# snc

lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k141a_1:" Who asserted that a <I>tumtum</I> receives nothing."
,k141a_2:" Since the estate is small, 'inheriting like a son' really signifies 'receiving nothing'. How then, could the expression of <I>inheriting</I> be used?"
,k141a_3:" I.e., according to Abaye."
,k141a_4:" Since the bequest to her was two hundred <I>zuz</I>, while to a son it was a <I>maneh</I> only (i.e., one hundred <I>zuz</I>)."
,k141a_5:" Num. XXVII, 8."
,k141a_6:" [H]"
,k141a_7:" [H] of the same root ([H]) as <I>ha'abara</I>, denominative of <I>weha'abartem.</I>"
,k141a_8:" Zeph. I, 15. <I>Wrath</I>, [H]"
,k141a_9:" Lit., 'better to him', since he perpetuates the name of the tribe."
,k141a_10:" It is more difficult for a woman to earn her living, and a father would naturally desire to make provision for her maintenance rather than for that of a son."
,k141a_11:" In our Mishnah, where preference is given to a daughter."
,k141a_12:" The preference of the father for her first daughter."
,k141a_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k141a_14:" The birth of a male child first may cause the envy of other mothers"
,k141a_15:" His daughters married husbands who were among the greatest of their generation. viz., Raba, Rami b. Hama: and Mar 'Ukba b. Hama (Tosaf.)"
,k141a_16:" Lit., 'this according to whom'?"
,k141a_17:" Gen. XXIV, 1."
,k141a_18:" Tosef. Kid. V."
,k141a_19:" [H] 'in all'; v. <i>supra</i> 16b."
,k141a_20:" Lit., 'say'."
,k141a_21:" Lit., 'you have heard him'."
,k141a_22:" Lit., 'did you hear him?'"
,k141a_23:" Tosef. Keth. IV."
,k141a_24:" Though there is no legal obligation after a certain age."
,k141a_25:" In their search for a livelihood. From this it follows that, according to R. Judah, a father would provide for a daughter more than for a son. Hence it may be concluded that our Mishnah represents this view."
,k141a_26:" Lit., 'but that which is taught&nbsp;&hellip; in what'."
,k141a_27:" A gold <i>denar</i> = 25 <i>zuz</i>."
,k141a_28:" Making a total of two hundred <i>zuz</i>. In an ordinary case, in view of the principle enunciated in our Mishnah, a daughter should receive the greater share [According to R. Gershom this Baraitha is not quoted as an argument, but for the purpose of obtaining information on its interpretation.]"
,k141a_29:" Lit., 'I said'."
,k141a_30:" The Baraitha cited."
,k141a_31:" Lit., 'when he said'."
,k141a_32:" l.e., eight gold <i>denarii</i>."
,k141a_33:" Lit., 'came out'."
,k141a_34:" If he was born first, the <I>maneh</I> is certainly due to him, since in such a case, his father had really allotted him two hundred <i>zuz</i>. But even if he was born second he is still entitled by virtue of the definite instructions of his father, to the one <I>maneh</I>"
,k141a_35:" Because it is not known to whom that second <I>maneh</I> belongs. Had it been certain that the son was born first he would have been entitled to that <I>maneh</I> also. Had it been certain, on the other hand, that the daughter was born first she would have been entitled to that <I>maneh</I>; hence it is of doubtful ownership."
,k141a_36:" Between the son and the daughter. The first <I>maneh</I> being due to the son in any case, is given to him in full (four gold <i>denarii</i>), with the addition of a half (two gold <i>denarii</i>) of the second <I>maneh</I>. Hence he receives a total of one <I>maneh</I> and a half (six gold <i>denarii</i>). The daughter, being entitled to half a <I>maneh</I>, receives, therefore, two gold <i>denarii</i>."
,k141a_37:" Lit., 'but that which was taught &hellip; how do you find it'."
,k141a_38:" The expression 'he only receives one <I>maneh</I>', implies that though it might have been assumed that he receives more than that sum, he receives only one <I>maneh</I>. Under what circumstances is this possible?"
,k141a_39:" Whether the child born was male or female. "
}

txt:
<p>
according to Abaye. however,<a id="k141a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; what [is meant by], 'he receives maintenance like a daughter'? &mdash; Granted your argument is right [how will you explain], according to Raba, what [is the meaning of] 'he inherits like a son'?<a id="k141a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But, [you must explain it as meaning that] 'he is entitled to inherit but [actually] receives nothing', so here<a id="k141a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be explained as] 'entitled to maintenance but [in fact] receives nothing'.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN SAID: SHOULD MY WIFE BEAR A MALE CHILD etc. Does this imply that a daughter is dearer to him, than a son?<a id="k141a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with wrath against anyone who does not leave a son to be his heir, for it is said, And you shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter,<a id="k141a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and by the expression of 'causing to pass'<a id="k141a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'wrath'<a id="k141a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is implied, for it is said, That day is a day of wrath!<a id="k141a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As regards succession, a son has preference;<a id="k141a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; as regards maintenance, a daughter is given preference.<a id="k141a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And Samuel said: We deal here<a id="k141a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with [the case of a mother] who gave birth for the first time, and [this<a id="k141a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is to be understand] in accordance with [a saying] of R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: [If a] daughter [is born] first, it is a good sign for the children. Some say, because she rears her brothers; and others say, because the evil eye<a id="k141a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; has no influence over them.<a id="k141a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: To me, however, daughters are dearer than sons.<a id="k141a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If preferred it may be said that [the Tanna of our Mishnah] is in agreement<a id="k141a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [with the view of] R. Judah. Which [view of] R. Judah? If it is suggested, [that relating to the exposition] of 'in all';<a id="k141a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was taught.<a id="k141a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Lord blessed Abraham with all.<a id="k141a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir said, [the meaning is] that he had no daughter; [and] R. Judah said, [the meaning is] that he had a daughter whose name was 'Inall',<a id="k141a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be objected<a id="k141a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; that [from this] one may only infer<a id="k141a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; that, according to R. Judah, the All Merciful did not deprive Abraham even of daughter; this is no proof, however,<a id="k141a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; that [a daughter] is better than a son! But [it is] this [saying of] R. Judah: It was taught:<a id="k141a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It is a meritorious act to feed one's daughters; and how much more so one's sons' &mdash; since [the latter] are engaged in the study of the Torah, these are the words of R. Meir R. Judah said, 'It is a meritorious act<a id="k141a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; to feed one's sons and how much more so one's daughters' &mdash; in order that they be not degraded.<a id="k141a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But how is one to understand that Baraitha which teaches,<a id="k141a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; '[if] she gave birth to a male and a female, the male receives six [gold] <i>denarii</i><a id="k141a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and the female receives two [gold] denarii'?<a id="k141a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ashi replied: I interpreted<a id="k141a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; this reported tradition,<a id="k141a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; before R. Kahana, [as dealing] with [the case of] one who inverted the order [of his first instruction] by making a statement like the following:<a id="k141a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; '[If] a male [be born] first, [he shall receive] two hundred <i>zuz</i>,<a id="k141a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and the] female [born] after him [shall receive] nothing: [if a] female [be born] first, [she shall receive] a <I>maneh</I>, [and the] male [born] after her [shall receive] a <I>maneh</I>'; and she gave birth to [both] a male and a female, and it is not known which of them was born<a id="k141a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; first. The male does, [consequently]. receive a <I>maneh</I> [which is] in any case [due to him].]<a id="k141a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; The other <I>maneh</I> [however] is money of doubtful ownership<a id="k141a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and is to be divided.<a id="k141a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And how is one to understand the Baraitha which teaches<a id="k141a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [that 'if] she gave birth to a male and a female, he only receives one <I>maneh</I><a id="k141a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabina replied: [This is possible] where [the promise of the sum of money was made by the father]. 'to him who will bring me tidings';<a id="k141a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k141b_1:" He only spoke of the birth of a male or a female; why then should he give the <I>maneh</I> when twins were born?"
