt of their father.<a id="k91b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; With the first payment you have performed a moral duty. and now that he has seized [the land again] his action is perfectly lawful',<a id="k91b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; This ruling. however, applies only in the case where [the orphans] did not tell him,<a id="k91b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'These fifty <i>zuz</i> are for the price of the small plot of land', but if they did tell him, 'these fifty <i>zuz</i> are for the price of the small plot of land',<a id="k91b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; they have thereby entirely dismissed him,<a id="k91b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man<a id="k91b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; once sold the <i>kethubah</i> of his mother<a id="k91b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for a goodwill [price]<a id="k91b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and said to [the buyer], 'If mother comes and raises objections I shall not pay you any compensation'.<a id="k91b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; His mother then died having raised no objections. but he himself<a id="k91b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; came and objected.<a id="k91b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Rami b. Hama [in discussing the case] proposed to decide that he<a id="k91b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; takes the place of his mother. Raba, however, said to him: Granted that he did not accept any responsibility for her action, did he not accept responsibility for his own action either?<a id="k91b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama stated: If Reuben<a id="k91b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; sold a field to Simeon<a id="k91b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; without a guarantee<a id="k91b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and Simeon then re-sold it to Reuben with a guarantee
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k92a_1:" By virtue of a bond the date of which was antecedent to that of the first sale."
,k92a_2:" Reuben."
,k92a_3:" As if Reuben had not been the original seller. As simeon, who guaranteed compensation. would have to fulfil his obligation in the ease of any other buyer he incurs the same liability towards Reuben who, not having given any guarantee for his sale has the same status as any other buyer. [H] rt. [H] cf. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k92a_4:" Proceeding from his own creditors."
,k92a_5:" The answer is obviously in the negative. Simeon is undoubtedly exempt from all such claims."
,k92a_6:" Sc. his father (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 586, n' 7)."
,k92a_7:" I.e., any other person (v. <i>loc. cit</i>.)."
,k92a_8:" Reuben,"
,k92a_9:" Lit., 'and rescue him from him' (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 586, n. 2)."
,k92a_10:" I.e., as if Jacob had been a stranger and the creditor had no claim against Reuben's father but against the man from whom Reuben had bought the field. Since the claim of the creditor is not against Reuben himself the claim against his father does not affect his right if he once sold the field without guarantee and Simeon resold it to him with a guarantee."
,k92a_11:" Lit., 'put up', 'established'."
,k92a_12:" I.e., instead of paying in cash Simeon gave him a note of Indebtedness,"
,k92a_13:" Lit., zuzim, money', i.e., the amount of the loan which he owed to Reuben's heirs."
,k92a_14:" Viz., the amount of the debt,"
,k92a_15:" Nor to the buyer who has been deprived by him of the field. Having paid a claim for which the orphans were not responsible, he must suffer the loss himself,"
,k92a_16:" The buyer from whom the orphans now claim the price of the land which he owes,"
,k92a_17:" The orphans."
,k92a_18:" By virtue of the responsibility which their father, as seller, had undertaken towards him, as buyer. Since the land comes into their possession by virtue of the debt they inherited from their father, it is deemed to be an inheritance which may be seized by a buyer whose purchase had been distrained on by their father's creditor."
,k92a_19:" Which was owing to him."
,k92a_20:" Who lent money to their father,"
,k92a_21:" As if the land had been a direct inheritance from their father, although their acquisition of it took place after his death (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 13) as a result of the creditor's inability to meet his obligation."
,k92a_22:" MS.M. reads, 'Raba', and this is also the reading in the parallel passage in B.K. 8b."
,k92a_23:" By one deed of sale (v. <i>infra</i> n. 4)."
,k92a_24:" Claiming payment of the debt,"
,k92a_25:" Lit.,'if he wishes he collects from this and if he wishes he etc.', i.e., either from Simeon or from Levi. Where, however, the fields were sold by Reuben under more than one deed (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2) his creditor cannot distrain on Levi unless the field the latter had bought was the last one that Reuben had sold to Simeon. If it was not the last, Levi may refuse payment on the ground that, even after Simeon had bought that field, Reuben was still in possession of sufficient property to meet his creditor's claim, and that no creditor can distrain on property sold while free property remained in the debtor's possession."
,k92a_26:" The creditor who is entitled to recover his debt from the medium quality of the debtor's free, or sold property."
,k92a_27:" That the creditor might have no legal claim upon it,"
,k92a_28:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5'"
,k92a_29:" With Simeon. "
}

txt:
<p>
and Reuben's creditor<a id="k92a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; came and seized it from him, the law is that Simeon must proceed to offer him<a id="k92a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; compensation.<a id="k92a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, said to him: Granted that [Simeon] had accepted responsibility for general claims,<a id="k92a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; did he also accept responsibility for [claims against Reuben] himself?<a id="k92a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba admits, however, that where Reuben inherited a field from Jacob<a id="k92a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and sold it to Simeon<a id="k92a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; without a guarantee and Simeon then re-sold It to Reuben with a guarantee. whereupon Jacob's creditor came and seized it from him, the law is that Simeon must proceed to offer him<a id="k92a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; compensation.<a id="k92a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; Jacob's creditor is regarded as any other creditor.<a id="k92a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama [further] stated: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon with a guarantee and allowed [the price of the field] to stand<a id="k92a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; as a loan,<a id="k92a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and when Reuben died, and his creditor came to seize it from Simeon, [the latter] satisfied him by [refunding to him the] amount,<a id="k92a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the law is that Reuben's children can tell him, '[As far as] we [are concerned,] our father has left movables<a id="k92a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; with you. and the movables of orphans are not pledged to a creditor.'<a id="k92a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba remarked: If the other<a id="k92a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is clever he gives them<a id="k92a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; a plot of land in settlement of the debt and then he collects it from them,<a id="k92a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance [with a ruling of] R. Nahman who stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu: If orphans collected a plot of land for their father's debt,<a id="k92a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; a creditor<a id="k92a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may in turn collect it from them.<a id="k92a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah<a id="k92a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; stated: If Reuben sold all his fields<a id="k92a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; to Simeon who In turn sold one field [of these] to Levi, and then Reuben's creditor appeared,<a id="k92a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [the latter] may collect either from the one or from the other.<a id="k92a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; This law, however, applies only where [Levi] had bought [land of] medium quality, but if he bought either the best or the worst he may tell him,<a id="k92a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It is for this reason<a id="k92a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; that I have taken the trouble [to buy the best or the worst because either is] land which is not available for you'.<a id="k92a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; And even [when he bought] medium quality the law is applicable only where [Levi] did not leave<a id="k92a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; medium quality of a similar nature
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k92b_1:" The creditor."
,k92b_2:" Lit., 'place'."
,k92b_3:" [H] Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 586, n. 2."
,k92b_4:" Since he was distraining against Simeon and not against him who, as an uninterested party, has no right to be a pleader in the lawsuit (cf. B.K. 70a)."
,k92b_5:" 'Hence I am an interested party'."
,k92b_6:" By Reuben to Simeon."
,k92b_7:" That the creditor cannot say to Reuben, 'You are no party to me'."
,k92b_8:" The creditor,"
,k92b_9:" Reuben. >"
}

txt:
<p>
but if he did leave medium quality of a similar nature he may lawfully tell him,<a id="k92b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have left for you ample land<a id="k92b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; from which to collect [your debt]'.
</p><p>
	Abaye stated: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon with a guarantee and a creditor of Reuben's came to distrain on it the law is that Reuben may proceed to litigate<a id="k92b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; with that creditor and [the latter] cannot say to him, 'You are no party to me'<a id="k92b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; for [the other can] retort, 'For whatever you will take away from him he will turn to me [to claim compensation]'<a id="k92b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say: Even where no guarantee was given<a id="k92b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the same law<a id="k92b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; applies, since [Reuben] may say to him,<a id="k92b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I do not like Simeon to have any grievance against me
</p><p>
	Abaye [further] stated: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon without a guarantee and there appeared against him<a id="k92b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k93a_1:" [H] 'contestants' (v. Rashi). Others: 'disputes' (cf. Jast. s.v, [H])."
,k93a_2:" Aliter: 'Protests against the tithe were issued' (v. fast. <i>loc. cit</i>.)."
,k93a_3:" Simeon."
,k93a_4:" If he has not yet paid for it."
,k93a_5:" And so legally acquired it. Legal acquisition may be effected before the price of the land had been paid, the price becoming a debt due to the seller."
,k93a_6:" Despite the disputes involved."
,k93a_7:" Rashi (B.K. 9a): A bag full of wind."
,k93a_8:" I.e.'you made a purchase without proper investigation and you must bear the unpleasant consequences."
,k93a_9:" The buyer."
,k93a_10:" Of the field, to level them (v. Rashi B.M. 14b)."
,k93a_11:" That the buyer may not withdraw after he had taken possession."
,k93a_12:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 584, n. 8."
,k93a_13:" I.e., before the court has authorized the distraint the buyer has no right to cancel the sale on the ground that he is troubled by claimants, Only when the court has given its decision in favour of the claimants, and the land was actually taken away from him, has he the right to call upon the seller for compensation."
,k93a_14:" Lit., 'this',"
,k93a_15:" A hundred <i>zuz</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k93a_16:" And the three contracts bore the same date, If they bear different dates the collection of any earlier <i>kethubah</i> takes precedence over the later one."
,k93a_17:" Lit., 'there was'."
,k93a_18:" A hundred <i>zuz</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k93a_19:" Since the three women have equal claims upon that <i>maneh</i>, the smallest <i>kethubah</i> being for no less than one <i>maneh</i>."
,k93a_20:" Lit., 'there was'."
,k93a_21:" This will be discussed in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k93a_22:" I.e., seventy-five <i>zuz</i>. A gold <i>denar</i> twenty-five silver <i>denarii</i> or <i>zuz</i> (v. B.M. 45b). The two women take equal shares in the two hundred <i>zuz</i> since the <i>kethubah</i> of either is for no less a sum and the money available is equally pledged to both."
,k93a_23:" Lit., 'there was',"
,k93a_24:" So that the first <i>maneh</i> is pledged to all the three women (cf. <i>supra</i> note 2). the second to the claimants of the two hundred and the three hundred respectively, while the third <i>maneh</i> is only pledged to the claimant of the three hundred."
,k93a_25:" V. <i>supra</i> note 4'"
,k93a_26:" One hundred and fifty us."
,k93a_27:" Lit., 'who put into a bag' sc. for trading purposes."
,k93a_28:" In proportion to the amounts contributed."
,k93a_29:" I.e., a third of the first <i>maneh</i>, since she has no claim at all upon the second <i>maneh</i>,"
,k93a_30:" Which is legally pledged to her. In that <i>maneh</i> she has only one rival claimant in the person of the woman whose <i>kethubah</i> is for three hundred, The <i>maneh</i> is consequently to be divided between the two only."
,k93a_31:" That the holder of the <i>kethubah</i> for the two hundred us has renounced her claim upon the first <i>maneh</i>,"
,k93a_32:" The claimant of the three hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k93a_33:" The holder of the <i>kethubah</i> for the two hundred."
,k93a_34:" Lit., 'you have removed yourself from'."
,k93a_35:" 'As far as the claimant of the <i>maneh</i> was concerned but not my legal right to a share in it', i.e., she only undertook to abstain from litigation with the claimant of the <i>maneh</i> in order to enable her thereby to obtain a half of that sum, but she had not renounced her right to a share in that <i>maneh</i> should she ever wish to assert it against the third wife, the holder of the <i>kethubah</i> for the three hundred us. She is, therefore, entitled, as far as the balance of that <i>maneh</i> is concerned, to claim a share equal to that of the third wife, which, together with her share in the second <i>maneh</i>, amounts to (50/2 + 100/2) seventy-five us or three gold <i>denarii</i>,"
,k93a_36:" Who, as stated above, has renounced fifty <i>zuz</i> of the first <i>maneh</i>."
,k93a_37:" I.e., a half of the balance of fifty of the first <i>maneh</i> and a half of the second <i>maneh</i> amounting to a total of (50/2 + 100/2 = 25 + 50) seventy-five <i>zuz</i>. The third <i>maneh</i> upon which she has no claim at all (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 590. n. 7) must, of course, be excluded from the calculations of her share."
,k93a_38:" While the woman whose <i>kethubah</i> was for two hundred us did not renounce any of her rights in favour of the holder of the <i>kethubah</i> for the one <i>maneh</i>. The first <i>maneh</i> is consequently divided between these two, the second <i>maneh</i> between the second and the third woman while the third <i>maneh</i> is given to the third woman only."
,k93a_39:" Lit., 'the river of Pekod', a town east of Nehardea, or a district in S.E. Babylon. Pekod is mentioned in Jer. L, 21 and Ezek. XXIII, 23."
,k93a_40:" l.e., the women collected the amounts mentioned in two instalments, the second of which was not available when the first was collected."
,k93a_41:" Lit., 'fell'."
,k93a_42:" Lit., 'one'."
,k93a_43:" Since each woman had a claim upon this sum the three divide it between them in equal shares, each one receiving twenty-five <i>zuz</i>."
,k93a_44:" The first one, having already received twenty-five <i>zuz</i>, now claims no more than seventy-five <i>zuz</i>, and since her claim to the seventy-five <i>zuz</i> is legally equal to the claims of the other two women the sum is equally divided between them and she receives a third of it, or twenty-five <i>zuz</i>, bringing up her total collection to <small>FIFTY ZUZ</small>. The second woman who has a claim upon the full balance of a hundred <i>zuz</i> divides the sum with the third woman each receiving fifty <i>zuz</i> which, added to the twenty-five <i>zuz</i> each received of the first <i>maneh</i>, amounts to a total of seventy-five <i>zuz</i>, or <small>THREE GOLD DENARII</small>."
,k93a_45:" Seventy-five us of these, as in the previous case (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4), is equally divided between the three women thus allowing a total of <small>FIFTY ZUZ</small> for the first woman. The second one who also received twenty-five <i>zuz</i> at the first division and who still claims a balance of two hundred minus twenty-five = one hundred and seventy-five <i>zuz</i> receives twenty-five <i>zuz</i> as her share in the seventy-five <i>zuz</i> mentioned and another fifty <i>zuz</i> which is her share in the <i>maneh</i> that is equally divided between her and the third woman, thus receiving a total of twenty-five plus twenty-five plus fifty = a hundred <i>zuz</i> or a <small>MANEH</small>. The balance of fifty <i>zuz</i> now remaining is given to the third woman who thus receives a total of twenty-five plus twenty-five plus fifty plus fifty = one hundred and fifty = six <small>GOLD DENARII</small>."
,k93a_46:" The part of our Mishnah which deals with the eases of the three women."
,k93a_47:" R. Judah the Patriarch or Prince, compiler of the Mishnah."
,k93a_48:" Lit., 'see'."
,k93a_49:" Lit., 'but'."
,k93a_50:" Despite the difference in the amounts of their respective kethubahs."
,k93a_51:" The estate being equally pledged to all the three, the woman who claims the smallest amount has no less a right to it than the women who claim the bigger amounts have a right to theirs. Only in the case of contributors to a common fund are profits and losses to be divided in proportion to the respective amounts contributed."
,k93a_52:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 590, n. 10. "
}

txt:
<p>
claimants<a id="k93a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [disputing his title to the field]<a id="k93a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k93a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; may withdraw before he has taken possession of it,<a id="k93a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but after he had taken possession of it<a id="k93a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he may no longer withdraw,<a id="k93a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; because [Reuben] can say to him,<a id="k93a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You have agreed to a bag sealed with knots<a id="k93a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and you got it'.<a id="k93a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And from what moment is possession considered to have been effected? &mdash; As soon as he<a id="k93a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; sets his foot upon the landmarks.<a id="k93a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say: Even [If the sale was made] with a guarantee the same law<a id="k93a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; applies. since [the seller] might say to him, 'Produce the tirpa<a id="k93a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [that was issued against] you and I shall pay you'.<a id="k93a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO THREE WIVES DIED, AND THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> OF ONE<a id="k93a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS A <I>MANEH</I>,<a id="k93a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; OF THE OTHER<a id="k93a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>, AND OF THE THIRD<a id="k93a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; THREE HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k93a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE ESTATE<a id="k93a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [WAS WORTH] ONLY ONE <I>MANEH</I><a id="k93a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE SUM] IS DIVIDED EQUALLY.<a id="k93a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE ESTATE<a id="k93a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [WAS WORTH] TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE <I>MANEH</I> RECEIVES FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k93a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND THE CLAIMANTS RESPECTIVELY] OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THE THREE HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> [RECEIVE EACH] THREE GOLD <I>DENARII</I>.<a id="k93a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE ESTATE<a id="k93a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>,<a id="k93a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE <I>MANEH</I> RECEIVES FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k93a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> [RECEIVES] A <I>MANEH</I><a id="k93a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE THREE HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> [RECEIVES] SIX GOLD <I>DENARII</I>.<a id="k93a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; SIMILARLY, IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO A JOINT FUND<a id="k93a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEY HAD MADE A LOSS OR A PROFIT THEY SHARE IN THE SAME MANNER.<a id="k93a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE <I>MANEH</I> RECEIVES FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I>. Should she not be entitled to thirty-three and a third <i>zuz</i> only?<a id="k93a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel replied: [Here it is a case] where the one who is entitled to the two hundred <i>zuz</i> gave a written undertaking to the woman who was entitled to one <i>maneh</i>, 'I have no claim whatsoever upon the maneh'.<a id="k93a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; But if so,<a id="k93a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; read the next clause: [THE CLAIMANTS RESPECTIVELY] OF THE TWO HUNDRED, AND THE THREE HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> [RECEIVE EACH] THREE GOLD <I>DENARII</I>, [why, it may be objected, could she<a id="k93a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; not] tell her,<a id="k93a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You have already renounced your claim upon<a id="k93a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; it'? &mdash; Because she can reply. 'I have only renounced my claim'.<a id="k93a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE ESTATE [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED etc. [Why should THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k93a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; RECEIVE A <I>MANEH</I> [when in fact] she should be entitled to seventy-five <i>zuz</i> only?<a id="k93a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel replied: [Our Mishnah refers to a case] where the woman who was entitled to the three hundred <i>zuz</i> gave a written undertaking to the one who was entitled to the two hundred <i>zuz</i> and the other who was entitled to a <i>maneh</i>, 'I have no claim whatsoever upon you in respect of one maneh'.<a id="k93a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod<a id="k93a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; replied in the name of Rabina: The first clause deals with two acts of seizure<a id="k93a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; and the final clause deals with two acts of seizure.<a id="k93a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The first clause deals with two acts of seizure' viz. seventy-five <i>zuz</i> came into their hands<a id="k93a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; the first<a id="k93a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; time<a id="k93a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; and one hundred and twenty-five the second<a id="k93a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; time.<a id="k93a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The final clause deals with two acts of seizure, viz., seventy-five came into their hands<a id="k93a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; the first<a id="k93a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; time<a id="k93a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; and two hundred and twenty-five the second<a id="k93a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; time.<a id="k93a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: This<a id="k93a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is the teaching of R. Nathan. Rabbi,<a id="k93a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; however, said, 'I do not approve<a id="k93a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Nathan's views in these [cases]<a id="k93a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; for<a id="k93a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; [the three wives]<a id="k93a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; take equal shares'.<a id="k93a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>
</p><p>
	SIMILARLY IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED. Samuel ruled: If two persons contributed to a joint fund,<a id="k93a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; one of them a <i>maneh</i>, and the other two hundred <i>zuz</i>,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k93b_1:" Lit., 'for the middle'."
,k93b_2:" With the joint capital."
,k93b_3:" Lit., 'stands'."
,k93b_4:" So that the share of one partner in the ox is as essential as that of the other, the animal being useless for work unless it is whole."
,k93b_5:" And much more so if it was purchased for slaughter. (Cf. <i>infra</i> note 7.)"
,k93b_6:" Its value in flesh having in the meantime increased."
,k93b_7:" Lit., 'this &hellip; this'."
,k93b_8:" Since the carcase can be well divided. The original intention to use the animal for ploughing only (cf. <i>supra</i> note 3) does not alter the fact that in the end it was used for the purpose which admitted of division."
,k93b_9:" V. <i>supra</i> nn. 3 and 7'"
,k93b_10:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4 mutatis mutandis."
,k93b_11:" Lit., 'for the middle'."
,k93b_12:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 590 n. 10."
,k93b_13:" Tosef. Keth. X."
,k93b_14:" One party having bought more expensive and, therefore, much stronger animals than the other."
,k93b_15:" Tosef. I.e.; since stronger animals are capable of more work."
,k93b_16:" Spoken of in the first clause, where the two men bought an ox jointly."
,k93b_17:" That profits are equally divided."
,k93b_18:" Lit., 'thus also'."
,k93b_19:" That profits are equally divided."
,k93b_20:" Which is in contradiction to Samuel's ruling (Rashi). <i>Aliter</i>: Since it is self-evident that profits on an ox that was both bought and used for slaughter are to be divided proportionally, this ruling, being superfluous in such a case, must refer to that of an ox that was originally bought for ploughing and was only subsequently used for slaughter. Thus an objection arises against R. Hamnuna (v. Tosaf, s.v. [H] a.l.)."
,k93b_21:" The older currency which the men originally invested being worth more than the new currency. so that the profit in the terms of the new currency was not made on any business transactions but on the actual coins. Since then it is the original investments that are returned to their owners the return must be in proportion to the respective original investments. Any profit, however, that is the result of business transactions is equally divided, (V. Rashi. Cf., however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.)"
,k93b_22:" A coin (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k93b_23:" As a cure. I.e., coins that have been withdrawn from circulation and, having lost their monetary value, are of no more use than a piece of metal. Such a loss (cf. <i>supra</i> note 4) must be borne by the two men in proportion. A trading loss, however, is, as Samuel ruled, to be equally divided."
,k93b_24:" I.e., the woman whose <i>kethubah</i> bears the earliest date."
,k93b_25:" In respect of her claim to her <i>kethubah</i>,"
,k93b_26:" That she had received no payments from her husband, on account of her <i>kethubah</i>, prior to his death,"
,k93b_27:" Who might lose all her <i>kethubah</i> should no balance remain after the first had collected her due,"
,k93b_28:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4 mutatis mutandis,"
,k93b_29:" If the orphans are of age. In the ease of orphans who are still in their minority no one may exact payment from them except with an oath; v. <i>supra</i> 87a."
,k93b_30:" The fourth."
,k93b_31:" Provided the hour had been entered in the document."
,k93b_32:" Lit., 'and there is not there',"
,k93b_33:" Ben Nannus and the first Tanna. "
}

txt:
<p>
the profit is to be equally divided.<a id="k93b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah said: It stands to reason [that Samuel's ruling applies] where an ox [was purchased]<a id="k93b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for ploughing and Was used<a id="k93b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for ploughing.<a id="k93b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Where, however, an ox [was purchased] for ploughing<a id="k93b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and was used<a id="k93b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for slaughter<a id="k93b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; each of the Partners<a id="k93b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; receives a share in proportion to his capital.<a id="k93b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hamnuna, however, ruled: Where an ox [was bought] for ploughing,<a id="k93b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; even if it was used<a id="k93b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for slaughter<a id="k93b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the profit must be equally divided.<a id="k93b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: If two persons contributed to a joint fund,<a id="k93b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; one of them a <i>maneh</i>, and the other, two hundred <i>zuz</i>, the profit is to be equally divided.<a id="k93b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not this refer to an ox [bought] for ploughing and used<a id="k93b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for slaughter, and [thus presenting] an objection against Rabbah? &mdash; No, it refers to an ox that was bought for ploughing and was used for ploughing.<a id="k93b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, [is the law where] an ox [was bought] for ploughing and used<a id="k93b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for killing? Does each partner<a id="k93b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [in such a case] receive a share in proportion to his capital? Then instead of stating in the final clause, 'If one man had bought [some oxen] out of his own money and the other [had bought some] out of his own money<a id="k93b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and the animals were mixed up, each partner<a id="k93b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; receives a share in proportion to his capital',<a id="k93b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; could not a distinction have been made in the very same case,<a id="k93b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [thus:] 'This<a id="k93b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for ploughing, but where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for slaughter each partner receives a share in proportion to his capital'? &mdash; It is this, in fact, that<a id="k93b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; was implied: 'This<a id="k93b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for ploughing. but where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for slaughter' the law is the same as 'if one man had bought [some oxen] out of his own money and the other [had bought some] out of his own money, and the animals were mixed up [in which case] each party receives a share in proportion to his capital'.
</p><p>
	We learned: SIMILARLY IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO A JOINT FUND AND THEY MADE A LOSS OR A PROFIT THEY SHARE IN THE SAME MANNER. Does not 'THEY MADE A LOSS mean that they made a loss on their actual transaction, and A PROFIT' that they made a profit on their actual transaction?<a id="k93b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: No; they made 'A PROFIT' [owing to the issue of] new coins<a id="k93b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and THEY MADE A LOSS' [by the deterioration of a coin into] an istira<a id="k93b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; that was only suitable for application to a bunion.<a id="k93b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO FOUR WIVES DIED, HIS FIRST WIFE<a id="k93b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; TAKES PRECEDENCE<a id="k93b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; OVER THE SECOND, THE SECOND TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE THIRD AND THE THIRD OVER THE FOURTH. THE FIRST MUST TAKE AN OATH<a id="k93b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [IN ORDER TO GIVE SATISFACTION] TO THE SECOND,<a id="k93b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SECOND TO THE THIRD,<a id="k93b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE THIRD TO THE FOURTH,<a id="k93b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE THE FOURTH RECOVERS PAYMENT WITHOUT AN OATH.<a id="k93b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; BEN NANNUS SAID: SHOULD SHE<a id="k93b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; HAVE THE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE SHE IS THE LAST? SHE ALSO MAY NOT EXACT PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH, IF ALL [KETHUBAHS] WERE ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY THEN THE WOMAN [WHOSE <I>KETHUBAH</I>] PRECEDED THAT OF THE OTHER, EVEN IF ONLY BY ONE HOUR,<a id="k93b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; GAINS [THE FIRST RIGHT]. AND SO IT WAS THE CUSTOM IN JERUSALEM TO INSERT THE HOURS [IN SUCH DOCUMENTS]. IF ALL KETHUBAHS WERE ISSUED AT THE SAME HOUR AND THE ESTATE IS WORTH NO MORE<a id="k93b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; THAN A <I>MANEH</I> [THE WOMEN] RECEIVE EQUAL. SHARES.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. On what principle do they<a id="k93b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; differ? &mdash; Samuel replied:
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k94a_1:" Which the first three women had taken in payment of their respective kethubahs."
,k94a_2:" I.e., it was found that the deceased husband had taken it by violence from a person who might appear at any moment to claim it, and any one of the three wives, that might thus be deprived of her field, would ultimately proceed 10 make her claim against the field that had been reserved for the fourth wife."
,k94a_3:" In arguing the question whether the fourth woman may be asked by one of the other women to take an oath that she had not already collected her <i>kethubah</i> during the lifetime of their husband,"
,k94a_4:" And the creditor who holds the earlier-dated bond may consequently distrain on that property. Similarly in the case of the <i>kethubah</i> spoken of in our Mishnah, as that of the fourth woman bears the latest date, any of the other women, being in the position of earlier creditor, may distrain on her field wherever she is deprived of the field that had been allotted to her. And since the fourth may thus be deprived of her field by any of the others at any time there is no need to make sure of her claim by the imposition of an oath, and she, consequently, RECEIVES PAYMENT WITHOUT AN OATH."
,k94a_5:" As the fourth woman (cf. <i>supra</i> note I) could not consequently be deprived of her field once it has been allotted to her SHE ALSO MAY NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT EXCEPT UNDER AN OATH."
,k94a_6:" Ben Nannus and the first Tanna."
,k94a_7:" Against the claims of an earlier creditor,"
,k94a_8:" Ben Nannus."
,k94a_9:" The fourth woman."
,k94a_10:" That has been allotted to her."
,k94a_11:" If no oath were imposed upon her she would realize that her tenure of the property may only be temporary and would consequently exploit it to the full and neglect its amelioration. Hence the ruling that she also must take an oath before she receives payment."
,k94a_12:" In the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 87a and Shebu. 45a: From orphans' property she cannot recover payment except on oath. (Cf. Mishnah Git, 48b: Payment from orphans can be received only from the poorest land)."
,k94a_13:" Who require greater protection."
,k94a_14:" Cf. Git. 50a, Shebu. 47b."
,k94a_15:" Who exempts the fourth woman from the oath."
,k94a_16:" Our Mishnah does not refer to the particular case which Samuel mentioned and the oath is imposed upon the fourth woman as a protection of the orphans and not vis-_-vis the other women,"
,k94a_17:" In connection with their joint ownership."
,k94a_18:" Lit., 'one'."
,k94a_19:" And lost his case."
,k94a_20:" Brother or partner."
,k94a_21:" The third party."
,k94a_22:" And so demand a new trial on his share."
,k94a_23:" Lit., 'but'."
,k94a_24:" Lit., 'he did his mission'."
,k94a_25:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 383, n. 7'"
,k94a_26:" Dealt with by R. Huna."
,k94a_27:" For exempting the first from taking an oath vis-_-vis the third."
,k94a_28:" Lit., 'not?'"
,k94a_29:" Lit., 'there', that is our Mishnah."
,k94a_30:" Once the woman has declared on oath that her husband had not paid her <i>kethubah</i>, her claim to it is established irrespective of the number of women who plead that she may have been paid by her husband."
,k94a_31:" Lit., 'here'."
,k94a_32:" The brother or partner who was not present at the trial."
,k94a_33:" Which would have enabled him to win his case. Our Mishnah, therefore, provides no answer to the enquiry addressed to R. Nahman."
,k94a_34:" That the plea, 'Had I been present etc.' is admissible."
,k94a_35:" To court,"
,k94a_36:" Of a sale or a gift relating to the same property."
,k94a_37:" Lit., 'coming forth in one day'."
,k94a_38:" As the hour at which a deed was executed was not usually entered (except in Jerusalem) it cannot be determined which of the deeds is the earlier and which is the later document."
,k94a_39:" I.e., the property of the donor or seller respectively which the holders of the deeds claim."
,k94a_40:" [H], v. <i>supra</i> p. 541. n. 12. The judges are empowered to give their decision in favour of the claimant who in their opinion deserves it (so Rashi and R. <i>Tam</i>, Tosaf. B.B. 350 s.v [H[) According to Rashb. (B.B. <i>loc. cit</i>.) the judges estimate which of the two claimants the seller or donor was more likely to favour. This may also be the opinion of Rashi (cf. <i>infra</i> 94b s.v. [H] ad fin)."
,k94a_41:" Git. 3b. Lit., 'the witnesses of the signature cut (the marriage union)'. In the ease of a deed, too. the validity should begin on the date the signatures were attached. And since the two deeds bear the same date and no hours are specified (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 597, n. 22) the two should have the same force and there can be no other alternative but that of dividing the property equally between the two claimants. >"
}

txt:
<p>
[Their dispute relates to a case,] for instance, where It was found that one of the fields<a id="k94a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; did not belong to him,<a id="k94a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; their point of difference<a id="k94a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; being the question [of the legality of the action] of a creditor of a later date who forestalled [one of an earlier date] and distrained [on the debtor's property]. The first Tanna holds that such distraint has no legal validity,<a id="k94a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and Ben Nannus holds that whatever he distrained on is legally his,<a id="k94a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: Both<a id="k94a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that the distraint [of a creditor of a later date] has no legal validity,<a id="k94a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but here they differ on the question whether provision is to be made against the possibility that [the fourth woman might] allow the ground to deteriorate. One Master<a id="k94a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that provision is to be made against the possibility that she<a id="k94a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; might allow the ground<a id="k94a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; to deteriorate,<a id="k94a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other Master is of the opinion that no provision need be made against such a possibility. Abaye replied: The difference between them<a id="k94a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is the ruling of Abaye the Elder who stated: The 'orphans' spoken of<a id="k94a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; are grown-ups and there is no need to say that minors<a id="k94a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [are included].<a id="k94a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The first Tanna<a id="k94a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; does not hold the view of Abaye the Elder while Ben Nannus upholds it.<a id="k94a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna stated: If two brothers or two partners had a lawsuit<a id="k94a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; against a third party<a id="k94a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and one of them went with that person to law,<a id="k94a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the other<a id="k94a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot say to him,<a id="k94a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You are not my party'<a id="k94a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; because<a id="k94a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [the one who went to law] acted on his behalf also.<a id="k94a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman once visited Sura<a id="k94a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and was asked what the law was in such a case.<a id="k94a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: This is [a case that has been stated in] our Mishnah: THE FIRST MUST TAKE AN OATH [IN ORDER TO GIVE SATISFACTION] TO THE SECOND, THE SECOND TO THE THIRD AND THE THIRD TO THE FOURTH, but it was not stated, 'the first to the third'. Now, what could be the reason?<a id="k94a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously<a id="k94a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; because [the second] has acted on her behalf also. 
</p><p>
	But are [the two cases] alike? In the latter,<a id="k94a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; an oath for one person is the same as an oath for a hundred,<a id="k94a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but in this case<a id="k94a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k94a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; might well plead, 'Had I been present I would have submitted more convincing arguments'.<a id="k94a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; This,<a id="k94a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; however, applies only when he<a id="k94a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; was not In town [when the action was tried] but if he was in town [his plea is disregarded, since if he had any valid arguments] he ought to have come.<a id="k94a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: If two deeds<a id="k94a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; bearing the same date<a id="k94a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [are presented in court,<a id="k94a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; the property in question],<a id="k94a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab ruled, should be divided [between the two claimants], and Samuel ruled: [The case is to be decided at] the discretion of the judges.<a id="k94a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Must it be assumed that Rab follows the view Of R. Meir who holds that the signatures of the witnesses make [a Get] effective,<a id="k94a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k94b_1:" Cit. 9b. The date of the signatures is immaterial. Since, therefore, it is possible that the donor or seller has delivered the one deed before he delivered the other, the judges must use their discretion in deciding which of the two claimants was the more likely to have been favoured by the deceased."
,k94b_2:" L.it., 'all the world', Rab and Samuel."
,k94b_3:" Since his ruling is the accepted law (cf. Cit. 86b)."
,k94b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> p 597' nn. 20-23."
,k94b_5:" Who maintained that it is left to the discretion of the judges to decide which of the claimants is to receive the property in dispute."
,k94b_6:" Lit., 'this according to whom?'"
,k94b_7:" Since Samuel has Tannaitic authority for his view he may well differ from R. Meir."
,k94b_8:" The Baraitha, the first clause of which has been quoted."
,k94b_9:" The seller or donor."
,k94b_10:" To whom, however, he did not deliver it until a later date (v. <i>infra</i> n. 7)."
,k94b_11:" Not the delivery of the document."
,k94b_12:" And since the first deed was signed before the other, the holder of that deed should have acquired possession despite the fact that it was delivered to him after the second deed had been delivered to the other man. The Baraitha must consequently represent the view of R. Eleazar who, as is evident from the first clause, also upholds the ruling that the property in dispute must he divided, How then, in opposition to two Tannaim, could Samuel (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 598' n. 7) maintain his view?"
,k94b_13:" The point in dispute between Rab and Samuel,"
,k94b_14:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k94b_15:" Which a man sent through an agent to a certain person who, however, died before the agent could deliver It to him (v. Cit, 14b)."
,k94b_16:" If on returning the agent found that the sender also had died,"
,k94b_17:" Between the heirs of the sender and the heirs of the payee."
,k94b_18:" In Babylon."
,k94b_19:" [H] lit., 'the third party', I.e., the agent through whom the money was sent. The parallel passage (Git. 14b) reads, [H] 'the messenger. Colds, suggests that [H] which was an abbreviation for [H] was here wrongly read [H]."
,k94b_20:" A ruling which is based on the same principle as that of Samuel's in respect of the judges. The ruling of the Sages is followed by Rab while that adopted by the Rabbis in Babylon is followed by Samuel,"
,k94b_21:" Cf. B.B. 151a where an incident involving the same characters is recorded. The circumstances, however, are not exactly identical and the arguments involve totally different principles. The two records (v. Tosaf. [H]) obviously deal with two different incidents."
,k94b_22:" And it was not known to which of the two the deed was delivered first."
,k94b_23:" In the morning, while that of his brother was written in the evening."
,k94b_24:" Of course not. Since in Babylon no hours were entered in deeds it is obvious that, in accordance with the usage of the place. if two deeds were written on the same day no preference is to be given to one because it was written a few hours earlier than the other, Rami, therefore, can claim no preference over Mar 'Ukba."
,k94b_25:" Since both deeds have the same force the property should have been equally divided between Rami and Mar 'Ukba. Why was it all confirmed in the possession of the latter?"
,k94b_26:" I.e..following the ruling of R. Eleazar that it is the witnesses to the delivery that render a deed effective, he estimated that it was Mar 'Ukba, for whom his mother had been known to have had greater affection, to whom his deed had been delivered first."
,k94b_27:" And since his decision was given first, R. Nahman should not have reversed it by relying merely on his own discretion,"
,k94b_28:" Appointed by the Exilarch and the academy (Rashi)."
,k94b_29:" He did not at first contend that he treated the case as one that was dependent on the discretion of the judges but submitted that Rami was entitled to the property because his deed was written first. As this submission was erroneous, since outside Jerusalem no hours were entered in deeds and the case was not tried in Jerusalem but in Babylon, his decision could well be reversed."
,k94b_30:" Both relating to the same field that was sold under a guarantee for indemnification."
,k94b_31:" Lit., 'written'."
,k94b_32:" The first civil month in the Hebrew calendar corresponding to March-April."
,k94b_33:" Lit., 'son of'."
,k94b_34:" I.e., the last day of the month. Hence the priority of the claim of the holder of the presumably earlier deed. "
}