,k141b_2:" If the <I>maneh</I> was promised to the reporter in the case of the birth of a male. a female or twins. i.e.. apparently in all possible cases. what need was there for the father to specify them, at all? It would have been sufficient for him, to say. that he would pay the <I>maneh</I> to him who would report'whereby the womb of my wife was opened'. Since the three apparently possible cases were specified the intention must have been to exclude' some other possible case."
,k141b_3:" By specifying male, female and twins, he implied that the <I>maneh</I> would be paid only when he received a report of a living child."
,k141b_4:" This shows that though the assignment was made while the child was still in embryo. possession is acquired by him."
,k141b_5:" Lit., 'who taught it.' I.e., its authorship is obscure and consequently unreliable."
,k141b_6:" Our Mishnah."
,k141b_7:" Why, then, did he say that he did not know who the author of our Mishnah was?"
,k141b_8:" Lit., 'that you heard.'"
,k141b_9:" I.e., though the object is not, the recipient is in existence."
,k141b_10:" The embryo, therefore, could not acquire possession even according to R. Meir. Hence, the authorship of our Mishnah remains unknown"
,k141b_11:" Our Mishnah."
,k141b_12:" Yeb. 67a."
,k141b_13:" The heave-offering. (terumah. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). is forbidden to laymen (Israelites and Levites). but the wife and the non-Jewish slaves of a priest are allowed to eat of it. When the priest dies. his slaves, becoming the property of his sons who are themselves priests, are still allowed to eat <i>terumah</i>. If however the wife of the priest, who is the daughter of an Israelite, was pregnant when her husband died, the slaves are forbidden to eat of the <i>terumah</i> on account of the embryo who is not regarded as a priest and who is their partial owner. (The slaves of a layman are forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k141b_14:" If she is the daughter of an Israelite. Only a son that was born confers this right upon his mother: but not an embryo"
,k141b_15:" From this it clearly follows that the embryo is regarded as the owner of the slaves, which proves that according to R. Jose an embryo does acquire possession; why. then, could not our Mishnah be attributed to R. Jose's authorship?"
,k141b_16:" Lit., 'of itself'."
,k141b_17:" From a gift.Consequently. while R. Jose may hold the view that an embryo acquires the ownership of an inheritance, it does not follow that be would grant the embryo the right of acquiring possession of a gift, which forms the subject of our Mishnah"
,k141b_18:" Our Mishnah."
,k141b_19:" <i>Supra</i> 130a."
,k141b_20:" That a certain individual shall inherit all his estate."
,k141b_21:" Presumably even an embryo."
,k141b_22:" Which proves that, according to R. Johanan b. Beroka, an embryo acquires possession even of that to which he would not have been entitled under the ordinary laws of succession."
,k141b_23:" I.e., one of the sons already born."
,k141b_24:" E.g., an embryo. Hence the authorship of our Mishnah remains unknown."
,k141b_25:" Our Mishnah."
,k141b_26:" <i>Supra</i>; that an embryo may acquire possession."
,k141b_27:" R. Johanan b. Beroka."
,k141b_28:" That of R. Jose."
,k141b_29:" i.e. that the sum of money spoken if in our Mishnah was not assigned to an embryo but promised by a husband to anyone who would report to him, on the confinement of his wife as to the sex of child (cf. <i>supra</i>). The question of an embryo's right of acquisition would consequently be outside the scope of our Mishnah: and R. Huna would accordingly be able to maintain, against R. Nahman's assumption, that an embryo does not acquire possession."
,k141b_30:" That our Mishnah deals with a promise to a stranger, and not with an assignment to an heir."
,k141b_31:" Lit., 'he who will report to me'."
,k141b_32:" Lit., 'an heir, what is his work'. A reporter on the birth of one's child could not possibly he described as heir"
,k141b_33:" At the time the father had assigned to him the sum of money. An embryo, however, as R. Huna stated, would not acquire possession."
,k141b_34:" That the Mishnah speaks of a child already born. "
}

txt:
<p>
as it was taught: '[If a person said]: "He who will bring me tidings whereby the womb of my wife was opened, shall receive, if the child be a male, a <I>maneh</I>", [then] if she gave birth to a male he receives a <I>maneh</I>. [If. however.] he said: "[He will receive] a <I>maneh</I> if [he brings 'me tidings that she gave birth to] a female", [then] if she gave birth to a female, he receives a <I>maneh</I>, [and if] she gave birth to a male and a female, he only receives a <I>maneh</I>'. But surely'. he did not speak of a 'male and a female'!<a id="k141b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This refers to the case] where he also said, 'He shall also receive a <I>maneh</I> if [he brings tidings that] a male and a female [were born]'. What. then. [did he mean] to exclude?<a id="k141b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; To exclude a miscarriage.<a id="k141b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Once] a certain [man] said to his wife: 'My estate shall be his with whom you are pregnant &mdash; R. Huna said, 'This is [a case of] making an assignment to an embryo through the agency of a third party, and whenever such an assignment is made, [the embryo does] not acquire possession.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman raised an objection against R. Huna's ruling: IF A MAN SAID: SHOULD  MY WIFE BEAR A MALE CHILD, HE SHALL RECEIVE A <I>MANEH</I>, [AND HIS WIFE] DID BEAR A MALE CHILD, HE RECEIVES A <I>MANEH</I>!<a id="k141b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him: [As to] our Mishnah. I do not know' who is its author.<a id="k141b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But should he not have replied to him [that] it<a id="k141b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [represents the view' of] R. Meir who stated [that] a man may convey possession of a thing that has not [yet] come into the world!<a id="k141b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [It is possible to] say that R. Meir holds this view<a id="k141b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [only when possession is conveyed] to that which is [already'] in the world;<a id="k141b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] has he been heard [to hold the same view when possession is conveyed] to that which is not [yet] in the world!<a id="k141b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But let him reply to him that it<a id="k141b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [represents the view of] R. Jose who said [that] an embryo acquires [possession]! For we learnt:<a id="k141b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'An embryo disqualifies [his deceased father's slaves from eating the heave.offering[13 but does not confer the right of eating it [on his mother];<a id="k141b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; these are the words of R. Jose'?<a id="k141b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; An inheritance which came to one under the ordinary laws of succession,<a id="k141b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is different.<a id="k141b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But let him reply to him [that] it<a id="k141b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [represents the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka who said, that there was no difference between an inheritance and a gift! For we learnt:<a id="k141b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan b. Beroka said: If [a person] said [it]<a id="k141b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; concerning one who is entitled to be his heir,<a id="k141b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; his instruction is legally valid<a id="k141b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [It is possible to] say that R. Johanan b. Beroka has been heard [to hold the view only where possession is given] to that which is [already] in the world;<a id="k141b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] did he say [that the same law applies also] to that which is not in the world!<a id="k141b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And let him reply to him [that] it<a id="k141b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [represents the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka and [that] he holds the [same] opinion as R. Jose!<a id="k141b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Who can say that he<a id="k141b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; holds such an opinion!<a id="k141b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Let him, then, reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where [the money was offered by a husband] 'to him who would bring me tidings'!<a id="k141b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so,<a id="k141b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [explain] the last clause wherein it is stated, AND IF THERE IS NO [OTHER] HEIR BUT THIS ONE, HE INHERITS ALL [THE ESTATE]. If [the Mishnah speaks] of a reporter<a id="k141b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; what has he to do with heirship!<a id="k141b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Then let him reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where she has [already] given birth [to the child]!<a id="k141b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so,<a id="k141b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; the last clause is wherein it is stated. IF [HOWEVER] HE SAID: whatever MY WIFE SHALL BEAR, SHALL RECEIVE [A CERTAIN PORTION]. HE RECEIVES [IT] [instead of]. WHATEVER SHE SHALL BEAR, should have [read]. 'whatever she has born'!
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k142a_1:" So that a born child, not an embryo, would acquire possession. Hence, no objection could be raised from our Mishnah against R. Huna's statement."
,k142a_2:" Of a sum of money that his father had assigned to him before his birth, while still an embryo."
,k142a_3:" That the child shall acquire possession."
,k142a_4:" The mother."
,k142a_5:" The child to whom the assignment was made."
,k142a_6:" Lit., 'whether this or this'."
,k142a_7:" Lit., 'for it was taught'."
,k142a_8:" And, having left no children, his possessions become public property, and whosoever takes possession of them acquires ownership."
,k142a_9:" Since the son or the embryo. as legal heir. acquired the ownership of the estate as soon as the proselyte died."
,k142a_10:" After the death of the son or the miscarriage."
,k142a_11:" Since at that time there were no legal heirs"
,k142a_12:" In the case where there was no born son, but an embryo."
,k142a_13:" The existence of the embryo if it could not acquire possession, should not have made any difference to their right of ownership. Consequently it follows, as R. Shesheth had stated, that an embryo does acquire possession."
,k142a_14:" Lit., 'of itself'."
,k142a_15:" Though an embryo may acquire ownership of an estate which is due to him as the legal heir, it does not follow that it can also acquire the ownership of a gift or any other assignment."
,k142a_16:" n the case of the estate of a proselyte."
,k142a_17:" From other cases of acquisition."
,k142a_18:" Before it was known whether there were any legal heirs."
,k142a_19:" Who seized the estate."
,k142a_20:" Lit., 'it was really loose in their hands at first'. While seizing the property, they were well aware that they might loose it at any moment should a legal heir appear. Hence, ownership cannot be acquired unless possession was taken after it had been ascertained that there were no legal heirs."
,k142a_21:" In either case, whether the reason is that given by Abaye or that of Raba, the first acquisition is invalid."
,k142a_22:" Lit., 'they heard'."
,k142a_23:" The legal heir."
,k142a_24:" In such a case, the plunderers, since they thought that the heir was dead, have from the very beginning taken definite and certain possession of the estate which, according to Raba, would consequently become their legal property. even if they did not take possession of it a second time. According to Abaye. however. their first acquisition is of no avail since the embryo was at that time the legal owner of the estate."
,k142a_25:" Nid. 44a. 'Ar. 7a."
,k142a_26:" Lit.. 'yes'."
,k142a_27:" Had an embryo been able to inherit, there would be no need to specify the limitation,'one day old'. Now, if an embryo cannot acquire possession of a legal inheritance how much less could it acquire possession of a gift! How, then, could R. Shesheth maintain that an embryo can acquire possession of a gift?"
,k142a_28:" v.. Nid. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k142a_29:" An infant who Is one day old."
,k142a_30:" When he dies."
,k142a_31:" Born from the same father and not the same mother. "
}

txt:
<p>
	But let him reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where he said, 'After she will have born [the child'!<a id="k142a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna follows his own view. For R. Huna said: [A child] does not acquire ownership<a id="k142a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; even [where the father had said].<a id="k142a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'after she<a id="k142a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; will have born [him]<a id="k142a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'For. [it was stated.] R. Nahman said: If a person conveys possession. through the agency of a third party. to an embryo.[the latter] does not acquire ownership. [If however, he said].]<a id="k142a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'After she will have born'.<a id="k142a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [the child] does acquire ownership. But R. Huna said: Even [where he said]. 'After she will have born'. [the child] does not acquire ownership. R. Shesheth however said: Whether he used the one, or the other expression.<a id="k142a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [the child] acquires ownership.
</p><p>
	Said R. Sheshet: Whence do I derive this? &mdash; From the following:<a id="k142a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If a proselyte died<a id="k142a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and Israelites plundered his estate; and [subsequently] they heard that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant. they must return [whatever they have appropriated].<a id="k142a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [If]. having returned everything they subsequently heard that his son died or that his wife miscarried, he who took possession the second [time]<a id="k142a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; has acquired ownership;<a id="k142a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but [he who took possession] the first [time] has not acquired ownership. Now, if it could be assumed [that] an embryo does not acquire ownership why should they<a id="k142a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; need to take possession a second time? They have, surely. already taken possession once!<a id="k142a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye [however] said: An inheritance which comes [to one] under the ordinary laws of succession<a id="k142a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is different<a id="k142a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: There<a id="k142a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it is different,<a id="k142a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; because at first<a id="k142a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k142a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; were really uncertain of the legality of their acquisition.<a id="k142a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; What [practical difference is there] between them?<a id="k142a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; There is [a difference] between them [in the case] where a report was brought<a id="k142a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k142a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; died, while [in fact] he was not dead. and after that he died.<a id="k142a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'A babe [who is] one day old inherits and transmits<a id="k142a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [From this it follows that only] one [who is] one day old [may inherit]<a id="k142a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but not an embryo!<a id="k142a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Surely R. Shesheth had explained<a id="k142a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [this as meaning]: He<a id="k142a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; inherits the estate of his mother to transmit [it]<a id="k142a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; to his paternal brothers;<a id="k142a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; hence, only [then when he is] one day old but not [when] an embryo.What is the reason?
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k142b_1:" Before the mother."
,k142b_2:" I.e. after his death."
,k142b_3:" An embryo."
,k142b_4:" After the mother was dead."
,k142b_5:" Such movements are no signs of life."
,k142b_6:" The Mishnah of <i>Niddah</i> cited, wherein a child one day old is mentioned, implying the exclusion of an embryo."
,k142b_7:" Lit.. 'to say'."
,k142b_8:" A child who is one day old."
,k142b_9:" I.e., if there are, e.g.. two brothers exclusive of the child, the estate is divided not into three portions (two for the two ordinary portions of the two brothers and one for the birthright, but into four portions. Each brother, including the child, receives one such portion and the firstborn receives the additional fourth portion as his birthright. The firstborn thus receives, as the portion of his birthright, a quarter of the estate, and not, (as would have been the case if the child were excluded). a third."