txt:
<p>
and that Samuel follows the view of R. Eleazar who holds that the witnesses to the delivery [Of a Get] make it effective?<a id="k94b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, all<a id="k94b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; follow the view of R. Eleazar,<a id="k94b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is the following Principle on which they differ here. Rab is of the opinion that a division [between the claimants] is preferable and Samuel holds that [leaving the decision to] the discretion Of the judges is prefer. able. But can you maintain that Rab follows the view Of R. Eleazar? Surely, Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eleazar in matters Of divorce' [and he added.] 'When I mentioned this in Samuel's presence he said: "Also in the case of other deeds". Does not this then imply that Rab is of the opinion that in the case Of deeds [the <i>halachah</i> is] not [in agreement with R. Eleazar]?' Clearly. Rab follows the view Of R. Meir and Samuel that of R. Eleazar.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: 'If two deeds<a id="k94b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; bearing the same date [are produced in court, the property In question] is to be divided. Is not this an objection against Samuel?<a id="k94b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel can answer you: This represents the view of<a id="k94b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir but I follow the view of R. Eleazar.<a id="k94b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But if this<a id="k94b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; represents the view of R. Meir, read the final clause: 'If he<a id="k94b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; wrote [a deed] for one man<a id="k94b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [and then he wrote a deed for,] and delivered it to another man, the one to whom he delivered [the deed] acquires legal possession'. Now if [this<a id="k94b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; represents the view of] R. Meir why does he acquire possession? Did he not, in fact, lay down that the signatures of the witnesses<a id="k94b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; make [a Get] effective?<a id="k94b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This<a id="k94b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [is a question which is also in dispute between] Tannaim.<a id="k94b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: And the Sages say [that the money]<a id="k94b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; must<a id="k94b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; be divided,<a id="k94b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; while here<a id="k94b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it was ruled that the trustee<a id="k94b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; shall use his own discretion.<a id="k94b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The mother of Rami b. Hama<a id="k94b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; gave her property in writing to Rami b. Hama in the morning, but in the evening she gave it in writing to Mar 'Ukba b. Hama.<a id="k94b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Rami b. Hama came before R. Shesheth who confirmed him in the possession of the property. Mar 'Ukba then appeared before R. Nahman who Similarly confirmed him in the possession of the property. R. Shesheth, thereupon, came to R. Nahman and said to him, 'What is the reason that the Master has acted in this way?' 'And what is the reason', the other retorted, 'that the Master has acted in that way?' 'Because', the former replied, '[Rami's deed was written] first',<a id="k94b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Are we then', the other retorted, 'living in Jerusalem where the hours are inserted [in deeds]?'<a id="k94b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Then why [the former asked] did the Master act in this way?'<a id="k94b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; '[I treated it,] the other retorted, [as a case to be decided] at the discretion of the judges'.<a id="k94b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I too'' the first said, '[treated the case as one to be decided at] the discretion of the judges',<a id="k94b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; 'In the first place' the other retorted, 'I am a judge<a id="k94b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Master is no judge, and furthermore, you did not at first come with this argument',<a id="k94b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Two deeds [of sale]<a id="k94b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; were once presented before R. Joseph, one being dated,<a id="k94b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'On the fifth of Nisan',<a id="k94b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other was vaguely dated, 'In Nisan'. R. Joseph confirmed the [holder of the deed which had the entry,] 'fifth of Nisan' in the possession of the property. 'And I', said the other, 'must lose?' 'You', he replied, 'are at a disadvantage, since it may be suggested that your deed was one that was written<a id="k94b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; on the twenty-ninth of Nisan'<a id="k94b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Will, then, the Master', the other asked, 'write for me
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k96a_1:" So MS.M. reading [H] Cur. edd. omit the daleth."
,k96a_2:" Alfasi and Asheri omitting. 'R. Zera stated' read 'Samuel stated'."
,k96a_3:" Our Mishnah representing the view of the men of Judaea, Samuel's ruling might be applied to a widow who (v. <i>supra</i> note 7) was not maintained by the orphans."
,k96a_4:" In agreement with the men of Galilee who allow' the orphans no alternative."
,k96a_5:" In view of the fact that they must always maintain the widow as a husband must always maintain his wife."
,k96a_6:" Lit., 'husband'."
,k96a_7:" Lit., 'here', Sc. the case referred to by Samuel."
,k96a_8:" I.e., the widow."
,k96a_9:" As Samuel, however, ruled that it belongs to herself it must be concluded that the reading in our Mishnah is, 'one who is maintained'."
,k96a_10:" In our Mishnah."
,k96a_11:" Lit., 'what',"
,k96a_12:" [H] 'enmity'."
,k96a_13:" The orphans who are legally bound to maintain her."
,k96a_14:" It is only the handiwork of the widow that belongs to the orphans, in return for the maintenance she receives from them, as the handiwork of a wife, for a similar reason, belongs 10 her husband."
,k96a_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 59b."
,k96a_16:" Lit., 'mixing (the drink in his) cup'. Rt. [H] to mix with water (to weaken its strength) or spices."
,k96a_17:" These are intimate services to which a husband only is entitled."
,k96a_18:" Lit., 'loosening', 'undoing'."
,k96a_19:" Only a Canaanite slave performs this menial service, and a student performing it might be mistaken for such a slave,"
,k96a_20:" That a student should not assist his teacher in taking off his shoes."
,k96a_21:" The student."
,k96a_22:" Lit., 'we have nothing against it'."
,k96a_23:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> As slaves also do not wear tefillin (v Git. 40a), his status might well be mistaken."
,k96a_24:" [H], rt. [H] 'to melt'."
,k96a_25:" Sc. the student one teaches."
,k96a_26:" Job VI, 14. The previous verse speaks of help which is homiletically applied to that of the student to his teacher. R.V. renders v. 14. To him that is ready to faint kindness should be shewed from his friend. 'Should be shewed' is changed by A.J.V. to 'is due'."
,k96a_27:" Lit., 'breaks off'."
,k96a_28:" Job VI, 14; E.V., <i>Even to him that forsaketh</i> etc. [Personal attendance on scholars constitutes in itself a good education in righteous conduct and fear of the Almighty, v. Bet. 7b."
,k96a_29:" Whose maintenance may be distrained for on landed property only (v. <i>supra</i> 69b)."
,k96a_30:" <i>Ex post facto</i>."
,k96a_31:" Lit., what she seized she seized'."
,k96a_32:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k96a_33:" From the estate of her deceased husband."
,k96a_34:" [H] Gr. [G], a bag made up of two pouches."
,k96a_35:" For her maintenance."
,k96a_36:" That the seizure of movables by a widow is <i>ex post facto</i> valid."
,k96a_37:" Lit., 'who delayed'."
,k96a_38:" Lit., 'and not'."
,k96a_39:" Lit., 'here'."
,k96a_40:" Who is able to live for a considerable time on her own means. Such a woman cannot be assumed to have surrendered her right to maintenance before a period of three years had elapsed."
,k96a_41:" Who is too shy to litigate or to go to court. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2 second clause."
,k96a_42:" The loss of maintenance."
,k96a_43:" For the time that has passed."
,k96a_44:" To the widow."
,k96a_45:" For the ensuing year. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Come and hear what<a id="k96a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera stated in the name of Samuel:<a id="k96a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The find of a widow belongs to herself'. Now if you grant that what we learnt was, one who is maintained' [this ruling is] quite justified,<a id="k96a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but if you insist that what we learnt was 'is to be maintained'<a id="k96a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [why,<a id="k96a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; it might be objected, should they not] have the same rights as a husband, and just as in the latter case<a id="k96a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; a wife's find belongs to her husband, so it, the former case<a id="k96a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; also the find of the woman<a id="k96a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; should belong to the heirs?<a id="k96a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; I may still insist that what we have learnt<a id="k96a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was 'is to be maintained'; for the reason why<a id="k96a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis have ordained that the find of a wife belonged to her husband is in order that he shall bear no grudge<a id="k96a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; against her, but as regards these<a id="k96a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; let them bear the grudge.<a id="k96a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jose b. Hanina ruled: All manner of work which a wife must render to her husband<a id="k96a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; a widow must render to the orphans, with the exception of serving one's drinks,<a id="k96a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; making ready one's bed and washing one's face, hands or feet.<a id="k96a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: All manner of service that a slave must render to his master a student must render to his teacher, except that of taking off his<a id="k96a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; shoe.<a id="k96a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba explained: This ruling<a id="k96a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to a place where he<a id="k96a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is not known, but where he is known there can be no objection.<a id="k96a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Even where he<a id="k96a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is not known the ruling<a id="k96a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only where he does not put on tefillin<a id="k96a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but where he puts on tefillin, he may well perform such a service.<a id="k96a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan. A man who deprives his student of [the privilege of] attending on him acts as if he had deprived him of [an act of] kindness, for it is said in Scripture, To him that deprives<a id="k96a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; his friend<a id="k96a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; of kindness.<a id="k96a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He also deprives<a id="k96a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; him of the fear of heaven, for it is said in Scripture, And he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty.<a id="k96a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar ruled: If a widow<a id="k96a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; seized movables [to provide] for her maintenance, her act is<a id="k96a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; valid.<a id="k96a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; So it was also taught: If a widow seized movables [to provide] for her maintenance, her act is<a id="k96a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; valid.<a id="k96a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; And so R. Dimi, when he came,<a id="k96a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; related: It once happened that the daughter-in-law of R. Shabbethai seized<a id="k96a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; a saddle bag<a id="k96a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; that was full of money,<a id="k96a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sages had no power to take it out of her possession.
</p><p>
	Rabina ruled: This<a id="k96a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to maintenance but [movables seized] in payment of a <i>kethubah</i> may be taken away from her. Mar son of R. Ashi demurred: Wherein [is the case of seizure] for a <i>kethubah</i> different [from the other]? Is it because [the former may be distrained for] on landed property and not on movables, may not maintenance also, [it may be objected, be distrained] on landed property and not on movables? The fact, however, is that as in respect of maintenance seizure<a id="k96a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; is valid,<a id="k96a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; so it is also valid in respect of a <i>kethubah</i>.
</p><p>
	Said R. Isaac b. Naphtali to Rabina: Thus, in agreement with your view, it has also been stated in the name of Raba. R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: A widow who allowed two or three years to pass<a id="k96a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; before<a id="k96a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; she claimed maintenance loses her maintenance. Now [that it has been said that] she loses [her maintenance after] two years, was it necessary [to mention also] three? &mdash; This is no difficulty; the lesser number<a id="k96a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a poor woman while the bigger one<a id="k96a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a rich woman;<a id="k96a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; or else: The former<a id="k96a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a bold woman and the latter<a id="k96a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; to a modest woman.<a id="k96a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba ruled: This<a id="k96a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to a retrospective claim,<a id="k96a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of the future she is entitled [to maintenance].
</p><p>
	R. Johanan enquired: If the orphans plead, 'We have already paid<a id="k96a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [the cost of maintenance<a id="k96a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; in advance]', and she retorts, 'I did not receive it', who must produce the proof?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k96b_1:" Who are his legal heirs."
,k96b_2:" To whom it is pledged in accordance with an enactment of the Rabbis."
,k96b_3:" That they have paid her in advance."
,k96b_4:" Since the estate is pledged to her (v. <i>supra</i> n. 9)."
,k96b_5:" And claims the cost of her maintenance for the time past."
,k96b_6:" Having married she loses the security of her Former husband's estate."
,k96b_7:" The question of the presumptive ownership of the deceased man's estate."
,k96b_8:" Lit., 'as', 'like'."
,k96b_9:" A widow."
,k96b_10:" In the deeds of sale."
,k96b_11:" A widow."
,k96b_12:" Whether it was maintenance or <i>kethubah</i>."
,k96b_13:" Lit., 'her power is beautiful', as will be explained anon."
,k96b_14:" R. Judah and R. Jose."
,k96b_15:" Lit., 'what not'?"
,k96b_16:" In the deeds of sale."
,k96b_17:" Whether it was maintenance or <i>kethubah</i>."
,k96b_18:" That she has not been paid the cost of maintenance. Hence it is to her advantage that the purpose of the sale should be specified. Should she fail to do so, the orphans, when she comes to claim her <i>kethubah</i> from them, might refuse payment on the ground that her sale had the purpose of recouping her for her <i>kethubah</i>. Her alternative plea, 'If so, pay me for my maintenance' could be met by the counter plea that they had already Paid for it in movables, a plea which, when coming from orphans, the court must accept."
,k96b_19:" A specification of the purpose, therefore, would bring no advantage to her. Its omission, on the other hand, might well prove advantageous in the case where the deceased man's estate was completely consumed by the orphans and the widow had recourse to distraining on landed property which he sold during his lifetime. Submitting that her own sales had the purpose of providing for her maintenance she may legally distrain on such property which is pledged for her <i>kethubah</i>. Had she, however, specified that her sales had the purpose of recovering her <i>kethubah</i> she could no longer distrain on her husband's sold property which (v. Git. 48b) is not pledged for her maintenance."
,k96b_20:" The conclusion of R. Shimi."
,k96b_21:" That the widow had already received the allowance for her maintenance."
,k96b_22:" In ruling that the widow should specify the purpose for which her sales are made."
,k96b_23:" Lit., 'that they shall not call'."
,k96b_24:" Were she to omit from the deed of sale the mention of her <i>kethubah</i> people might assume that all the proceeds of her sales were spent on her maintenance alone. As a reputed glutton her chances of a second marriage would be diminished (v. Rashi)."
,k96b_25:" Lit., 'say so', that R. Judah in his ruling is merely tendering advice."
,k96b_26:" Lit., 'that'."
,k96b_27:" 'Who must produce the proof' (<i>supra</i> 96a ad fin.)."
,k96b_28:" <i>Infra</i> 97b."
,k96b_29:" Of course it could. The reason for the requirement of a specification of the purpose of the sale that underlies R. Judah's ruling in the Baraitha should obviously hold good for the similar ruling in the Mishnah. If the reason in the former is that the estate remains in the presumptive possession of the orphans, the same reason would apply to the latter. And since a Mishnah, unlike a Baraitha, must be known to all students, R. Johanan's question would easily have been answered."
,k96b_30:" Since the question had to be solved from Levi's Baraitha."
,k96b_31:" Lit., 'but'."
,k96b_32:" But the presumptive possession of the estate is that of the widow."
,k96b_33:" In the Baraitha."
,k96b_34:" R. Judah and R. Jose."
,k96b_35:" For the ruling that the purpose of the sale need not be specified in the deed."
,k96b_36:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 8. [H] lit., 'simile'."
,k96b_37:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k96b_38:" Cf. B.B. 138b. "
}

txt:
<p>
Is the estate [of the deceased man] in the presumptive possession of the orphans<a id="k96b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and consequently it is the widow who must produce the proof, or is the estate rather in the presumptive possession of the widow<a id="k96b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the proof must be produced by the orphans? Come and hear what Levi taught: [In a dispute on the maintenance of] a widow, the orphans must produce the proof<a id="k96b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; so long as she is unmarried,<a id="k96b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but if she was married<a id="k96b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the proof must be produced by her.<a id="k96b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shimi b. Ashi said: [This point<a id="k96b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is a matter in dispute between] the following<a id="k96b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Tannaim: She<a id="k96b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; may sell [portions of her deceased husband's estate] but should specify in writing,<a id="k96b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'These I have sold for maintenance,' and 'These I have sold for the kethubah' [as the case may be]; so R. Judah. R. Jose, however, ruled: She<a id="k96b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; may sell [such portions] and need not specify the purpose<a id="k96b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in writing, for in this manner she gains an advantage.<a id="k96b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k96b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; thus apparently<a id="k96b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the following point: R. Judah, who ruled that it is necessary to specify<a id="k96b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the purpose,<a id="k96b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that the [deceased man's] estate is in the presumptive possession of the orphans and that it is the widow who must produce the proof,<a id="k96b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst R. Jose, who ruled that it was not necessary to specify the purpose, upholds the view that the estate is in the presumptive possession of the widow and that it is the orphans who must produce the proof.<a id="k96b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence [is this<a id="k96b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; made so obvious]? It is quite possible that all<a id="k96b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that the [deceased man's] estate is in the presumptive possession of his widow and that the orphans must produce the proof,<a id="k96b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Judah<a id="k96b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is merely tendering good advice [by following which the widow] would prevent people from calling<a id="k96b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; her a glutton.<a id="k96b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; For were you not to admit this,<a id="k96b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; could not the question<a id="k96b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; raised by R. Johanan<a id="k96b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; be answered from the Mishnah:<a id="k96b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; She may sell [her deceased husband's estate] for her maintenance out of court but should enter [in the deed of sale,] 'I have sold these for maintenance'?<a id="k96b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently<a id="k96b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; It must be concluded<a id="k96b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; that no deduction may be made from the Mishnah<a id="k96b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; because therein only good advice was tendered;<a id="k96b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and so also here<a id="k96b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may similarly be submitted that R. Judah] was only tendering good advice.<a id="k96b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Or else: All<a id="k96b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; may agree that the estate [of the deceased] is in the presumptive possession of the orphans, but R. Jose's reason<a id="k96b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is exactly the same as [that given by] Abaye the Elder who stated: To what may the ruling<a id="k96b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Jose be compared? To [the instructions of] a dying man who said, 'Give two hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k96b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; to So-and-so, my creditor,<a id="k96b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; who may take them, if he wishes, in settlement of his debt or, if he prefers, he may take then, as a gift',
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k97a_1:" A debt may be distrained for on sold property, but a gift may not. Similarly with the widow, by omitting, in agreement with the ruling of R. Jose, the specification of the purpose of her sales, she retains the right to distrain on her deceased husband's sold property by advancing the plea that her own sales had been made for the purpose of her maintenance (which cannot, of course, be distrained for on such property) and that she was now seeking to recover her <i>kethubah</i> to which such property is pledged. To protect herself against the plea of the orphans that her <i>kethubah</i> also was paid out of her sales, she might arrange for witnesses to he present when the sales for her maintenance take place and when she makes a verbal declaration to that effect."
,k97a_2:" [H], so MS.M. Cur. edd. omit the word."
,k97a_3:" Sufficient to Provide for her maintenance during all that period."
,k97a_4:" He must not pay the full price in one instalment in order that he may be enabled, should the widow marry before she receives all the instalments, to hand over the balance to the orphans."
,k97a_5:" Portions of her deceased husband's estate."
,k97a_6:" Lit.,'as if to say'."
,k97a_7:" On the very land she has sold."
,k97a_8:" To reimburse herself for her maintenance or <i>kethubah</i>, but guaranteeing indemnity to the buyer."
,k97a_9:" Since it is they who are responsible for the widow's <i>kethubah</i> and maintenance."
,k97a_10:" <i>Infra</i> 100a."
,k97a_11:" Though she herself had sold it; and refer the buyers to the orphans."
,k97a_12:" When she proceeds to distrain on the land she sold them."
,k97a_13:" Lit., 'of the world', sc. if other claimants distrained on the land."
,k97a_14:" And, consequently. she is not allowed to distrain on such property."
,k97a_15:" To provide for her maintenance."
,k97a_16:" Portions of her deceased husband's estate."
,k97a_17:" Since according to this ruling the widow must have recourse to the residue."
,k97a_18:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k97a_19:" But sold all of it."
,k97a_20:" Collect her <i>kethubah</i> by distraining on the lands she sold."
,k97a_21:" The author of the Baraitha, in ruling that a portion of the estate corresponding to the value of the <i>kethubah</i> must remain unsold."
,k97a_22:" Lit., 'retractor'. Legally. however, she may well distrain on the property of such buyers."
,k97a_23:" If the ruling was in the nature of advice."
,k97a_24:" For the sole reason that he needed money for some specific purpose."
,k97a_25:" Since he no longer needed the money."
,k97a_26:" On the ground of being a sale made in error."
,k97a_27:" Owing to the fact that at the time of the sale the seller was still in need of money."
,k97a_28:" [H] lit., 'within the line of the law', i.e., he surrendered his legal right for the sake of benefiting a fellow man; v. B.K. Sonc. ed. p. 584, n. 2."
,k97a_29:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 222, n. 8."
,k97a_30:" To use the proceeds for the purchase of wheat."
,k97a_31:" And prices fell so that the sellers of the mansions were no longer in need of the money."
,k97a_32:" That carried the grain."
,k97a_33:" At the time the sales were effected."
,k97a_34:" Sheltering until the subsidence of the high water. Had these sellers been aware of the fact that the ship was so near they would never have thought of selling their mansions. Such sales may, therefore, be regarded as sales in error, which may be withdrawn. The question under discussion, however, refers to a seller who was actually in need of money when his sale was effected (v. p. 616, n. 16) and whose release came only after the sale."
,k97a_35:" That the reason for R. Nahman's ruling was that the ship was already in the bays at the time the sales were arranged. So according to Rashb. (v. Tosaf. s. v. [H], a.l.) contra Rashi who takes this argument to he in support of the reason given for R. Nahman's ruling."
,k97a_36:" The sellers."
,k97a_37:" Because they will not be able to find buyers."
,k97a_38:" Granted the frequency of dearth at Nehardea, the detention of the provision ships in the bays is obviously of no common occurrence. Consequently it must be concluded that R. Nahman's reason for the cancellation of the sales was not because 'the ship was in the bays' but because the sellers, though in need of money when the sales were arranged, had no need of the money subsequently, such cases being of frequent occurrence."
,k97a_39:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 616, n. 13."
,k97a_40:" When her claim is restricted to that of her <i>kethubah</i> only (v. our Mishnah <i>infra</i>)."
,k97a_41:" When she claims also maintenance."
,k97a_42:" For her maintenance."
,k97a_43:" Since she cannot be expected to starve until <i>Beth din</i> find time to deal with her case."
,k97a_44:" To SELL &hellip; WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF <I>BETH DIN</I>."
,k97a_45:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
who, if he takes them as a gift, has not the same advantage [as if he had taken them for his debt].<a id="k97a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In what manner does [a widow] sell [her deceased husband's property] for her maintenance?<a id="k97a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Daniel son of R. Kattina replied in the name of R. Huna: She sells [portions of it] once in twelve months<a id="k97a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and the buyer supplies her maintenance [in instalments]<a id="k97a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; once every thirty days. Rab Judah, however, stated: She sells once in six months and the buyer provides her maintenance [in instalments] once every thirty days.
</p><p>
	It was taught in agreement with R. Huna: [A widow] sells<a id="k97a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; once in twelve months and the buyer supplies her maintenance [in instalments] once every thirty days. It was also taught in agreement with Rab Judah: [A widow] sells once in six months and the buyer provides her maintenance [in instalments] once every thirty days.
</p><p>
	Amemar said: The law is that [a widow] sells [sufficient land to suffice her] for six months and the buyer provides her maintenance [in instalments] once every thirty days. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: What [about the ruling] of R. Huna? &mdash; 'I', the other replied, 'have not heard of it', by which he meant,<a id="k97a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I do not approve of it'.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth was asked: May [a widow] who sold [land] for her maintenance subsequently distrain on it<a id="k97a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for her <i>kethubah</i>? This question was raised on [the basis of a ruling of] R. Joseph who stated, 'If a widow has sold [any of her deceased husband's estate]<a id="k97a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the responsibility for the indemnity falls upon the orphans,<a id="k97a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and if the court sold [any such property] the responsibility for the indemnity again falls upon the orphans'<a id="k97a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What [then, it was asked, is the ruling]? May she, since the responsibility for the indemnity falls upon the orphans, distrain [on the land],<a id="k97a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it possible that [the buyers] may tell her,<a id="k97a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Granted that you have not accepted general<a id="k97a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; responsibility for indemnity, did you not indeed accept responsibility [against distraint] by yourself either?'<a id="k97a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You, he replied, have learned it: '[A widow]<a id="k97a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; may continue to sell<a id="k97a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; until [only the estate of] the value of her <i>kethubah</i> [remains], and this is a support to her since she might thus collect her <i>kethubah</i> from the residue'. Thus<a id="k97a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be inferred that only if she left [estate corresponding to the value of her <i>kethubah</i>] may<a id="k97a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [she collect her <i>kethubah</i>]. but if she did not leave [so much of the estate,<a id="k97a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; she may] not.<a id="k97a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it not possible that he<a id="k97a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; was merely tendering good advice, in order that people might not call her a swindler?<a id="k97a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so,<a id="k97a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k97a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; should have stated, 'She collects her <i>kethubah</i> from the remainder', why [then did he also add,] 'A support to her'? Consequently it must be inferred that only if she left [estate corresponding to the value of her <i>kethubah</i>] may<a id="k97a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [the widow collect her <i>kethubah</i>], but if she did not leave [so much<a id="k97a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; she may] not.<a id="k97a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: If a man sold [a plot of land]<a id="k97a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but [on concluding the sale] he was no longer in need of money, may his sale<a id="k97a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; be withdrawn<a id="k97a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k97a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: There was a certain man who sold a plot of land to R. Papa because he was in need of money to buy some oxen, and, as eventually he did not need it, R. Papa actually returned the land to him! &mdash; [This is no proof since] R. Papa may have acted beyond the strict requirements of the law.<a id="k97a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: There was once a dearth at Nehardea<a id="k97a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; when all the people sold their mansions,<a id="k97a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but when eventually wheat arrived<a id="k97a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman told them: The law is that the mansions must be returned to their original owners! &mdash; There also the sales were made in error since it eventually became known that the ship<a id="k97a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; was<a id="k97a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; waiting in the bays.<a id="k97a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is so,<a id="k97a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; how [explain] what Rami b. Samuel said to R. Nahman, 'If [you rule] thus you will cause them<a id="k97a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; trouble in the future',<a id="k97a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [whereupon] he replied, 'Is dearth a daily occurrence?' and to which the former retorted, 'Yes, a dearth at Nehardea is indeed a common occurrence'?<a id="k97a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And the law is that if a man sold [a plot of land]<a id="k97a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and [on concluding the sale] was no longer in need of money the sale may be withdrawn.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WIDOW, WHETHER [HER HUSBAND DIED] AFTER [HER] BETROTHAL<a id="k97a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; OR AFTER [HER] MARRIAGE<a id="k97a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY SELL [OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND'S ESTATE] WITHOUT [THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>. R. SIMEON RULED: [IF HER HUSBAND DIED] AFTER MARRIAGE<a id="k97a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY SELL<a id="k97a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [OF HIS ESTATE] WITHOUT [THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>,<a id="k97a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [BUT IF ONLY] AFTER [HER] BETROTHAL, SHE MAY NOT SELL [ANY OF THE ESTATE] EXCEPT WITH [THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>, SINCE SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE, AND ONE WHO IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE MAY NOT SELL [SUCH PROPERTY] EXCEPT WITH [THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. One can readily see [that the privilege<a id="k97a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; of a woman who was widowed] AFTER MARRIAGE is due to [her immediate need for] maintenance;<a id="k97a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k97b_1:" Of the first Tanna of our Mishnah."
,k97b_2:" As far as her <i>kethubah</i> is concerned."
,k97b_3:" Why should not a claim of this nature (cf. <i>supra</i> note 1) be subject to the jurisdiction of a court just as that of any other claimants?"
,k97b_4:" Lit., 'grace'."
,k97b_5:" In the absence of the privilege some women might refuse to consent to their betrothal; v. <i>supra</i> 84a."
,k97b_6:" 'Ulla and R. Johanan."
,k97b_7:" Since the privilege is not dependent on the husband's feelings."
,k97b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k97b_9:" To reimburse herself for her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k97b_10:" Mishnah <i>infra</i>."
,k97b_11:" Since the privilege is not dependent on the husband's feelings."
,k97b_12:" Who, as follows from his ruling in our Mishnah, does not recognize the principle of providing for matrimonial attractiveness."
,k97b_13:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4' Why then should the same principle be repeated?"
,k97b_14:" Lit., 'her favour (in the eyes of the husband) was not much'. Her husband having died before he married her. As no woman would expect privileges after such a slight matrimonial relationship there was Do need to confer the privilege (v. <i>supra</i> p. 618, n. 5) upon such a widow,"
,k97b_15:" Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis. V. Tosaf. s.v, [H] a.l. for two other interpretations."
,k97b_16:" Even according to R. Simeon."
,k97b_17:" Hence the necessity for the two rulings."
,k97b_18:" The case of a divorced woman."
,k97b_19:" Lit., 'to include what?'"
,k97b_20:" After her marriage. It cannot refer to a woman divorced after her betrothal since her case could be inferred <i>a minori ad majus</i> from that of A WIDOW &hellip; AFTER HER BETROTHAL."
,k97b_21:" After betrothal."
,k97b_22:" One, for instance, to whom the husband has thrown a letter of divorce in a public thoroughfare and it is uncertain whether it fell nearer to her or to him (v. Git. 74a)."
,k97b_23:" Our. Mishnah thus teaches that the husband's responsibility for the maintenance of a woman in such circumstances ceases with his death, and his orphans, therefore, are under no obligation to maintain her out of his estate. She is well entitled to maintenance during his lifetime since it is through him that she is prevented from contracting a second marriage; but after his death, when she is free to marry again, her claim which was all the time of a doubtful nature must lapse."
,k97b_24:" A widow."
,k97b_25:" The right of the heirs to sell without the sanction of <i>Beth din</i>."
,k97b_26:" The husband."
,k97b_27:" Who as a rule are males (cf. Rashi). A female enjoys the right of inheritance only in the absence of males."
,k97b_28:" In whose case the consideration of rendering matrimony attractive must be reckoned with."
,k97b_29:" For her maintenance."
,k97b_30:" This is the view of R. Simeon (v. Gemara <i>infra</i>)."
,k97b_31:" Lit., 'times'."
,k97b_32:" Before the last instalment is sold."
,k97b_33:" Such insertion being in certain cases advantageous for the woman (as explained <i>supra</i> 96b)."
,k97b_34:" According to which a widow who sold even only part of her <i>kethubah</i> may not sell of her husband's estate without the sanction of <i>Beth din</i>."
,k97b_35:" Tosef. Keth. XI, <i>supra</i> 54a. If. however, she sold etc. a part of it only she is still entitled to maintenance. Cur. edd. insert here in parentheses, 'these are the words of R. Meir', a sentence which is wanting in the Tosefta. Rashi retains it."
,k97b_36:" Tosef. Keth. XI; as she loses her maintenance she may not sell without the sanction of <i>Beth din</i>. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4 and Rashi on our Mishnah, s.v. [H] Rashal actually inserts in the text 'and the rest she may not sell except with the sanction of Beth din', a reading which was apparently wanting in Rashi's text as well as in cut. edd., but was known to the Tosafists (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k97b_37:" The dispute between R. Simeon and the Rabbis according to which the former regards the absence of a part as the absence of the whole while the latter do not."
,k97b_38:" Sc. of the <i>kethubah</i>. Lit., 'silver' with reference to Ex. XXII, 17."
,k97b_39:" A High Priest."
,k97b_40:" Lev. XXI, 13."
,k97b_41:" A bogereth (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k97b_42:" A High Priest."
,k97b_43:" Yeb. 595. The absence of a part of her virginity not being regarded as the absence of all virginity. Thus it follows that, while R. Simeon does not regard the absence of a part as the absence of the whole, the Rabbis do, which is the reverse of their respective views here (v. p. 621, n. 7)."
,k97b_44:" In the Baraitha cited from Yeb."
,k97b_45:" Not on the question whether a part legally equals the whole."
,k97b_46:" [H]."
,k97b_47:" [H]."
,k97b_48:" Which excludes the one who is adolescent some of whose virginity is ended."
,k97b_49:" [H] (Lev. XXI, 13)"
,k97b_50:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k97b_51:" Is she forbidden to a High Priest."
,k97b_52:" The superfluous c (='in') in [H] implies intercourse in the place of virginity. Unnatural intercourse with a na'arah (v. Glos) whereby virginity is not affected, is consequently excluded. >"
}