,k142b_10:" An embryo. though receiving a portion of the estate, does not reduce the portion of the birthright. In the case mentioned, e.g., in the previous note. the estate would first be divided into three portions (as if the embryo did not exist) and the firstborn would receive as his birthright, one of these, i.e., a third of the estate. The remaining two thirds would then he divided into three equal shares, each of the three brothers receiving one, i.e., two ninths of the estate. The full portion of the firstborn would accordingly amount to 1/3 + 2/9 = 3/5) five ninths of the estate, while where the child was one day old, the firstborn's full portion would amount to half the estate only. I.e., (5/9 - 1/2 = 1/18), one eighteenth less."
,k142b_11:" Deut. XXI 15 This implies that, as regards the birthright, the children must have been actually born. An embryo cannot come under this category and is, therefore, regarded as non-existent in this respect."
,k142b_12:" The son having been born after his father's death. Thus, according to Mar the son of R. Joseph, it is possible to concede that an embryo may die after its mother and that consequently, as R. Shesheth maintained, it inherits her estate which it then transmits to its paternal brothers."
,k142b_13:" The version just given."
,k142b_14:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k142b_15:" I.e., where his widow bore twins or where he left two widows and both bore sons one of whom was the firstborn,"
,k142b_16:" Deut. XXI, 17."
,k142b_17:" Lit., 'and if you will say'."
,k142b_18:" From which it might be inferred, as R. Nahman suggested supran that an embryo does acquire ownership."
,k142b_19:" Hence he wholeheartedly transfers ownership to the embryo. In the case of a stranger however, this principle is inapplicable."
,k142b_20:" To give the matter due publicity."
,k142b_21:" From his first wife."
,k142b_22:" Lit., of that man, i.e., himself."
,k142b_23:" That were to be born from the second wife"
,k142b_24:" The future children who at the time of the assignment were not even in embryo. ("
,k142b_25:" Of the estate, merely by virtue of the father's assignment."
,k142b_26:" The eldest son."
,k142b_27:" Lit., 'in place'."
,k142b_28:" When, in due course they inherit the estate by the right of succession would he, in addition to what is due to him as one of the sons, receive also a share by virtue of the special assignment made to him by his father?"
,k142b_29:" Lit., 'us'. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Because [the embryo] dies first<a id="k142b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and no son in the grave<a id="k142b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; may inherit from his mother to transmit [the inheritance] to his paternal brothers 'Do you mean to say that it<a id="k142b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; dies first, surely there was a case when it made three convulsive movements?<a id="k142b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Mar. son of R. Ashi, replied: Those were only [reflex movements] like those of the tail of the lizard which moves convulsively [even after it has been cut of].<a id="k142b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar, the son of R. Joseph, said in the name of Raba: This<a id="k142b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches<a id="k142b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k142b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; causes a diminution in the portion of the birthright.<a id="k142b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [This] however [applies] only [to a child who is] one day old, but not to an embryo.<a id="k142b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; The All Merciful said, And they have born to him.<a id="k142b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; For [so] said Mar, the Son of R. Joseph. in the name of Raba: 'A son who was born after the death of his father does not cause a diminution In the portion of the birthright. What is the reason? The All Merciful said, And they shall have born to him,<a id="k142b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; which is not [the case here].<a id="k142b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Thus<a id="k142b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it was taught at Sura. At Pumbeditha. [however]. it was taught as follows:<a id="k142b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar. the son of R. Joseph, said in the name of Raba: A firstborn son who was born after the death of his father<a id="k142b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; does not receive a double portion. What is the reason? The All Merciful said, He shall acknowledge,<a id="k142b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and, surely. he is not [alive] to acknowledge [him]. And the law is in accordance with all those versions which Mar the son of R. Joseph quoted in the name of Raba.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac said in the name of R. Johanan: If possession was given to an embryo [through the agency of a third party]. it does not acquire ownership. And if objection should be raised from<a id="k142b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; our Mishnah,<a id="k142b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be replied that there it is different] because a person is favourably disposed towards his son.<a id="k142b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel said to R. Hana of Bagdad: 'Go. bring me a group of ten [people] and I will tell you in their presence<a id="k142b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] if possession Is given to an embryo [through the agency of a third party]. it does acquire ownership'. But the law is that if possession is given to an embryo [through the agency of a third party]. it does not acquire ownership. 
</p><p>
	Once a certain man said to his wife, 'My estate [shall belong] to the children that I shall have from you'. His eldest son<a id="k142b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; came [and] said to him, 'What shall become of me?'<a id="k142b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied to him, 'Go acquire possession as one of the [other] sons'.<a id="k142b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Those<a id="k142b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [can] certainly acquire no ownership.<a id="k142b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; since they are not yet in existence; has [however]. this lad<a id="k142b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; an [additional] share beside<a id="k142b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; the [other] sons,<a id="k142b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; or has the lad no [additional] share beside<a id="k142b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; the [other] sons? &mdash; R. Abin and R. Measha and R. Jeremiah say: The lad receives an [additional] share beside the [other] sons. R. Abbahu and R. Hanina b. Papi and R, Isaac Nappaha say: The lad receives no [additional] share beside the [other] sons.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu said to R. Jeremiah. 'Is the law in accordance with our view<a id="k142b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; or in accordance with yours?' He replied to him, 'It is obvious that the law' is in accordance with our view because we are older than you. and [that] the law' [can] not be according to your view because you are [only] juniors.' The other retorted, 'Does the matter then depend on age? [Surely] the matter depends on reason!' 'And what is the reason?' [R. Jeremiah asked.] 'Go to R. Abin,' [replied R. Abbahu.] 'to whom I have explained the matter
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k143a_1:" Lit., 'and he bowed his head concerning it,' i.e., 'nodded assent'."
,k143a_2:" Lit., said to him.'"
,k143a_3:" Surely not! the man would in such a case acquire as little possession as the ass: so in this case, just as the unborn brothers cannot acquire ownership of their shares, neither can the lad acquire the ownership of his share."
,k143a_4:" The owner having implied by his statement that he wished the man and the ass to acquire equal shares."
,k143a_5:" Lit., 'he said nothing'. Since the animal and the man were given simultaneous possession. the owner has thereby intimated his desire that one shall not acquire ownership without the other; and since the animal cannot acquire ownership. the man also cannot."
,k143a_6:" That though the ass and the man were given possession simultaneously. the man acquires ownership of the whole."
,k143a_7:" Lit., 'you have not bitter in a cucumber but the inner (portion) which is in it'."
,k143a_8:" For another forty-nine cucumbers. The heave-offering (terumah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) must contain a fiftieth of the produce."
,k143a_9:" The outer and sweet portion of another cucumber."
,k143a_10:" Bitter produce cannot he consecrated as <i>Terumah</i>. Consequently without such an addition, the cucumber which he set aside as heave-offering might represent less than a fiftieth of the produce. should it happen to have a rather large bitter core."
,k143a_11:" As here, though the sweet and the bitter portion of the cucumber are simultaneously included in the <i>terumah</i>, and though the latter is unfit for it, the former is, nevertheless, regarded as proper <i>terumah</i>, so in the case of possession given simultaneously to a man and an ass, though the latter cannot acquire possession. the former should well acquire it."
,k143a_12:" The bitter portion of the cucumber."
,k143a_13:" Num. XVIII, 32."
,k143a_14:" Surely no wrong has been done, since his action is null and void, and he has to give another heave-offering."