txt:
<p>
what, however, is the reason<a id="k97b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [for conferring this privilege<a id="k97b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; upon one widowed] after betrothal?<a id="k97b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Ulla replied: In order to [enhance the] attractions<a id="k97b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [of matrimony].<a id="k97b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan replied: Because no man wants his wife to suffer the indignity [of appearing] in court. What is the practical difference between them?<a id="k97b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The practical difference between them is the case of a divorced woman. For according to him who replied, 'In order to [enhance the] attractiveness [of matrimony]' a divorced woman also may<a id="k97b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; claim [the privilege<a id="k97b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; of the provision for matrimonial] attractiveness; but according to him who replied, 'Because no man Wants his wife to suffer the indignity [of appearing] in court' a divorced woman [is not entitled to the privilege since] the man does not care [for her dignity].
</p><p>
	We learned: And a divorced woman may not sell [of her former husband's estate]<a id="k97b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; except with the sanction of <i>Beth din</i>.<a id="k97b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, according to him who replied, 'Because no man wants his wife to suffer the indignity [of appearing] in court' the ruling is well justified since for a divorced wife one does not care; but according to him who replied, 'In order to [enhance the] attractions [of matrimony'. why should not] a divorced woman<a id="k97b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; also be entitled to claim [the privilege of the provision for matrimonial] attractiveness? &mdash; This represents the view of R. Simeon.<a id="k97b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If [this represents the view of] R. Simeon [the objection arises: Was not this principle] already laid down in the earlier clause, AFTER HER BETROTHAL SHE MAY NOT SELL etc.?<a id="k97b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might have been presumed [that his ruling applied] Only to a woman widowed after [her] betrothal, since in her case there was not much affection,<a id="k97b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but that a divorced woman, in whose case there was much affection,<a id="k97b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; may<a id="k97b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; demand [the privilege of the provision for matrimonial] attraction.<a id="k97b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But have we not learned this<a id="k97b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; also: WHO IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE which includes,<a id="k97b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; does it not, a divorced woman?<a id="k97b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, [it includes one who is both] divorced<a id="k97b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and' not divorced,<a id="k97b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; as [the one spoken of by] R. Zera who stated: Wherever the Sages described a woman as both divorced and not divorced<a id="k97b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; her husband is responsible for her maintenance.<a id="k97b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: As she<a id="k97b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; may sell [of her deceased husband's estate] without [the sanction of] <i>Beth din</i> so may her heirs, those who inherit her <i>kethubah</i>, sell [such property] without [the sanction of] <i>Beth din</i>. Now, according to him who replied, 'Because no man wants his wife to suffer the indignity [of appearing] in court' one can well see the reason for this ruling;<a id="k97b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; for as it is disagreeable to him<a id="k97b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; that she should suffer indignity so it is also disagreeable to him that her heirs should suffer indignity. According to him, however, who replied, 'In order to [enhance the] attractiveness [of matrimony]', what [consideration for] attractiveness [it may be objected] could there be in respect of her heirs?<a id="k97b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Ulla interpreted this [to be a case where] her daughter, for instance, or her sister, Was her heir.<a id="k97b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [A WIDOW WHO] SOLD HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> OR PART OF IT, OR PLEDGED IT OR PART OF IT, OR PRESENTED IT OR PART OF IT, TO A STRANGER, MAY NOT SELL THE RESIDUE [OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND'S ESTATE]<a id="k97b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; EXCEPT WITH (THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>.<a id="k97b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: SHE MAY SELL [THE LAND PLEDGED FOR HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] EVEN IN FOUR OR FIVE INSTALMENTS<a id="k97b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [IN THE MEANTIME]<a id="k97b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY SELL [OF HER HUSBAND'S ESTATE TO PROVIDE] FOR HER MAINTENANCE WITHOUT [THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>, ENTERING, [HOWEVER, IN THE DEED OF SALE,] 'I SOLD [THE LAND TO PROVIDE] FOR MY MAINTENANCE'.<a id="k97b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; A DIVORCED WOMAN, HOWEVER, MUST NOT SELL [SUCH PROPERTY] EXCEPT WITH [THE SANCTION OF] <I>BETH DIN</I>.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Who [is the author of the first ruling in] our Mishnah?<a id="k97b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is R. Simeon. For it was taught: If a woman sold [all] her <i>kethubah</i> or pledged it, or mortgaged [the land that was pledged for] her <i>kethubah</i> to a stranger, she is not entitled to maintenance.<a id="k97b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon ruled: Even if she did not sell or pledge [all] her <i>kethubah</i>, but half of it only, she loses her maintenance.<a id="k97b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Does this<a id="k97b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; then imply that R. Simeon holds the view that we do not regard part of the amount<a id="k97b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; as being legally equal to the full amount, while the Rabbis maintain that part of the amount is legally regarded as the full amount? But, [it may be objected], have we not in fact heard the reverse? For was It not taught: And he<a id="k97b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; shall take a wife its her virginity<a id="k97b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; excludes one who is adolescent<a id="k97b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [some of whose] virginity is ended; so R. Meir. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon permit<a id="k97b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [the marriage] of one who is adolescent?<a id="k97b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k97b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; they differ [on the interpretation] of Scriptural texts,<a id="k97b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir being of the opinion that 'virgin'<a id="k97b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; implies even [one who retains] some of her virginity; 'her virginity'<a id="k97b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; implies only one who retains all her virginity;<a id="k97b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; 'in her virginity'<a id="k97b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; implies only<a id="k97b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; [when previous intercourse with her took place] in a natural manner,<a id="k97b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; but not when in an unnatural manner.<a id="k97b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, however, are of the opinion that 'virgin' would have implied a perfect virgin; 'her virginity' implies even [one who retains] only part of her virginity;
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k98a_1:" Which includes one who is adolescent (Lev. XXI, 13)."
,k98a_2:" Being a na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k98a_3:" Is permitted to be married by a High priest."
,k98a_4:" Yeb. 595. She is forbidden even if it was unnatural. Her virginity must he completely intact. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 11. Thus it has been shewn that the dispute between R. Simeon and the Rabbis (sc. R. Meir) has no bearing on the legal relationship between the part and the whole (cf. <i>supra</i> note 4). but on the method of interpreting certain Scriptural texts."
,k98a_5:" A widow."
,k98a_6:" The amount of which exceeded the value of the cup."
,k98a_7:" A widow."
,k98a_8:" That she did not collect more than her due."
,k98a_9:" Of the intended sale of the estate, as is the procedure where the sale is ordered by the court."
,k98a_10:" And seized it for her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k98a_11:" Lit., 'she did nothing'; the orphans may at any time reclaim that land and refund her the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k98a_12:" I.e., she sold the estate for her <i>kethubah</i> to a third party."
,k98a_13:" Lit., 'what she did she did'; which shews that no public announcement is required in the case of the sale under discussion."
,k98a_14:" As neither the court nor the orphans had given her any such authorization the estate must remain in the legal possession of the orphans. If, however, she sells to other people her act is valid since she is fully authorized to do so."
,k98a_15:" [H] (so Rashi). Cur. edd., [H] fodder'. MS.M. [H] 'garment'."
,k98a_16:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8 mutatis mutandis."
,k98a_17:" A woman in the circumstances spoken of 10 Rabbah's enquiry <i>supra</i>."
,k98a_18:" V. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k98a_19:" Cf. n. 3. [This implies that the assessment must nevertheless be made in the presence of an expert valuer (Trani)]."
,k98a_20:" From her deceased husband's estate."
,k98a_21:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k98a_22:" Because she is to blame for the loss incurred."
,k98a_23:" Since she had no right to sell a part of the land (representing the value of the <i>denar</i>) her entire sale is deemed to have been made in error and is. therefore, void."
,k98a_24:" Even if the land she sold was worth more than the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>; because she can refund the balance to the orphans."
,k98a_25:" Lit., 'shall be'."
,k98a_26:" If she had not sold for more than her due. Lit., 'sufficient', 'as much as'."
,k98a_27:" Exclusive or inclusive of the land she sold over and above the area representing the value of the amount that was due to her."
,k98a_28:" Sc. in which such a quantity of seed could be sown. An area of that size represents the minimum of land that can be profitably cultivated. By leaving a lesser area the woman is causing undue loss to the orphans. and her sale must consequently be annulled. If the lesser area, however, would have remained even if she had sold what was her due, her sale is valid since the orphans could not in any case have made profitable use of the residue."
,k98a_29:" The minimum area that can be profitably laid out as a garden. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9 mutatis mutandis."
,k98a_30:" From her deceased husband's estate."
,k98a_31:" Lit., 'to this for a <i>maneh</i> and to this for a maneh'."
,k98a_32:" Lit., 'last'."
,k98a_33:" So that in the last sale she disposed of more than her due."
,k98a_34:" The widow who effected the sale."
,k98a_35:" And so have a claim to another <i>maneh</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
'in her virginity'<a id="k98a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; implies only one<a id="k98a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; whose entire virginity is intact,<a id="k98a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; irrespective of whether [previous intercourse with her was] of a natural or unnatural character.<a id="k98a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain woman<a id="k98a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; once seized a silver cup on account of her <i>kethubah</i><a id="k98a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and then claimed her maintenance. She appeared before Raba. He [thereupon] told the orphans, 'Proceed to provide for her maintenance; no one cares for the ruling of R. Simeon who laid down that we do not regard part of the amount as legally equal to the full amount.
</p><p>
	Rabbah the son of Raba sent to R. Joseph [the following enquiry:] Is a woman<a id="k98a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; who sells [of her deceased husband's estate] without [an authorization of] <i>Beth din</i> required to take an oath<a id="k98a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; or is she not required to take an oath? &mdash; And [why, the other replied, do you not] enquire [as to whether] a public announcement<a id="k98a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [is required]? I have no need, the first retorted, to enquire concerning a public announcement because R. Zera has stated in the name of R. Nahman, 'If a widow assessed [her husband's estate] on her own behalf<a id="k98a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; her act is invalid';<a id="k98a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; now, how [is this statement] to be understood? If a public announcement<a id="k98a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; has been made [the difficulty arises,] why is her act invalid? Must we not consequently assume that there was no public announcement, and [since it was stated that] Only [if the assessment was made] 'on her own behalf' is 'her act invalid' it follows, does it not, [that if she made it] on behalf of another<a id="k98a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; her act is valid?<a id="k98a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [No,] a public announcement may in fact have been made but [her act is nevertheless invalid] because she can be told, 'Who [authorized] you to make the assessment?'<a id="k98a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; as was the case with a certain man with whom corals<a id="k98a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; belonging to orphans had been deposited and he proceeded to assess them on his own behalf for four hundred <I>ZUZ</I>, and when later its price rose to six hundred <i>zuz</i>, he appeared before R. Ammi, who said to him, 'Who [authorized] you to make the assessment?'<a id="k98a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And the law is that she<a id="k98a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; is required to take an oath,<a id="k98a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but there is no need to make a public announcement.<a id="k98a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>.IF A WIDOW WHOSE <I>KETHUBAH</I> WAS FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> SOLD<a id="k98a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A <I>MANEH</I><a id="k98a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> OR ONE THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN THEREBY SETTLED.<a id="k98a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>, HOWEVER, WAS FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, AND SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A <I>MANEH</I> AND A DENAR' FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, HER SALE IS VOID. EVEN THOUGH SHE DECLARED, I WILL RETURN THE <I>DENAR</I> TO THE HEIRS' HER SALE IS VOID.<a id="k98a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: HER SALE<a id="k98a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IS ALWAYS VALID<a id="k98a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; UNLESS THERE WAS<a id="k98a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [SO MUCH LAND] THERE AS WOULD HAVE ENABLED HER<a id="k98a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; TO LEAVE<a id="k98a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM A FIELD AN AREA OF NINE <I>KAB</I>,<a id="k98a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; AND FROM A GARDEN THAT OF HALF A <I>KAB</I><a id="k98a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; OR, ACCORDING TO R. AKIBA, A QUARTER OF A <I>KAB</I>.<a id="k98a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND]<a id="k98a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; TO [THREE] PERSONS, TO EACH FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>,<a id="k98a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; AND TO A FOURTH<a id="k98a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANE HAND A <I>DENAR</I> FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>,<a id="k98a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Wherein does [the sale of a plot of land] THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I> differ [from the previous case? Is it] because she<a id="k98a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; might be told, 'You yourself have caused the loss'? [But, then, why should she not, where she SOLD A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A <I>MANEH</I> FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>, also [be entitled to] say, 'It is I who have made the profit'?<a id="k98a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k98b_1:" R. Judah I, the Patriarch, compiler of the Mishnah c. 200 C.E."
,k98b_2:" In our Mishnah."
,k98b_3:" Made by an agent."
,k98b_4:" Since the widow was merely acting as the agent of the orphans, who are the owners, she cannot lay any claim to the profit she made."
,k98b_5:" V. <i>infra</i>, o. 12."
,k98b_6:" Lit., 'one more'."
,k98b_7:" Between agent and owner; v. Tosef. Dem, VIII."
,k98b_8:" And, since it is not certain in whose favour the additional unit was given away by the seller, its value must be equally divided between the agent and the owner of the money."
,k98b_9:" So that the additional unit cannot be regarded as a gift, but as a part of the purchase, payment for which was made with the money of the owner. Hence it is the latter only who is entitled to the added unit."
,k98b_10:" Thus it has been shewn that our Mishnah which deals with land (something that has no fixed value) and assigns the profits to the original owner (the orphans) is in agreement with the view of R. Jose."
,k98b_11:" [H] so cur. edd. and R. Han. MS.M. and a reading approved by Tosaf. (s.v. [H]) is [H] 'therefore'."
,k98b_12:" R. Papa."
,k98b_13:" By his statement which is only a repetition of what has just been laid down. This question seems to imply the reading of [H] (v. <i>supra</i> n. 13) rather than that of [H], (Tosaf.)."
,k98b_14:" By Rami b. Hama."
,k98b_15:" Lit., 'that which we replied is a reply'."
,k98b_16:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k98b_17:" Sc. a plot of land in which a lethek ( half a <i>kor</i>) of grain may be sown."
,k98b_18:" Lit., 'and went'."
,k98b_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k98b_20:" A town situated on the east of Nehardea."
,k98b_21:" Which was subsequently found to have been consecrated food."
,k98b_22:" Each."
,k98b_23:" The host in respect of the first, the agent in respect of the second and the guests 10 respect of the third."
,k98b_24:" Me'il. 20a."
,k98b_25:" Like the agent spoken of in the enquiry."
,k98b_26:" Hag. 10b, Kid. 42b, Ned. 54a, Me'ii. 205. Consequently it must be concluded, must it not. that an agent in the circumstances mentioned is deemed to have added to, and not transgressed, his instructions?"
,k98b_27:" Lit., 'knowledge'."
,k98b_28:" Thus performing his mission."
,k98b_29:" Lit., 'what'."
,k98b_30:" Sc. for its full price, so that no error was involved."
,k98b_31:" Which, in view of the fact that the <i>denar</i> obviously belongs to the orphans, is apparently meaningless."
,k98b_32:" As the woman is in a position similar to that of the agent spoken of in the enquiry it follows that as her sale is void so is that of the agent."
,k98b_33:" I.e., our Mishnah is not to be understood as suggested."
,k98b_34:" Sc. for one <i>maneh</i> only; the error 10 the sale, not the excess of the land sold, being the reason for the invalidity of the sale. [Read with MS.M. and Tosaf. [H] instead of [H] in cur. edd.]. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rabbi<a id="k98b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; has taught here<a id="k98b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; that all [profits<a id="k98b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; belong] to the owner of the money.<a id="k98b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; As it was taught,<a id="k98b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If one unit<a id="k98b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; was added to [the purchases made by an agent] all [the profit belongs] to the agent'; so R. Judah, but R. Jose ruled, '[The profit] is to be divided',<a id="k98b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [and, in reply to the objection,] But, surely, it was taught that R. Jose ruled, All [profit belongs] to the owner of the money! Rami b. Hama replied: This is no difficulty for the former refers to an object that has a fixed value<a id="k98b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; while the latter refers to one that has no fixed<a id="k98b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; value.<a id="k98b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa stated: The law is that<a id="k98b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [the profit made by the agent on] an object that had a fixed value must be divided,<a id="k98b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but if on an object that had no fixed value all [profit belongs] to the owner of the money. What does he<a id="k98b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; teach us?<a id="k98b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That the reply that was given<a id="k98b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is the proper one.<a id="k98b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: What [is the law where a man] said to his agent,<a id="k98b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Sell for me a lethek'<a id="k98b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and the latter presumed<a id="k98b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to sell a <i>kor</i>.<a id="k98b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is the agent deemed to be merely] adding to the owner's instructions and [the buyer, therefore,] acquires possession of a lethek, at all events, or is he rather transgressing his instructions and [the buyer, therefore,] acquires no possession of a lethek either? &mdash; Said R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod<a id="k98b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Rabina, Come and hear: If a householder said to his agent, 'Serve a piece [of meat]<a id="k98b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to the guests', and the latter said to them, 'Take two',<a id="k98b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and they took three,<a id="k98b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; all of them are guilty<a id="k98b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of trespass.<a id="k98b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you agree [that the agent]<a id="k98b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; was merely adding to the host's instruction one can well understand the reason why the householder is guilty of trespass. If you should maintain, however, [that the agent]<a id="k98b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; was transgressing his instruction [the objection could well be advanced:] Why should the householder be guilty of trespass? Have we not In fact learned: If an agent performed his mission it is the householder who is guilty of trespass but if he did not perform his mission it is the agent who is guilty of trespass?<a id="k98b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here we may be dealing with a case where the agent said to the guests, 'Take one at the desire<a id="k98b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; of the householder<a id="k98b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and one at my own request's<a id="k98b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and they took three.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: IF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>, HOWEVER, WAS FOR A <I>MANEH</I>, AND SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A <I>MANEH</I> AND A <I>DENAR</I> FOR A <I>MANEH</I>, HER SALE IS VOID. Does<a id="k98b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; not [this mean] that SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A <I>MANEH</I> AND A <I>DENAR</I> FOR A MANEH and a <i>denar</i>,<a id="k98b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and that by<a id="k98b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [the expression,] 'FOR A MANEH' the <i>maneh</i> that was due to her [is meant], and by<a id="k98b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; EVEN<a id="k98b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [one is to understand] EVEN THOUGH SHE DECLARED, I WILL RETURN THE <I>DENAR</I> TO THE HEIRS [by repurchasing for them] land of the value of a denar'? And was it not nevertheless stated, HER SALE IS VOID?<a id="k98b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No,<a id="k98b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; retorted R. Huna the son of R. Nathan, [this is a case] where [she sold] at the lower price.<a id="k98b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k99a_1:" Of our Mishnah."
,k99a_2:" The clause just cited."
,k99a_3:" Since two clauses are not necessary to lay down the same principle."
,k99a_4:" V. our Mishnah for notes."
,k99a_5:" An objection against R. Huna the son of R. Nathan (cf. <i>supra</i> n' 9)."
,k99a_6:" As to the objection (v. <i>supra</i> n. 9)."
,k99a_7:" To the fourth person."
,k99a_8:" Sc. land that exceeded the amount that was due to her."
,k99a_9:" The sale of land of the value of a <i>maneh</i> and a <i>denar</i> for one <i>maneh</i> only."
,k99a_10:" I.e., when she was selling to the first three persons. and when the extra land for the <i>denar</i> was still hers."
,k99a_11:" Because the law of overreaching is inapplicable to landed property even where the error amounted to as much as a sixth of the value; much less when it is no more than one hundredth."
,k99a_12:" Which shews that where the additional land sold constituted a part of the woman's due, her sale is valid. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 627, n. 11."
,k99a_13:" That the sale is valid when the land belongs to the woman,"
,k99a_14:" In such a case naturally no preventive measures are called for."
,k99a_15:" The case in the final clause."
,k99a_16:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 626, n. 2."
,k99a_17:" And the buyer is consequently entitled to the possession at least of the lethek (cf. <i>supra</i> 98b)."
,k99a_18:" The sale consequently should be valid."
,k99a_19:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 383, n. 7."
,k99a_20:" Rashi: The gold <i>denar</i> twenty-five silver <i>denarii</i>, or six sela's (cf. B.M. 44b). [Rashi probably means approximately six sela's, since one <i>sela'</i> four <i>denarii</i>, or the extra <i>denar</i> may be surcharge as agio. v, Strashun]."
,k99a_21:" If the <i>denar</i> was found to have belonged to the sanctuary. Me'il. 21a."
,k99a_22:" Selling one lethek where the instruction was to sell two (a <i>kor</i>) is similar to spending on an object three sela's where the instruction was to spend on it six (a gold <i>denar</i>)."
,k99a_23:" Lit., 'master of the house', sc. the man who gave the <i>denar</i> to the agent."
,k99a_24:" He is responsible for the offence since his wish had been carried out."
,k99a_25:" Consequently it must be inferred that the agent spoken of 10 the enquiry has performed his mission (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 628, n. 6)."
,k99a_26:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k99a_27:" That the agent carried out the sender's instructions."
,k99a_28:" Which he bought entirely on his own responsibility."
,k99a_29:" That the agent bought for three sela's an article that was actually worth six,"
,k99a_30:" Me'il, <i>loc. cit</i>. If the reply given (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9) is to be accepted R. Judah's statement is apparently meaningless."
,k99a_31:" Lit., 'what'."
,k99a_32:" Despite the fact that the shirt bought was actually worth six sela's."
,k99a_33:" The higher the price the higher in proportion is the profit. Aliter: One who pays a higher price is allowed a greater discount (cf. Rashi s.v. [H], and Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.)."
,k99a_34:" That by 'bad' R. Judah meant 'bad in respect of the price', that the shirt bought for three sela's was actually worth six, and that the reason why the owner is not guilty of trespass is because his wish to have the advantage of the bigger purchase had not been carried out."
,k99a_35:" Tosef. Me'il, II."
,k99a_36:" The owner and the agent. "
}

txt:
<p>
But since the final clause<a id="k99a_1"><sup>1</sup></a> [deals with a case] where [she sold] at a lower price, [would not] the earlier clause<a id="k99a_2"><sup>2</sup></a> [naturally<a id="k99a_3"><sup>3</sup></a> refer to one] where [she did] not [sell] at a lower price; for has [it not] been stated in the final clause, IF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND] TO [THREE] PERSONS<a id="k99a_4"><sup>4</sup></a> TO EACH FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, AND TO A FOURTH<a id="k99a_4"><sup>4</sup></a> [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANE HAND A <I>DENAR</I> FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID?<a id="k99a_5"><sup>5</sup></a> &mdash; No, both the earlier and the final clause [refer to a sale] at a lower price, but<a id="k99a_6"><sup>6</sup></a> it is this that we were informed in the final clause: The reason [why her sale is void is] because [she sold]<a id="k99a_7"><sup>7</sup></a> at a lower price [the property] that belonged to the orphans,<a id="k99a_8"><sup>8</sup></a> but [if that<a id="k99a_9"><sup>9</sup></a> had been done] with her own,<a id="k99a_10"><sup>10</sup></a> her sale is valid.<a id="k99a_11"><sup>11</sup></a> But is not this already inferred from the first clause: WHOSE <I>KETHUBAH</I> WAS FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> SOLD [A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A <I>MANEH</I> FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> OR ONE THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN THEREBY SETTLED?<a id="k99a_12"><sup>12</sup></a> &mdash; It might have been assumed [that the ruling<a id="k99a_13"><sup>13</sup></a> was applicable] there Only because [by her one act] she completely severed her connection with that house,<a id="k99a_14"><sup>14</sup></a> but that here<a id="k99a_15"><sup>15</sup></a> [the sale for] the first <i>maneh</i> [should be deemed invalid] as a preventive measure against [the assumption of the validity of the sale for the] last <i>maneh</i>,' hence we were informed [that the law was not so].
</p><p>
	Some there are who say: You have no need to ask [for a ruling] where [a man said to his agent,] 'Go and sell for me a lethek'<a id="k99a_16"><sup>16</sup></a> and [the latter] sold for him a <i>kor</i>, since [in this case the agent] was undoubtedly adding to his instructions.<a id="k99a_17"><sup>17</sup></a> The question, however, arises as to what is the ruling where the man said to the agent, 'Go and sell for me a kor' and he sold for him only one lethek.<a id="k99a_16"><sup>16</sup></a> Do we [in such a case] lay down that [the agent] might tell the man, 'I have done for you that which is more advantageous to you, for [had I sold the full <i>kor</i>, and] you were no longer in need of money you could not have retracted',<a id="k99a_18"><sup>18</sup></a> or is it rather [held that the owner] might retort to him, 'It is no satisfaction to me that many deeds [should be held] against me'? &mdash; R. Hanina of Sura<a id="k99a_19"><sup>19</sup></a> replied, Come and hear: If one man gave to another a gold <i>denar</i><a id="k99a_20"><sup>20</sup></a> and told him, 'Bring me a shirt', and the other brought him a shirt for three sela's and a cloak for three sela's, both are guilty of trespass.<a id="k99a_21"><sup>21</sup></a> Now if you admit that an agent in similar circumstances<a id="k99a_22"><sup>22</sup></a> has performed his mission and was only adding to his instructions, one can well see why the owner<a id="k99a_23"><sup>23</sup></a> is guilty of trespass.<a id="k99a_24"><sup>24</sup></a> If, however, you should maintain that [the agent in such circumstances] was transgressing his instructions, why should [the owner] be guilty of trespass?<a id="k99a_25"><sup>25</sup></a> &mdash; Here we are dealing with a case where [the agent] brought him [a shirt that was] worth six sela's for three.<a id="k99a_26"><sup>26</sup></a> If so<a id="k99a_27"><sup>27</sup></a> why should the agent be guilty of trespass? &mdash; On account of the cloak.<a id="k99a_28"><sup>28</sup></a> But if that were so,<a id="k99a_29"><sup>29</sup></a> read the final clause: R. Judah ruled, Even in this case<a id="k99a_29"><sup>29</sup></a> the owner is not guilty of trespass because he might say [to the agent,] 'I wanted a big shirt and you brought me one that is small and bad'!<a id="k99a_30"><sup>30</sup></a> &mdash; 'Bad' means<a id="k99a_31"><sup>31</sup></a> 'bad in respect of the price', for<a id="k99a_32"><sup>32</sup></a> [the owner can] tell him, 'Had you brought me one for six sela's [my gain would have been] even greater since it would have been worth twelve sela's.'<a id="k99a_33"><sup>33</sup></a> This<a id="k99a_34"><sup>34</sup></a> may also be proved by an inference. For it was stated:<a id="k99a_35"><sup>35</sup></a> R. Judah admits [that if the transaction was] in pulse both<a id="k99a_36"><sup>36</sup></a> are guilty of trespass
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k99b_1:" The smallest coin. No advantage is gained in making a bigger purchase. The owner's wish in this case, unlike that of the shirt (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 629, n. 13) may consequently be regarded as having been carried out. Thus it has been shewn that the reason why R. Judah exempts the owner in the case of the shirt is the one indicated. (Cf. p. 629. n. 14)."
,k99b_2:" The transaction in pulse."
,k99b_3:" Than one who buys for a <i>perutah</i> only. The more the amount spent by the buyer the more generous the conjectural estimate of the seller How then could it be said (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1) that no advantage is gained from the purchase of a larger quantity?"
,k99b_4:" [H] (cf. [G]) a small measure of capacity."
,k99b_5:" Lit., 'measured'."
,k99b_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>; no advantage, therefore, is gained from the purchase of larger quantities. Read with MS.M. [H] Cur edd., 'where they measure with kannai (pl. of kanna) so that he tells him. Each kanna for a perutah'."
,k99b_7:" V. our Mishnah for notes."
,k99b_8:" Though at the time she sold to each of the first three persons she was in fact authorized (or entitled) to sell much more. As these sales of the woman (which are analogous to an agent's sale of a lethek when his instructions were to sell as much as a <i>kor</i>) are valid, so one would expect the sale of the agent to be valid, and a reply is thus obtained to the enquiry <i>supra</i> 995."
,k99b_9:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k99b_10:" <i>Infra</i>."
,k99b_11:" Detached from one another."
,k99b_12:" Lit., 'here'."
,k99b_13:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 11. In such circumstances the woman was never expected (entitled or authorized) to sell for all the four hundred <i>zuz</i> to one person at one and the same time. By selling the small plots each for a price not higher than one <i>maneh</i> she is in a different legal position from that of the agent who, in fact, was expected to sell a full <i>kor</i> while he actually sold no more than a <i>lethek</i>. The validity of the sales of the former is consequently no criterion for the validity of the sales of the agent in question. "
,k99b_14:" Even if the sale of a lethek, where the instructions were to sell a <i>kor</i>, were to be ruled as being valid."
,k99b_15:" Thus clearly expressing his objection to be responsible for more than one deed of sale."
,k99b_16:" Are the agent's sales to two persons. in such circumstances, valid or not?"
,k99b_17:" The sales, therefore, are invalid."
,k99b_18:" Unless some definite form of restriction has been expressed."
,k99b_19:" The sales to them are consequently valid. The mention of one person only is regarded as the usual manner of speech, which is not intended to exclude any larger number of persons."
,k99b_20:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 383, n. 7'"
,k99b_21:" As the one just discussed."
,k99b_22:" By accepting a lower price."
,k99b_23:" V. Mishnah B.M. 56a, why then should the agent's error cause the invalidity of the sale? [Var. lec., 'But did the Master not say etc.', the reference being to R. Nahman's ruling reported B.M. 108a, v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k99b_24:" The law just quoted."
,k99b_25:" Hence the invalidity of the sale."
,k99b_26:" Lit., 'master of the house'."
,k99b_27:" Of the produce."
,k99b_28:" Sc. one fortieth of the whole, which is the quantity of <i>terumah</i> given by men of a liberal disposition (v. Ter. IV, 3)."
,k99b_29:" A sixtieth, which is the measure given by one who is of a mean disposition (v. loc, cit.)."
,k99b_30:" Ter. IV 4; but if his error was greater his <i>terumah</i> is invalid."
,k99b_31:" Which proves conclusively that a distinction is made between an error made by an owner and one made by his agent."
,k99b_32:" V. our Mishnah for notes."
,k99b_33:" Though the multiplicity of sales and inevitable deeds might be objected to' if not by the orphans themselves, by <i>Beth din</i>. Since, however, no such objection is admitted in this case, the same ruling should apply to the case discussed in the enquiry <i>supra</i> 99a."
,k99b_34:" That were detached from one another, so that it was impracticable to sell them all to one person. Hence the validity of the sales. Where one plot of land, however, is concerned, the owner might well object to have the responsibility of a multiplicity of deeds."
,k99b_35:" Of a deceased husband's estate which was sold to pay the <i>kethubah</i> of his widow."
,k99b_36:" Lit., 'if so'."
,k99b_37:" [H], ([H] = letter', 'bill'; [H] from rt. [H], 'to examine' 'inspect'), a legal document, issued by a court, inviting the public to inspect property put up by an order of the court for sale."
,k99b_38:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k99b_39:" Lit. 'like whom'."
,k99b_40:" Who made a mistake in the sale he was instructed to effect. "
}

txt:
<p>
because [the quantity of] pulse for a <i>sela'</i> [is in exactly the same proportion as] that for one <i>perutah</i>.<a id="k99b_1"><sup>1</sup></a> This is conclusive. How is this<a id="k99b_2"><sup>2</sup></a> to be understood? If it be suggested [that it refers] to a place where [pulse] is sold by conjectural estimate, does not one [it may be objected] who pays a <i>sela'</i> obtain the commodity at a much cheaper rate?<a id="k99b_3"><sup>3</sup></a> &mdash; R. Papa replied: [It refers] to a place where each kanna<a id="k99b_4"><sup>4</sup></a> is sold<a id="k99b_5"><sup>5</sup></a> for one <i>perutah</i>.<a id="k99b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: IF HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND] TO [THREE] PERSONS<a id="k99b_7"><sup>7</sup></a> TO EACH FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I>, AND TO A FOURTH<a id="k99b_7"><sup>7</sup></a> [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A <I>MANEH</I> AND A DENAR FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I> [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID!<a id="k99b_8"><sup>8</sup></a> &mdash; [This<a id="k99b_9"><sup>9</sup></a> is no proof, for] as R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied<a id="k99b_10"><sup>10</sup></a> [that the final clause of our Mishnah deals] with small plots of land,<a id="k99b_11"><sup>11</sup></a> [so it may] in this discussion<a id="k99b_12"><sup>12</sup></a> also [be argued that the clause cited deals] with small plots of land.<a id="k99b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It is obvious [that if a man] instructed [his agent to sell a plot of land] to one person but not to two persons [and he sold it to two' the sale is invalid<a id="k99b_14"><sup>14</sup></a> for] he distinctly told him, 'To one person but not to two persons'.<a id="k99b_15"><sup>15</sup></a> What, [however, is the ruling where] he gave instructions [that the sale shall be made] to one person without mentioning any further limitation?<a id="k99b_16"><sup>16</sup></a> R. Huna ruled: 'To one person' implies 'but not to two'.<a id="k99b_17"><sup>17</sup></a> Both R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna, however, ruled: 'To one person'<a id="k99b_18"><sup>18</sup></a> may mean even to two;<a id="k99b_19"><sup>19</sup></a> 'to one', may mean<a id="k99b_16"><sup>16</sup></a> even to a hundred.<a id="k99b_19"><sup>19</sup></a> R. Nahman once happened to be at Sura<a id="k99b_20"><sup>20</sup></a> when R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna came to visit him. 'What [is the ruling], they asked him, in such a case?'<a id="k99b_21"><sup>21</sup></a> &mdash; To one', he replied, [may mean] even to two, 'to one' may mean even to a hundred. '[Are the sales valid,]' they asked him, 'even where the agent made an error?'<a id="k99b_22"><sup>22</sup></a> &mdash; 'I do not speak', he replied, 'of a case where the agent had made an error'. 'But did not a Master', they asked again, 'say [that the law of] overreaching does not apply to landed property'?<a id="k99b_23"><sup>23</sup></a> This<a id="k99b_24"><sup>24</sup></a> applies only where the owner made the error; but where the agent has made the error [the owner] might tell him, 'I sent you to improve my position but not to impair it'.<a id="k99b_25"><sup>25</sup></a> Whence, however, is it inferred that a distinction may be drawn between the agent and the owner? &mdash; [From] what we have learned, 'If a man tells his agent, "Go and give <i>terumah</i>", the latter must give the <i>terumah</i> in accordance with the disposition of the owner,<a id="k99b_26"><sup>26</sup></a> and if he does not know the owner's disposition, he should give the <i>terumah</i> in a moderate manner, viz., one fiftieth.<a id="k99b_27"><sup>27</sup></a> If he reduced [the denominator by] ten<a id="k99b_28"><sup>28</sup></a> or added ten to it<a id="k99b_29"><sup>29</sup></a> his <i>terumah</i> is nevertheless valid',<a id="k99b_30"><sup>30</sup></a> while in respect of an owner<a id="k99b_26"><sup>26</sup></a> it was taught: If, when setting apart <i>terumah</i>, there came up in his hand even so much as one twentieth<a id="k99b_27"><sup>27</sup></a> his <i>terumah</i> is valid.<a id="k99b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND] TO [THREE] PERSONS<a id="k99b_32"><sup>32</sup></a> TO EACH FOR ONE MANEH, AND TO A FOURTH<a id="k99b_32"><sup>32</sup></a> [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR ONE MANEH, [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL OTHERS ARE VALID.<a id="k99b_33"><sup>33</sup></a> R. Shisha the son of R. Ishi replied: [This clause deals] with small plots of land.<a id="k99b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE JUDGES<a id="k99b_35"><sup>35</sup></a> WAS BY ONE SIXTH LESS, OR BY ONE SIXTH MORE [THAN THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY]. THEIR SALE IS VOID. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: THEIR SALE IS VALID FOR, OTHERWISE,<a id="k99b_36"><sup>36</sup></a> OF WHAT ADVANTAGE WOULD THE POWER OF A COURT BE? IF A BILL FOR INSPECTION,<a id="k99b_37"><sup>37</sup></a> HOWEVER, HAS BEEN DRAWN UP, THEIR SALE IS VALID EVEN IF THEY SOLD FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ<a id="k99b_38"><sup>38</sup></a> WHAT WAS WORTH ONE MANEH,<a id="k99b_38"><sup>38</sup></a> OR FOR ONE MANEH WHAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The question was asked: What is the legal status of<a id="k99b_39"><sup>39</sup></a> an agent?<a id="k99b_40"><sup>40</sup></a> &mdash; 
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k100a_1:" The sale is valid if the error did not amount to a sixth (v. our Mishnah)."
,k100a_2:" The slightest error renders the sale invalid (cf. the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 98a.)"
,k100a_3:" Ter. IV, 4 and <i>supra</i> 99b q.v. for notes. This then shews, contrary to what was laid down above as law (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5)' that a slight error does not render an agent's act invalid."
,k100a_4:" In the case of an agent giving <i>terumah</i> for the owner."
,k100a_5:" Who gave more, or less, than the owner was inclined to give."
,k100a_6:" Lit., 'estimated'."
,k100a_7:" Niggardly or liberal as the case might be."
,k100a_8:" Hence the invalidity of the sale however slight the error may have been."
,k100a_9:" The first mentioned ruling in our Mishnah."
,k100a_10:" I.e., the view of R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL."
,k100a_11:" V. Kid. Sonc. ed. p. 210, notes."
,k100a_12:" Lit., 'that', R. Nahman's ruling in the name of Samuel (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2)."
,k100a_13:" R. Nahman's ruling in his own name (cf. <i>supra</i>, n. 3)'"
,k100a_14:" Lit., 'on (the ground of) the sides', sc. the unsatisfactory situation of their allotted fields owing to their distance from other fields which they already possessed."
,k100a_15:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k100a_16:" R. Judah I, the Patriarch, compiler of the Mishnah."
,k100a_17:" So MS.M. (wanting in cur. edd.)."
,k100a_18:" Lit., 'the act'."
,k100a_19:" R. Dimi and R. Safra."
,k100a_20:" R. Dimi."
,k100a_21:" Sc. that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, which, unlike that of the first Tanna, is also supported by a reason."
,k100a_22:" R. Safra."
,k100a_23:" Which is, however, most unlikely."
,k100a_24:" Had then Rabbi acted in agreement with the Sages' ruling, he would not have been able to reverse his decision."
,k100a_25:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k100a_26:" To reimburse herself for her maintenance or <i>kethubah</i>, guaranteeing indemnity to the buyer."
,k100a_27:" Because they are responsible for the widow's <i>kethubah</i> and maintenance, and she, in selling the estate, was merely acting as their agent."
,k100a_28:" For the maintenance of a widow or daughter. Cf. also <i>supra</i> n. 10 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k100a_29:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 10 <i>mutatis mutandis</i> and 97a."
,k100a_30:" Cf <i>supra</i> n. 11."
}

txt:
<p>
Raba in the name of R. Nahman replied: An agent [has the same status] as judges,<a id="k100a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Samuel b. Bisna replied in the name of R. Nahman: As a widow.<a id="k100a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Raba in the name of R. Nahman replied: An agent [has the same status] as judges', for as judges do not act in their [personal interests] so does an agent not act in his [personal interests], thus excluding a widow who acts in her [own personal interests]. 'R. Samuel b. Bisna replied in the name of R. Nahman: As a widow', for as the widow is a single individual so is an agent a single individual; thus excluding members of a court, who are many. &mdash; And the law is that an agent [has the same legal status] as a widow. But why [should this case be] different from that concerning which we learned: If a man tells his agent, 'Go and give terumah' the latter must give the <i>terumah</i> in accordance with the disposition of the owner, and if he does not know the owner's disposition, he should separate <i>terumah</i> in a moderate manner, viz. one fiftieth. If he reduced [the denominator by] ten or added ten to it his <i>terumah</i> is, nevertheless, valid?<a id="k100a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k100a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [the circumstances are different], for, since someone might give his <i>terumah</i> in a niggardly manner while some other might give it liberally, [the agent]<a id="k100a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; might tell the owner, 'I deemed<a id="k100a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; you to be of such [a disposition]';<a id="k100a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but here, since it was clearly an error, [the owner] might well say, 'You should have made no error'.<a id="k100a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Hanina stated in the name of R. Nahman: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling of the Sages.<a id="k100a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [Can it be said,] however, that R. Nahman does not hold [that the act of a court is invariably valid since, otherwise,] of what advantage would the power of a court be,<a id="k100a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; when R. Nahman, in fact, ruled in the name of Samuel:<a id="k100a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If orphans came to take their shares in their father's estate, the court must appoint for [each of] them a guardian and [these guardians] choose for [each of] them a proper share, and when [the orphans] grow up they may enter a protest [against the settlement]; but R. Nahman in his own name, laid down: Even when they grow up they may enter no protest since, otherwise, of what advantage would the power of a court be? &mdash; This is no difficulty, the former<a id="k100a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [referring to a case] where the guardians made a mistake while the latter<a id="k100a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [deals with one] where no error was made. If no error was made, on what grounds could [the orphans] enter their protest? &mdash; On that of the adjacent fields.<a id="k100a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came<a id="k100a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated: It once happened that Rabbi<a id="k100a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; acted in agreement with the ruling of the Sages<a id="k100a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; when Perata, the son of R. Eleazar b. Perata, grandson of R. Perata the Great, asked him, 'If so, of what advantage would the power of a court be?'<a id="k100a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And [as a result] Rabbi reversed his decision. Thus it was taught by R. Dimi. R. Safra, however, taught as follows: It once happened that Rabbi<a id="k100a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; desired to act in agreement with the ruling of the Sages,<a id="k100a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; when Perata, the son of R. Eleazar b. Perata, grandson of R. Perata the Great, said to him, 'If so, of what advantage is the power of a court?' And<a id="k100a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [as a result] Rabbi did not act as he intended.<a id="k100a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Must it be assumed that they<a id="k100a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on this principle: One master<a id="k100a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the view that if [in giving a decision] a law cited in a Mishnah<a id="k100a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; has been overlooked the decision must be reversed, and the other Master<a id="k100a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; upholds the view<a id="k100a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; that it cannot be reversed?<a id="k100a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; all<a id="k100a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that if [in giving a decision] a law cited in a Mishnah has been overlooked the decision must be reversed, but one Master holds that the incident occurred in one way<a id="k100a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other holds that it occurred in the other way.<a id="k100a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph stated: If a widow sold [any of her deceased husband's estate]<a id="k100a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the responsibility for the indemnity falls upon the orphans,<a id="k100a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and if the court sold [any such property]<a id="k100a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the responsibility for the indemnity again falls upon the orphans.<a id="k100a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is not this ruling] obvious?<a id="k100a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was not necessary [indeed in respect of] the widow,<a id="k100a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but was required [in respect of] the court; for it might have been assumed
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k100b_1:" Lit.,'it is with the intent that a voice may be brought out for him that he buys'. Since any sale by a court must be preceded by a public announcement. it is conceivable that if any person had a claim upon the land in question he would advance it as soon as the announcement had been made. A buyer who is presumably aware of these considerations might. therefore, be assumed to feel so secure in his purchase as to surrender his guarantee for indemnity. [Aliter: Whoever buys from the <i>Beth din</i> buys for the purpose that he might gain publicity as a man of means, without necessarily expecting any guarantee of indemnification; Strashun]."
,k100b_2:" Is the sale valid."
,k100b_3:" Of the actual value."
,k100b_4:" Lit., 'are made'."
,k100b_5:" Unlike an erroneous decision that does not conflict with a Mishnah, which remains in force and compensation is paid by the court."
,k100b_6:" In a Mishnah."
,k100b_7:" That is put up for sale to meet the claims of their father's widow or daughters."
,k100b_8:" Sold by the Temple treasurer."
,k100b_9:" 'Ar. 21b."
,k100b_10:" Laid down by Amemar in the name of R. Joseph."
,k100b_11:" Who sells orphans' property."
,k100b_12:" Lit., 'worth for worth', or 'equal for equal'."
,k100b_13:" The implied ruling that the sale is valid."
,k100b_14:" Is this then an objection against Amemar?"
,k100b_15:" Since two adjacent clauses would not repeat the same law."
,k100b_16:" Which involves. of course, a public announcement (v. <i>supra</i> p. 632, n. 12)."
,k100b_17:" Is this then an objection against Amemar?"
,k100b_18:" Despite the deduction which is apparently in contradiction to Amemar's ruling."
,k100b_19:" Lit., 'here', the ruling of Amemar."
,k100b_20:" The first clause of our Mishnah."
,k100b_21:" Lit., 'and these are objects concerning which no public announcement is made'."
,k100b_22:" To the objection against Amemar that was raised <i>supra</i>."
,k100b_23:" Lit., 'here', the ruling of Amemar."
,k100b_24:" On behalf of orphans."
,k100b_25:" Of one's widow or daughters."
,k100b_26:" Of a deceased, inherited by his orphans."
,k100b_27:" Since in all these cases money is urgently needed no time can be spared for the usual public announcement that must precede other sales ordered by a court; v. <i>supra</i> 8a."
,k100b_28:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 632, n. 12."
,k100b_29:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 222, n. 8."
,k100b_30:" Of R. Nahman."
,k100b_31:" For dispensing with a bill of inspection at Nehardea."
,k100b_32:" The Nehardeans."
,k100b_33:" Who bought orphans' estates that were offered for sale after a public announcement."
,k100b_34:" A description of contempt. At such enforced sales the buyers usually made exorbitant profits at the expense of the helpless orphans."
,k100b_35:" Immediately on their father's death."
,k100b_36:" In order to prevent their deterioration."
,k100b_37:" [Read with MS.M.: They are taken to the markets, [H]"
,k100b_38:" Or 'on market days' (cf. Rashi, s.v. [H])."
,k100b_39:" Rab Judah and R. Hisda."
,k100b_40:" Lit., 'that'."
,k100b_41:" <i>Aliter</i>: A time when market day is near (cf. Rashi <i>loc. cit</i>.)."
,k100b_42:" <i>Aliter</i>. 'When market day is a long way off' (cf. I.e.)."
,k100b_43:" Though beer must be classed as movables."
,k100b_44:" [H], 'depreciation in the market' or 'deterioration of quality' (cf Jast.) <i>Aliter</i>: 'Though it might become sour', (cf. Rashi)."
,k100b_45:" Lit., 'will bring quick money', I.e., there will be no need to sell on credit. Cash sales, though at a comparatively small price, are preferable to sales on credit that might command a higher price."
,k100b_46:" [A town on the Tigris near Mahuza. Obermeyer. p. 186]."
,k100b_47:" Sc. may a trustee undertake the risk of sea transport [The wine could be taken from Matha Mehasia (Sura) the home of Rabina to Sikara, either overland or by boat. The former journey, though shorter, was the more expensive and involved greater risk of breakage to the earthenware barrels in which the wine was transported, v. Obermeyer, p. 188ff.]"
,k100b_48:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k100b_49:" Who is forbidden by Rabbinic, though not by Pentateuchal, law (cf. Yeb. 21a)."
,k100b_50:" Cf. Yeb. 113a, B.M. 67a; the first mentioned because her separation may be affected even against her husband's will, the second was penalized for contracting an unlawful marriage (cf. Yeb. 85b) while in the case of the last her marriage is regarded as a contract under false pretences."
,k100b_51:" Lit., 'fruit'. Aliter: Usufruct."
,k100b_52:" Sc. her husband is under no obligation to pay her ransom if she is taken captive, though in the case of a legal and normal marriage a husband must assume such obligation (in return for the usufruct of his wife's <i>melog</i> property). As this woman is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i> she is also deprived of the right to be ransomed which is one of the terms of a <i>kethubah</i>. <i>Aliter</i>; Her husband need not refund the usufruct."
,k100b_53:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 5 mutatis mutandis. The limitations of this ruling are dealt with <i>infra</i> 107b."
,k100b_54:" The articles which she brought to her husband on marriage and the value of which was included in her <i>kethubah</i>. If her husband has used these articles he need not compensate her for their wear or loss when she leaves him."
,k100b_55:" V. Lev. XXI, 13."
,k100b_56:" V. ibid. 7."
,k100b_57:" Yeb. 84a."
,k100b_58:" Since the marriage of a minor, n his opinion, has no validity and her status is that of one seduced."
,k100b_59:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k100b_60:" Because a divorce can be given with the husband's consent only."
,k100b_61:" In his ruling just cited."
,k100b_62:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k100b_63:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 639, R. 3."
,k100b_64:" V. p. 639, n. 13."
,k100b_65:" V. p. 639, n. 11."
,k100b_66:" Since she has not the status of a divorced woman, <i>mi'un</i> dissolving the union retrospectively."
,k100b_67:" Because it is forbidden to marry a woman whom ones brother had divorced."
,k100b_68:" V, Lev. XXI, 7'"
,k100b_69:" After <i>mi'un</i>, before contracting a second marriage, though such a period must be allowed to pass in the case of any other divorced woman or widow. Cf. <i>supra</i> n' 5. "
}

txt:
<p>
that whoever buys from the court does so in order that he may have the benefit of a public announcement,<a id="k100b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we were informed [that the responsibility for the indemnity still remains upon the orphans].
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED etc. To what limit [of error]?<a id="k100b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna b. Judah replied in the name of R. Shesheth: To a half.<a id="k100b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; So it was also taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled, If the court sold for one <i>maneh</i> what was worth two hundred <i>zuz</i>, or for two hundred <i>zuz</i> what was worth one <i>maneh</i>, their sale is valid. 
</p><p>
	Amemar laid down in the name of R. Joseph: A court that sold [one's estate] without a [previous] public announcement are deemed<a id="k100b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to have overlooked a law cited in a Mishnah and [their decision]<a id="k100b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; must be reversed. [You say] 'Are deemed'?<a id="k100b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Have they not in actual fact overlooked one,' we learned:<a id="k100b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; The assessment [of the property] of the orphans<a id="k100b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [must be accompanied by a public announcement for a period of] thirty days, and the assessment of consecrated land<a id="k100b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [for a period of] sixty days; and the announcement must be made both in the morning and in the evening?<a id="k100b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If [the ruling<a id="k100b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; were to be derived] from that [Mishnah alone] it might be presumed that it applied only to an agent<a id="k100b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to a court; hence we were taught<a id="k100b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [that the law applied to a court also].
</p><p>
	R. Ashi raised an objection against Amemar: IF AN ASSESSMENT OF JUDGES WAS BY ONE SIXTH LESS, OR ONE SIXTH MORE [THAN THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY], THEIR SALE IS VOID, but [it follows] if it corresponded to the actual worth of the land<a id="k100b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; their sale is valid. Does not this<a id="k100b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [apply even to a case] where no public announcement was made?<a id="k100b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [it applies only to one] where an announcement was made. But since the final clause [refers to a case] where an announcement was made [must not] the first clause<a id="k100b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [refer to one] where no announcement was made; for in the final clause it was taught: IF A BILL FOR INSPECTION,<a id="k100b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, HAS BEEN DRAWN UP, THEIR SALE IS VALID EVEN IF THEY SOLD FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> WHAT WAS WORTH ONE <I>MANEH</I>, OR FOR ONE <I>MANEH</I> WHAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>?<a id="k100b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact indeed is [that the first clause refers to a case] where no announcement was made, and [yet<a id="k100b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; there is] no difficulty, for one ruling<a id="k100b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to objects concerning which public announcements must be made, while the other<a id="k100b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to objects concerning which no public announcements are made, such as<a id="k100b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; slaves, movables and deeds. (What is the reason [why no announcement is made in the case of] slaves? &mdash; [Because if one were made] they might hear It and escape. Movables and deeds? &mdash; Because they might be stolen.) If you wish I might reply:<a id="k100b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; One ruling<a id="k100b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a time when an announcement is made while the others refers to a time when no announcement is made, the Nehardeans having laid down that for poll-tax,<a id="k100b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; maintenance<a id="k100b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and funeral expenses [an estate]<a id="k100b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is sold without a public announcement.<a id="k100b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you prefer I might reply:<a id="k100b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; One ruling<a id="k100b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to a place where announcements are made while the other<a id="k100b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to one where no announcements are made, R. Nahman having stated: Never was a bill for inspection<a id="k100b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; drawn up at Nehardea.<a id="k100b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; From this [statement]<a id="k100b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; one implied that [the reason<a id="k100b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; was] because they<a id="k100b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; were experts in assessments; but R. Joseph b. Minyomi stated: It was explained to me by R. Nahman [that the reason is] because they<a id="k100b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; were nicknamed 'consumers of publicly auctioned estates',<a id="k100b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah ruled in the name of Samuel: Orphans' movables must be assessed<a id="k100b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and sold forthwith.<a id="k100b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda ruled in the name of Abimi: They are to be sold<a id="k100b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; in the markets.<a id="k100b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; There is, however, no difference of opinion between them.<a id="k100b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; One speaks of a place<a id="k100b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; in the proximity of a market,<a id="k100b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other deals with one<a id="k100b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; from which the market is far.<a id="k100b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana had in his possession some beer that belonged to the orphan R. Mesharsheya b. Hilkai. He kept it until the festival,<a id="k100b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; saying, 'Though it might deteriorate,<a id="k100b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; it will have a quick sale.'<a id="k100b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina had In his possession some wine belonging to the orphan Rabina the Little, his sister's son, and he had also some wine of his own which he was about to take up to Sikara.<a id="k100b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; When he came to R. Ashi and asked him, 'May I carry [the orphan's wine] with my own'<a id="k100b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; the other told him, 'You may go; it is not superior to your own.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [A MINOR] WHO EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF <I>MI'UN</I>,<a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; A FORBIDDEN RELATIVE OF THE SECOND DEGREE,<a id="k100b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION IS NOT ENTITLED EITHER TO A <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k100b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; OR TO THE BENEFITS<a id="k100b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; [OF HER <I>MELOG</I><a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; PROPERTY]<a id="k100b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; OR TO MAINTENANCE,<a id="k100b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; OR TO HER WORN OUT ARTICLES.<a id="k100b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE MAN, HOWEVER, HAD MARRIED HER AT THE OUTSET ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WAS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION SHE IS ENTITLED TO A <I>KETHUBAH</I>. A WIDOW WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST,<a id="k100b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <I>HALUZAH</I><a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST,<a id="k100b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH<a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE. OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN,<a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO A <I>KETHUBAH</I>.<a id="k100b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab taught: A minor who is released by means of a letter of divorce is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i><a id="k100b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; and, much less so, [a minor] who exercises the right of <i>mi'un</i><a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel taught: [A minor] who exercises the right of <i>mi'un</i><a id="k100b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>,<a id="k100b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; but a minor who is released by a letter of divorce is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k100b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel<a id="k100b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; follows his [previously expressed] principle; for he laid down: [A minor] who exercises the right of <i>mi'un</i><a id="k100b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i><a id="k100b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; but a minor who is released by a letter of divorce is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>,'<a id="k100b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; [a minor] who exercises the right of <i>mi'un</i><a id="k100b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; is not [through this act] disqualified from marrying the brothers [of her husband],<a id="k100b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; nor is she thereby disqualified from marrying a priest,<a id="k100b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; but [a minor who] is released by a letter of divorce is [through this act] disqualified from marrying the brothers [of her husband]<a id="k100b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; and also from marrying a priest;<a id="k100b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; [a minor] who exercises the right of <i>mi'un</i> need not wait three months<a id="k100b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k102a_1:" [H] in which the witnesses enter the terms that were verbally agreed upon between the parties and duly attach their signatures."
,k102a_2:" Which might appear superfluous in view of the fact that the agreement has been properly drawn up and duly signed."
,k102a_3:" Kid. 9b."
,k102a_4:" In negotiating a marriage."
,k102a_5:" Lit., 'they stood and betrothed'."
,k102a_6:" No symbolic <i>kinyan</i> being necessary. Our Mishnah, too, deals similarly with a verbal agreement from which symbolic <i>kinyan</i> was absent; and, contrary to the opinion that an agreement without <i>kinyan</i> is invalid, it lays down the law in agreement with R. Giddal."
,k102a_7:" Lit., 'that I'."
,k102a_8:" Or <i>shekels</i>. Such a sum is due to the priest for the redemption of an Israelite's firstborn son (cf. Ex. XIII, 13 and Num. XVIII, 16)."
,k102a_9:" Though the document was unsigned and no <i>kinyan</i> was executed and, in consequence, should have no more legal force than a verbal admission. This contradicts Resh Lakish."
,k102a_10:" Bek. 510."
,k102a_11:" [He is not actually obliged Biblically to give to this particular priest, hence omit to him' with MS.M. which reads 'because it is Biblical'.]"
,k102a_12:" In the absence of the written document the five sela's could have been given to any other priest."
,k102a_13:" That the Pentateuchal obligation confers upon a legally invalid document the force of one that was duly signed by witnesses."
,k102a_14:" A legal bond, surely, might be regarded as a virtual payment."
,k102a_15:" Other than those In which the father of the child himself assumed the liability."
,k102a_16:" R. Johanan and Resh Lakish."
,k102a_17:" Lit., 'which goes out'."
,k102a_18:" [The guarantor simply declaring 'I am guarantor' without attaching his signature (Tosaf.).]"
,k102a_19:" But not from property which he sold or mortgaged. Since the signatures of the witnesses do not appear below the guarantee, the guarantor's undertaking can have no more force than a verbal promise, or a loan that has not been secured by a bond, in which case no assigned property is pledged to the creditor."
,k102a_20:" Lit., 'his fellow'."
,k102a_21:" Sc. using violence against him."
,k102a_22:" Such a guarantee is offered for the sole purpose of rescuing the debtor from the creditor's violence. It cannot be regarded as a serious guarantee to discharge the debt, since the debt was incurred before the guarantee was given, v. B.B. 175b."
,k102a_23:" I.e., even R. Johanan must admit that Ben Nannus differs from his ruling. For, if in the case of a guarantee which has Pentateuchal authority (v. B.B. 173b), Ben Nannus does not recognize the validity of a personally unattested undertaking, how much less would he recognize such an undertaking in a case like that spoken of by R. Johanan. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; No, [our Mishnah is dealing] with deeds on verbal agreements,<a id="k102a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the ruling<a id="k102a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; was necessary] in accordance with [the view] of R. Giddal, since R. Giddal has laid down in the name of Rab:<a id="k102a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [if<a id="k102a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; one man said to another.] 'How much are you giving to your son?' [and the other replies.] 'Such and such a sum', and [when the other asks.] 'How much are you giving to your daughter?' [the first replies.] 'Such and such a sum', [and on the basis of this talk] a betrothal was effected,<a id="k102a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kinyan</i> is deemed to have been executed, these being matters concerning which <i>kinyan</i> is effected by a mere verbal arrangement.<a id="k102a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a man gave to a priest in writing [a statement] that he<a id="k102a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; owed him five sela's<a id="k102a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he must<a id="k102a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; pay him the five sela's and his son is not redeemed thereby!<a id="k102a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There [the law] is different because one is under a pentateuchal obligation [to give them] to him.<a id="k102a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If that be so, why did he write? &mdash; In order to choose for himself a priest.<a id="k102a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case<a id="k102a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; why is not his son redeemed?<a id="k102a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In agreement with a ruling of 'Ulla; For 'Ulla said, pentateuchally [the son] is redeemed as soon as [the father] gives [the note of money indebtedness to the priest,] and the reason why the Rabbis ruled that he was not redeemed is because a preventive measure was enacted against the possibility of the assumption that redemption may be effected by means of bonds [in general].<a id="k102a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: [Their<a id="k102a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; dispute seems to follow the same principles] as [laid down by] Tannaim: [If the guarantee] of a guarantor appears<a id="k102a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; below the signatures to bonds of indebtedness,<a id="k102a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [the creditor] may recover his debt from [the guarantor's] free property.<a id="k102a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Such a case once came before R. Ishmael who decided that [the debt] may be recovered from [the guarantor's] free property.<a id="k102a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Ben Nannus, however, said to him, '[The debt may] be recovered neither from free property nor from assigned property'. 'Why?' the other asked him. 'Behold', he replied, 'this is just as if [a creditor] were [in the act of] throttling a debtor<a id="k102a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in the street,<a id="k102a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and his friend found him and said to him, "Leave him alone and I will pay you", [where he is undoubtedly] exempt from liability, since the loan was not made through trust in him.'<a id="k102a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; May it not be suggested that R. Johanan holds the same view as R. Ishmael while Resh Lakish holds that of Ben Nannus? &mdash; On the view of Ben Nannus there can be no difference of opinion;<a id="k102a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k102b_1:" The case of the guarantor."
,k102b_2:" Lit., 'until here'."
,k102b_3:" The recognition of a guarantor's responsibility is (as stated <i>supra</i>) Pentateuchal."
,k102b_4:" <i>Supra</i> 102a q.v. for notes."
,k102b_5:" At the time betrothal was negotiated."
,k102b_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k102b_7:" Sc. the sum of money or object of value which the man gives to the woman as a token of betrothal which constitutes the required <i>kinyan</i>."
,k102b_8:" Lit., to his hand'. As a return for the benefit he, it may well be presumed, readily agrees that even his verbal undertaking should have the legal force of a personally attested written deed."
,k102b_9:" Sc. the bridegroom's."
,k102b_10:" Surely none; since the pecuniary benefit from his son's betrothal does not belong to him."
,k102b_11:" Lit., 'but'."
,k102b_12:" Lit., 'words', spoken of <i>supra</i>, in connection with which no symbolic <i>kinyan</i> was executed."
,k102b_13:" Sc. in a deed, by witnesses."
,k102b_14:" For, if they were to be embodied in a deed, the holder of such a deed would be enabled to distrain on assigned property to which, in the absence of symbolic <i>kinyan</i>, he is legally not entitled. [The question, according to Isaiah Trani, is whether these may be reduced to writing without the consent of both parties, either of whom may object to encumbering the property with a mortgage, v. Shittah Mekubbezeth a.l. and R. Nissim on Kid. 9b also, for other interpretations.]"
,k102b_15:" Cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 10 and 11."
,k102b_16:" Rabina."
,k102b_17:" R. Ashi."
,k102b_18:" [H] emphasis on 'WRITE'."
,k102b_19:" Though the agreement was only verbal. How then could K. Ashi maintain that verbal arrangements may not be embodied in a deed?"
,k102b_20:" Lit., 'what'."
,k102b_21:" [H]"
,k102b_22:" Mishnah <i>supra</i> 830."
,k102b_23:" In reference to this Mishnah which uses the expression of writing (v. <i>supra</i> n. 3)."
,k102b_24:" Emphasis on the word [H]."
,k102b_25:" Which proves that a verbal statement is sometimes described as a written one."
,k102b_26:" Verbal agreements between the parties on the amounts promised."
,k102b_27:" <i>Kethubah</i> contracts."
,k102b_28:" B.B. 167b, Kid. 9b."
,k102b_29:" Lit., 'what, not?'"
,k102b_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 647, n. 13. An objection thus arises against R. Ashi who ruled that verbal agreements 'may not be recorded'. [On Trani's interpretation (<i>supra</i> p. 650, n. II) this passage is adduced in support of R. Ashi that such deeds cannot be written without the consent of both parties. This will, however, necessitate the deletion of the words '(it follows that) with the consent of both they may be written', which words in fact do not occur in MS.M.]"
,k102b_31:" Betrothal may be effected by a deed wherein the man enters, 'Behold thou art betrothed unto me'."
,k102b_32:" Which requires the consent of the woman to such a deed."
,k102b_33:" A deed of betrothal."
,k102b_34:" Or 'for her sake', that of the woman he wishes to betroth."
,k102b_35:" Var., 'Raba' (MS.M., the parallel passage in Kid., and Codes)."
,k102b_36:" Kid. 9b, 48a."
,k102b_37:" Since only a written deed would confer upon her such a status it is obvious that such a deed was in her possession, an objection against R. Ashi (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 12)."
,k102b_38:" To maintain his wife's daughter."
,k102b_39:" Lit., 'where they acquired (symbolic) possession from his hand'. Hence the permissibility of writing a deed."
,k102b_40:" That the verbal agreement was under a <i>kinyan</i>."
,k102b_41:" To exact the cost of maintenance from assigned property."
,k102b_42:" Lit., 'to this'."
,k102b_43:" The Mishnah, surely, does not mention <i>kinyan</i> in the case of the one and omit it in that of the others."
,k102b_44:" Who were presumably born from the marriage contracted at the time of the <i>kinyan</i>."
,k102b_45:" The man's own daughters."
,k102b_46:" Lit., 'and how is this to be imagined?'"
,k102b_47:" The clause of the <i>kethubah</i> which entitles daughters born from that marriage to maintenance."
,k102b_48:" The contrary might, in fact, be expected: As they enjoy the privilege of the clause in the <i>kethubah</i> (v. <i>supra</i> n. 10) they should also be entitled to the privilege of the <i>kinyan</i>."
,k102b_49:" Lit., 'caused them to seize', before he died."
,k102b_50:" Or valuables, to discharge his obligation on the account of their maintenance."
,k102b_51:" The ruling that the maintenance of one's wife's daughter must be forwarded to the place where her mother lives."
,k102b_52:" The brothers who maintain her are not entitled to demand that she shall live with them."
,k102b_53:" In our Mishnah."
,k102b_54:" In stating. 'WHERE HER MOTHER (LIVES)'."
,k102b_55:" [H]; wanting in Bomb. ed."
,k102b_56:" An interested party may be suspected of murder."
,k102b_57:" That the child was entrusted to the care of relatives who were entitled to be his legal heirs."
,k102b_58:" In order to secure his property. Now since there is nothing to prove that an older daughter (who is well capable of looking after herself) must also be maintained at her mother's house and cannot be compelled to live with the brothers and receive maintenance from them, an objection arises against R. Hisda. [Detractors of the Talmud, it may be mentioned, professed to find in this passage an allusion to the 'ritual' murder of 'Christian' children! The absurdity of this suggestion was pointed out by Eric Bischoff in his Talmudkatechismus, p. 38, where he describes it as 'sinnlos' (senseless). It is evident that this incident was recorded to emphasize the danger of entrusting a child to the care of one who stands to benefit by its death. For we see here that even the sanctity of the Festival did not deter the brothers from perpetrating a crime for the purpose of gain. This danger has also been recognized in the English Law of Insurance which lays down that a man cannot insure his child's life to derive a benefit on its death]."
,k102b_59:" That a daughter who is of age may be compelled to live with her brothers."
,k102b_60:" In our Mishnah. "
}

txt:
<p>
their dispute, however, might relate to the view of R. Ishmael. R. Johanan is, [of course,] in agreement with R. Ishmael, while Resh Lakish [might argue:] R. Ishmael maintains his view there<a id="k102b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; only<a id="k102b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; because a pentateuchal responsibility is involved<a id="k102b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but [not] here where no pentateuchal responsibility is involved.
</p><p>
	The [above] text [stated]: 'R. Giddal has laid down in the name of Rab: [If one man said to another,] "How much are you giving to your son?" [and the other replied,] "Such and such a sun,", and [when the other asks,] "How much are you giving to your daughter?" [the first replies,] "Such and such a sum", [and on the basis of this talk] betrothal was effected, <i>kinyan</i> is deemed to have been executed, these being matters concerning which <i>kinyan</i> is effected by a mere verbal arrangement'.<a id="k102b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: It stands to reason that Rab's ruling should apply [only] to the case of a man whose daughter was<a id="k102b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a na'arah,<a id="k102b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; since the benefit [of her betrothal]<a id="k102b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; goes to him,<a id="k102b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to that of a bogereth,<a id="k102b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; since the benefit [of the betrothal of the latter]' does not go to him; but, by God! Rab meant [his ruling to include] even one who is a bogereth. For, should you not concede this, [the objection could be put:] What benefit does the son's<a id="k102b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; father derive?<a id="k102b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason consequently must be that<a id="k102b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; owing to the pleasure of the formation of a mutual family tie they decide to allow one another the full rights of <i>kinyan</i>.
</p><p>
	Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Are those verbal arrangements,<a id="k102b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; allowed to be recorded<a id="k102b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or are they not allowed to be recorded?<a id="k102b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They, the other replied, may not be recorded.<a id="k102b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k102b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; raised an objection against him:<a id="k102b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; PRUDENT MEN USED TO WRITE,<a id="k102b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; ON CONDITION THAT I SHALL MAINTAIN YOUR DAUGHTER FOR FIVE YEARS WHILE YOU [CONTINUE TO LIVE] WITH ME'?<a id="k102b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The meaning of<a id="k102b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'WRITE' [in this context] is 'say'. Could 'saying', however, be described as 'writing'? &mdash; Yes, for so we learned: If a husband gives to his wife a written undertaking,<a id="k102b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have no claim whatsoever upon your estates',<a id="k102b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Hiyya taught:<a id="k102b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; If a husband said<a id="k102b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; to his wife.<a id="k102b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Deeds of betrothal<a id="k102b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and marriage<a id="k102b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; may not be written except with the consent of both parties,<a id="k102b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; but, [it follows, that] with the consent of both parties they may be written. Does not this refer to<a id="k102b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; deeds based on verbal agreements?<a id="k102b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; deeds of actual betrothal,<a id="k102b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [the ruling<a id="k102b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; being] in agreement with R. papa and R. Sherabya; for it was stated: If a man wrote it<a id="k102b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; in her name<a id="k102b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; but without her consent she is, said Rabbah<a id="k102b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabina, betrothed, but R. Papa and R. Sherabya aid, She is not betrothed.<a id="k102b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: SHOULD THEY DIE, THEIR OWN DAUGHTERS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THEIR FREE PROPERTY ONLY BUT SHE MUST BE MAINTAINED EVEN OUT OF ASSIGNED PROPERTY, BECAUSE SHE [HAS THE SAME LEGAL STATUS] AS A CREDITOR!<a id="k102b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Here we are dealing with a case where the man was made to confirm his obligation<a id="k102b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; by a <i>kinyan</i>.<a id="k102b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k102b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same right<a id="k102b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; should be enjoyed, should it not, by one's own] daughters also? &mdash; [This is a case] where <i>kinyan</i> was executed in favour of the ones but not in favour of the others.<a id="k102b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence this certainty?<a id="k102b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since she was in existence at the time the <i>kinyan</i> was executed, the <i>kinyan</i> in her favour is effective; the other daughters,<a id="k102b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; however, since they were not in existence at the time the <i>kinyan</i> was executed, the <i>kinyan</i> in their favour is not effective. But do we not also deal with the case where they<a id="k102b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; were in existence at the time of the <i>kinyan</i>, this being possible where,<a id="k102b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; for instance, the man had divorced his wife and then remarried her? &mdash; [This] however, [is the explanation:] Since she is not covered by the provision of <i>Beth din</i><a id="k102b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kinyan</i> in her case is effective; in the case of the other daughters, however, who are protected by the provision of <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k102b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kinyan</i> is not effective. Are they, on that account, worse off?<a id="k102b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This, however, is the reason: In the case of his own daughters, since they are protected by the provision of <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k102b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; it might be assumed that he entrusted them<a id="k102b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; with some bundles [of money].<a id="k102b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE FIRST HUSBAND IS NOT ENTITLED TO PLEAD [etc.] R. Hisda stated: This<a id="k102b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; implies that [the place of] a daughter must be with her mother.<a id="k102b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence, [however, the proof] that we are dealing here<a id="k102b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; with one who is of age; is it not possible that<a id="k102b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; we are dealing only with a minor [whose custody must be entrusted to her mother] on account of what had once happened? For it was taught: If a man died and left a young son with his mother,<a id="k102b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [and while] the father's heirs demand, 'Let him be brought up with us' his mother claims, 'My son should be brought up by me', [the son] must be left with his mother, but may not be left with anyone who is entitled to be his heir.<a id="k102b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; Such a case<a id="k102b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; once occurred and [the heirs] killed him on the eve of passover!<a id="k102b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If that were so<a id="k102b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; it should have been stated,<a id="k102b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; 'To wherever she is,'
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k103a_1:" Emphasis on MOTHER."
,k103a_2:" No money rental having been arranged."
,k103a_3:" 'That I have another mill in which to grind my corn'."
,k103a_4:" But will pay no rent."
,k103a_5:" As 10 this case a cash payment must be made though originally only maintenance gas undertaken so in the case of the miller a cash rental may be demanded though the original arrangement was for payment in service."
,k103a_6:" Spoken of in our Mishnah."
,k103a_7:" She cannot he expected to consume a double allowance of food. Hence there is no other alternative but that of substituting one monetary payment for one allowance of food."
,k103a_8:" The case of the miller."
,k103a_9:" The one you bought."
,k103a_10:" The one I hired from you."
,k103a_11:" A suggestion which may well be adopted by the owner without any loss to himself."
,k103a_12:" That the lessee cannot be compelled to pay a cash rental."
,k103a_13:" It would be an act of injustice to compel him to pay rent while his machinery stood idle. It is more equitable that he should be enabled to continue the original agreement whereby he is both kept employed and pays his rent."
,k103a_14:" The Sodomites were notorious for refusing to do any favours even when they cost them nothing. 'A dog-in-the-manger attitude' (cf. B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 62, n. 3)."
,k103a_15:" [H], so MS.M. Wanting incur. edd."
,k103a_16:" For refusing to live with the heirs."
,k103a_17:" The heirs, children from another wife."
,k103a_18:" In consequence of which she fears quarrels or temptation."
,k103a_19:" Cf. Tosef. Keth. XI."
,k103a_20:" Lit., 'her husband'."
,k103a_21:" Mishnah <i>supra</i> 52b."
,k103a_22:" In explaining the Mishnah cited."
,k103a_23:" <i>Supra</i> 540 q.v. for notes."
,k103a_24:" Which formed part of her deceased husband's estate."
,k103a_25:" Lit., 'they have not done anything'."
,k103a_26:" Lit., 'for R. Assi stated in the name of R. Johanan'."
,k103a_27:" Before the court had dealt with the case."
,k103a_28:" Of their deceased father, which is legally due to the daughters (cf. <i>infra</i> 108b)."
,k103a_29:" Lit., 'what they sold is sold', Yeb. 67b, Sotah 21b, B.B. 1400."
,k103a_30:" The sale of a small estate."
,k103a_31:" Lit., 'to her'."
,k103a_32:" A father is under no legal obligation to maintain his daughters."
,k103a_33:" A widow's dwelling."
,k103a_34:" Lit., 'to her'."
,k103a_35:" As is evident from the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 52b."
,k103a_36:" Which formed part of her deceased husband's estate."
,k103a_37:" Her claim upon the dwelling terminates as soon as it is no longer fit for habitation."
,k103a_38:" Lit., 'they do not listen to her'."
,k103a_39:" The dilapidated dwelling (v. Rashi). Aliter; May she repair it? (V. Tosaf. s.v. d”v a.l.) Is she entitled, it is asked, to continue to live In that dwelling so long as it can be kept up by repairs or must she quit it as soon as dwelling in it becomes impossible without repairs."
,k103a_40:" Teku, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k103a_41:" In her father's house."
,k103a_42:" Tosef. Keth. XII, B.B. 144b. The more the members of a household the cheaper the cost of living."
,k103a_43:" Sc. an allowance equal to the cheaper cost of her maintenance at the house of the heirs."
,k103a_44:" Lit., 'thus also'; she is in fact entitled to such an allowance."
,k103a_45:" Lit., 'tongue', 'language'."
,k103a_46:" The price having been agreed upon."
,k103a_47:" 'Pulling' (meshikah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k103a_48:" Measuring is not an essential factor of a sale, since it merely determines the quantity sold."
,k103a_49:" V. B.B. 84b as to how and where."
,k103a_50:" Mishnah B.B. 84b. If the fruit is kept in the seller's domain the buyer who for some reason is unable to transport his purchase forthwith and fears that the seller might retract and cause him financial loss, may thus protect himself by renting the spot on which the fruit is kept and thereby acquire possession of the fruit since a man's domain acquires possession for him. A buyer thus gets wealth by taking the hint of the Sages."
,k103a_51:" Pesah. 39b. From this saying one learns of a remedy for a wound."
,k103a_52:" R. Judah I (135-220 C.E.) the Patriarch, compiler of the Mishnah."
,k103a_53:" Which he used during his lifetime."
,k103a_54:" 'Bed shall &hellip; place' is wanting in MS.M."
,k103a_55:" Ex. XX, 12."
,k103a_56:" Lit., 'a father's wife'."
,k103a_57:" [H] emphasis on [H] the sign of the defined accusative, which is not absolutely essential in the context."
,k103a_58:" Lit., 'this'. Cf., however, Beth Joseph, Y.D. 240 ad fin. where the reading is [H] 'to include'."
,k103a_59:" [H] cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k103a_60:" V. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k103a_61:" Lit. 'thy mother's husband'."
,k103a_62:" In [H]."
,k103a_63:" Lit., 'these words', respect for step.parents."
,k103a_64:" V. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k103a_65:" Lit., 'to bring out'."
,k103a_66:" [H] 'righteous and pious men' who were denied the privilege of revisiting their earthly homes."
,k103a_67:" I.e., they should attend to his burial (Rashi) or to the light. table and bed at his house, of which he spoke earlier."
,k103a_68:" They died about the same time as Rabbi and were buried first."
,k103a_69:" Lit., 'that'."
,k103a_70:" Lit., 'that he said thus', that they should attend on him."
,k103a_71:" Lit., 'that they may not say: They had something'."
,k103a_72:" Lit., 'benefitted'."
,k103a_73:" Until the end of his days."
,k103a_74:" Or 'hold funeral orations'. "
}</