,k143a_15:" <i>Supra</i> 84b, B.M. 56a. Since, as has been proved, an inferior quality may be used as a heave-offering for the redemption of a superior quality, a bitter cucumber might well be used as a heave-offering. Hence this case cannot be compared to that of possession that was given to a man and an ass where the ass cannot possibly be regarded as qualified to acquire ownership."
,k143a_16:" Lit., 'was'. treating the figs as one unit, 'basket of figs'."
,k143a_17:" Which are free to all."
,k143a_18:" Lit., 'consecrated', 'Consecration' in this formula implies 'marriage bonds',"
,k143a_19:" Betrothal is effected by the man's handing over to the woman a coin or an object of value,"
,k143a_20:" I.e., the betrothal is null and void."
,k143a_21:" Kid. 50b."
,k143a_22:" As here the betrothal of the strangers is valid though that of the sisters is not, so in the case of possession given to a man and an ass, the man should acquire ownership though the ass does not. The two cases are parallel, since in the one case the betrothal was simultaneous and in the other possession was given simultaneously. How, then, in view of the decision of the Sages in the case of the women. could it he held that in the case of the man and the ass the man does not acquire ownership?"
,k143a_23:" Declaring valid the betrothal in the case of the strangers."
,k143a_24:" Since the sisters were accordingly excluded, the betrothal of the others could rightly he regarded as valid. In the case of the man and the ass both were included; as that of the ass must be invalid so may be that of the man."
,k143a_25:" A.Z. 10b, San, 21a, Yomah 17b."
,k143a_26:" Lev, XXIV, 9"
,k143a_27:" As the mention of Aaron at the side of his sons implies that his share shall be equal to the total of their shares, so the mention by the husband of his wife at the side of his sons implies that her share shall be equal to the total of theirs, i.e., half the estate for her and the other half for the sons,"
,k143a_28:" That an individual mentioned at the side of many receives a half of the whole."
,k143a_29:" In the case of Aaron and his sons'"
,k143a_30:" Had not her husband specifically named her she would have received nothing, the mention of her can entitle her to one share only like any one of the other heirs."
,k143a_31:" Lit.. 'the royal house'."
,k143a_32:" <I>Aurum coronarium</I>; v. <i>supra</i> 34, n. 1,"
,k143a_33:" 'Place names' (Goldschmidt). 'Men and governors' (Rashi.). 'Townsmen and villagers' (R. Gershom). 'City council', 'senate', ([G]), and 'city magistrate' ([G]) (Jast.). [The Bule and Startege were the two sections of the wealthy citizens who were held responsible to the Roman government for the full amount of different public burdens. Buchler, A., <i>The Political and Social Leaders of Sepphoris, etc</i>., 39ff.; see also Krauss, <i>Synagogale Altertumer</i>, p. 183.]"
,k143a_34:" Though one of these may have been wealthier or more numerous than the other. This proves that the mention of two names implies that the bearers of these names, whether consisting of many or few, give. or receive, collectively, equal shares. Hence, in the case of the estate given to one's wife and sons, the former should receive a share equal to the total received by the sons, i. e. a half!"
,k143a_35:" Lit., 'thus, now'."
,k143a_36:" Lit., 'they were writing'."
,k143a_37:" Lit., 'they were writing on'."
,k143a_38:" Lit., 'king'."
,k143a_39:" A tenth part of an ephah."
,k143a_40:" The largest quantity allowed. "
}

txt:
<p>
at the College, and he expressed his approval'.<a id="k143a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He went to him [when the other] explained<a id="k143a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Would anyone acquire possession if he were told, 'Acquire ownership as an ass'?<a id="k143a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was stated: [If one was told]. 'Acquire possession like an ass'. he does not acquire ownership. [If. however. one was told]. 'You and an ass [shall acquire possession].' R. Nahman said: He acquires the ownership of a half.<a id="k143a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Hamnuna said: The statement is invalid '<a id="k143a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Shesheth said: He acquires the ownership of all.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth said: Whence do I derive this?<a id="k143a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; For it was taught: R. Jose said: In cucumbers, the inner portion only' is bitter.<a id="k143a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently. when a person is giving [a cucumber] as a heave-offering<a id="k143a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he [must]add<a id="k143a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; to the external part of it,<a id="k143a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and [thus] gives the heave-offering. [But] why? [This is surely the same as the case of] 'You and the ass'!<a id="k143a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is different; for Biblically it<a id="k143a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is perfect <i>terumah</i>,' for R. Elai said, 'Whence [is it inferred] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for the [redemption of] a superior quality that his offering is valid? For it is said. And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof.<a id="k143a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [From this it is to be inferred that if you do not set apart from the best, but of the worst, you shall bear sin]; if, [however, the inferior quality] does not become consecrated, why should there be any bearing of sin!<a id="k143a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence [it follows] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for [the redemption of] a superior quality, his offering is valid.'<a id="k143a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: R. Iwya raised an objection [from the following Mishnah]: It once happened with five women, among whom there were two sisters. that a person gathered a basket of figs which were<a id="k143a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; theirs and[which] were' [also of the fruit] of the Sabbatical year<a id="k143a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and said, 'Behold you are all betrothed<a id="k143a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; unto me by this basket',<a id="k143a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and one of them accepted on behalf of all. The Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.<a id="k143a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [From this it follows that] only the sisters were not consecrated. but the strangers were consecrated;<a id="k143a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but why? This [is surely the same case as] 'You and the ass'!<a id="k143a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He said unto him: This is indeed [the reason] why I saw R. Huna b. Iwya in [my] dream: Because R. Iwya raised the objection. Have we not [however]. explained [the Mishnah<a id="k143a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; as referring only to the case] where he said, 'She who is [legally] suitable among you for cohabitation shall be betrothed unto me'?<a id="k143a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain [person] said to his wife, 'My estate shall belong to you and to your children' &mdash; R. Joseph said: She acquires the ownership of half [of it]. R. Joseph. furthermore, said: Whence do I derive this? &mdash; For it was taught:<a id="k143a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi said: And it shall be for Aaron and his sons,<a id="k143a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; half for Aaron [and] half for his sons.<a id="k143a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said to him: This<a id="k143a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is quite correct there;<a id="k143a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [since] Aaron was [in any case] entitled to receive a share, the All Merciful [must have] mentioned him explicitly in order [to indicate] that he is to receive a [full] half, [in the case of] a woman, [however], [who] is not entitled to be heir [at all]. it should be sufficient for her to receive like one of the children,<a id="k143a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] this is not [so] &mdash; For surely there was [such] a case at Nehardea where Samuel allowed her to receive a half; at Tiberias, and R. Johanan allowed her to receive a half. Furthermore, when R. Isaac b. Joseph came, he related [that] the Government<a id="k143a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; once imposed crown money<a id="k143a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; upon Bule<a id="k143a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and Startege<a id="k143a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] Rabbi said: Bule shall give a half and Startege a half!<a id="k143a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What a comparison!<a id="k143a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; There, when an order was issued<a id="k143a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; on previous occasions it was directed to<a id="k143a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Bule, [yet] Startege contributed together with them, and the Government<a id="k143a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; knew that they were assisting. Why. then, did they now direct the order to both Bule and Startege? [Obviously] to indicate that these [as well as] those [shall each contribute] a half.
</p><p>
	R. Zera raised an objection: If a person said; I undertake to bring a meal.offering [of] a hundred 'isaron<a id="k143a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; in two vessels, he [must] bring sixty<a id="k143a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; in one vessel, and forty in the other vessel,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k143b_1:" Lit., 'yes '."