txt:
<p>
why then was it stated, 'AT THE PLACE WHERE HER MOTHER [LIVES]'?<a id="k103a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must be inferred that [the place of] a daughter, whether she be of age or a minor, is with her mother.
</p><p>
	THE TWO HUSBANDS CANNOT PLEAD etc. A certain man once leased his mill to another for [the consideration of the latter's services in] grinding [his corn].<a id="k103a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Eventually he became rich and bought another mill and an ass. Thereupon he said to the other, 'Until now I have had my grinding done at your place but now<a id="k103a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; pay me rent'. &mdash; 'I shall', the other replied, 'only grind for you'.<a id="k103a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina [in considering the case] intended to rule that it involved the very principle that was laid down in our Mishnah: THE TWO HUSBANDS CANNOT PLEAD, 'WE WILL MAINTAIN HER JOINTLY', BUT ONE MUST MAINTAIN HER AND THE OTHER ALLOWS HER THE COST OF HER MAINTENANCE.<a id="k103a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. 'Awira, however, said to him: Are [the two cases] alike? There [the woman]<a id="k103a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; has Only one stomach, not two;<a id="k103a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but here<a id="k103a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [the lessee] might well tell the owner, 'Grind [in your own mill]<a id="k103a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and sell; grind [in mine]<a id="k103a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and keep'.<a id="k103a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; This,<a id="k103a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; however, has been said only in a case where [the lessee] has no [other orders for] grinding at his mill,<a id="k103a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he has [sufficient orders for] grinding at his mill he may in such circumstances be compelled [not to act] in the manner of Sodom.<a id="k103a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SHOULD A WIDOW SAY, 'I HAVE NO DESIRE TO MOVE FROM MY HUSBAND'S HOUSE', THE HEIRS CANNOT TELL HER, GO TO YOUR FATHER'S HOUSE AND WE WILL MAINTAIN YOU', BUT THEY MUST MAINTAIN HER IN HER HUSBAND'S HOUSE<a id="k103a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; AND GIVE HER A DWELLING BECOMING HER DIGNITY. IF SHE SAID, HOWEVER,<a id="k103a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; HAVE NO DESIRE TO MOVE FROM MY FATHER'S HOUSE', THE HEIRS ARE ENTITLED TO SAY TO HER, 'IF YOU STAY WITH US YOU WILL HAVE YOUR MAINTENANCE, BUT IF YOU DO NOT STAY WITH US YOU WILL RECEIVE NO MAINTENANCE'. IF SHE BASED HER PLEA<a id="k103a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS YOUNG AND THEY<a id="k103a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; WERE YOUNG,<a id="k103a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY MUST MAINTAIN HER WHILE SHE LIVES IN THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught:<a id="k103a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [A widow] may use [her deceased husband's] dwelling as she used it during his<a id="k103a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; lifetime. [She may also use] the bondmen and bondwomen, the cushions and the bolsters, and the silver and gold utensils as she used them during the lifetime of her husband, for such is the written undertaking he gave her: 'And you shall dwell in my house and be maintained therein out of my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood'.<a id="k103a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph learnt:<a id="k103a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'In my house' [implies] 'but not in my hovel'.<a id="k103a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman ruled: If orphans sold a widow's dwelling<a id="k103a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; their act is legally invalid.<a id="k103a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But why [should this case be] different from that of which R. Assi spoke in the name of R. Johanan as follows:<a id="k103a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; If the male orphans forestalled [the female orphans] and sold<a id="k103a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; some property of a small estate<a id="k103a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; their sale is valid?<a id="k103a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k103a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [the property] Was not pledged to any daughter<a id="k103a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; during [her father's] lifetime,<a id="k103a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but here<a id="k103a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [the dwelling] was pledged to the widow<a id="k103a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; during [her husband's] lifetime.<a id="k103a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye stated: We have a tradition that if a widow's dwelling<a id="k103a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; collapsed it is not the duty of the heirs to rebuild it.' So it was also taught: If a widow's dwelling<a id="k103a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; collapsed it is not the duty of the heirs to rebuild it.<a id="k103a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, even if she says, 'Allow me and I shall rebuild it at my own expense', she is not granted her request.<a id="k103a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye asked: What [is the legal position if] she repaired it?<a id="k103a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is undecided.<a id="k103a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF SHE SAID, HOWEVER,'I HAVE NO DESIRE' etc. Why should they not give her maintenance while she lives there?<a id="k103a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This supports [a statement] of R. Huna who said, 'The blessing of a house [is proportionate] to its size'.<a id="k103a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then can they not give her according to the blessing of the house?<a id="k103a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is so.<a id="k103a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Huna: The sayings<a id="k103a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; of the Sages [are a source of] blessing, wealth and healing. [As to] 'blessing', [we have] the statement just mentioned. 'Wealth'? &mdash; Because we learned: If one sold fruits to another<a id="k103a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [and the buyer] pulled<a id="k103a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; them, though they have not yet been measured,<a id="k103a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; ownership is acquired. If, however, they have been measured,<a id="k103a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; but [the buyer] has not pulled them, ownership is not acquired. But if [the buyer] is prudent he rents the place where they are kept.<a id="k103a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Healing'? &mdash; For we learned: A man should not chew wheat and put it on his wound during the Passover because it ferments.<a id="k103a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: When Rabbi<a id="k103a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; was about to depart [from this life] he said, 'I require [the presence] of my sons'. When his sons entered into his presence he instructed them: 'Take care that you shew due respect to your mother. The light<a id="k103a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; shall continue to burn in its usual place, the table<a id="k103a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; shall be laid in its usual place [and my] bed shall be spread in its usual place.<a id="k103a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; Joseph of Haifa and Simeon of Efrath who attended on me in my lifetime shall attend on me when I am dead'.
</p><p>
	'Take care that you shew due respect to your mother'. Is [not this instruction] Pentateuchal, since it is written, Honour thy father and thy mother?<a id="k103a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; She was their stepmother.<a id="k103a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is not the commandment to honour] a stepmother<a id="k103a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; also Pentateuchal, for it was taught: Honour thy father and thy mother,'<a id="k103a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; 'thy father'<a id="k103a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; includes<a id="k103a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; 'thy stepmother','and thy mother'<a id="k103a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; includes<a id="k103a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; 'thy Stepfather',<a id="k103a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; and the superfluous <i>waw</i><a id="k103a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; includes 'thy elder brother'? &mdash; This exposition<a id="k103a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; [was meant to apply] during [one's own parents'] lifetime but not after [their] death.
</p><p>
	'The light shall continue to burn in its usual place, the table shall be laid in its usual place [and my] bed shall be spread in its usual place'.<a id="k103a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; He used to come home again at twilight every Sabbath Eve. On a certain Sabbath Eve a neighbour came to the door speaking aloud, when his handmaid whispered, 'Be quiet for Rabbi is sitting there'. As soon as he heard this he came no more, in order that no reflection might be cast<a id="k103a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; on the earlier saints.<a id="k103a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Joseph of Haifa and Simeon of Efrath who attended on me in my lifetime shall attend on me when I am dead'. He was understood to mean, 'In this world'.<a id="k103a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; When it was seen however, that their biers preceded his<a id="k103a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; [all] said that the conclusion must be that he was referring to the other<a id="k103a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; world, and that the reason why he mentioned it<a id="k103a_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; was that it might not be suspected that they were guilty of some offence<a id="k103a_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; and that it was only the merit of Rabbi that protected<a id="k103a_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; them until that moment.<a id="k103a_73"><sup>73</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'I require'. he said to them, '[the presence] of the Sages of Israel', and the Sages of Israel entered into his presence. 'Do not lament for me',<a id="k103a_74"><sup>74</sup></a>&nbsp; he said to them, 'in the smaller towns,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k103b_1:" Lit., 'and cause to sit."
,k103b_2:" Of lamentation and mourning. No longer period for mourning shall be allowed."
,k103b_3:" [H], this is explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>. V. also <i>infra</i> n. 24 and p. 659. n. 9."
,k103b_4:" [H] 'prince'. 'president', 'patriarch'. On some of the dignities and honours attached to the offices of Nasi, Hakam, and Ab-beth-din respectively v. Hor. 13b."
,k103b_5:" By restricting the lamentations to the larger towns the inhabitants of the smaller ones as well as the villagers would be spared the time and trouble involved in arranging, or attending, the public funeral services."
,k103b_6:" Lit., 'all the world'."
,k103b_7:" Both from the smaller towns and the villages."
,k103b_8:" Cf., 'he wished that Israel might be honoured in greater measure through him' (Sanh. 470)."
,k103b_9:" Deut. XXXIV, 8."
,k103b_10:" Lit., 'from now onwards'."
,k103b_11:" Lit., 'that they mourned twelve months of the year'."
,k103b_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k103b_13:" [Probably this was the fuller mentioned in Ned. 410 (Jacob Emden).]"
,k103b_14:" Rabbi."
,k103b_15:" One would naturally expect the wise son rather than the other to succeed his father as Nasi. Why then did Rabbi mention the wisdom of the one as apparently a reason for the appointment of the other?"
,k103b_16:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 658 nn. 13-14. [Halevy Doroth, II, p. 20, n. I, explains that what Rabbi primarily meant was that Simeon shall be the Hakam and Gamaliel the Nasi. The precedence, however, given in his instructions to Simeon, although his office was second to that of the Nasi, indicated that Rabbi desired to have a secondary meaning attached to his words. Hence the question, 'what did he mean?']."
,k103b_17:" That Gamaliel, who was the elder son and entitled to the succession, shall be the Nasi."
,k103b_18:" Levi was lame (v. Suk. 530). Aliter (Jast.): 'Do we need thee and thy limping (lame remark)?'"
,k103b_19:" R. Simeon b. Rabbi's."
,k103b_20:" In understanding Levi's objection."
,k103b_21:" II Chron. XXI, 3. (Cf. p. 659, n. 10). What need then was there, as Levi objected, for Rabbi's specific instruction?"
,k103b_22:" Lit., 'that', Jehoram."
,k103b_23:" Lit., 'fulfilling the place of'."
,k103b_24:" Since there was no other son possessing a superior claim."
,k103b_25:" His younger brother having been wiser. Hence the necessity for Rabbi's specific instructions. Aliter; What was his (sc. Levi's) difficulty? (Is it) that Scripture stated, But the kingdom&nbsp;&hellip; the firstborn, that (firstborn, it may be replied.) was properly representing his ancestors but R. Gamaliel etc. (cf. S. Strashun)."
,k103b_26:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k103b_27:" Gamaliel."
,k103b_28:" Moral conception and conduct (cf. Abboth III, II; Sonc. ed. III, 9' p. 32)."
,k103b_29:" Since he could not recognise R. Afes as his superior."
,k103b_30:" Lit., 'his soul rested'."
,k103b_31:" Lit., 'to sit at his side'."
,k103b_32:" Lit., 'and that is'."
,k103b_33:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 222, n. 8."
,k103b_34:" On the Sabbath, when the carrying of objects from one domain into another is forbidden (cf. Shab. 59b)."
,k103b_35:" Lit., 'infer from this'."
,k103b_36:" Lit., 'as he sat he sits'."
,k103b_37:" Lit., 'that he should not reign'. Consequently he must have survived R. Afes."
,k103b_38:" lob XXII, 28."
,k103b_39:" Who was superior to both R. Hanina and R. Afes. Why was he overlooked by Rabbi?"
,k103b_40:" When Rabbi was making his testamentary appointments."
,k103b_41:" 'His coffin' (Rashi)."
,k103b_42:" Being the approach of the day of rest."
,k103b_43:" Lit., 'at the going out of the Sabbath'."
,k103b_44:" One's sins having been forgiven during the day."
,k103b_45:" All of which proves that R. Hiyya was still alive when Rabbi was on his deathbed."
,k103b_46:" Lit., 'cause him to be idle' or 'to relax'."
,k103b_47:" The testimony to R. Hiyya's piety and public benefactions."
,k103b_48:" Lit., 'and that is (why)'."
,k103b_49:" Cf. B.M. 85b where the parallel passage contains some variations including the substitution of 'R. Ishmael the son of R. Jose' for 'R. Simeon b. Rabbi'."
,k103b_50:" Rabbi. The story of the last moments of his life, interrupted by the Preceding discussions, explanations and incidents, is here resumed."
,k103b_51:" Plur. const. of rsx 'order', 'rules and regulations'."
,k103b_52:" [H] (sing. [H] 'high', 'elevated'). Aruch reads, [H] ([H] 'equivalent', 'compensation', 'value') 'as something precious'."
,k103b_53:" Sc. 'introduce a firm discipline in the college'."
,k103b_54:" Keeping scholars under a discipline which many might regard as degrading."
,k103b_55:" Lit., 'I am not'."
,k103b_56:" Ps. XV, 4."
,k103b_57:" Lit., 'that'."
,k103b_58:" Scholars, like the general public, may be expected to respect the common rules and regulations and to pay homage to the Patriarch."
,k103b_59:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 410, n. 6."
,k103b_60:" Identified with (a) the modern Tur'an. a village situated ten kilometres E.N.E. of Sepphoris (I. S. Horowitz, Palestine s.v.); (b) Besara, mentioned in Josephus, the modern Dscheda W. of the Valley of Jezreel (Klein. S. EJ. 4, 427)."
,k103b_61:" Deut. XVI, 20."
,k103b_62:" 'Rabbi&nbsp;&hellip; She'arim' is wanting in [H] edd."
,k103b_63:" V. B.M. 85a. "
}

txt:
<p>
and reassemble<a id="k103b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the college after thirty days.<a id="k103b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; My son Simeon is wise<a id="k103b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; my son Gamaliel Nasi<a id="k103b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and Hanina b. Hama shall preside [at the college].
</p><p>
	'Do not lament for me in the smaller towns'. He was understood to give this instruction In order [to cause less] trouble.<a id="k103b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; As it was observed, however, that when lamentations were held in the large towns everybody<a id="k103b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; came<a id="k103b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; they arrived at the conclusion that his instruction was due to [a desire to enhance] the honour [of the people].<a id="k103b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Reassemble the college after thirty days', because [he thought] 'I am not more important than our teacher Moses concerning whom it is Written in Scripture, <i>And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days'</i>.<a id="k103b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	For thirty days they mourned both day and night; subsequently<a id="k103b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; they mourned in the day-time and studied at night or mourned at night and studied during the day, until a period of twelve months of mourning<a id="k103b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [had passed].
</p><p>
	On the day that Rabbi died a <i>bath kol</i><a id="k103b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; went forth and announced: Whosoever has been present at the death of Rabbi is destined to enjoy the life of the world to come. A certain fuller,<a id="k103b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; who used to come to him<a id="k103b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; every day, failed to call on that day; and, as soon as he heard this, went up upon a roof, fell down to the ground and died. A <i>bath kol</i><a id="k103b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; came forth and announced: That fuller also is destined to enjoy the life of the world to come.
</p><p>
	'My son Simeon is wise. What did he<a id="k103b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; mean?<a id="k103b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is this that he meant: Although my son Simeon is wise, my son Gamaliel shall be the Nasi.<a id="k103b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Levi, 'Was It necessary to state this?'<a id="k103b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was necessary'. replied R. Simeon b. Rabbi, 'for yourself and for your lameness'.<a id="k103b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What was his<a id="k103b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; difficulty?<a id="k103b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not Scripture state, But the kingdom gave he to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn?<a id="k103b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other<a id="k103b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was properly representing<a id="k103b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; his ancestors<a id="k103b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Gamaliel was not properly representing<a id="k103b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; his ancestors.<a id="k103b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Then why did Rabbi act in the manner he did?<a id="k103b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Granted that he<a id="k103b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; was not representing his ancestors In wisdom he was worthily representing them in his fear of sin.<a id="k103b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Hanina b. Hama shall preside at the college'. R. Hanina, however, did not accept [the office] because R. Afes was by two and a half years older than he; and so R. Afes presided. R. Hanina sat [at his studies] outside [the lecture room],<a id="k103b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and Levi came and joined him. When R. Afes went to his eternal rest<a id="k103b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Hanina took up the presidency Levi had no one to join him<a id="k103b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and came in consequence to Babylon.
</p><p>
	This description coincides with the following:<a id="k103b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; When Rab was told that a great man who was lame made his appearance at Nehardea<a id="k103b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and held a discourse [in the course of which he] permitted [the wearing of] a wreath,<a id="k103b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; he said,'It is evident<a id="k103b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; that R. Afes has gone to his eternal rest, and R. Hanina has taken over the presidency; and that Levi having had no one to join him, has come [down here].' But might not one have suggested that R. Hanina came to his eternal rest, that R. Afes continued In the presidency as before<a id="k103b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and that Levi who had no one to join him came [therefore, to Babylon]? If you wish I might reply: Levi would have submitted to the authority of R. Afes. And if you prefer I might reply: Since [Rabbi] once said, 'Hanina b. Hama shall preside at the college', there could be no possibility of his not becoming head;<a id="k103b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; for about the righteous it is written in Scripture. <i>Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee</i>.<a id="k103b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Was there not R. Hiyya?<a id="k103b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He had already gone to his eternal rest.<a id="k103b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; But did not R. Hiyya, state, 'I saw Rabbi's sepulchre<a id="k103b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and shed tears upon it'? &mdash; Reverse [the names]. But did not R. Hiyya state, 'On the day on which Rabbi died holiness ceased'? &mdash; Reverse [the names]. But has it not been taught: When Rabbi fell in R. Hiyya entered into his presence and found him weeping. 'Master', he said to him, 'Why are you weeping? Was it not taught: '[If a man] dies smiling it is a good omen for him, if weeping it is a bad omen for him; his face upwards it is a good omen, his face downwards it is a bad omen; his face towards the public it is a good omen, towards the wall it is a bad omen; if his face is greenish it is a bad omen, if bright and ruddy it.is a good omen; dying on Sabbath Eve<a id="k103b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; is a good omen, on the termination of the Sabbath<a id="k103b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; is a bad omen; dying on the Eve of the Day of Atonement is a bad omen, on the termination of the Day of Atonement<a id="k103b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; is a good omen; dying of diarrhoea is a good omen because most righteous men die of diarrhoea?' And the other replied, 'I weep on [account of my impending separation from] the Torah and the commandments'?<a id="k103b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you wish I might reply: Reverse [the names]; and if you prefer I might reply: In fact there Is no need to reverse [the names; but as] R. Hiyya was engaged in the performance of pious deeds Rabbi thought 'I will not disturb him'.<a id="k103b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This<a id="k103b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; is in line with the following:<a id="k103b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Hanina and R. Hiyya were engaged in a dispute R. Hanina said to R. Hiyya, 'Do you [venture to] dispute with me? Were the Torah, God forbid, to be forgotten in Israel, I would restore it by means of my dialectical arguments'. &mdash; 'I', replied R. Hiyya, 'make provision that the Torah shall not be forgotten in Israel. For I bring flax seed, sow it, and weave nets [from the plant]. [With these] I hunt stags with whose flesh I feed orphans and from whose skins I prepare scrolls, and then proceed to a town where there are no teachers of young children, and write out the five Books of the Pentateuch for five children [respectively] and teach another six children respectively the six orders of the Mishnah, and then tell each one: "Teach your section to your colleagues"'. It was this that Rabbi [had in mind when he] exclaimed, 'How great are the deeds of Hiyya?' Said R. Simeon b. Rabbi to him: '[Greater] even than yours?' &mdash; 'Yes', he replied. 'Even', asked R. Ishmael the son of R. Jose, 'than my father's?' &mdash; 'God forbid', the other replied. 'Let no such thing be [mentioned] in Israel!'<a id="k103b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'I desire', he<a id="k103b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; announced, 'the presence of my younger son R. Simeon entered into his presence and he entrusted him with the orders<a id="k103b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; of wisdom. 'I desire the presence of my elder son', he announced. When R. Gamaliel entered he entrusted him with the traditions and regulations<a id="k103b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; of the Patriarchate. 'My son', he said to him, 'conduct your patriarchate with men of high standing,<a id="k103b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and cast bile among the students'.<a id="k103b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But surely, this<a id="k103b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; is not proper<a id="k103b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; for is it not written in Scripture, <i>But he honoureth them that fear the Lord</i>,<a id="k103b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Master said that this [text might be applied to] Jehoshaphat, King of Judah. who, on seeing a scholar, used to rise from his throne, embrace him and kiss him, and call him 'My master, my master; my teacher, my teacher'? &mdash; This is no difficulty: The latter attitude<a id="k103b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; [is to be adopted] in private; the former<a id="k103b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; in public.<a id="k103b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: Rabbi was lying [on his sickbed] at Sepphoris<a id="k103b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; but a [burial] place was reserved for him at Beth She'arim.<a id="k103b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Was it not, however, taught: Justice, justice shalt thou follow.<a id="k103b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; follow Rabbi to Beth She'arim? &mdash; Rabbi was [indeed] living at Beth She'arim<a id="k103b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; but when he fell ill<a id="k103b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; he was brought to Sepphoris
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k105a_1:" That she has no property of her husband's in her possession."
,k105a_2:" Sc. when her husband dies and she claims her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k105a_3:" I.e., during his lifetime when she claims her maintenance."
,k105a_4:" [H] A similar description occurs in Oh. XVII, 5. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 64, n. 6, [H] 'Priestly Court' or 'Court of Priests'."
,k105a_5:" Or any damage."
,k105a_6:" I.e., Admon mentioned in our Mishnah."
,k105a_7:" In the Baraitha cited."
,k105a_8:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k105a_9:" In the Baraitha cited."
,k105a_10:" The author of our Mishnah."
,k105a_11:" On the admissibility of another rendering v. Tosaf. s.v., [H], a.l."
,k105a_12:" Lit., 'did not teach'."
,k105a_13:" The judges mentioned."
,k105a_14:" Lit., 'decreed decrees'. Hence the term '<small>CIVIL</small>' [H]: (v. <i>supra</i> p. 672, n. 1) in our Mishnah."
,k105a_15:" [H] (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 672, nn. 1 and 8). Hence the justification for the use of this term in the Baraitha."
,k105a_16:" A silver piece = one <i>ma'ah</i> or a third of a <i>denar</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k105a_17:" B.K. 58b."
,k105a_18:" Inconsistent with our Mishnah which mentions only TWO. V., however, Tosaf s.v.[H]."
,k105a_19:" [Who considered Nahum important, v. Maharsha]."
,k105a_20:" Each consisting of twenty-three judges."
,k105a_21:" For Mishnah and Talmud."
,k105a_22:" For children."
,k105a_23:" [H], lit., 'heave-offering of the (people) to the (Temple treasure) chamber'."
,k105a_24:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k105a_25:" [H]. lit., 'did not want.'"
,k105a_26:" Who expect from the public funds more than is required for a decent living. A judge's salary most not exceed the actual cost of his living (v. Rashi)."
,k105a_27:" Lit., 'but'."
,k105a_28:" To provide for a decent living."
,k105a_29:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 673, n. 15."
,k105a_30:" A judge if the Exile. Cf Sanh. 17b, Sonc. ed. p. 88, n. 5."
,k105a_31:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k105a_32:" A the party in whose favour judgment was to be given."
,k105a_33:" Lit., 'and judged for them the law'."
,k105a_34:" Karna."
,k105a_35:" Ex. XXIII. 8."
,k105a_36:" Deut. XVI, 19."
,k105a_37:" Ex. XXIII, 8."
,k105a_38:" <i>Sc</i>. with the intention of perverting judgment."
,k105a_39:" For his professional services."
,k105a_40:" Kid. 58, Bek. 29a."
,k105a_41:" Lit., 'idleness'."
,k105a_42:" Lit., 'his Judgment is judgment'."
,k105a_43:" So BaH. Cur. edd. 'it was taught'."
,k105a_44:" Lit., 'but'."
,k105a_45:" Lit., 'idleness'."
,k105a_46:" To advise the owner as to which wine could be stored for longer and which only for shorter periods."
,k105a_47:" [H] Rashi reads the noun in the pl., stores'."
,k105a_48:" Lit., 'and they gave him a zuz' (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). When acting as judge he was entitled to demand compensation for his loss."
,k105a_49:" Lit., 'like that'."
,k105a_50:" 'For the irrigation of my land'."
,k105a_51:" [H], cf. <i>supra</i> p. 364. n. 4"
,k105a_52:" The smallest coin, v.<a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k105a_53:" Ex. XXIII, 8."
,k105a_54:" Deut. XVI, 19."
,k105a_55:" Obviously not; how then is it likely that anyone would offer them any bribe"
,k105a_56:" Lit., 'blindness of heart'. "
}

txt:
<p>
SHE MUST TAKE AN OATH<a id="k105a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AT THE END<a id="k105a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT AT THE BEGINNING.<a id="k105a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SONS OF THE HIGH PRIESTS,<a id="k105a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, DIFFERED FROM HIM AND RULED THAT SHE MUST TAKE AN OATH BOTH AT THE BEGINNING<a id="k105a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND AT THE END.<a id="k105a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. DOSA B. HARKINAS AGREED WITH THEIR RULING. R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI SAID: HANAN HAS SPOKEN WELL; SHE NEED TAKE AN OATH ONLY AT THE END.<a id="k105a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. I Would point out an Inconsistency: 'Three judges in cases of robbery<a id="k105a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; were [administering justice] in Jerusalem. Admon b. Gadai,<a id="k105a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Hanan the Egyptian and Hanan b. Abishalom'. Is there not an inconsistency between 'three'<a id="k105a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'TWO', and an inconsistency between 'CIVIL'<a id="k105a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'robbery'?<a id="k105a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; One might well admit that there is no [real] inconsistency between the 'three' and the 'TWO' since he<a id="k105a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; may be enumerating [only those] whom he con siders important<a id="k105a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and omitting<a id="k105a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [the one] whom he does not consider important. Does not, however, the inconsistency between 'CIVIL' and 'robbery' remain? &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: [Both terms may be justified on the grounds] that they<a id="k105a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; imposed fines<a id="k105a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; for acts of robbery;<a id="k105a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; as it was taught: If [a beast] nipped off a plant, said R. Jose. the Judges of Civil Law in Jerusalem ruled that if the plant was in its first year [the owner of the beast pays as compensation] two silver pieces.<a id="k105a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; if it was in its second year [he pays as compensation] four silver pieces.<a id="k105a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	I point out [another] contradiction: Three judges of Civil Law were [administering justice] in Jerusalem. Admon, and Hanan and Nahum?<a id="k105a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa replied: He who mentioned Nahum was R. Nathan;<a id="k105a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was taught: R. Nathan stated, 'Nahum the Mede also was one of the Judges of Civil Law in Jerusalem', but the Sages did not agree with him.
</p><p>
	Were there, however, no more [judges]? [Did not] R. Phinehas. in fact, state on the authority of R. Oshaia that there were three hundred and ninety four courts of law<a id="k105a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in Jerusalem, and an equal number of Synagogues. of Houses of Study<a id="k105a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and of schools?<a id="k105a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Judges there were many, but we were speaking of Judges of Civil Law only.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah stated in the name of R. Assi: The Judges of Civil Law in Jerusalem received their salaries out of the Temple funds<a id="k105a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [at the rate of] ninety-nine <i>maneh</i>.<a id="k105a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If they were not satisfied is they were given an increase.
</p><p>
	[You say] 'They were not satisfied'?<a id="k105a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Are we dealing with wicked men?<a id="k105a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; The reading in fact is,<a id="k105a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [If the amount was] not Sufficient<a id="k105a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; an increase was granted to them even if they objected.<a id="k105a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Karna<a id="k105a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; used to take one istira<a id="k105a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; from the innocent<a id="k105a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; party and one istira from the guilty party and then informed them of his decision.<a id="k105a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; But how could he<a id="k105a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; act in such a manner? Is it not written in Scripture, And thou shalt take no gift?<a id="k105a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you reply that this applies only where he does not take from both [litigants] since he might [in consequence] wrest judgment, but Karna, since he took [the same amount] from both parties, would not come to wrest judgment, [it can be retorted:] Is this permitted even where one would not come to wrest judgment? Was it not in fact taught: What was the purpose of the statement And thou shalt take no gift?<a id="k105a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; If to teach that one must not acquit the guilty or that one must not condemn the innocent [the objection Surely could be raised]. It was already specifically stated elsewhere in Scripture, Thou shalt not wrest judgement.<a id="k105a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must be concluded that even [where the intention is] to acquit the innocent or to condemn the guilty the Torah laid down, And thou shalt take no gift?<a id="k105a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This<a id="k105a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only where [the judge] takes [the gift] as a bribe,<a id="k105a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; but Karna took [the two istira] as a fee.<a id="k105a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it permissible [for a judge to take money] as a fee.<a id="k105a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; Have we not in fact learned: The legal decisions of one who takes a fee for acting as judge are null and void?<a id="k105a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This<a id="k105a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to a fee for pronouncing judgment, while Karna was only taking compensation for loss of work.<a id="k105a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But [is a judge] permitted to take compensation for loss of work? Was it not in fact taught: Contemptible is the judge who takes a fee for pronouncing judgment; but his decision is valid?<a id="k105a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, what is to be understood [by fee]. If it be suggested [that it means] a fee for acting as judge [the objection would arise: How could be said,] 'his decision is valid', when in fact we have learned:<a id="k105a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; The legal decisions of one who takes a fee for acting as judge are null and void? Consequently it must mean<a id="k105a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; a fee for loss of work,<a id="k105a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet it was stated, was it not, 'Contemptible is the judge etc.'? &mdash; This applies only to a loss of work that cannot be proved, but Karna received [compensation for] loss of work that could be proved. for he was [regularly occupied in] smelling tests<a id="k105a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; at a wine store,<a id="k105a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and for this he was paid a fee.<a id="k105a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; This is similar to the case<a id="k105a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Huna. When a lawsuit was brought to him, he used to say to the [litigants]. 'Provide me with a man who will draw the water<a id="k105a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; in my place<a id="k105a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; and I will pronounce judgment for you'.
</p><p>
	Said R. Abbahu: Come and see how blind are the eyes of those who take a bribe. If a man has pain in his eyes he pays away money to a medical man and he may be cured or he nay not be cured, yet these take what is only worth one <i>perutah</i><a id="k105a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and blind their eyes [therewith]. for it is said in Scripture. <i>For a gift blindeth them that have sight</i>.<a id="k105a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: For a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise,<a id="k105a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; and much more so those of the foolish; And pervert the words of the righteous,<a id="k105a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; and much more so those of the wicked. Are then fools and wicked men capable of acting as judges?<a id="k105a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But it is this that is meant: 'For a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise', even a great Sage who takes bribes will not depart from the world without [the affliction of] a dullness of the mind,<a id="k105a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And pervert the words of the righteous',
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k105b_1:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k105b_2:" Sc. is independent of other people's help or favours."
,k105b_3:" Collecting his dues."
,k105b_4:" Cf Sanh. 7b."
,k105b_5:" Any objects. The verb [H], here used, does not apply to money."
,k105b_6:" Lit., 'we have nothing against it'."
,k105b_7:" Lit., 'Is it really so?'"
,k105b_8:" His borrowing was of no benefit to himself. Lit., 'to cause them to be important'. For a similar reason Rabbah levied a contribution for charity on the orphans of the house of Bar Merion (cf. B.B. 8a)."
,k105b_9:" Upon a judge."
,k105b_10:" Even where the judge intended to act justly."
,k105b_11:" Lit., 'his mind draws near to him'."
,k105b_12:" Lit., 'guilt'."
,k105b_13:" [H], 'gift', 'bribe'."
,k105b_14:" [H], 'that he (the recipient) is one (with the giver)'. This is not intended as etymology but as a word play."
,k105b_15:" Lit., 'one who has caught fire by (association with) Rabbis'."
,k105b_16:" Lit., 'of heaven'."
,k105b_17:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 319, n. 9'"
,k105b_18:" In that town."
,k105b_19:" Who would lose their lawsuits."
,k105b_20:" In whose favour judgment would be given."
,k105b_21:" Lit., 'who is made guilty'."
,k105b_22:" Lit., 'now'."
,k105b_23:" Ex. XXIII, 8."
,k105b_24:" Or 'acts'."
,k105b_25:" [H] which would have meant a monetary bribe."
,k105b_26:" Lit., 'as that of Samuel'."
,k105b_27:" Or 'ferry'."
,k105b_28:" To assist him."
,k105b_29:" Lit., 'was sitting and deciding a law'."
,k105b_30:" Lit., 'threw saliva before him'."
,k105b_31:" Gardener-tenant (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k105b_32:" As rent, from R. Ishmael's garden which he cultivated."
,k105b_33:" [H], lit., 'entering of the Sabbath', sc. Sabbath Eve."
,k105b_34:" Lit., 'day'."
,k105b_35:" Lit., 'by the way'."
,k105b_36:" Lit., 'went and came'."
,k105b_37:" His <i>aris</i>."
,k105b_38:" All possible pleadings in favour of the <i>aris</i> rose spontaneously to his mind."
,k105b_39:" So Jast. [H], lit., 'may their ghost blow out', or 'be blown' (rt. [H] 'to blow')."
,k105b_40:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k105b_41:" Who was a priest and entitled to the priestly does."
,k105b_42:" Cf. Deut. XVIII, 4."
,k105b_43:" Lit., 'from there to here'."
,k105b_44:" Lit., 'by the way'."
,k105b_45:" Lit., 'went and came'."
,k105b_46:" The man who offered him the priestly due."
,k105b_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> notes 1-5."
,k105b_48:" [H] 'among the marshes'. Sc. that live among the reeds in the swamps ( Jast.). [Obermeyer p. 245. n. 1 suggests [H] to be the name of a place, Al Kil on the Tigris]."
,k105b_49:" Cf. Ex. XXIII, 19."
,k105b_50:" II Kings IV, 42."
,k105b_51:" Who was no priest. Tradition ascribes him to the tribe of Gad (cf. Pesah. 68a and Rosh. a.l.)."
,k105b_52:" Obviously not; why then did he accept 'first-fruits'?"
,k105b_53:" Wanting in MS.M."
,k105b_54:" It is forbidden to act as judge or witness in a relative's lawsuit."
,k105b_55:" Lit., 'was standing'. "
}

txt:
<p>
even one who is righteous in every respect and takes bribes will not depart from this world without [the affliction of] confusion of mind. 
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came<a id="k105b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he related that R. Nahman b. Kohen made the following exposition: What was meant by the Scriptural text, The King by justice establisheth the land, but he that loveth gifts overthroweth it? If the judge is like a king who is not in need of anything<a id="k105b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he establisheth the land, but if he is like a priest who moves to and fro among the threshing floors,<a id="k105b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he overthroweth it.<a id="k105b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. R. Shila stated: Any judge who is in the habit of borrowing<a id="k105b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is unfit to pronounce judgment. This, however, applies only where he possesses nothing to lend to others, but where he possesses things to lend [his borrowing] does not matter.<a id="k105b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, cannot surely be correct;<a id="k105b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for did not Raba borrow things from the household of Bar Merion, although they did not borrow anything from him? &mdash; There he desired to give them better standing.<a id="k105b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba stated: What is the reason for [the prohibition<a id="k105b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; against taking] a gift?<a id="k105b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Because as soon as a man receives a gift from another he becomes so well disposed towards him<a id="k105b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; that he becomes like his own person, and no man sees himself in the wrong.<a id="k105b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What [is the meaning of] shohad?<a id="k105b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; She-hu had.<a id="k105b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: A man should not act as judge either for one whom he loves or for one whom he hates; for no man can see the guilt of one whom he loves or the merit of one whom he hates.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: If a scholar<a id="k105b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is loved by the townspeople [their love] is not due to his superiority but [to the fact] that he does not rebuke them for [neglecting] spiritual<a id="k105b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; matters.
</p><p>
	Raba remarked: At first I thought that all the people of Mahuza<a id="k105b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; loved me. When I was appointed judge<a id="k105b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; I thought that some<a id="k105b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; would hate me and others<a id="k105b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; would love me. Having observed, however, that the man who loses<a id="k105b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to-day<a id="k105b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; wins tomorrow I came to the conclusion that if I am loved they all love me and if I am hated they must all hate me.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt take no gift;<a id="k105b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; there was no need to speak of [the prohibition of] a gift of money, but [this was meant:] Even a bribe of words<a id="k105b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is also forbidden, for Scripture does not write, And thou shalt take no gain.<a id="k105b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; What is to be understood by 'a bribe of words'?<a id="k105b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As the bribe offered to Samuel.<a id="k105b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; He was once crossing [a river] on a board<a id="k105b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; when a man came up and offered him his hand.<a id="k105b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What', [Samuel] asked him, 'is your business here?' &mdash; 'I have a lawsuit', the other replied. 'l', came the reply, 'am disqualified from acting for you in the suit'.
</p><p>
	Amemar was once engaged in the trial of an action,<a id="k105b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; when a bird flew down upon his head and a man approached and removed it. 'What is your business here?' [Amemar] asked him. 'I have a lawsuit', the other replied. 'I', came the reply, 'am disqualified from acting as your judge'.
</p><p>
	Mar 'Ukba once ejected some saliva<a id="k105b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and a man approached and covered it. 'What is your business here?' [Mar 'Ukba] asked him. 'l have a lawsuit', the man replied. 'I', came the reply, 'am disqualified from acting as your judge'.
</p><p>
	R. Ishmael son of R. Jose, whose <i>aris</i><a id="k105b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; was wont to bring him a basket full of fruit<a id="k105b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; every Friday<a id="k105b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but on one occasion<a id="k105b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; brought it to him on a Thursday, asked the latter, 'Why the present change?' I have a lawsuit', the other replied, 'and thought that at the same time<a id="k105b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; I might bring [the fruit] to the Master'. He did not accept it from him [and] said,'I am disqualified to act as your judge'. He thereupon appointed a couple of Rabbis to try the case for him. As he was arranging the affair<a id="k105b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; he [found himself] thinking, 'If he<a id="k105b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; wished he could plead thus, or if he preferred he might plead thus'.<a id="k105b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Oh', he exclaimed, 'the despair that waits for those who take bribes'!<a id="k105b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; If I, who have not taken [the fruit at all], and even if I had taken I would only have taken what is my own, am In such [a state of mind], show much more [Would that<a id="k105b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; be the state of] those who accept bribes'.
</p><p>
	A man once brought to R. Ishmael b. Elisha<a id="k105b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [a gift of] the firstfleece.<a id="k105b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Whence', the latter asked him, 'are you?' &mdash; 'From such and such a place', the other replied. 'But', [R. Ishmael] asked, 'was there no priest to whom to give it [in any of the places] between that place and this?'<a id="k105b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'I have a lawsuit', the other replied, 'and thought that at the same time<a id="k105b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; I would bring [the gift] to the Master'.He said to him, 'I am unfit to try your action', and refused to receive [the gift] from him. [Thereupon] he appointed two Rabbis to try his action. As he was arranging this affair<a id="k105b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; he [found himself] thinking, 'If he<a id="k105b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; wished he could plead thus, or if he preferred he might plead thus'.<a id="k105b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Oh', he exclaimed, 'the despair that awaits those who take bribes! If I, who did not take [the gift], and even if I had taken it I would only have accepted that which is my due, am in such [a state of mind], how much more [would that be the case with] those who accept bribes'.
</p><p>
	A man once brought to R. Anan a bale of small marsh fish.<a id="k105b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What is your business here', the latter asked him. 'I have a lawsuit', the other replied. [R. Anan] did not accept it from him, and told him, 'I am disqualified to try your action'. 'I would not now request', the other said to him, 'the Master's decision [in my lawsuit]; will the Master, however, at least accept [the present] so that I may not be prevented from offering my first-fruit?<a id="k105b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: And there came a man from Baal-shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack;<a id="k105b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; but was Elisha<a id="k105b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; entitled to eat first-fruit?<a id="k105b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, was intended to tell you that one who brings a gift to a scholar [is doing as good a deed] as if he had offered first-fruits'. It was not my intention to accept [your gift', R. Anan] said to him, 'but now that you have given me a reason I will accept it' &mdash; Thereupon he sent him to R. Nahman to whom he also dispatched [the following message:] 'Will the Master try [the action of] this man, for I, Anan,<a id="k105b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; am disqualified from acting as judge for him'. 'Since he has sent me such a message', [R. Nahman] thought, 'he must be his relative' &mdash; 54 An orphans' lawsuit was then in progress<a id="k105b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; before him; and he reflected:
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k106a_1:" Lit., 'that', to judge the orphan."
,k106a_2:" Respect for a man of learning (cf. B.K. 41b) and consequently also for those who are related to him."
,k106a_3:" Lit., removed', 'put aside'."
,k106a_4:" Lit., 'the master of his law (suit')."
,k106a_5:" His opponent, whom R. Nahman presumed to be R. Anan's relative."
,k106a_6:" Lit., 'his plea was stopped'."
,k106a_7:" Cf <i>supra</i> p. 488, n. 6."
,k106a_8:" [H], a Rabbinic work of mysterious origin and authorship."
,k106a_9:" R. Anan."
,k106a_10:" Lit., 'thus'. He allowed himself to be the unconscious tool of the man who cunningly bribed him."
,k106a_11:" Lit., 'sat'."
,k106a_12:" R. Anan."
,k106a_13:" The former was taught when P. Anan was without, the latter when he was within, the box (Rashi). [Tosaf.: the Treatise consists of a large and small book, hence the names Rabbah and Zuta. Both constitute the Midrash known as Tanna debe Eliyyaha]."
,k106a_14:" Lit., 'years'. a reference perhaps to the period during which he was head of the academy."
,k106a_15:" [H], lit., 'agitation'. excitement', hence 'anger'. Owing to God's anger the world was afflicted with famine (v. Rashi)."
,k106a_16:" To dine with him."
,k106a_17:" II Kings IV, 43."
,k106a_18:" Lit., 'all of them', i.e., the twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of corn, enumerated in the preceding verse."
,k106a_19:" Lit., 'but'."
,k106a_20:" There were twenty loaves of barley (II Kings II, 42). one loaf of bread of the first-fruits (ibid.) and one loaf of fresh ears of corn (ibid.). a total of twenty-two loaves. Since each loaf was set before a hundred men the total number of the men must have been (twenty-two times one hundred =) two thousand two hundred (Rashi)."
,k106a_21:" Each of whom addressed a section of the crowded audiences, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. Amora."
,k106a_22:" Lit., 'sitting'."
,k106a_23:" Lit., 'in the west'."
,k106a_24:" [H], lit., 'those who examine blemishes', officials whose duty it was to ascertain whether any beast was unfit as a sacrifice owing to a disqualifying blemish."
,k106a_25:" [H], v. <i>supra</i> p. 673, n. 13."
,k106a_26:" [H], (rt. [H], 'to close the hand'), 'taking a handful' from a meal-offering. Cf. e.g., Lev. II, 2 and Men. 11a."
,k106a_27:" Who check scribal errors."
,k106a_28:" In order to preserve the accuracy of the written word the services of the readers were placed free at the disposal of any member of the public (cf. Rashi)."
,k106a_29:" A priestly family."
,k106a_30:" Cf. Ex. XXV. 30 and Yoma 38a."
,k106a_31:" Cf. Ex. XXX, 23ff and Yoma 38a."
,k106a_32:" An objection against R. Nahman."
,k106a_33:" In the Baraitha just cited."
,k106a_34:" Which cannot be regarded as forming a part of the structure of the building, while R. Nahman spoke of those curtains that replaced a wall that in the first Temple formed the partition between the Holy of Holies and the Hekal (v. <i>infra</i> n. 5 and Yoma 51b)."
,k106a_35:" Of the Temple court."
,k106a_36:" The Hekal ([H]) or 'Holy', was situated between the 'Ulam ([H]) the Temple porch and the Debir ([H]), and contained the candlestick, the table for the shewbread and the golden altar. The Debir, or the Holy of Holies, contained the ark and the cherubim."
,k106a_37:" With a space of one cubit between them in place of the thickness of the wall in the first Temple (cf. <i>supra</i> note 3)."
,k106a_38:" To form a partition between the chamber above the Debir and that above the Hekal."
,k106a_39:" Cf. Num. XIX, 2ff. Certain services in connection with its preparation had to be entrusted to children who from birth were brought up under conditions of scrupulous ritual purity. For this purpose the mothers had to live in specially constructed buildings from the ante-natal period until the time the children were ready for their duties. (Cf. Suk. 21a)."
,k106a_40:" Rich (Rashi). "
}

txt:
<p>
The one<a id="k106a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is a positive precept and the other<a id="k106a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is also a positive precept. but the positive precept of shewing respect for the Torah<a id="k106a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; must take precedence. He, therefore, postponed<a id="k106a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the orphans' case and brought up that man's suit. When the other party<a id="k106a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; noticed the honour he was shewing him<a id="k106a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he remained speechless.<a id="k106a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [Until that happened] Elijah<a id="k106a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was a frequent visitor of R. Anan whom he was teaching the Order of Elijah.<a id="k106a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but as soon as he<a id="k106a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; acted in the manner described<a id="k106a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [Elijah] stayed away. He<a id="k106a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Spent his time<a id="k106a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in fasting, and in prayers for [God's] mercy, [until Elijah] came to him again; but when he appeared he greatly frightened him. Thereupon he<a id="k106a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; made a box [for himself] and in it he sat before him until he concluded his Order with him. And this is [the reason] why people speak of the Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah and the Seder Eliyyahu Zuta.<a id="k106a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In the days<a id="k106a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Joseph there was a famine.<a id="k106a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the Rabbis to R. Joseph, 'Will the Master offer prayers for [heavenly] mercy'? He replied, 'If Elisha, with whom, when the [main body of] Rabbis had departed, there still remained two thousand and two hundred Rabbis,<a id="k106a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; did not offer up any prayers for mercy in a time of famine,<a id="k106a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; should I [at such a time venture to] offer prayers for mercy? But whence is it inferred that so many remained? &mdash; [From Scripture] where it is written, And his servant said: How should I set this before a hundred men.?<a id="k106a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now what is meant by [the expression.] 'Before a hundred men'? If it be suggested that all<a id="k106a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [was to be set] before the hundred men [one might well object that] in years of famine [all this] is rather a large quantity. Consequently it must be concluded<a id="k106a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; that each [loaf was set] before a hundred men.<a id="k106a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When the [main body of] Rabbis departed from the school of Rab there still remained behind one thousand and two hundred Rabbis; [when they departed] from the school of R. Huna there remained behind eight hundred Rabbis. R. Huna when delivering his discourses [was assisted] by thirteen interpreters.<a id="k106a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; When the Rabbis stood up after R. Huna's discourses<a id="k106a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and shook out their garments the dust rose [so high] that it obscured the [light of] day, and people in Palestine<a id="k106a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; said, 'They have risen after the discourses of R. Huna the Babylonian' &mdash; When [the main body of] Rabbis departed from the schools of Rabbah and R. Joseph there remained four hundred Rabbis and they described themselves as orphans. When [the main body of] Rabbis departed from the school of Abaye (others say, From the school of R. Papa, while still others say, From the school of R. Ashi) there remained two hundred Rabbis, and these described themselves as orphans of the orphans.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Radifa said in the name of R. Ammi: The inspectors of [animal] blemishes<a id="k106a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in Jerusalem received their wages from the Temple funds.<a id="k106a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The learned men who taught the priests the laws of ritual slaughter received their fees from the Temple funds.<a id="k106a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The learned men who taught the priests the rules of kemizah<a id="k106a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; received their fees from the Temple funds.<a id="k106a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: Book readers<a id="k106a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; in Jerusalem received their fees from the Temple funds.<a id="k106a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: Rab stated that the women who wove the [Temple] curtains received their wages from the Temple funds<a id="k106a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but I maintain [that they received them] from the sums consecrated for Temple repairs, since the curtains were a substitute for builder's work.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: The women who wove the [Temple] curtains, and the house of Garmo<a id="k106a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [who were in charge] of the preparation of the shewbread,<a id="k106a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and the house of Abtinas<a id="k106a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [who were in charge] of the preparation of the incense,<a id="k106a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; received their wages from the Temple funds!<a id="k106a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k106a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be replied] the reference is [to the curtains] of the gates;<a id="k106a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Zera related in the name of Rab: There were thirteen curtains in the second Temple, seven corresponding to the seven gates,<a id="k106a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; one for the entrance to the Hekal,<a id="k106a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; one for the entrance to the 'Ulam,<a id="k106a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; two<a id="k106a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [at the entrance] to the Debir<a id="k106a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and two [above them and] corresponding to them in the upper storey.<a id="k106a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The women who brought up their children for the [services of the red] heifer,<a id="k106a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; received their wages from the Temple funds. Abba Saul said: The notable<a id="k106a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; women of Jerusalem fed them and maintained them.
</p><p>
	R. Huna enquired of Rab:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k106b_1:" For use on the 'external' altar, a stone structure in the Temple court."
,k106b_2:" Lit., 'made'."
,k106b_3:" Lit., 'need', 'requirement'."
,k106b_4:" Since the altar was builder's work."
,k106b_5:" Lit. 'come'."
,k106b_6:" Lit., 'they were making them'."
,k106b_7:" Rab."
,k106b_8:" That was dedicated to Temple repair."
,k106b_9:" 'The priest' is in cur. edd. enclosed in parentheses. It does not appear in M.T."
,k106b_10:" II Chron. XXIV, 14; which proves that offerings for Temple repair may be used for the provision of vessels of ministry. An objection against Rab."
,k106b_11:" Rab"
,k106b_12:" Sc. vessels of ministry."
,k106b_13:" II Kings XII. 14-15."
,k106b_14:" Lit., 'here'."
,k106b_15:" Lit., 'they collected and left over'; hence it was permissible to procure 'vessels wherewith to minister' with the balance."
,k106b_16:" Lit., 'where they collected and did not leave'."
,k106b_17:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8 ab init.; how could funds collected for one purpose lawfully be used for another?"
,k106b_18:" Lit., 'heart'."
,k106b_19:" The funds collected."
,k106b_20:" Lit., 'if they were required they were required'."
,k106b_21:" Lit., 'come'."
,k106b_22:" II Chron. XXIV, 14."
,k106b_23:" Lit., 'which is the money that has a remainder'."
,k106b_24:" Lit., 'be saying, this'."
,k106b_25:" Since after the current yearly expenses were met the balance was allowed to remain in the treasury."
,k106b_26:" But the main funds could not."
,k106b_27:" Pes. 58b, B.K. 111a."
,k106b_28:" [H] Lev. VI, 5, emphasis on the definite article."
,k106b_29:" Sc. that is offered on the altar every morning before all other sacrifices."
,k106b_30:" [H] (II Chron. XXIV, 14) emphasis again on the definite article (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 21)."
,k106b_31:" I.e., the income of the current year, and not only the balance. Cf. <i>infra</i> p. 684, n. 7."
,k106b_32:" Lit., 'come'."
,k106b_33:" Which, since it was not attached to the ground and was movable, was not regarded as a part of the structure of the building."
,k106b_34:" That was placed at the side of the shewbread. The Wilna Gaon omits frankincense; v. J. Shek. IV, 3."
,k106b_35:" This is explained in Men. 90a."
,k106b_36:" The 'external' altar, cf. <i>supra</i> p. 682, n. 10."
,k106b_37:" E.g., the women's court and the city walls."
,k106b_38:" Sc. after the expenses for the current year have been met. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 683, n. 24."
,k106b_39:" Shek. IV, 2. Does not this Baraitha, which lays down that vessels of ministry were provided out of the surplus of the drink-offerings contradict the teaching of the school of R. Ishmael?"
,k106b_40:" From which funds the vessels of ministry were procured."
,k106b_41:" When the new year began on the first of Nisan and the funds of the previous year were no longer allowed to be used for the purchase of congregational sacrifices."
,k106b_42:" Of the previous year."
,k106b_43:" Rashi."
,k106b_44:" This is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k106b_45:" [H]. Sc. when no private offerings were available and the altar lay idle; v. Shebu., Sonc. ed. p. 50, n. 3."
,k106b_46:" Lit., 'and this and this', sc. R. Akiba and R. Hanina."
,k106b_47:" Shek. 6a. Thus it is shewn that the opinion expressed at the school of R. Ishmael is a question in dispute between Tannaim."
,k106b_48:" In the Mishnah just cited."
,k106b_49:" V. <i>supra</i> P. 684, n. 10."
,k106b_50:" Sc. how could they be so sure of the conditions of the market at all times?"
,k106b_51:" Lit., 'surplus of the remainder'."
,k106b_52:" Shek. IV, 3. R. Akiba, and similarly R. Hanina (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1). is thus of the opinion that there could never have been a surplus of tho fruit since it was never sold. "
}

txt:
<p>
May vessels of ministry<a id="k106b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; be procured<a id="k106b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; with the offerings consecrated to Temple repair? Are these [a part of] the equipment<a id="k106b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; of the altar and were, therefore,<a id="k106b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; purchased<a id="k106b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; with the offerings consecrated to Temple repair, or are they rather among the requirements of the sacrifices and were, therefore, procured<a id="k106b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; with the Temple funds? &mdash; 'They'. the other<a id="k106b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; replied, 'may be procured<a id="k106b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; with the Temple funds only'.
</p><p>
	He raised an objection against him; And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money<a id="k106b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; before the King and Jehoiada,<a id="k106b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; whereof were made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels wherewith to minister<a id="k106b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. &mdash; The other<a id="k106b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: He that taught you the Hagiographa did not teach you the Prophets: But there were not made for the hose of the Lord cups<a id="k106b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. for they gave that to them that did the work.<a id="k106b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But if so, is there not a contradiction between the two Scriptural texts? &mdash; There is really no contradiction. The former is a case<a id="k106b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; where after the collections were made [for Temple repair] there remained a balance,<a id="k106b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; while the latter<a id="k106b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is a case where no balance remained.<a id="k106b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But even if there was a balance after the Collection had been made, what of it?<a id="k106b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abbahu replied: <i>Beth din</i> make a mental<a id="k106b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Stipulation that if they<a id="k106b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; be required they should be utilized for their original purpose<a id="k106b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and that if [they would] not [be required] they should be [spent] on vessels of ministry.
</p><p>
	A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Vessels of ministry were provided<a id="k106b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; from the Temple funds; for it is said in Scriptures The rest of the money,<a id="k106b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; now what funds shewed a balance?<a id="k106b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously<a id="k106b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the Temple funds.<a id="k106b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But might it not be suggested that only the balance itself [could be spent on the vessels of ministry]?<a id="k106b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As Raba said,<a id="k106b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; The burnt-offering<a id="k106b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; implies the first burnt-offering,<a id="k106b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; so must the money<a id="k106b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; imply the first money.<a id="k106b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: The incense and all congregational sacrifices were provided<a id="k106b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; from the Temple funds; the golden altar,<a id="k106b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; the frankincense<a id="k106b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and the vessels of ministry were provided from the residue of the drink-offerings;<a id="k106b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; the altar for the burnt-offerings,<a id="k106b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; the chambers and the courts were provided from the funds that were dedicated for Temple repair, [and whatever was situated] outside the court walls<a id="k106b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; was provided out of the surplus of the Temple funds;<a id="k106b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is this that [explains what] we learned: The city wall and its towers and all other requirements of the city were provided from the surplus of the Temple funds?<a id="k106b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [point<a id="k106b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; is in fact a question at issue between] Tannaim. For we learned: What were they doing<a id="k106b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; with the surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds]?<a id="k106b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Beaten gold [plates that served as] a covering for [the walls and floor]<a id="k106b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; of the Holy of Holies. R. Ishmael said: The surplus of the fruit<a id="k106b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [was spent on the purchase of sacrifices] for the dry season<a id="k106b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; of the altar, while the surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds] was spent upon vessels of ministry. R. Akiba said: The surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds was spent on sacrifices] for the dry season of the altar while the surplus of the drink-offerings<a id="k106b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; was used for [the purchase of] the vessels of ministry. R. Hanina, the deputy High Priest, said: The surplus of the drink-offerings [was spent on sacrifices] for the dry season of the altar, while the surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds was spent] on vessels of ministry. And neither the one nor the other<a id="k106b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; admitted that [there ever was a surplus] in the [proceeds of the] fruit.<a id="k106b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is [meant by] 'fruit'?<a id="k106b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was taught: What were they doing with the surplus of the offering [to the Temple funds]?<a id="k106b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; They bought fruit at a low price and sold it at a higher price, and with the profits sacrifices were purchased for the dry season of the altar; and it is this that [explains what] we learned: The surplus of the fruits was spent on sacrifices for the dry season of the altar. 
</p><p>
	What is meant by 'neither the one nor the other admitted that [there ever was a surplus] in [proceeds of the] fruit'?<a id="k106b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The following of] which we learned: What were they doing with the surplus<a id="k106b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; of the Temple funds? They purchased therewith wines, oils and various kinds of fine flour, and the profit [resulting was credited] to the sacred funds; so R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: No sale for profit is made with the sacred funds nor out of those of the poor.<a id="k106b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; Why [may no sales for profit be made] with sacred funds? &mdash; There must be no poverty where there is wealth. Why [is] no [sale for profit made] with the poor funds? &mdash; Because a poor man might come unexpectedly and there would be nothing to give him.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA. It was stated: Rab ruled,
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k107a_1:" By the court, out of her husband's estate."
,k107a_2:" Whose husband is away from home. [H], lit., 'the wife of a man'."
,k107a_3:" Sc. Rab who was also known as Abba Arika."
,k107a_4:" Added by BaH in the text."
,k107a_5:" Of the husband's absence."
,k107a_6:" Lit., 'when they heard'."
,k107a_7:" The absent husband."
,k107a_8:" Lit., 'all the world (sc. Rab and Samuel) do not differ'; both agree that the woman is entitled to an allowance for maintenance."
,k107a_9:" Out of which to defray the cost of her maintenance."
,k107a_10:" Which are a husband's due."
,k107a_11:" And that she may have consented."
,k107a_12:" R. Zebid and R. Papa."
,k107a_13:" Whom a husband might safely entrust with valuables."
,k107a_14:" In consequence of which she would not have consented in return for her handiwork to forego her right to maintenance. Such a woman. according to R. Zebid, would still not be entitled to the court's ruling for her allowance, while according to R. Papa she would."
,k107a_15:" Whom no husband would entrust with valuables."
,k107a_16:" And who, in consequence, might have consented to forego her maintenance in return for her handiwork. Such a minor, according to P. Zebid, would, while according to R. Papa she would not, be entitled to the court's ruling for an allowance."
,k107a_17:" Lit., 'until here'."
,k107a_18:" An objection against Samuel."
,k107a_19:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 672, n. 4."
,k107a_20:" By entrusting her with some valuables."
,k107a_21:" If he takes the prescribed oath, and the amount allowed by the court must be refunded to him. From here it obviously follows that the court does make an allowance from an absent husband's estate, a legal practice which is contrary to Samuel's ruling."
,k107a_22:" A dead man, sorely, could not come and make a declaration."
,k107a_23:" Tosef. Keth. XII. Lit., 'what they have fixed is fixed'; which proves that the court does make an allowance to a wife from her absent husband's estate, contrary to the ruling of Samuel."
,k107a_24:" Lit., 'go down into'."
,k107a_25:" This is explained <i>infra</i>. Cf. <i>supra</i> 48a. A contradiction thus arises (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5) against Samuel's view."
,k107a_26:" Who now refuses to continue to act on his behalf. A husband's appointment of a trustee conclusively proves that he has left no valuables with his wife for her maintenance, and that be could not have asked her to retain her handiwork for her maintenance. Hence it is quite proper for <i>Beth din</i> to arrange for her maintenance. Where no trustee, however, is appointed Samuel's ruling holds."
,k107a_27:" Since it is assumed that he had entrusted the maintenance of his wife to a trustee, why not assume the same in regard to his sons and daughters?"
,k107a_28:" Lit., 'for this'."
,k107a_29:" That provision was made for the one and not for the others. The Baraitha, surely, draws no distinction."
,k107a_30:" That 'anything else' was not to be provided for. "
}

txt:
<p>
An allowance for maintenance must be granted<a id="k107a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to a married woman,<a id="k107a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but Samuel ruled: No allowance may be granted<a id="k107a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to a married woman.<a id="k107a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Samuel: Abba<a id="k107a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; agrees with me [that no allowance is to be granted]<a id="k107a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; during the first three months,<a id="k107a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; because no man leaves his house empty. In a case where a report was received<a id="k107a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k107a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was dead there is no difference of opinion between them.<a id="k107a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; They only differ when no one heard that he<a id="k107a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was dead. Rab ruled, 'An allowance for maintenance must be granted' since he<a id="k107a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is under an obligation [to maintain her]; on what ground however, did Samuel rule, 'No allowance may be granted'? &mdash; R. Zebid replied: Because it might well be assumed that he handed over to her some bundles [of valuables].<a id="k107a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa replied: We must take into consideration the possibility that he told her, 'Deduct [the proceeds of] your handiwork<a id="k107a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; for your maintenance'.<a id="k107a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the practical difference between them?<a id="k107a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The practical difference between them is the case of a woman who is of age<a id="k107a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but [the proceeds of whose handiwork] did not suffice [for her maintenance],<a id="k107a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; or a minor<a id="k107a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [the proceeds of whose handiwork] is sufficient [for her maintenance].<a id="k107a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learned: IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND HIS WIFE CLAIMED MAINTENANCE, HANAN RULED: SHE MUST TAKE AN OATH AT THE END BUT NOT AT THE BEGINNING. THE SONS OF THE HIGH PRIESTS, HOWEVER, DIFFERED FROM HIM AND RULED THAT SHE MUST TAKE AN OATH BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END. They thus<a id="k107a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; differ only in respect of the oath but [agree, do they not,] that maintenance must be given to her?<a id="k107a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel explained [this to refer to a case] where a report had been received that [the absent husband] was dead. 
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance she must, said the sons of the High Priests, take an oath,<a id="k107a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Hanan said: She need not take an oath. If [the husband] came, however, and declared, 'I have provided for her maintenance'<a id="k107a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he is believed.<a id="k107a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Here also [it may be replied] is a case where a report was received that he was dead. But, did it not Say, 'If [the husband] came, however, and declared'?<a id="k107a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [The meaning of the expression is,] If he came after the report had been received.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea, and his wife claimed maintenance, and he returned and said [to her], 'Deduct your handiwork for your maintenance', he is entitled [to withhold it]. If <i>Beth din</i>, however, granted the allowance before [he returned] their decision is valid.<a id="k107a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Here also it is a case where a report that he had died was received.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance, <i>Beth din</i> take possession of<a id="k107a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; his estate and provide food and clothing for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters or for anything else!<a id="k107a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shesheth replied; [Here it is a case] where a husband maintained his wife at the hands of a trustee.<a id="k107a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, [should not maintenance be granted to] one's sons and daughters also?<a id="k107a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [It is a case] where [a husband] made provision for the maintenance of his wife<a id="k107a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; but not of his daughters.<a id="k107a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whence this certainty?<a id="k107a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This, however, said R. Papa, [is the explanation: This is a case] where she heard from one witness that [her husband] had died. To her, since she could Marry on the evidence of one witness, we must also grant maintenance; to his sons and daughters, however, since they, even if they desired it, could not be allowed to take possession of his estate on the evidence of one witness, maintenance also may not be granted &mdash; What [is meant by] 'anything else'? R. Hisda replied: Cosmetics. R. Joseph replied: Charity. According to him who replied, 'Cosmetics' the ruling<a id="k107a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; would apply with even greater force to
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k107b_1:" Since a court which has no power to provide from a man's estate for his own wife's enjoyments would have much less power to exact charity from his estate."
,k107b_2:" <i>Supra</i> 482."
,k107b_3:" A woman whose husband died without issue, and who awaits levirate marriage or <i>halizah</i> which must not take place before the lapse of three months after her husband's death."
,k107b_4:" Lit., 'from now and onwards'."
,k107b_5:" To answer the widow's demand for marriage or <i>halizah</i>."
,k107b_6:" Yeb. 41b. Is not this then (cf. <i>supra</i> P. 687, n. 5) an objection against Samuel's ruling?"
,k107b_7:" To deprive her in consequence of her maintenance."
,k107b_8:" Lit., 'on account of'."
,k107b_9:" By the absent levir, before his departure."
,k107b_10:" To cover her cost of living."
,k107b_11:" Lit., 'his mind is not near to her', and it is, therefore, most unlikely that he left any valuables with her."
,k107b_12:" Lit., 'on account of'."
,k107b_13:" Sc. that he might have allowed her to retain the proceeds of her handiwork to defray therewith her cost of living."
,k107b_14:" Hence the indisputable right of the court to grant an allowance out of the absent levir's estate. In the case of an absent husband, however, where both possibilities must be taken into consideration, Samuel's ruling holds."
,k107b_15:" Out of her husband's estate, by an order of the court."
,k107b_16:" Because if she was in fact divorced she is well entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>, and if she was not divorced she has a rightful claim to maintenance. Now, is not this ruling (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 687. n. 5) an objection against Samuel's ruling?"
,k107b_17:" Since the assumption is that she is a widow."
,k107b_18:" By declaring that she had been divorced. A divorcee is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> but, unlike a widow, is not entitled to maintenance."
,k107b_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>."
,k107b_20:" Lit., 'and ate'."
,k107b_21:" Lit., 'she stood up'."
,k107b_22:" Which is an objection (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 687. n. 5) against Samuel."
,k107b_23:" Lit., 'on account of'."
,k107b_24:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 689, n. 3."
,k107b_25:" And she would not have agreed to release her husband from his obligation to maintain her in return for the inadequate income from her handiwork."
,k107b_26:" Lit., 'what is there about it?' Is maintenance to be allowed to a wife out of her absent husband's estate?"
,k107b_27:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k107b_28:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 663, n. 4."
,k107b_29:" Out of the estate of her absent husband."
,k107b_30:" Lit., 'her'."
,k107b_31:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 410, n. 6."
,k107b_32:" V. our Mishnah."
,k107b_33:" <i>Supra</i> 107a ab init."
,k107b_34:" [This is introduced here because R. Zebid figures in the above discussion; or, it is likely that both the rulings of R. Huna and R. Zebid were adopted at the same session, v. Shittah Mekubbezeth]."
,k107b_35:" If earthenware."
,k107b_36:" For use (cf. <i>infra</i> note 5ff)."
,k107b_37:" These kinds of glaze prevent absorption despite the porous nature of the earthenware."
,k107b_38:" To be used at all, if they once contained heathen foodstuffs or heathen wine of libation (nesek), or on the Passover if they ever contained frames, any foodstuffs that were not free from leavened substances of any of the five kinds of grain (cf. Hal. I, i)."
,k107b_39:" Or 'yellow'. The last mentioned glaze, unlike the former, contains crystals of alum which increase the absorptive capacity of the potsherd (cf. A.Z. 33b)."
,k107b_40:" That green (or yellow) glazed earthenware is permitted (v. sura note 4)."
,k107b_41:" Lit., 'and it was not said but'."
,k107b_42:" In the glazed surface."
,k107b_43:" Lit., 'and one rose'."
,k107b_44:" He has no legal claim upon the husband who neither instructed him to advance the money nor promised to refund his expenses."
,k107b_45:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 672, n. 7."
,k107b_46:" Metaph. He could never recover the money from the stag, nor can he recover it from the woman or her husband (cf. p. 691 n. 12).>"
}

txt:
<p>
charity.<a id="k107b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He, however, who replied, 'Charity' [restricts the ruling to this alone] but cosmetics [he maintains] must be given to her, for [her husband] would not be pleased that she should lose her comeliness.<a id="k107b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A yebamah<a id="k107b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; during the first three months is maintained out of the estate of her husband &mdash; Subsequently<a id="k107b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; she is not to be maintained either out of the estate of her husband or out of that of the levir. If, however, [the levir] appeared in court<a id="k107b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and then absconded she is maintained out of the estate of the levir!<a id="k107b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel can answer you: What possibility need we take into consideration in the case of this [woman]?<a id="k107b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If that of<a id="k107b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [having been entrusted<a id="k107b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; with] bundles of valuables<a id="k107b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [one could well object that such a levir] is not well disposed towards her;<a id="k107b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and if that of<a id="k107b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [the remission of] her handiwork<a id="k107b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [the fact is, it could be retorted, that] she is under no obligation to give it to him.<a id="k107b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A woman who went with her husband to a country beyond the sea and then came back and stated, 'My husband is dead', may, if she wishes, successfully claim her maintenance and, if she prefers, may equally claim her <i>kethubah</i>. [If she stated, however,] 'My husband has divorced me', she may be maintained<a id="k107b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; to the extent of her <i>kethubah</i>!<a id="k107b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here also [it may be replied, it is a case] where a report was received that he had died. Then<a id="k107b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; why [is she maintained] only to the extent of her <i>kethubah</i>? &mdash; Because she herself has brought the loss upon herself.<a id="k107b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: In what circumstances was it laid down that [a minor who] exercised her right of refusal<a id="k107b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; is not entitled to maintenance? It cannot be said, In [those of] one who lives with her husband, since [in such circumstances] her husband is under an obligation to maintain her, but [in those], for instance, [of one] whose husband went to a country beyond the sea, and she borrowed money and spent it<a id="k107b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and then<a id="k107b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; exercised her right of refusal. Now, the reason [why she is not entitled to maintenance is obviously] because she exercised her right of refusal; had she, however, not exercised her right of refusal, maintenance would have been granted to her?<a id="k107b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel can answer you: What possibility need we provide against as far as she is concerned? If against that of<a id="k107b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [having been entrusted with] bundles of valuables [it may be pointed out that] no one entrusts a minor with valuables; and if against that of [the man's remission of] her handiwork<a id="k107b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [the fact is, it could be argued, that] the handiwork of a minor does not suffice [for her maintenance].<a id="k107b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the ultimate decision?<a id="k107b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Dimi came<a id="k107b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; he related: Such a case was submitted to Rabbi at Beth She'arim<a id="k107b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and he granted<a id="k107b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; the Woman<a id="k107b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; an allowance for her maintenance, [while a similar case was submitted] to R. Ishmael at Sepphoris<a id="k107b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and he did not grant her any maintenance. R. Johanan was astonished at this decision &mdash; What reason [he wondered] could R. Ishmael see that [in consequence of it] he allowed her no maintenance? Surely the sons of the High Priests and Hanan differed only on the question of the oath,<a id="k107b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but [they all agree, do they not, that] maintenance is to be given to her? &mdash; R. Shaman b. Abba answered him: Our Master, Samuel, in Babylon has long ago explained this [as being a case] where a report had been received that [the absent husband] had died. 'You', the other remarked, 'explain so much with this reply'.
</p><p>
	When Rabin came<a id="k107b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; he related: Such a case was submitted to Rabbi at Beth She'arim<a id="k107b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and he did not grant the woman<a id="k107b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; any maintenance, [while in a similar case which was submitted] to R. Ishmael at Sepphoris<a id="k107b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [the latter] granted her an allowance for her maintenance. Said R. Johanan: What reason could Rabbi see for not granting her an allowance, when Hanan and the sons of the High Priests obviously differed only in respect of the oath<a id="k107b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but [agreed that] maintenance is to be given her? &mdash; R. Shaman b. Abba replied: Samuel in Babylon has long ago explained this [as being a case] where a report has been received that [the absent husband] had died. 'You', the other remarked, 'explain so much with this answer'. The law, however, is in agreement with Rab,<a id="k107b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and a married woman is to be granted an allowance for her maintenance. The law is also in agreement with a ruling which R. Huna laid down in the name of Rab, R. Huna having stated on the authority of Rab: A wife is within her rights when she says to her husband, 'I desire no maintenance from, and refuse to do [any work for you]'. The law, furthermore, agrees with a ruling of R. Zebid<a id="k107b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of glazed vessels,<a id="k107b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zebid having laid down: Glazed vessels<a id="k107b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; are permitted<a id="k107b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; if they are white or black,<a id="k107b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but forbidden<a id="k107b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; if green.<a id="k107b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; This,<a id="k107b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; however, applies only to such<a id="k107b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; as have no cracks<a id="k107b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they have cracks they are forbidden.<a id="k107b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND SOMEONE CAME FORWARD<a id="k107b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MAINTAINED HIS WIFE, HANAN SAID: HE LOSES HIS MONEY.<a id="k107b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SONS OF THE HIGH PRIESTS<a id="k107b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; DIFFERED FROM HIM AND RULED: LET HIM TAKE AN OATH AS TO HOW MUCH HE SPENT AND RECOVER IT. SAID R. DOSA B. HARKINAS: [MY OPINION IS] IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR RULING. R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI SAID: HANAN SPOKE WELL [FOR THE MAN] PUT HIS MONEY ON A STAG'S HORN.<a id="k107b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Elsewhere we have learned: If a man is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from another
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k108a_1:" His annual contribution to the fund for congregational sacrifices. According to Tosaf. (s.v. [H]) provided it was lost on its way to the Temple treasury, v. <i>infra</i> n. 10."
,k108a_2:" Which he may be owing to a third party."
,k108a_3:" For the return of a lost object; and this man either refuses to take it or where he, too, is forbidden by vow to derive any benefit from the other man, v. Ned. 33a."
,k108a_4:" Lit., 'shall fall'."
,k108a_5:" Ned. 33a. The other may not retain the amount of the reward since it is legally due to the man from whom he is forbidden to derive any benefit."
,k108a_6:" And confers no benefit upon the other."
,k108a_7:" Cf. marginal note and Tosaf. B.M. 58a s.v. [H]. Cur. edd. 'we learned'."
,k108a_8:" [H], (rt. [H], 'to lift', 'separate'). Such withdrawals were made three times a year (cf. Shek. III, i)."
,k108a_9:" Sc. the man whose <i>shekel</i> was lost has a share in the sacrifices purchased out of the funds as if his contribution had actually reached the treasury. According to Tosaf. (loc. cit.); provided it had been handed by him to the Temple treasurer, and it was lost after the withdrawal in the Temple had taken place."
,k108a_10:" By an agent who lost it on the way. According to Tosaf., after the withdrawal in the Temple had taken place. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 10)."
,k108a_11:" B.M. 58a. From the first two mentioned cases it thus follows that the man whose <i>shekel</i> was lost (cf. notes 10 and 11) gains no benefit from the generosity of the man who paid his <i>shekel</i> in the circumstances mentioned (cf. <i>supra</i> note 2)."
,k108a_12:" And the question of conferring a benefit upon the other does not arise. His object is not the benefit of the man but the religious act."
,k108a_13:" [H], (rt. [H], Hithpa.) 'to take root'."
,k108a_14:" That he may 'repay his debt'."
,k108a_15:" Lit.,'who is it?'"
,k108a_16:" Similarly anyone who repays a stranger's debt cannot reclaim it from him. Such a debtor, it follows, is not regarded as the recipient of the amount repaid. For the same reason he cannot be regarded as the recipient of a benefit."
,k108a_17:" Who hold a man liable for any expenses any. body may have incurred on his behalf."
,k108a_18:" Lit., 'here in what?'"
,k108a_19:" V. Ned. Sonc. ed. p. 102, n. 5. Since the creditor in such circumstances can never exact payment from the debtor, any man who repays it confers no real benefit upon him."
,k108a_20:" In the circumstances mentioned (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7)."
,k108a_21:" From the repayment of the debt. "
}