,k143b_2:" Lit.,'for the outset, not',"
,k143b_3:" The division of the meal-offering into two equal parts of fifty 'isaron each."
,k143b_4:" Lit., 'witnesses'."
,k143b_5:" The largest quantity that may be brought in one vessel as a meal.offering is sixty 'isaron., V. Men. 103b."
,k143b_6:" Though throughout the Talmud the law is in agreement with the view of Rabbah whenever he disagrees with R. Joseph."
,k143b_7:" When one of the heirs has a field near the field that is to be divided (<i>supra</i> 12b)."
,k143b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> 114a, 'so long as they are dealing with the same subject'."
,k143b_9:" The case of a testator who expressed the wish that his estate be divided between his wife and his sons, <i>supra</i> 143a."
,k143b_10:" Whom it is his duty to maintain."
,k143b_11:" Hence all his estate was meant to be given to his son."
,k143b_12:" Lit., 'he came'."
,k143b_13:" Lit., 'to draw in'."
,k143b_14:" Gen.XLVI. 23. The plural sons, is used. although the name of one son only is given."
,k143b_15:" Or 'knots'. <I>Hushim</I>, [H] may also he rendered 'leaves' or 'knots'."
,k143b_16:" Num. XXVI, 8. Cf. n. 5, <i>supra</i>."
,k143b_17:" I Chron. II, 8."
,k143b_18:" Hence the estate would he divided between the son and the grandson."
,k143b_19:" And the whole estate would consequently be given to the son who, as mentioned above, might be called 'sons'."
,k143b_20:" Which proves that grandsons are not regarded as sons."
,k143b_21:" Before it was divided between the heirs."
,k143b_22:" Lit., 'for the middle'. I.e., the profits are equally divided between all the heirs, adults and minors."
,k143b_23:" The adults."
,k143b_24:" To the minors, in the presence of a court or witnesses, or in public."
,k143b_25:" Lit., 'eat'."
,k143b_26:" If despite their wish the estate was not divided"
,k143b_27:" Lit., 'they have improved for themselves'."
,k143b_28:" I.e., the widow."
,k143b_29:" That was left by her husband."
,k143b_30:" All the heirs receive equal shares in the profits."
,k143b_31:" V.. <i>supra</i> note 5."
,k143b_32:" Cf <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k143b_33:" That the profits are to be equally divided between all the heirs."
,k143b_34:" Lit., 'they taught'."
,k143b_35:" Lit., 'through themselves'."
,k143b_36:" V. <i>supra</i> note 7"
,k143b_37:" His children, adults and minors. "
}

txt:
<p>
and if he brought fifty in one vessel and fifty in the other, he has [also] fulfilled his duty. [From this it follows that only] if he had [already] brought, has he fulfilled his duty;<a id="k143b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but that this is not the proper thing to do.<a id="k143b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it could be assumed that in any such case 'half and half' [is meant]. this<a id="k143b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [should have been allowed] even at the outset! &mdash; What a comparison! There, we are in a position to testify<a id="k143b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; that this person first intended [to bring as] big [an] offering [as possible], and that [the reason] why' he said, 'In two vessels' [was] because he knew that it was impossible to bring [all] in one vessel.<a id="k143b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [Hence] we order him to bring as much as it is possible.
</p><p>
	And the law is in accordance with [the view] of R. Joseph<a id="k143b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of 'Field',<a id="k143b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Subject'<a id="k143b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'Half'.<a id="k143b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain [man] once sent home pieces of silk. R. Ammi said: Those which are suitable for the sons [belong] to the sons; [those] suitable for the daughters. [belong] to the daughters. [This,] however, has only been said [in the case] where he has no daughter-in-law, but if he has a daughter-in-law. [it is assumed that] he sent it for his daughter-in-law. If, however, his daughters were not married, [the gift belongs to them because] one would not neglect one's daughters<a id="k143b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and send to his daughter-in-law.
</p><p>
	Once a certain [person] said. 'My estate [shall be given] to my sons' &mdash; He had a son and a daughter. [Do] people call a son. 'sons';<a id="k143b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps, they do not call a son. 'sons', and his intention was<a id="k143b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to include<a id="k143b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; his daughter in the gift? &mdash; Abaye said, Come and hear: And the sons of Dan: <I>Hushim</I>,<a id="k143b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said to him: Perhaps [this is to be explained]. in accordance with the Tanna of the School of Hezekiah, that they were as numerous as the leaves<a id="k143b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of a reed! But, said Raba. And the sons of Paliu: Eliab.<a id="k143b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said, And the sons of Ethan: Azariah.<a id="k143b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain [person] once said, 'My estate [shall be given] to my sons'. He had a son and a grandson. [Do] people call a grandson. son';<a id="k143b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? &mdash; R. Habiba said: People call a grandson 'son'.<a id="k143b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar son of R. Ashi said: People do not call a grandson. 'son'<a id="k143b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with the view of Mar son of R. Ashi: He who is forbidden by a vow [to have any benefit] from [his] sons is allowed [to derive benefits] from [his grandsons].<a id="k143b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HAD ONE LEFT SONS [WHO WERE] OF AGE AND MINORS, [AND] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE IMPROVED THE ESTATE,<a id="k143b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY IMPROVED [IT] FOR THE COMMON GOOD.<a id="k143b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IF, [HOWEVER]. THEY<a id="k143b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID,<a id="k143b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; SEE WHAT [OUR] FATHER HAS LEFT; WE DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [OUR OWN SHARES] AND TO ENJOY THE PROFITS.<a id="k143b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; THE PROCEEDS<a id="k143b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; BELONG TO THEM.<a id="k143b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; LIKEWISE. [IN THE CASE WHERE] THE WIFE<a id="k143b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD EFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ESTATE,<a id="k143b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IMPROVED [IT] FOR THE COMMON GOOD.<a id="k143b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; IF, [HOWEVER].SHE SAID, 'SEE WHAT MY HUSBAND HAS LEFT ME; I DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [MY SHARE] AND TO ENJOY<a id="k143b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; THE BENEFITS', THE PROCEEDS BELONG TO HER.<a id="k143b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Habiba son of R. Joseph son of Raba said in the name of Raba: [The law of our Mishnah]<a id="k143b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; is 'applicable<a id="k143b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; only [to the case] where the improvement of the estate was effected out [of the funds] of the estate, but if it was improved at the expense of the elder brothers,<a id="k143b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; the profits belong to themselves.<a id="k143b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] this is not [so]! For, surely. R. Hanina said,' Even if their father had left them<a id="k143b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; nothing but
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k144a_1:" Heb. [H], 'a cistern and its cover' (Rashb. and R. Gersh.): a sprinkling business' (Jast.): 'a watchman's post' (R. <i>Tam</i> in Tosaf.. [For a full discussion of the term, v. Krauss, T.A. I, 273f, and III, 361]"
,k144a_2:" Out of the sale of its water."
,k144a_3:" Since no expenses for its upkeep and protection are drawn out of the funds of the estate. And yet it is stated that the proceeds are to be <I>equally</I> divided. How then, could Raba say that if the improvement was at the expense of the elder brothers all the profits belong to them only?"
,k144a_4:" Lit., 'was made for watching', i.e., no expenses are involved. and all the elder brothers have to do is to watch that no water is stolen from it."