txt:
<p>
the latter may nevertheless pay for him his <i>shekel</i>,<a id="k108a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; repay his debt<a id="k108a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and restore to him any object he may have lost; but where a reward is taken,<a id="k108a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the benefit is to be given<a id="k108a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to the sacred funds.<a id="k108a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, one can well be satisfied [with the ruling that] he may 'pay for him his shekel' [because by this payment] he merely performs a religious act,<a id="k108a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was taught:<a id="k108a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; It is lawful to withdraw<a id="k108a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [from the funds of the Temple treasury] on the account of that which was lost,<a id="k108a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; collected<a id="k108a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or about to be collected;<a id="k108a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the ruling that he may] restore to him any object he may have lost' [is also intelligible since thereby] also he is performing a religious duty;<a id="k108a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but [how could he be permitted to] 'repay his debt' [when thereby] he undoubtedly benefits<a id="k108a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; him? &mdash; R. Oshaia replied: 'This ruling<a id="k108a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is that of<a id="k108a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Hanan who said: HE LOSES HIS MONEY.<a id="k108a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, replied: The ruling<a id="k108a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; may be said [to agree even with the view of] the Rabbis,<a id="k108a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; for here<a id="k108a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; we are dealing [with the case of a man] who borrowed money on the condition that he does not repay it [except when he is inclined to do so].<a id="k108a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; It is well that Raba does not give the same reply as R. Oshaia, since [he wishes] the ruling to agree even with the opinion of the Rabbis. On what ground, however, does not R. Oshaia [wish to] give the same reply as Raba? &mdash; R. Oshaia can answer you: Granted that he<a id="k108a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; has no actual benefit;<a id="k108a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k108b_1:" Of defaulting. Of course he has. Raba's reply. therefore, is unacceptable to R. Oshaia."
,k108b_2:" So BaH and Rashal. Wanting in cur. edd."
,k108b_3:" [The difference between the two versions is that whereas according to the former, the sparing of a feeling of shame is not considered an actual benefit, according to the latter it is regarded as such, v. Glosses of Bezalel Ronsburg]."
,k108b_4:" Lit., 'said seven'. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 672 nn. 2 and 3."
,k108b_5:" Lit., 'possessions are many'. The definition of 'large' and 'small' is given in B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 594."
,k108b_6:" Until their majority or marriage."
,k108b_7:" Lit., 'go about (people's) doors'."
,k108b_8:" This is explained in the Gemara."
,k108b_9:" Lit., 'I see the words of Admon."
,k108b_10:" Admon."
,k108b_11:" Sc. what reason is there to assume that, as regards maintenance, a male should be given any preference at all over a female?"
,k108b_12:" Obviously not. The Pentateuchal laws of inheritance. surely, draw no distinction between a learned, and an ignorant son."
,k108b_13:" That he owes him no oil."
,k108b_14:" The claim was for (a) jars and (b) oil, while the admission was in respect of the full claim of the former and of no part of the latter."
,k108b_15:" The statement of the Sages in our Mishnah (cf.<i>supra</i> n. 7)."
,k108b_16:" Sc. THE SAGES."
,k108b_17:" Shebu. 40a."
,k108b_18:" Lit., 'measure'."
,k108b_19:" JARS does not refer to the actual containers but to their measure or capacity, the jars themselves forming no part of the claim."
,k108b_20:" That the jars admitted formed no part of the claim."
,k108b_21:" Lit., 'that all the world', Admon and the Sages."
,k108b_22:" [H], lit., 'fulness'."
,k108b_23:" [H], a receptacle in the oil press."
,k108b_24:" Lit., 'l have with you'."
,k108b_25:" Sc. THE SAGES."
,k108b_26:" Why the Sages do not regard the admission of the claim to the jars as AN ADMISSION OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM."
,k108b_27:" MS.M. inserts, 'in the name of R. Johanan'."
,k108b_28:" 'Jars of oil'."
,k108b_29:" Between the oil and the jars in which it is kept there exists a definite connection similar to that of the pomegranate and its peel; but between wheat and barley there exists no such connection. An admission of one of the two in the former cases may well be regarded as AN ADMISSION OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM though an admission of one of the two in the latter case cannot be so regarded."
,k108b_30:" In the tank. How then could the one pair be compared to the other?"
,k108b_31:" Lit., 'in what?'"
,k108b_32:" In our Mishnah."
,k108b_33:" Lit., 'I have with you'."
,k108b_34:" Lit., 'the things never were'."
,k108b_35:" Lit.,'you have'."
,k108b_36:" Having clearly admitted a part of the claim."
,k108b_37:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 549 n. 3."
,k108b_38:" Sc. THE SAGES."
,k108b_39:" Oil."
,k108b_40:" Jars."
,k108b_41:" Lit., 'fixed'."
,k108b_42:" [H], lit., 'stretched out the leg towards him', as if to say, 'Take the dust of my foot', or 'hang me by the leg, I have nothing to give you' (Rashi). "
}

txt:
<p>
has he not [some benefit in being spared] shame?<a id="k108b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Another reading:<a id="k108b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; There also he has benefit, the benefit that he [need not] feel embarrassed in the other's presence.<a id="k108b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ADMON LAID DOWN SEVEN RULINGS: &mdash; 4 IF A MAN DIES AND LEAVES SONS AND DAUGHTERS, IF THE ESTATE IS LARGE,<a id="k108b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SONS INHERIT IT AND THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED [FROM IT]<a id="k108b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF THE ESTATE IS SMALL,<a id="k108b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED FROM IT, AND THE SONS CAN GO BEGGING.<a id="k108b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON SAID, 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE!'<a id="k108b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.<a id="k108b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What does he<a id="k108b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; mean?<a id="k108b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: He means this; 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE and capable of engaging in the study of the Torah?' Said Raba to him: Would, then, he who is engaged in the study of the Torah be entitled to heirship, while he who is not engaged in the study of the Torah not be entitled to be heir?<a id="k108b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said Raba, it is this that he<a id="k108b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; meant: AM I BECAUSE I AM A MALE, and entitled to be heir in the case of a large estate, TO BE THE LOSER [of my rights] in the case of a small estate?'
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN CLAIMED FROM ANOTHER JARS OF OIL AND [THE LATTER] ADMITTED HIS CLAIM TO [EMPTY] JARS, ADMON RULED: SINCE HE ADMITTED A PORTION OF THE CLAIM HE MUST TAKE AN OATH,<a id="k108b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THE SAGES SAID: THE ADMISSION OF THE PORTION [OF THE CLAIM] IS NOT OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM.<a id="k108b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.<a id="k108b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. From this<a id="k108b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be inferred that, according to the Rabbis,<a id="k108b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [a man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted the claim to the barley is exempt [from oath]. Must it then be said that this presents an objection against a ruling which R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel? For R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted one of them is liable [to an oath]?<a id="k108b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab; [Our Mishnah deals with the case of one from] whom a certain quantity<a id="k108b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [of oil] was claimed.<a id="k108b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k108b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; what could Admon's reason be? &mdash; This, however, said Raba, [is the explanation]: Both<a id="k108b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [agree] that where [the claimant] said to the other, 'I have the contents<a id="k108b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; of ten jars of oil in your tank',<a id="k108b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he claims from him the oil but not the jars, [and if he said], 'You owe me<a id="k108b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; ten jars full of oil', he claims both the oil and the jars; they only differ where [the claimant] said to him, 'You owe me<a id="k108b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; ten jars of oil'. Admon maintains that in this expression a claim for the jars also is implied, and the Rabbis<a id="k108b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; contend that in this expression the jars were not implied.
</p><p>
	The reason then<a id="k108b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is because 'in this expression the jars were not implied', but if the jars had been implied in this expression he would apparently have been liable [to the oath]. Must it consequently be presumed that this presents an objection against a ruling of R. Hiyya b. Abba? For R. Hiyya b. Abbah<a id="k108b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, is exempt [from an oath]? &mdash; R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: [The making of such a claim]<a id="k108b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is the same as if one had claimed from another a pomegranate with its peel.<a id="k108b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; To this Rabina demurred: A pomegranate without its peel cannot be preserved, but oil can well be preserved without jars!<a id="k108b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [The fact] however, is that<a id="k108b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; we are here<a id="k108b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; dealing [with the case of a man] who said to another, 'You owe me<a id="k108b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; ten jars of oil', and the other replied, 'The [claim for the] oil is a pure invention,<a id="k108b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [and as to] the jars, too, I owe you<a id="k108b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; five and you have no [claim to any other] five'. Admon maintains that this expression implies a claim to the jars also and, since [the defendant] must take an oath in respect of the jars,<a id="k108b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; he must also take an oath by implication<a id="k108b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of the oil, while the Rabbis<a id="k108b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; are of the opinion that such an expression does not imply a claim for the jars [so that] what the one claims<a id="k108b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the other did not admit, and what the latter admitted<a id="k108b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; the former did not claim.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN PROMISED<a id="k108b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; A SUM OF MONEY TO HIS [PROSPECTIVE] SON-IN-LAW AND THEN DEFAULTED,<a id="k108b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k109a_1:" Unmarried and undivorced."
,k109a_2:" Sc. the son-in-law cannot be compelled either to marry her or to set her free."
,k109a_3:" To her prospective husband."
,k109a_4:" Lit., 'concerning what?'"
,k109a_5:" Unmarried and undivorced."
,k109a_6:" Tosef. Keth. XII."
,k109a_7:" The ruling of the Baraitha."
,k109a_8:" If compulsion is to be resorted to, this should not be in the case of a minor whose actions have no legal validity, but in that of one who is of age, whose undertaking is legally valid (v. Strashun)."
,k109a_9:" Just cited, where the dispute relates to a promise made by the daughter herself (cf. Rashi s.v. [H] and Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.). [R. Nissim; Does this principle apply elsewhere also in a Baraitha? &mdash; though here the <i>halachah</i> has been fixed according to the version of our Mishnah]."
,k109a_10:" The <i>halachah</i>, apparently contradictory, being determined by the version of the Mishnah and Baraitha respectively, (cf. Tosaf. l.c.). [Cf. however n. 6]."
,k109a_11:" [H], lit., 'like he who goes out with him', sc. R. Johanan b. Zakkai (cf. the Mishnahs <i>supra</i> 105a and 107b). This is discussed anon. aliter; 'Like that which goes out with it', i.e., rulings similar to those laid down by Admon (v. Tosaf.) [According to Adreth a case similar to that of Admon's is provided by one who pays his fellow's debt to his creditor without his instructions. and where the claim is, say, for wheat and barley and the admission is only in regard to one of these, we have an instance similar to that of Admon]."
,k109a_12:" Sc. R. Gamaliel (cf. the Mishnahs <i>supra</i> 108b f). Cf. also p. 697, n. 8 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k109a_13:" R. Zera."
,k109a_14:" V. p. 697, n. 8."
,k109a_15:" I.e., R. Gamaliel (cf. <i>supra</i> note I) who agreed with him in three rulings only, for the <i>halachah</i> agrees with Admon in all his rulings."
,k109a_16:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k109a_17:" Is the <i>halachah</i> in agreement with Admon."
,k109a_18:" Sc. the three rulings (cf <i>supra</i> n. 4)."
,k109a_19:" Rashal on the interpretation of Tosaf. (v. p. 697, n. 8) emends: 'agrees neither with him nor with etc.'"
,k109a_20:" Lit., 'not those', sc. the rulings of Admon of which R. Gamaliel expressed no approval."
,k109a_21:" His plea being that the seller has taken it from him by violence."
,k109a_22:" So separate edd. of the Mishnah, Alfasi and Asheri."
,k109a_23:" The buyer."
,k109a_24:" The seller."
,k109a_25:" Sc. he might plead that he signed as a witness, not because he acknowledged the seller to be the lawful owner, but in the hope that it would be easier for him to recover his field from the buyer than from the seller."
,k109a_26:" By signing the deed of sale he is presumed to have acknowledged the seller as the lawful owner of that field."
,k109a_27:" Whose title to the field is contested."
,k109a_28:" The contested field."
,k109a_29:" To whom he has sold a field adjacent to it."
,k109a_30:" Who signed as a witness to the deed of sale in which the contested field was described as the property of the seller, and given as one of the boundaries of the field sold."
,k109a_31:" Even according to Admon. The plea that the contestant preferred to litigate with the buyer is obviously inadmissible here, and the reason given <i>supra</i> note 6, applies."
,k109a_32:" The ruling that the contestant HAS LOST HIS TITLE."
,k109a_33:" Who attested the Signatures of the witnesses to a deed of sale."
,k109a_34:" To the field sold and, despite his Signature, may reclaim it. A judge is concerned only with the attestation of the witnesses' signature and not with the contents of the deed."
,k109a_35:" Since it is the contents of the deed to which they must testify. "
}

txt:
<p>
LET [HIS DAUGHTER] REMAIN [SINGLE]<a id="k109a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; UNTIL HER HAIR GROWS GREY.<a id="k109a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON RULED: SHE MAY SAY,<a id="k109a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'HAD I MYSELF PROMISED THE SUM ON MY BEHALF I WOULD REMAIN [SINGLE]<a id="k109a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; UNTIL MY HAIR GREW GREY, BUT NOW THAT MY FATHER HAS PROMISED IT, WHAT CAN I DO? EITHER MARRY ME OR SET ME FREE'. R. GAMALIEL SAID: ADMON'S WORDS HAVE MY APPROVAL.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Mishnah does not [uphold the same view] as that of the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah stated, There was no difference of opinion between Admon and the Sages that, where a man promised a sum of money to his [prospective] son-in-law and then defaulted, his daughter may say<a id="k109a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; My father has promised on my behalf, what can I do?' They only<a id="k109a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; differ where she herself promised a sum of money on her own behalf, in which case the Sages ruled: Let her remain [single]<a id="k109a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; until her hair grows grey, while Admon maintained that she could say, 'I thought that my father would pay for me [the promised amount], but now that my father does not pay for me, what can I do? Either marry me or set me free'. Said R. Gamaliel: Admon's words have my approval.<a id="k109a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A Tanna taught: This<a id="k109a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to a woman who is of age but in the case of a minor compulsion may be used. Who is to be compelled? If the father [be suggested], should [not the ruling. it may be retorted,] be reversed?<a id="k109a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said Raba, compulsion is exercised against the [prospective] husband that he may give her a letter of divorce.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Eleazar laid down on the authority of Hezekiah: Wherever R. Gamaliel stated, 'Admon's words have my approval', the <i>halachah</i> agrees with him. Said Raba to R. Nahman, Even in the Baraitha?<a id="k109a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied, Did we say 'In the Mishnah?' What we said was, 'Wherever R. Gamaliel stated'.<a id="k109a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Zera in the name of Rabbah b. Jeremiah: As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with him who followed his view,<a id="k109a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, the <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with him who followed his view.<a id="k109a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he<a id="k109a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; mean? If it be suggested that he means this: As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with himself and with him who followed his view, and that in respect of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, the <i>halachah</i> is neither in agreement with himself nor with him who followed his view,<a id="k109a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be objected:] Did not R. Isaac b. Eleazar lay down on the authority of Hezekiah that 'wherever R. Gamaliel stated, "Admon's words have my approval", the <i>halachah</i> agrees with him'? &mdash; What he<a id="k109a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; meant, however, must have been this: As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with himself and with him who followed his view,<a id="k109a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, the <i>halachah</i> does not agree with him who followed his view<a id="k109a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but agrees with himself in all his rulings. But, surely, R. Isaac b. Eleazar laid down on the authority of Hezekiah that 'wherever R. Gamaliel stated, "Admon's words have my approval" the <i>halachah</i> agrees with him'. [Does not this imply:] Only<a id="k109a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; where he stated;<a id="k109a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but not where he did not state? &mdash; The fact, however, is that he<a id="k109a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; meant this; As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with himself and with him who followed him,<a id="k109a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, there are some concerning which the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with himself and with him who followed his view<a id="k109a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; while there are others concerning which the <i>halachah</i> does not agree with him<a id="k109a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but with him who followed his view,<a id="k109a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [the rule being that] wherever R. Gamaliel stated, 'Admon's words have my approval' is the <i>halachah</i> in agreement with him, but not elsewhere.<a id="k109a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN CONTESTS [THE OWNERSHIP OF] A FIELD ON [THE DEED OF SALE OF] WHICH HE IS SIGNED AS A WITNESS,<a id="k109a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON RULED; [HIS CLAIM IS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE] HE CAN SAY,<a id="k109a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; '[LITIGATION WITH] THE SECOND<a id="k109a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; IS EASIER FOR ME, SINCE THE FIRST<a id="k109a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; IS A MORE DIFFICULT PERSON THAN HE'.<a id="k109a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE HAS LOST HIS RIGHT.<a id="k109a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; IF [THE SELLER]<a id="k109a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; MADE IT<a id="k109a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; A [BOUNDARY] MARK FOR ANOTHER PERSON<a id="k109a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE CONTESTANT]<a id="k109a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; HAS LOST HIS RIGHT.<a id="k109a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Abaye said: This<a id="k109a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; was taught only [in respect of] A WITNESS, but a judge<a id="k109a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; does not lose his title;<a id="k109a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Hiyya taught Witnesses may not sign a deed unless they have read it<a id="k109a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k109b_1:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 13."
,k109b_2:" A judge's signature on a deed consequently does not prove that beyond the Signatures of the witnesses he was at all aware of its contents."
,k109b_3:" Sc. if the contestant himself bought a field from the man whom he accuses of having stolen an adjacent field from him, and the latter, inserting the field in dispute as a boundary, described it as his own."
,k109b_4:" Lit., 'thus', i.e., agreed to the description of the stolen field as the property of the seller."
,k109b_5:" Against this plea."
,k109b_6:" Popular saying. The declaration would eventually reach the ears of the seller who might in consequence cancel the sale."
,k109b_7:" Which he was accused of having stolen."
,k109b_8:" To whom he had sold a field adjacent to it."
,k109b_9:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 699, n. I."
,k109b_10:" To manage it for the orphans."
,k109b_11:" To claim the field on behalf of his wards."
,k109b_12:" Of the field in dispute."
,k109b_13:" That was immediately next to the sold field. The orphans should, therefore, be entitled to reclaim the rest of the field."
,k109b_14:" After proof had been adduced that the field had been stolen from the father of the orphans."
,k109b_15:" The minimum which the deceased must have conceded."
,k109b_16:" After it had been ascribed to him."
,k109b_17:" [The reason for this ruling. according to Rashi, is because the field is known to have belonged to the contestant and but for his signature referred to, the present occupier has no proof of his title to the field. This admission on the part of the contestant is, however, cancelled by his declaration of having repurchased the field, v. <i>supra</i> 16a.]"
,k109b_18:" Lit.,'to turn over'."
,k109b_19:" It being unknown in which of the surrounding fields it lay."
,k109b_20:" He must be allowed a short path through one of the surrounding fields. (This is further explained <i>infra</i>)."
,k109b_21:" The minimum. He cannot claim more than what is, at all events, due to him."
,k109b_22:" THE SAGES."
,k109b_23:" The assumption now being that all the surrounding fields belonged to one person who must obviously be held responsible for the lost path."
,k109b_24:" In our Mishnah."
,k109b_25:" So that each person can shift responsibility on the others."
,k109b_26:" How can one be held responsible when all the four are equally involved?"
,k109b_27:" The respective owners of the four surrounding fields."
,k109b_28:" Lit., 'came'."
,k109b_29:" Sc. by purchase or gift."
,k109b_30:" After the path was lost."
,k109b_31:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k109b_32:" Admon and the Sages."
,k109b_33:" Lit., 'came'."
,k109b_34:" Sc. by purchase or gift."
,k109b_35:" In whichever field the path was lost."
,k109b_36:" Lit., 'you will keep quiet' (bis). He will sell him a path at a reasonable price (cf. Rashi). V. however, Tosaf. Yeb. 37b, s.v. [H]."
,k109b_37:" Lit., 'and you will not be able to talk law with them'. Cf <i>supra</i> p. 701, n. 8."
,k109b_38:" The verbal instructions of one in such circumstances have the force of a legally written document."
,k109b_39:" Like the owners of the adjacent fields each of whom shifts the responsibility for the path on to the others. so can each brother shift the responsibility for the palms tree on to the other brothers."
,k109b_40:" The case in our Mishnah."
,k109b_41:" The One path can lie only in one person's held, and each of the defendants can, therefore, well plead that it did not lie in his."
,k109b_42:" Lit., 'with them', the instructions of the deceased having been given before the division of the estate, and the duty of carrying out his wish is incumbent upon all the heirs jointly."
,k109b_43:" Lit., 'their correction', 'redress'."
,k109b_44:" Lit., 'from the beginning'."
,k109b_45:" V. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k109b_46:" Among his many palm trees."
,k109b_47:" Sc. two palm trees in each of which he owned a half, and the heirs desired to assign them to the daughter in fulfilment of their father's instructions."
,k109b_48:" One of the suburbs of Nehardea."
,k109b_49:" And the brothers can assign these to the daughter despite the greater trouble involved in their cultivation. "
}

txt:
<p>
but judges<a id="k109b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; may sign even though they have not read it.<a id="k109b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF [THE SELLER] MADE IT A [BOUNDARY] MARK FOR ANOTHER PERSON. Abaye said: This was taught Only [where it was] FOR ANOTHER PERSON, but [if it was made a boundary mark] for himself<a id="k109b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he does not lose his right; for he can say, 'Had I not done that<a id="k109b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; for him he would not have sold the field to me'. What [possible objection can] you have?<a id="k109b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; That he should have made a declaration [to that effect]? Your friend [it can be retorted] has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend.<a id="k109b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man once made a field<a id="k109b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; a [boundary] mark for another person,<a id="k109b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [and one of the witnesses,] having contested [its ownership,]<a id="k109b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; died, when a guardian was appointed [over his estate].<a id="k109b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The guardian came to Abaye<a id="k109b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; who quoted to him: 'IF [THE SELLER] MADE IT A [BOUNDARY] MARK FOR ANOTHER PERSON [THE CONTESTANT] HAS LOST HIS RIGHT'. 'If the father of the orphans had been alive', the other retorted, 'could he not have pleaded, "l have conceded to him<a id="k109b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; only one furrow"?'<a id="k109b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'You speak well', he said, 'for R. Johanan stated, If he submitted the plea, "l have conceded to you only one furrow", he is believed'. 'Proceed at any rate [Abaye later<a id="k109b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; told the guardian] to give him one furrow'.<a id="k109b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; On that [furrow, however,] there was a nursery of palm trees, and [the guardian] said to him, 'Had the father of the orphans been alive, could he not have submitted the plea, "I have re-purchased it from him"?'<a id="k109b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'You speak well', [Abaye] said to him, 'for R. Johanan ruled, If he submitted the plea, "I have re-purchased it from him" he is believed'.<a id="k109b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: Anyone who appoints a guardian should appoint one like this man who understands how to turn [the scales]<a id="k109b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in favour of orphans.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND [IN HIS ABSENCE] THE PATH TO HIS FIELD WAS LOST,<a id="k109b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON RULED: LET HIM WALK [TO HIS FIELD]<a id="k109b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; BY THE SHORTEST WAY.<a id="k109b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: LET HIM EITHER PURCHASE A PATH FOR HIMSELF EVEN THOUGH IT [COST HIM] A HUNDRED <I>MANEH</I> OR FLY THROUGH THE AIR.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the Rabbis'<a id="k109b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; reason? Does not Admon speak well?<a id="k109b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: [The ruling<a id="k109b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a field], for instance, which [the fields of] four persons surrounded on its four sides.<a id="k109b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; If that be so, what can be Admon's reason?<a id="k109b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba explained: Where four persons<a id="k109b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; succeeded<a id="k109b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the adjacent fields] by virtue of the rights of four [persons respectively]<a id="k109b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; or where four persons succeeded<a id="k109b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [to them]<a id="k109b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; by virtue of one,<a id="k109b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; all agree that these may turn him away.<a id="k109b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k109b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; only differ where one person succeeded<a id="k109b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [to all the surrounding fields] by virtue of four persons.<a id="k109b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Admon is of the opinion that [the claimant can say to that person,] 'At all events<a id="k109b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; my path is in your territory'; and the Rabbis hold the opinion [that the defendant might retort,] 'If you will keep quiet, well and good,<a id="k109b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not I will return the deeds to their respective original owners whom you will have no chance of calling to law'.<a id="k109b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A [dying man]<a id="k109b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; once instructed [those around him] that a palm tree shall be given to his daughters but the orphans proceeded to divide the estate and gave her no palm tree. R. Joseph [in considering the case] intended to lay down that it involved the very same principle as that of our Mishnah.<a id="k109b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; But Abaye said to him: Are [the two] alike? There,<a id="k109b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; each one can send [the claimant to the path] away;<a id="k109b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; but here, the palm tree is in their common possession.<a id="k109b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; What is their way out?<a id="k109b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They must give her a palm tree and divide [the estate] all over<a id="k109b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; again.
</p><p>
	A [dying man]<a id="k109b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; once instructed [those around him] that a palm tree shall be given to his daughter. When he died he left<a id="k109b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; two halves of a palm tree.<a id="k109b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; Sat R. Ashi [discussing the case] and grappled with this difficulty; Do people call two halves of palms trees a palm tree' or not? &mdash; Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi, Thus said Abimi of Hagronia<a id="k109b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Raba: People do call two halves of palm trees 'a palm tree'.<a id="k109b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k110a_1:" Bearing a later date than that of the bond."
,k110a_2:" And thereby he seeks to prove that either he never borrowed the sum claimed or that he repaid It prior to his purchase of the field."
,k110a_3:" By seizing the purchase price in payment of the debt. Since he did not do it is obvious that he owed bins nothing."
,k110a_4:" Movables can be hidden away."
,k110a_5:" And since he did not do so the defendant may well plead, 'HAD I OWED YOU' etc."
,k110a_6:" THE SAGES."
,k110a_7:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 700, n. 3 mutatis mutandis."
,k110a_8:" One bond bearing an earlier date than the other."
,k110a_9:" And this plea exempts him from payment."
,k110a_10:" Lit., 'bond of his debt'."
,k110a_11:" No balancing of amounts or exchange of bonds being allowed by the court. Each bond must be treated on its own merits and orders for distraint are given accordingly."
,k110a_12:" V. p. 703, n. II."
,k110a_13:" If the amounts of the two debts are equal (v. <i>infra</i>)."
,k110a_14:" Metaph. If the bags are of equal weight there is no advantage to an animal in changing them from one side to the other (Jast.) or to a human being in changing the burden from one hand to the other (Levy). [H], 'leather bag' (Rashi). Cf. [H] liquid measure', 'cask'."
,k110a_15:" Or property on which the other desires to distrain."
,k110a_16:" Lit., 'all the world', R. Nahman and R. Shesheth."
,k110a_17:" Lit., 'best and best'."
,k110a_18:" On behalf of a creditor who distrains on the debtor's land."
,k110a_19:" Lit., 'of his'."
,k110a_20:" If the debtor, for instance, has only two kinds of land, medium and inferior quality, the former is regarded as 'best' and the creditor can only distrain on the inferior land. A creditor (cf. B.K. 7b) may distrain on the 'medium' land of the debtor if he possesses such, or on the 'worst'. He has no right to distrain on the 'best'."
,k110a_21:" Being in fact the only kind of land the other possesses."
,k110a_22:" He cannot reclaim the medium quality that was taken from him, since it is now regarded as its present owner's 'best' (cf. <i>supra</i> note 9)."
,k110a_23:" V.<i>supra</i> note 7."
,k110a_24:" Lit., 'of all men'."
,k110a_25:" Lit., 'that one'."
,k110a_26:" Who had taken possession of his medium land."
,k110a_27:" Cf. p. 704, n. 11. The other could not distrain on the medium which is now his best."
,k110a_28:" Lit., 'is not required but'."
,k110a_29:" Since both presented their bonds at court (v. our Mishnah ab init.). Why then should one be allowed an advantage over the other?"
,k110a_30:" R. Nahman."
,k110a_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 704, n. 7."
,k110a_32:" Lit., 'of his'."
,k110a_33:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 704, n. 9. The owner of the worst land, if allowed to distrain on the other instead of keeping his own. is at an advantage in either case. whether he distrains first or last. If he distrains first he obtains, of course, the other's medium land which, becoming his 'best', cannot be distrained on by the creditor, and the other must consequently recoup himself from his worst. If, on the other hand, the owner of the best and medium land distrains first, it is again the other's worst land (the only kind he possesses) to which he can have recourse, while the other still distrains on his medium."
,k110a_34:" R. Shesheth."
,k110a_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 704. n. 13. Where, therefore, two bonds are simultaneously presented at court and the order would naturally be made that the owner of the worst land distrains first on the other's 'medium' and that the latter then distrains on the same 'medium', the procedure would be as useless as that of 'exchanging bags'."
,k110a_36:" Is not this an objection against K. Shesheth?"
,k110a_37:" So that it is advantageous to the debtor of the loan for the longer period that his bond shall not be balanced against the other's."
,k110a_38:" I.e., the one bearing the earlier date."
,k110a_39:" Lit., 'its time'."
,k110a_40:" When the second bond was written."
,k110a_41:" It should be pretty obvious that the holder of the later bond should be believed mince he might well plead as Admon suggested."
,k110a_42:" The five years' loan."
,k110a_43:" Payment having been due on the following day."
,k110a_44:" The Sages. Lit., 'master'."
,k110a_45:" Hence their ruling that both bonds are valid."
,k110a_46:" Admon."
,k110a_47:" Hence the admissibility of the plea, 'HAD I OWED YOU etc'"
,k110a_48:" In our Mishnah."
,k110a_49:" Who inherited it from their father."
,k110a_50:" If they possessed no landed property. Orphans' movables may not be distrained on."
,k110a_51:" Not merely, 'is entitled to recover etc."
,k110a_52:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 12 mutatis mutandis."
,k110a_53:" Which someone owed him."
,k110a_54:" To whom their father owed money."
,k110a_55:" <i>Supra</i> 92a, Pes. 31a, B.B. 125a."
,k110a_56:" So cur. edd. and MS.M. R. Nissim and Maharsha omit."
,k110a_57:" To which a creditor is entitled (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 704. n. 9 second clause)."
,k110a_58:" Lit., also'."
,k110a_59:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 704. n. 7."
,k110a_60:" Lit., 'of all men'."
,k110a_61:" V. Git. 48b."
,k110a_62:" MS.M. 'but here since'."
,k110a_63:" As in the case under discussion where they seek to take it from him."
,k110a_64:" Lit., 'he seized'."
,k110a_65:" Sc. a man who married in one of these cannot compel his wife to go with him to any of the others."
,k110a_66:" Except with her consent."
,k110a_67:" [H]."
,k110a_68:" In another country."
,k110a_69:" [H] According to Rashi [H] is larger than [H]. According to Krauss, the former denotes a city (large or small) surrounded by a wall, v. <i>He'atid</i>. III, 1ff."
,k110a_70:" Even if she objects. "
}

txt:
<p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN PRODUCED A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST ANOTHER, AND THE LATTER PRO DUCED [A DEED OF SALE,<a id="k110a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; SHEWING] THAT THE FORMER HAD SOLD HIM A FIELD,<a id="k110a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON RULED; [THE OTHER] CAN SAY, HAD I OWED YOU [ANYTHING] YOU WOULD HAVE RECOVERED IT WHEN YOU SOLD ME THE FIELD'.<a id="k110a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY; THIS [SELLER] MAY HAVE BEEN A PRUDENT MAN, SINCE HE MAY HAVE SOLD HIM THE LAND IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO TAKE IT FROM HIM AS A PLEDGE.<a id="k110a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason of the Rabbis? Does not Admon speak well? &mdash; Where [the purchase] money is paid first and the deed is written afterwards, no one disputes that the [defendant] may well say [to the claimant], 'You should have recovered your debt when you sold me the field'.<a id="k110a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; They only differ where the deed is written first and the purchase money is paid afterwards. Admon is of the opinion that [the claimant] should have made a declaration [of his motive],<a id="k110a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; while the Rabbis<a id="k110a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; maintain [that the claimant can retort,] 'Your friend has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend'.<a id="k110a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF TWO MEN PRODUCED BONDS OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER,<a id="k110a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON RULED; [THE HOLDER OF THE LATER BOND CAN SAY TO THE OTHER,] 'HAD I OWED YOU [ANY MONEY] HOW IS IT THAT YOU BORROWED FROM ME?'<a id="k110a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: THE ONE RECOVERS HIS DEBT<a id="k110a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE OTHER RECOVERS HIS DEBT.<a id="k110a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was stated: If two men produced bonds of indebtedness against one another, R. Nahman ruled: The one recovers his debt and the other recovers his debt.<a id="k110a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth said: What is the point<a id="k110a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in exchanging bags?<a id="k110a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The one rather retains his own [money]<a id="k110a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other retains his.
</p><p>
	All agree<a id="k110a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; that if both [litigants possess land of the] best,<a id="k110a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; medium or worst quality [distraint for each on the other is] undoubtedly a case of changing bags.<a id="k110a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ only where one [of the litigants] has land of medium quality and the other of the worst quality. R. Nahman is of the opinion that 'the one recovers his debt and the other recovers his debt' because in his view an assessment<a id="k110a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is made on the basis of the debtor's<a id="k110a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; possessions,<a id="k110a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [so that] the owner of the land of the worst quality proceeds to distrain on the medium quality [of the other]<a id="k110a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; which then becomes with him the best; and the other can then proceed to take from him the worst only.<a id="k110a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth, however, said, 'What is the point in exchanging bags?' because he is of the opinion that an assessment<a id="k110a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is made on a general basis,<a id="k110a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [so that] eventually when the original owner of the medium land<a id="k110a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; proceeds [to distrain on the property of the other]<a id="k110a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; he will only take back his own medium land. But what [reason can] you see, according to R. Nahman, that the owner of the worst quality of land should proceed [to distrain] first? Why should not rather the owner of the medium quality come first and distrain on the worst [of the other] and then let him distrain on it?<a id="k110a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [But this ruling] applies only<a id="k110a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; where the [holder of the worst land] submitted his claim first. But after all when they come to distrain, do they not come simultaneously?<a id="k110a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; The fact, however, [is that the ruling] applies only<a id="k110a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; where one [of the litigants] has best and medium land, and the other has only of the worst. One Master<a id="k110a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that an assessment<a id="k110a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is made on the basis of the debtor's<a id="k110a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; possessions,<a id="k110a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master<a id="k110a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that an assessments is made on a general basis.<a id="k110a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learned: THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: THE ONE RECOVERS HIS DEBT AND THE OTHER RECOVERS HIS DEBT!<a id="k110a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman explained this, according to R. Shesheth, [as referring to a case,] for instance, where one borrowed for a period often, and the other for one of five years.<a id="k110a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; But how exactly are we to understand this? If it be suggested that the first [bond]<a id="k110a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; was for ten years and the second for five, would Admon [it may be objected] have ruled [that the second can say to the first:] 'HAD OWED YOU [ANY MONEY] HOW IS IT THAT YOU BORROWED FROM ME?' The time for payment<a id="k110a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, had not yet arrived.<a id="k110a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, [it be suggested that] the first was for five years and the second for ten, how [it may again be objected] is this to be understood? If the time for payment<a id="k110a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; had arrived,<a id="k110a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; what [it may be asked] could be the reason of the Rabbis?<a id="k110a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; And if the time for payment<a id="k110a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; had not yet arrived,<a id="k110a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; well, payment was not yet due and what [it may again be asked] is Admon's reason? &mdash; [This ruling was] required [in that case] only where [the holder of the earlier bond]<a id="k110a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; came [to borrow] on the day on which the five years had terminated.<a id="k110a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; The Masters<a id="k110a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; are of the opinion that it is usual to borrow money for one day<a id="k110a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Master<a id="k110a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that one does not borrow money for one day.<a id="k110a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rama b. Mama explained: We are here<a id="k110a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; dealing with [a case where one of the bonds was presented by] orphans<a id="k110a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; who are themselves entitled to recover a debt but from whom no debt may be recovered.<a id="k110a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Was it not, however, stated, THE ONE RECOVERS HIS DEBT AND THE OTHER RECOVERS HIS DEBT?<a id="k110a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The meaning is:] The one recovers his debt, and the other is entitled to recover it but gets nothing. Said Raba: Two objections [may be advanced] against this explanation. Firstly, it was stated, 'THE ONE RECOVERS HIS DEBT AND THE OTHER RECOVERS<a id="k110a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS DEBT'; and, secondly, could not [the other party] allow the orphans to distrain on a plot of land [of his] and then recover it from them,<a id="k110a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with [a ruling of] R. Nahman, for R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If orphans collected a plot of land for their father's debt<a id="k110a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; the creditor<a id="k110a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; may re-collect it from them?<a id="k110a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is a difficulty.
</p><p>
	Why could it not be explained [that this is a case] where the orphans owned land of the worst quality and the other owned best<a id="k110a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; and medium quality, so that the orphans proceed to distrain on his medium land<a id="k110a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; and allow him to distrain on their worst only? For, even though<a id="k110a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; an assessment<a id="k110a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; is made on a general basis<a id="k110a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; is not payment from orphans' property recovered from their worst land only?<a id="k110a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This applies only where [the creditor] has not yet seized [their property] but where<a id="k110a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; he had seized it<a id="k110a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; he may lawfully retain it.<a id="k110a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [THE FOLLOWING REGIONS ARE REGARDED AS] THREE COUNTRIES IN RESPECT OF MATRIMONY:<a id="k110a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; JUDAEA, TRANSJORDAN AND GALILEE. [A MAN] MAY NOT TAKE OUT [HIS WIFE WITH HIM]<a id="k110a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM ONE TOWN<a id="k110a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; TO ANOTHER<a id="k110a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; OR FROM ONE CITY<a id="k110a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; TO AN OTHER. WITHIN THE SAME COUNTRY, HOWEVER, HE MAY TAKE HER OUT WITH HIM FROM ONE TOWN INTO ANOTHER OR FROM ONE CITY INTO AN OTHER<a id="k110a_70"><sup>70</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k110b_1:" The reason is stated <i>infra</i>."
,k110b_2:" Lit., 'bad'."
,k110b_3:" Lit., 'beautiful'."
,k110b_4:" This is further explained by Samuel <i>infra</i>. [H] rt. esc 'to examine', 'test', 'try'. Aliter ( Jast.): [H] 'to penetrate'; 'the removal to a better residence (and style of living) penetrates (the body and creates disease)'."
,k110b_5:" Lit., 'cities'."
,k110b_6:" [H], rt. [H] 'to sit', 'dwell'."
,k110b_7:" Lit., 'hard', owing to overcrowding, lack of pure country air and an insufficiency of parks and open spaces."
,k110b_8:" Neh. XI, 2."
,k110b_9:" [H] cf. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k110b_10:" [H], lit., 'disease of the bowels', 'abdominal trouble'. Cf. B.B. 146a, Sonc. ed. p. 628 (where [H] is omitted) and Sanh. 101a, Sonc. ed. p. 683."
,k110b_11:" So A.J.V.; A.V. and R.V. 'afflicted'."
,k110b_12:" Prov. XV, 15, Ben Sira XXXI, 5."
,k110b_13:" During which days, at least, the poor were provided with substantial meals."
,k110b_14:" Ben Sira <i>loc. cit</i>. Not only all the days."
,k110b_15:" As a poor man he is compelled to live in a low-roofed hovel."
,k110b_16:" Since he cannot afford a more costly vineyard in the valley."
,k110b_17:" Ben Sira XXXI, 6-7."
,k110b_18:" Lit., 'cause to go up'."
,k110b_19:" From any other Palestinian place."
,k110b_20:" A wife also may compel her husband to live with her in Jerusalem or the Land of Israel and, if he refuses, she is entitled to demand a divorce and the payment of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k110b_21:" The Cappadocian coins were dearer than the corresponding ones of the Land of Israel."
,k110b_22:" Emphasis on 'ALL'."
,k110b_23:" Hebrew slaves also may be compelled by their master to follow him to Jerusalem or to the Land of Israel."
,k110b_24:" Emphasis on 'NONE'."
,k110b_25:" Lit., 'we say to him'."
,k110b_26:" Emphasis on 'ALL'."
,k110b_27:" Emphasis on 'NONE'."
,k110b_28:" In reference to the Land of Israel."
,k110b_29:" In respect of Jerusalem."
,k110b_30:" Though the latter clause is, in fact, redundant, it being self-evident that if a person may be compelled to leave a superior dwelling to move to an inferior one, provided the latter is in Jerusalem, he could not <i>a fortiori</i> be compelled to leave Jerusalem even for the sake of a change from an inferior to a superior dwelling."
,k110b_31:" Lit., 'says'."
,k110b_32:" From a country outside the Land, to the Land of Israel, or from a province in the latter to Jerusalem."
,k110b_33:" This law does not apply to the present time owing to the risks of the journey (Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.). Rabbenu Hayim also maintains that living in the Land of Israel is now not a religious act owing to the difficulty and impossibility of fulfilling many of the precepts attached to the soil (Tosaf. <i>loc. cit</i>. q.v.)."
,k110b_34:" Lit., 'she goes out'."
,k110b_35:" Jerusalem, for a provincial town in the Land of Israel, or the latter for a foreign country."
,k110b_36:" Tosef. Keth. XII."
,k110b_37:" To pay the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k110b_38:" The obligation is undertaken at marriage and collection takes place on divorce (or the man's death)."
,k110b_39:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k110b_40:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 709, n. 4, B.B. 132b, Sonc. ed. p. 554, n. 9, Bek. 52a."
,k110b_41:" Non-Pentateuchal (cf. <i>infra</i> n. 6 and text)."
,k110b_42:" Contrary to the view of the first Tanna (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5)."
,k110b_43:" [In the Jerusalem Talmud the opinions are reversed: R. Gamaliel holds that the <i>kethubah</i> is Rabbinical, whereas the Sages consider it Biblical, the Palestinian giving preference to the Palestine coinage, v. <i>supra</i> 10a]."
,k110b_44:" Lit., 'written'."
,k110b_45:" No mention being made of the exact denomination."
,k110b_46:" Since he may assert that the figure in the bond referred to the smallest silver coin."
,k110b_47:" Lit., 'which is not so in'."
,k110b_48:" Tosef. Keth. XII."
,k110b_49:" The last clause."
,k110b_50:" Sc. unlike a creditor who, according to the first clause, is entitled to collect his due in the currency of the place of issue, a woman collects her <i>kethubah</i> in the cheaper currency only."
,k110b_51:" Lit., 'to bring out from'."
,k110b_52:" Lit., 'written in it'."
,k110b_53:" Lit., 'small change of silver people do not make'. Cf. B.B. 165b f, Sonc. ed. p. 722f."
,k110b_54:" Lit., 'is like as if he has'."
,k110b_55:" Lev. XXV, 38; implying apparently that only in the land of Canaan would He be their God."
,k110b_56:" One surely may serve God anywhere."
,k110b_57:" I Sam. XXVI, 19."
,k110b_58:" David was compelled to seek shelter from Saul in the country of Moab and the land of the Philistines."
,k110b_59:" Tosef. 'A.Z. V. "
}