,k144a_5:" Demanding a share in the profits."
,k144a_6:" When an elder brother is an important person, he is entitled to all the profits which are due to his efforts. even though he did not first make the proper declaration that he desired the estate to be divided and that he intended keeping to himself any profits he would make."
,k144a_7:" She either receives the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>(v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) after which she has no more claim upon the estate: or she looks after the property of the orphans in return for her maintenance. How, then, could she claim any profits resulting from improvements in the estate."
,k144a_8:" In the case, e.g.. where the deceased gave instructions that the widow shall be co-heir with his sons (Rashb.)."
,k144a_9:" Why was it necessary for our Mishnah to restate it in the case of a widow, seeing that the law had already been stated in regard to brothers."
,k144a_10:" Lit., 'to take the trouble'."
,k144a_11:" Lit., 'specified'; that she desired the estate to be divided and that she intended to make the improvements in her interests alone."
,k144a_12:" Even though she first declared that she would work in her interests alone."
,k144a_13:" The son."
,k144a_14:" In such cases the father's joy is so great that he willingly and wholeheartedly gives away the house to his son."
,k144a_15:" His son: on the occasion of his marriage."
,k144a_16:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k144a_17:" Since he requires it for his own purposes he would not transfer its ownership to his son."
,k144a_18:" Of the father is kept in the house, the son does not acquire ownership of the house."
,k144a_19:" Cf. n 6."
,k144a_20:" In the house where the marriage took place."
,k144a_21:" To indicate to his son that the house was not to become his property."
,k144a_22:" The sandal, like any of the other objects mentioned above is regarded for this purpose as a store."
,k144a_23:" Cf. n. 10"
,k144a_24:" The ruling just mentioned, that a son acquires the ownership of a house of his father in which his marriage took place, even if the father did not explicitly present it to him."
,k144a_25:" V. <i>supra</i> 131b."
,k144a_26:" Lit. 'other'."
,k144a_27:" I.e., the debtor, the creditor, and X, the assignee."
,k144a_28:" Though there were no proper witnesses and no legal form of acquisition, the transfer of the claim is valid. This rabbinic law, which is declared to be arbitrary and based on tradition alone, recognises the transfer of claims to a third party, though this is not provided for by Biblical Law. "
}

txt:
<p>
a covered cistern<a id="k144a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the proceeds<a id="k144a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; are to be equally divided'; but [the proceeds of] a covered cistern [are surely] due to [the elder brothers] themselves!<a id="k144a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A covered cistern is different, since It [only] requires watching<a id="k144a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and even minors can keep a watch over it. 
</p><p>
	THEY SAID, 'SEE WHAT [OUR] FATHER HAS LEFT; WE DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [OUR OWN SHARES] AND TO ENJOY THE PROFITS'. THE PROCEEDS BELONG TO THEM. R. Safra's father left [some] money. He took it [and] carried on with it a business. [Then] came his brothers and sued him before Raba.<a id="k144a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to them. 'R. Safra is a great man; he [is] not [expected to] leave his studies in order to toil for others'.<a id="k144a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[WHERE] THE WIFE HAD EFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ESTATE. SHE IMPROVED IT FOR THE COMMON GOOD &mdash;  What has a wife to do with the property of orphans?<a id="k144a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: [The Mishnah speaks] of a wife [who is] an heiress.<a id="k144a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is this not] obvious?<a id="k144a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might have been assumed [that] since it is not usual for her to look after an orphan's estate<a id="k144a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [she is entitled to all the profits], even where she did not [first] make a specific declaration,<a id="k144a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; as if she had [actually] made [it], hence it [was necessary to] teach us [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	IF [HOWEVER] SHE SAID,' SEE WHAT MY HUSBAND HAS LEFT ME; I DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [MY SHARE] AND TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS.' THE PROCEEDS BELONG TO HER. [Is not this] obvious? It might have been assumed [that] since it is creditable to her when people say that she works for the orphans. she might [consequently] forego her claims,<a id="k144a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it [was necessary to] teach us [that this is not so]. 
</p><p>
	R. Hanina said: If a person marries his adult son in a house [of his], he<a id="k144a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; acquires its ownership. But this only [in the case of] one [who is] of age, and only [where he married] a virgin, and only [when she is] his first wife, and only &mdash;  where he is the first [son] whom he married.<a id="k144a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It is obvious [that] where his father had set aside for him<a id="k144a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; a house and [there is] an upper story [thereon], [the latter] acquired the ownership of the house [but] not [of] the upper story. What [is, however, the law in the case of] a house and an <i>exedra</i>?<a id="k144a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [Or in the case of] two houses one within the other? &mdash; This is undecided. 
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: [If] his father had set aside for him a house and [it contains] furniture, he acquires possession of the furniture [but] not of the house! &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: [This refers to a case] where, for instance, his father's store[s] were kept there.<a id="k144a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; The Nehardeans say': Even [if only) a dove-cote.<a id="k144a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah and R. Papi say: Even [if only] a pot of fish-hash.<a id="k144a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra married his son and hung up<a id="k144a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; for himself<a id="k144a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; a sandal.<a id="k144a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi married his son and hung up<a id="k144a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; for himself<a id="k144a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; a jug of oil.<a id="k144a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra said: The following three things have [been] enacted [by] the Rabbis as fixed law without [adducing any] reason. One [is] this.<a id="k144a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; The other [is that] which Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, [namely that]. a [dying] man [who] gave all his property to his wife, in writing. [thereby] only appointed her adminstratrix.<a id="k144a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [.And the] third<a id="k144a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [is that] which Rab had stated: [If one said] 'You owe me a <i>maneh</i>; give it to X', in the presence of the three parties,<a id="k144a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [X] acquires possession.<a id="k144a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k144b_1:" I.e., before the estate has been divided between them."
,k144b_2:" Lit., 'fell'."
,k144b_3:" [H] Lit., 'handicraft', 'trade' 'workmanship': a form of compulsory service exacted by the Roman government from different households in turn. Barth, J., Etym. Studies 60, connects the word with Assyrian umanate, 'troop'. 'army'."
,k144b_4:" Lit., 'he fell for the middle or common funds'. Since his appointment is due to his membership of the family all its members are entitled to its benefits, (v. however n. 7 and 9 <i>infra</i>)."
,k144b_5:" V. note 3."
,k144b_6:" In the case. however, of a private appointment, the earnings belong to himself."
,k144b_7:" [H] <I>Polemostos</I>. Thus Rashb. and R. Gersh. 'soldier'(R. Han.). 'Manager' or 'commissioner (Jast.) reading <I>epimletes</I>. [H] [G][The word is also explained as <I>Politeuomenos=Decurio</I>, and we have here a reference to the heavy expenses which were attached to the office of Boule under the Roman government, the question under consideration being in the case when a brother is called upon to represent his brothers, living with him on the common estate of their father, on the Boule, whether the expenses involved are to he borne by all or by the brother thus nominated alone. V. Buchler, op.cit., 40.]"
,k144b_8:" I.e., if such government appointments are made from every family in turn."
,k144b_9:" Or expenses involved"
,k144b_10:" To his own merits or attainments."
,k144b_11:" Before it had been divided."
,k144b_12:" If he expects maintenance from them while he is away from home in pursuit of his studies or trade."