txt:
<p>
BUT NOT FROM A TOWN TO A CITY NOR FROM A CITY TO A TOWN.<a id="k110b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [A MAN] MAY TAKE OUT [HIS WIFE WITH HIM] FROM AN INFERIOR<a id="k110b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; TO A SUPERIOR<a id="k110b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; DWELLING, BUT NOT FROM A SUPERIOR<a id="k110b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; TO AN INFERIOR<a id="k110b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; DWELLING. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: NOT EVEN FROM AN INFERIOR DWELLING TO A SUPERIOR DWELLING, BECAUSE THE [CHANGE TO A] SUPERIOR DWELLING PUTS [THE HUMAN BODY] TO A [SEVERE] TEST.<a id="k110b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. One may readily grant [the justice of the ruling that a wife may not be compelled to move] FROM A CITY TO A TOWN, since everything [necessary] is obtainable in a city while not everything is obtainable in a town. On what grounds, however, [can she not be compelled to move] FROM A TOWN TO A CITY? &mdash; [This ruling] provides support for R. Jose b. Hanina who stated, 'Whence is it deduced that city<a id="k110b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; life<a id="k110b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is difficult?<a id="k110b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [From Scripture] where it is said, And the people blessed all men that willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem.<a id="k110b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED etc. What [is meant by] PUTS [THE HUMAN BODY] TO A [SEVERE] TEST'?<a id="k110b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In agreement [with a saying] of Samuel. For Samuel said: A change of diet is the beginning of bowel trouble.<a id="k110b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It is written in the Book of Ben Sira: <i>All the days of the poor<a id="k110b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; are evil</i>;<a id="k110b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but are there not the Sabbaths and festivals?<a id="k110b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The explanation, however, is] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: A change of diet is the beginning of bowel trouble.<a id="k110b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Ben Sira said: The nights also.<a id="k110b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Lower than [all] the roofs is his roof,<a id="k110b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and on the height of mountains is his vineyard,<a id="k110b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [so that] the rain of [other] roofs [pours down] upon his roof and the earth of his vineyard [is washed down] into the vineyards [of others].<a id="k110b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [A MAN] MAY COMPEL ALL [HIS HOUSEHOLD] TO GO UP<a id="k110b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [WITH HIM] TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL., BUT NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT. ALL [ONE'S HOUSEHOLD] MAY BE COMPELLED TO GO UP<a id="k110b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; TO JERUSALEM,<a id="k110b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT. [THIS APPLIES TO] BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.<a id="k110b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST PAY HER [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL. IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA HE MUST PAY HER [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.<a id="k110b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST A GAIN PAY [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.<a id="k110b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE MUST PAY HER IN THE CAPPADOCIAN CURRENCY.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA, HE MUST PAY HER [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IN THE CURRENCY OF CAPPADOCIA.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What [was the expression,] 'MAY COMPEL ALL'<a id="k110b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; intended to include? &mdash; To include slaves.<a id="k110b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, [was the expression<a id="k110b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; intended] to include according to him who specifically mentioned 'slaves' [in our Mishnah]? &mdash; To include [removal] from a superior dwelling to an inferior one. What [was the expression,] 'BUT NONE<a id="k110b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT' intended to include? &mdash; To include a slave who fled from outside the Land [of Israel] into the Land in which case his master is told,<a id="k110b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Sell him here, and go', in order to [encourage] settlement in the Land of Israel. What [was the expression] 'ALL<a id="k110b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&hellip; MAY BE COMPELLED TO GO UP TO JERUSALEM' intended to include? &mdash; To include [removal] from a superior dwelling to an inferior one. What [was the expression,] 'BUT NONE<a id="k110b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT' intended to include? &mdash; To include even [removal] from an inferior dwelling to a superior one; only since as it was stated in the earlier clause,<a id="k110b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT it was also stated in the latter clause,<a id="k110b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; 'NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT'.<a id="k110b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If [the husband] desires<a id="k110b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; to go up<a id="k110b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and his wife refuses<a id="k110b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; she must be pressed<a id="k110b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; to go up; and if [she does] not [consent] she may be divorced<a id="k110b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; without a <i>kethubah</i>. If she desires<a id="k110b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; to go up<a id="k110b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and be refuses,<a id="k110b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; he must be pressed to go up; and if [he does] not [consent] he must divorce her and pay her <i>kethubah</i>. If she desires to leave<a id="k110b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and he refuses to leave, she must be pressed not to leave, and if [pressure is of] no [avail] she may be divorced<a id="k110b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; without a <i>kethubah</i>. If he desires to leave<a id="k110b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and she refuses he must be pressed not to leave, and if [coercion is of] no [avail] he must divorce her and pay her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k110b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN etc. Is not this self-contradictory? It was stated, IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA HE MUST PAY HER [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL, from which it clearly follows that we are guided by [the currency of the place where the] obligation<a id="k110b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; was undertaken.<a id="k110b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Read, however, the concluding clause: IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL HE MUST AGAIN PAY HER [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL, from which it follows, does it not, that we are guided by [the currency of the place] where collection is effected?<a id="k110b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah replied: [The rulings] taught here [are among those in which the claims relating to] a <i>kethubah</i> are weaker [than those of other claimants],<a id="k110b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; for [the author] is of the opinion that the <i>kethubah</i> is a Rabbinical enactment.<a id="k110b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE MUST PAY HER IN THE CAPPADOCIAN CURRENCY. He is of the opinion<a id="k110b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; that the <i>kethubah</i> is Pentateuchal.<a id="k110b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a man produces a bond of indebtedness against another [and the place of issue] entered<a id="k110b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; therein was Babylon, [the debtor] must allow him to collect it in Babylonian currency. If [the place of issue] entered<a id="k110b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; therein was the Land of Israel he must allow him to collect it in the currency of the Land of Israel. If no place of issue was entered<a id="k110b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; he must, if it was presented in Babylon, pay him in Babylonian currency; and, if it was presented in the Land of Israel, he must pay him in the currency of the Land of Israel. If merely [a sum of] 'silver [pieces]'<a id="k110b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; was entered, the borrower may pay the other whatever he wishes.<a id="k110b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [This is a ruling] which does not apply to<a id="k110b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k110b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; To what [ruling does this<a id="k110b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; refer]? &mdash; R. Mesharsheya replied: To that in the first clause,<a id="k110b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; thus indicating that the law is not in agreement with<a id="k110b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled that the <i>kethubah</i> is Pentateuchal.
</p><p>
	'If merely [a sum of] "silver [pieces]" was entered the borrower may pay the other whatever he wishes'. May not one say that [a 'silver piece' merely signified] a bar [of silver]? &mdash; R. Eleazar replied: [This is a case] where 'coin' was mentioned in the bond.<a id="k110b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; May not one suggest [that it signified] small change? &mdash; R. Papa replied: Small change is not made of silver.<a id="k110b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have<a id="k110b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; a God, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no God. For it is said in Scripture, To give you the Land of Canaan, to be your God.<a id="k110b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; Has he, then, who does not live in the Land, no God?<a id="k110b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; But [this is what the text intended] to tell you, that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. Similarly it was said in Scripture in [the story of] David, For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods.<a id="k110b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, whoever said to David, 'Serve other gods'? But [the text intended] to tell you that whoever lives outside the Land<a id="k110b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; may be regarded as one who worships idols.<a id="k110b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera was evading Rab Judah because he desired to go up to the Land of Israel while Rab Judah had expressed [the following view:] Whoever goes up from Babylon to the Land of Israel transgresses a positive commandment, for it is said in Scripture,
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k111a_1:" Jer. XXVII, 22."
,k111a_2:" How could he act against this text?"
,k111a_3:" Lit., 'is written'."
,k111a_4:" Enumerated previously in the context (Jer. XXVII, 19ff)."
,k111a_5:" For the Land of Israel."
,k111a_6:" Cant. II, 7. Before it pleased God to bring them backto their Land they must patiently remain in Babylon."
,k111a_7:" The text of Cant. II, 7."
,k111a_8:" Individuals, however, may well go there. Cur. edd., read [H] MS.M., [H], 'like a wall'. So also Emden and Strashun."
,k111a_9:" Cant. III, 5, which refers to individuals."
,k111a_10:" The two mentioned (Cant. II, 7, Ill, 5) and the onein Cant. V, 8."
,k111a_11:" Cant. II, 7, [H], the repetition of the root [H] implies (a) all Israel together and (b) individuals."
,k111a_12:" Each of the three adjurations (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 10) isrepeated (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 11)."
,k111a_13:" Of the exile. The beginning of the Messianic era."
,k111a_14:" By their misdeeds."
,k111a_15:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to be far'). <i>Aliter</i>; Shall not regardthe end (of the exile) as being too far off, and so lose hope (Maharsha).Var. [H] (rt. [H] 'to press'), 'force by excessive prayer'."
,k111a_16:" Of intercalation Aliter: The secret of the reasonsunderlying the commandments in the Torah (Rashi)."
,k111a_17:" Cant. II, 7."
,k111a_18:" Isa. XXXIII, 24."
,k111a_19:" Read with [H] 'Rabina', Yalkut: R. Abba, sinceRaba and R. Ashi were not contemporaries."
,k111a_20:" Lit., 'as if'."
,k111a_21:" Lit., 'here'."
,k111a_22:" Ex. XX, 21."
,k111a_23:" Lit., 'there'."
,k111a_24:" Deut. XXXII, 43. The renderings of A.V., R.V. andA.J.V. respectively differ from each other and from the one given here."
,k111a_25:" Lit., 'his soul rested'."
,k111a_26:" The italicized words are a quotation from Amos VII. 17."
,k111a_27:" In the Land of Israel for burial."
,k111a_28:" Who lived in the Land of Israel."
,k111a_29:" Lit. 'that fell to him'."
,k111a_30:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. yibbum."
,k111a_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 504, n. 5."
,k111a_32:" Lit., 'what is it?'"
,k111a_33:" [H] var. [H]. Apparently a term of contempt forthe Jewish woman of Be Hozae (Golds.)."
,k111a_34:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Which was a centre of religion and learning.</font>"
,k111a_35:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 325, n. 5."
,k111a_36:" It is forbidden to move one's abode. [H] was thename of a village in the vicinity of Pumbeditha' (Rashi Kid. 70b); 'the fortof P.' (Jast.)."
,k111a_37:" [H] a place near Pumbeditha. [Identified by Obermeyer(p. 229) with Piruz Shabur.]"
,k111a_38:" So MS.M. Cur. edd. omit the <i>waw</i>."
,k111a_39:" His death was due to his departure from Pumbeditha."
,k111a_40:" [H], <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">either (a) of pure and legitimate descent or(b) worthy and righteous</font>. V. <i>infra</i> n. 8."
,k111a_41:" This is explained anon."
,k111a_42:" Are the 'fit&nbsp;&hellip; received'."
,k111a_43:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 7 (a), sc. that such persons may marryinto any pure families of the Land of Israel and Babylon respectively."
,k111a_44:" Opp. to 'fine flour', sc. a mixed mass the ingredientsof which cannot be determined. Metaph. for impurity or illegitimacy of descent."
,k111a_45:" The families of the latter place would not allow,therefore, any person from the former to marry any of their members."
,k111a_46:" Kid. 69b, 71a, which proves that as regards purityof descent <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Babylon stands higher than the Land of Israel</font>. How then couldit be said that only the 'fit persons of Babylon are received by the Landof Israel'? On the causes of the lower standard of genealogical purity inthe Land of Israel v. Halevy's suggestion quoted in Kid., Sonc. ed. p. 350,n. 6."
,k111a_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 7 (b)."
,k111a_48:" Only the worthy men of Babylon and other countriesshould be allowed <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">burial in the Land of Israel and Babylon respectively.Unworthy men should not be admitted</font> to the former whose soil was sacred or<font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">to the latter which scholars and saints had made their home</font> (cf. <i>supra</i> note 1)."
,k111a_49:" Zech. II, 11."
,k111a_50:" [H], <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">usually rendered 'Babylon'</font>, but v. <i>infra</i> notes 6 and 7."
,k111a_51:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Or 'travail'.</font>"
,k111a_52:" [H]; 'but <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">the more correct reading is</font> [H] (Moore, G.F., Judaism II 361, n. 2). [H] <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">'frequent in modernChristian books is fictitious'</font> (loc. cit.). The 'sufferings' or 'travail'are more fully described in Sanh. 97b, Sonc. ed. p. 654. These are the 'throesof mother Zion which is in labor to <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">bring forth the Messiah &mdash; without metaphor,the Jewish people'</font> (Moore, <i>loc. cit</i>. text)."
,k111a_53:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">The tradition as to the immunity of Babel.</font>"
,k111a_54:" Not, as might be assumed, to the well known Babylon(cf. <i>supra</i> note 2)."
,k111a_55:" [H], a village to the north of Jerusalem betweenTel Al-Ful and Nob 'the city of the priests'. It was known by many namesincluding that of [H] (v. Horowitz, I.S., Palestine, p. 73. nn 3ff, s.v.[H]). Neubauer, (Geogr. p. 152) describes it as an old fortress in Palestine(v. Jast.). There was also a Huzal in Babylonia between Nehardea and Sura.Cf. Sanh. 19a, Sonc. ed. p. 98, n. 3 and Berliner, Beitr. z. Geogr. p. 32."
,k111a_56:" [H], lit., 'and they would call it'. The pronounaccording to Rashi refers to the 'days of the Messiah', but this is difficult."
,k111a_57:" The noun [H] is regarded here as the Hof. of [H]'to save'."
,k111a_58:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Of Israel</font>."
,k111a_59:" [H]. Cf. <i>infra</i>notes<A href=\"#111a_13\"><SUP>13</SUP></A>&nbsp; and 18."
,k111a_60:" Ezek. XXVI, 20."
,k111a_61:" [H] containing the three letters of [H] (cf. <i>supra</i>note II). God's care for Palestine is taken for granted. Cf. e.g., <i>A landwhich the Lord thy God careth for; the eyes of the Lord thy God are alwaysupon it</i> (Deut. XI, 12)."
,k111a_62:" Isa. XXVI, 19."
,k111a_63:" Of Israel."
,k111a_64:" Lit., 'and what'."
,k111a_65:" V. <i>supra</i> note II."
,k111a_66:" [H] also means 'stag' (cf. <i>supra</i> note 11)."
,k111a_67:" The land of Israel."
,k111a_68:" Isa. XLII, 5."
,k111a_69:" Isa. XXVI, 19."
,k111a_70:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Even they will be resurrected but only in the Landof Israel.</font>"
,k111a_71:" Lit., 'that'."
,k111a_72:" Lit., 'daughter of'."
,k111a_73:" [H]."
,k111a_74:" Isa. XLII, 5."
,k111a_75:" [H]."
,k111a_76:" Gen. XXII, 5."
,k111a_77:" The consonants [H] being the same (cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 7 and 9.)"
,k111a_78:" Sc. <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">slaves who areconsidered the property of the master</font>. As the 'people' spoken of in Isa. XLII, 5,are assured of a place in the world to come so are the <fontstyle=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">'people' referred to in Gen. XXII</font>, 5. Mooredescribes this as 'a specimen of exegetical whimsicality, rather than an eccentricity ofopinion' (Judaism, II, 380)."
,k111a_79:" Lit., 'son of'."
,k111a_80:" Who based his view on Ezek. XXVI, 20, <i>supra</i>."
,k111a_81:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Of Israel.</font>"
,k111a_82:" But this, surely. is most improbable."
,k111a_83:" Gen. XLVII, 30."
,k111a_84:" To carry him to Canaan?"
,k111a_85:" <i>Var. lec</i>., 'because <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">he did not accept the sufferingof the pain of rolling through the cavities'</font> (Yalkut and [H])."
,k111a_86:" Gen. L, 25."
,k111a_87:" Of Israel."
,k111a_88:" V. p. 717, n. 19."
,k111a_89:" Who lived in Palestine and desired him to join them."
,k111a_90:" Rabbah b. Nahmani who wad domiciled in Pumbedithain Babylonia (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 325, n. 5)."
,k111a_91:" V. Karna's remark <i>supra</i>."
,k111a_92:" Who refused to leave her home country outside Palestineto join him in Palestine."
,k111a_93:" Lit 'he rolled by himself'."
,k111a_94:" Lit., 'and who is he?'"
,k111a_95:" Pl. of [H], 'nethermost', hence 'piles'."
,k111a_96:" Lit., 'but'."
}

txt:
</H3>
<P>
<i>They shall be carried to Babylon, and there shall they be, until the day
that I remember them, saith the
Lord</i>.<A id="k111a_1"><sup>1</SUP></A>&nbsp; And R.
Zera?<A id="k111a_2"><sup>2</SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; That
text<A id="k111a_1"><sup>1</SUP></A>
refers<A id="k111a_3"><sup>3</SUP></A>&nbsp; to the vessels of
ministry.<A id="k111a_4"><sup>4</SUP></A>&nbsp; And Rab Judah? &mdash; Another
text also is available:<A id="k111a_3"><sup>3</SUP></A>&nbsp; <i>I adjure
you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field,
[that ye awaken not, nor stir up
love,<A id="k111a_5"><sup>5</SUP></A>&nbsp; until it
please]</i>'.<A id="k111a_6"><sup>6</SUP></A>&nbsp; And R. Zera? &mdash;
That<A id="k111a_7"><sup>7</SUP></A>&nbsp; implies that Israel shall not
go up [all together as if surrounded] by a
wall.<A id="k111a_8"><sup>8</SUP></A>&nbsp; And Rab Judah? &mdash; Another <i>'I
adjure you'</i><A id="k111a_9"><sup>9</SUP></A>&nbsp; is written in Scripture.
And R. Zera? &mdash; That text is required for [an exposition] like that of R.
Jose son of R. Hanina who said: 'What was the purpose of those three
adjurations?<A id="k111a_10"><sup>10</SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; One, that Israel
shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a
wall;<A id="k111a_8"><sup>8</SUP></A>&nbsp; the second, that whereby the
Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel that they shall not rebel against
the nations of the world; and the third is that whereby the Holy One, blessed
be He, adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much'.
And Rab Judah? &mdash; It is written in Scripture, <i>That ye awaken not, nor stir
up</i>.<A id="k111a_11"><sup>11</SUP></A>&nbsp; And R. Zera? &mdash; That text is
required for [an exposition] like that of R. Levi who stated: 'What was the
purpose of those six
adjurations?<A id="k111a_12"><sup>12</SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; Three for the purposes
just mentioned and the others, that [the prophets] shall not make known the
end,<A id="k111a_13"><sup>13</SUP></A>&nbsp; that [the people] shall
not<A id="k111a_14"><sup>14</SUP></A>
delay<A id="k111a_15"><sup>15</SUP></A>&nbsp; the
end,<A id="k111a_13"><sup>13</SUP></A>&nbsp; and that they shall not reveal
the secret<A id="k111a_16"><sup>16</SUP></A>&nbsp; to the idolaters'.
<P>
<i>By the gazelles, and by the hinds of the
field</i>.<A id="k111a_17"><sup>17</SUP></A>&nbsp; R. Eleazar explained: The
Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, 'If you will keep the adjuration,
well and good; but if not, I will permit your flesh [to be a prey] like [that
of] the gazelles and the hinds of the field'.
<P>
R. Eleazar said: Whoever is domiciled in the Land of Israel lives without
sin, for it is said in Scripture, <i>And the inhabitant shall not say, 'I am
sick', the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their
iniquity</i>.<A id="k111a_18"><sup>18</SUP></A>&nbsp; Said
Raba<A id="k111a_19"><sup>19</SUP></A>&nbsp; to R. Ashi; We apply this
[text]<A id="k111a_18"><sup>18</SUP></A>&nbsp; to those who suffer from
disease.
<P>
R. Anan said; Whoever is buried in the Land of Israel is deemed to
be<A id="k111a_20"><sup>20</SUP></A>&nbsp; buried under the altar; since
in respect of the latter<A id="k111a_21"><sup>21</SUP></A>&nbsp; it is
written in Scripture, <i>At altar of earth thou shalt make unto
me</i>,<A id="k111a_22"><sup>22</SUP></A>&nbsp; and in respect of the
former<A id="k111a_23"><sup>23</SUP></A>&nbsp; it is written in Scripture,
<i>And his laud doth make expiation for his people</i>.<A id="k111a_24"><sup>24</SUP></A>
<P>
'Ulla was in the habit of paying visits to the Land of Israel but came to
his eternal rest<A id="k111a_25"><sup>25</SUP></A>&nbsp; outside the Land
&mdash; [When people] came and reported this to R. Eleazar he exclaimed, 'Thou
'Ulla, <i>shouldst die in an unclean
land!</i>'<A id="k111a_26"><sup>26</SUP></A>&nbsp; 'His coffin', they said
to him, 'has arrived'.<A id="k111a_27"><sup>27</SUP></A>&nbsp; 'Receiving
a man in his lifetime', he replied, 'is not the same as receiving him after
his death'.
<P>
A certain man<A id="k111a_28"><sup>28</SUP></A>&nbsp; who fell under the
obligation [of marrying]<A id="k111a_29"><sup>29</SUP></A>&nbsp; a
sister-in-law<A id="k111a_30"><sup>30</SUP></A>&nbsp; at Be
Hozae<A id="k111a_31"><sup>31</SUP></A>&nbsp; came to R. Hanina and asked
him whether it was proper<A id="k111a_32"><sup>32</SUP></A>&nbsp; to go
down there to contract with her levirate marriage. 'His brother', [R. Hanina]
replied, 'married a heathen<A id="k111a_33"><sup>33</SUP></A>&nbsp; and
died, blessed be the Omnipresent Who slew him, and this one would follow
him!'
<P>
Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: As it is forbidden to leave the Land
of Israel for Babylon so it is forbidden to leave


</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
<A name="E146"></A>
<TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
<TR>
<TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
<A href="../dilling/146.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 146<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg">



Babylon<A id="k111a_34"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">34</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; for other countries. Both
Rabbah and R. Joseph said: Even from
Pumbeditha<A id="k111a_35"><sup>35</SUP></A>&nbsp; to Be
Kubi.<A id="k111a_36"><sup>36</SUP></A>
<P>
A man once moved from Pumbeditha to [settle in] Be Kubi and R. Joseph placed
him under the ban.
<P>
A man once left Pumbeditha to [take up his abode at]
Astunia,<A id="k111a_37"><sup>37</SUP></A>&nbsp; and he
died.<A id="k111a_38"><sup>38</SUP></A>&nbsp; Said Abaye: 'If this young
scholar wanted it, he could still have been
alive'.<A id="k111a_39"><sup>39</SUP></A>
<P>
Both Rabbah and R. Joseph stated: The
fit<A id="k111a_40"><sup>40</SUP></A>&nbsp; persons of Babylon are
received<A id="k111a_38"><sup>38</SUP></A>&nbsp; by the Land of Israel,
and the fit<A id="k111a_40"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">40</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; ones of other countries
are received<A id="k111a_41"><sup>41</SUP></A>&nbsp; by Babylon. In what
respect?<A id="k111a_42"><sup>42</SUP></A>&nbsp; If it be suggested: In
respect of purity of descent,<A id="k111a_43"><sup>43</SUP></A>&nbsp; surely
[it may be objected,] did not the Master say, <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">'All countries are [like]
dough<A id="k111a_44"><sup>44</SUP></A>&nbsp; towards the Land of
Israel</font>,<A id="k111a_45"><sup>45</SUP></A>&nbsp; and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">the Land of Israel
is [like] dough towards
Babylon'</font>?<A id="k111a_46"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">46</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact, however,
[is that the 'fit'<A id="k111a_47"><sup>47</SUP></A>&nbsp; are received]
in respect of burial.<A id="k111a_48"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">48</font></SUP></A>
<P>
Rab Judah said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Whoever lives in Babylon is accounted as though he lived
in the Land of Israel</font>; for it is said in Scripture,


</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
<A name="E147"></A>
<TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
<TR>
<TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
<A href="../dilling/147.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 147<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg">



<I><font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Ho,
Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of
Babylon</font></I>.<A id="k111a_49"><sup>49</SUP></A>
<P>
Abaye stated: We have a tradition that
<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Babel<A id="k111a_50"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">50</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; will not witness the
sufferings<A id="k111a_51"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">51</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; [that will precede the
coming] of the Messiah</font>.<A id="k111a_52"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">52</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; He [also]
explained it<A id="k111a_53"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">53</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; to
refer<A id="k111a_54"><sup>54</SUP></A>&nbsp; to
Huzal<A id="k111a_55"><sup>55</SUP></A>&nbsp; in Benjamin which would be
named<A id="k111a_56"><sup>56</SUP></A>&nbsp; the Corner of
Safety.<A id="k111a_57"><sup>57</SUP></A>
<P>
R. Eleazar stated: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">The dead outside the
Land</font><A id="k111a_58"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">58</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; will not be resurrected; for
it is said in Scripture, And I will set
glory<A id="k111a_59"><sup>59</SUP></A>&nbsp; in the land of the
living,<A id="k111a_60"><sup>60</SUP></A>&nbsp; [implying] the dead of
the land in which I have my
desire<A id="k111a_61"><sup>61</SUP></A>&nbsp; will be resurrected, but
the dead [of the land] in which I have no desire will not be resurrected.
<P>
R. Abba b. Memel objected: <I>Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall
arise</I>;<A id="k111a_62"><sup>62</SUP></A>&nbsp; does not [the expression]
'<I>Thy dead shall live</I>' refer to the dead of the Land of Israel, and
'<I>My dead bodies shall arise</I>' to the dead outside the
Land;<A id="k111a_63"><sup>63</SUP></A>&nbsp; while the
text,<A id="k111a_64"><sup>64</SUP></A>&nbsp; <I>And I will give
glory<A id="k111a_65"><sup>65</SUP></A>&nbsp; in the land of the
living</I><A id="k111a_60"><sup>60</SUP></A>&nbsp; was written of
Nebuchadnezzar concerning whom the All-Merciful said, '<I>I will bring against
them a king who is as swift as a
stag</I>'?<A id="k111a_66"><sup>66</SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied:
Master, I am making an


</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
<A name="E148"></A>
<TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
<TR>
<TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
<A href="../dilling/148.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 148<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</TD>
<TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD background="../backg01.jpg">



exposition of another Scriptural text: <I>He that
giveth breath unto the people upon
it,<A id="k111a_67"><sup>67</SUP></A>&nbsp; and spirit to them that walk
therein</I>.<A id="k111a_68"><sup>68</SUP></A>&nbsp; But is it not written,
<I><font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">My dead bodies shall
arise</I>?<A id="k111a_69"><sup>69</SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; That was written
in reference to miscarriages</font>.<A id="k111a_70"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">70</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; Now
as to R. Abba b. Memel, what [is the application] he makes of the
text,<A id="k111a_71"><sup>71</SUP></A>&nbsp; '<I>He that giveth breath
unto the people upon it</I>'? &mdash; He requires it for [an exposition] like
that of R. Abbahu who stated: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Even a Canaanite bondwoman who [lives] in the
Land of Israel is assured of a place
in<A id="k111a_72"><sup>72</SUP></A>&nbsp; the world to come</font>, [for in the
context] here <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">it is written</font>, unto the
people<A id="k111a_73"><sup>73</SUP></A>&nbsp; upon
it,<A id="k111a_74"><sup>74</SUP></A>&nbsp; and elsewhere it is written,
<I><font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Abide ye here with<A id="k111a_75"><sup>75</SUP></A>&nbsp; the
ass</I><A id="k111a_76"><sup>76</SUP></A>&nbsp; [which may be
rendered]<A id="k111a_77"><sup>77</SUP></A>&nbsp; people that are like
an ass'</font>.<A id="k111a_78"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">78</font></SUP></A>
<P>
<I>And spirit to them that work
therein</I><A id="k111a_74"><sup>74</SUP></A>&nbsp; [teaches], said R.
Jeremiah b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that whoever walks four cubits
in the Land of Israel is assured of a
place<A id="k111a_79"><sup>79</SUP></A>&nbsp; in the world to come. Now
according to R. Eleazar,<A id="k111a_80"><sup>80</SUP></A>&nbsp; would
not the righteous outside the
Land<A id="k111a_81"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">81</font></SUP></A>&nbsp; be
revived?<A id="k111a_82"><sup>82</SUP></A>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Elai replied: [They
will be revived] by rolling [to the Land of Israel]. R. Abba Sala the Great
demurred: Will not the rolling be painful to the righteous? &mdash; Abaye replied:
Cavities will be made for them underground.
<P>
<I>Thou shalt carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their
burying-place</I>.<A id="k111a_83"><sup>83</SUP></A>&nbsp; Karna remarked:
[There must be here] some inner meaning. Our father Jacob well knew that
he was a righteous man in every way, and, since the dead outside the Land
will also be resurrected, why did he trouble his
sons?<A id="k111a_84"><sup>84</SUP></A>&nbsp; Because he might possibly
be unworthy to [roll through] the
cavities.<A id="k111a_85"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">85</font></SUP></A>
<P>
Similarly you read in Scripture, And Joseph took an oath of the children
of Israel, [saying &hellip; ye shall carry up my bones from
hence],<A id="k111a_86"><sup>86</SUP></A>&nbsp; and R. Hanina remarked:
[There is here] an inner meaning. Joseph well knew himself to be a righteous
man in every way, and, since the dead outside the
Land<A id="k111a_87"><sup>87</SUP></A>&nbsp; will be revived, why did he
trouble his brothers [with a journey of] four hundred parasangs? Because
he might possibly be unworthy to [roll through] the
cavities.<A id="k111a_88"><sup>88</SUP></A>
<P>
His brothers<A id="k111a_89"><sup>89</SUP></A>&nbsp; sent [the following
message] to Rabbah:<A id="k111a_90"><sup>90</SUP></A>&nbsp; 'Jacob well
knew that he was a righteous man in every way'
etc.<A id="k111a_91"><sup>91</SUP></A>&nbsp; Ilfa added to this the following
incident. A man was once troubled on account of [his inability to marry]
a certain woman<A id="k111a_92"><sup>92</SUP></A>&nbsp; and desired to
go down [to her country]; but as soon as he heard
this<A id="k111a_91"><sup>91</SUP></A>&nbsp; he resigned himself to his
unmarried state<A id="k111a_93"><sup>93</SUP></A>&nbsp; until the day of
his death. Although you are a great scholar [you will admit that] a man who
studies on his own cannot be on a par with a man who learns from his master.
And perchance you might think that you have no master [good enough for you
here, we may inform you that] you have one, and he
is<A id="k111a_94"><sup>94</SUP></A>&nbsp; R. Johanan. If you are not coming
up, however, beware [we advise you] of three things. Do not sit too long,
for [long] sitting aggravates one's abdominal
troubles;<A id="k111a_95"><sup>95</SUP></A>&nbsp; do not stand for a long
time, because [long] standing is injurious to the heart; and do not walk
too much, because [excessive] walking is harmful to the eyes. Rather [spend]
one third [of your time] in sitting, one third in standing and one third
in walking. Standing is better than sitting when one has nothing to lean
against.
<P>
'Standing'! How can this be imagined in view of the statement that '[long]
standing is injurious to the heart'? &mdash; What was meant in fact was
this:<A id="k111a_96"><sup>96</SUP></A>&nbsp; Better than sitting
<P>

<hr noshade size="1" width="100%">
<P>
<P>