,k144b_13:" Keth. 101a. The more the members of a household the cheaper the cost of living. The absent brother has consequently saved little by his departure while the amount he requires for his maintenance is incomparably higher than what would have been the case had he remained with the family."
,k144b_14:" I.e., if the full cost of his maintenance has not been saved by his departure. let that portion of it which is being saved be given to him."
,k144b_15:" He does get that portion."
,k144b_16:" Lit., 'they did not teach but'."
,k144b_17:" B.M. 107b; A.Z. 3b: Keth. 30a."
,k144b_18:" Heb., <I>Pahim</I>. [H] (Cf. [H], coal). Others render <I>zinim pahim</I>, [H] 'blowing cold winds'. (Cf. [H], <I>cold</I> and [H] <I>blow</I>)"
,k144b_19:" Prov. XXII, 5 E.V., <I>Thorns and snares are in the way</I> etc."
,k144b_20:" Groomsmen (<I>shoshbinin</I>). in addition to acting as best men or companions of the groom, also brought him presents (<I>shoshbinuth</I>). Their services and gifts were reciprocated on the occasion of their marriages. [On <I>shoshebin</I>, V. Krauss, TA. II, 458. He connects it with [H] 'twig' and 'branch', alluding to the myrtles which formed a feature of marriage ceremonies. and which were entrusted to the <I>shoshebin</I>. Cf. [G].]"
,k144b_21:" Who defrayed the cost of the presents."
,k144b_22:" On the occasion of the marriage of one of the sons after their father's death."
,k144b_23:" The gifts are consequently regarded as a loan and as part of the common estate."
,k144b_24:" As an ordinary gift: not as that of a <I>shoshbin</I>."
,k144b_25:" Lit.. 'they cannot he collected'."
,k144b_26:" The recipient does not incur any liability'."
,k144b_27:" His son who was a <I>shoshebin</I>."
,k144b_28:" By a <I>shoshbin</I>."
,k144b_29:" That is sent after the father's death on the occasion of that groomsman's marriage."
,k144b_30:" A reciprocated wedding gift being regarded as a loan. (V <i>supra</i> note 3), it is the duty of the orphans to repay it as any other of the debts of their father."
,k144b_31:" From the first part of this Baraitha it follows that a reciprocated wedding gift belongs to the son through whom the father had sent the original gift; how, then, could it be stated in our Mishnah that a reciprocated gift reverts not to the son but to the common estate?"
,k144b_32:" Lit., 'when we learnt'."
,k144b_33:" I.e., when a gift sent in return for the one made by their father reached them."
,k144b_34:" Even if the meaning of the Mishnah is taken as it is read."
,k144b_35:" In our Mishnah."
,k144b_36:" Which son was to act as <I>shoshbin</I> (R. Gersh.) Hence. the reciprocated gift reverts to the common estate."
,k144b_37:" In the cited Baraitha."
,k144b_38:" One of his sons."
,k144b_39:" The son who acted as <I>shoshbin</I>."
,k144b_40:" Though one of the sons had acted as the <I>shoshbin</I> and carried the presents."
,k144b_41:" Our Mishnah according to which the reciprocated gift reverts to the common estate."
,k144b_42:" The husband's brother, who, in accordance with Deut. XXV, 5, married the widow of his brother who died childless and who, had he been alive, would have been entitled as <I>shoshbin</I> to the reciprocated gift."
,k144b_43:" The reciprocated gift is the prospective property of the dead brother, which the brother who married his widow cannot inherit, though he inherits all property that was in his brother's possession prior to his death."
,k144b_44:" Hence the gift reverts to the common estate."
,k144b_45:" The original recipient of the gifts from the dead brother."
,k144b_46:" To the heirs of him who presented him with the gifts."
,k144b_47:" He should only be expected to reciprocate, i.e., to act as best man for his friend as the latter had acted for him, but not to send presents to heirs who have no claims on him."
,k144b_48:" In the case where the bride died before the marriage took place (as explained <i>infra</i>)."
,k144b_49:" The token of betrothal, consisting of money or any object of value, which the man gives to the woman at betrothal, whereby the union was legalised."
,k144b_50:" Lit., 'they did not teach but'. "
}

txt:
<p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE OF THE BROTHERS WHO ARE PARTNERS [IN THE INHERITED ESTATE]<a id="k144b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS APPOINTED<a id="k144b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; TO A GOVERNMENT POST<a id="k144b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; THE INCOME FROM THE APPOINTMENT IS TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN ALL THE BROTHERS.<a id="k144b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF ONE OF THEM] CONTRACTED A DISEASE AND HAD HIMSELF CURED, THE [EXPENSES OF THE] CURE [MUST BE DEFRAYED] OUT OF HIS OWN.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A Tanna taught: The appointment<a id="k144b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [in our Mishnah means] a government appointment.<a id="k144b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [In the case where] one of the brothers was appointed [tax] collector or overseer,<a id="k144b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; if [the appointment was] due to the brothers<a id="k144b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [the income<a id="k144b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; belongs] to the brothers; if [the appointment was] due to himself<a id="k144b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [the income belongs] to himself. 'If [the appointment was] due to the brothers', [it was said). [the income belongs] to the brothers'; [is not this] obvious! &mdash; This is required only [in the case] where he is exceptionally' smart [since] it might have been said [that] his smartness had caused him [to receive the appointment].it was necessary to teach us [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If] one of the brothers took [from an inherited estate]<a id="k144b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; two hundred <i>zuz</i> to study Torah or to learn a trade. the brothers can tell him:<a id="k144b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If you are with us you [can] have [your] maintenance; if you are not with us. you [can] have no maintenance'. But let them give [it] to him wherever he is? &mdash; This [is proof] in support of R. Huna. For R. Huna said, 'The blessing of a house [is proportionate] to its size'<a id="k144b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let them give him according to the blessing of the house!<a id="k144b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; That is so.<a id="k144b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[IF ONE OF THEM] CONTRACTED A DISEASE AND HAD HIMSELF CURED, THE [EXPENSES OF THE] CURE [MUST BE DEFRAYED] OUT OF HIS OWN. Rabin sent in the name of R. El'a: This applies only<a id="k144b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the case] where he contracted the disease through [his own] negligence. but [if] by accident the [cost of the] cure is [defrayed] from the common funds. What is meant by negligence? &mdash; As R. Hanina [taught]. For R. Hanina said:<a id="k144b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Every' thing is in the power of heaven except [illness through] cold [or] heat; for it is said, Cold [and] heat<a id="k144b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; are in the way of the froward. he that keepeth his soul holdeth himself far from them.<a id="k144b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF SOME OF THE BROTHERS HAVE BESTOWED GIFTS AS GROOMSMEN<a id="k144b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE LIFETIME OF [THEIR] FATHER<a id="k144b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [WHEN] THE WEDDING GIFTS ARE RECIPROCATED<a id="k144b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY REVERT TO THE COMMON FUNDS OF THE ESTATE; FOR [THE RECIPROCATION OF] WEDDING GIFTS MAY BE CLAIMED THROUGH A COURT OF LAW.<a id="k144b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; IF, HOWEVER, ONE HAS SENT TO HIS FRIEND JARS OF WINE OR JARS OF OIL,<a id="k144b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; HE CANNOT CLAIM THEM<a id="k144b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; THROUGH A COURT OF LAW, BECAUSE [THE PRESENTATIONS OF] SUCH [GIFTS] ARE [MERE ACTS OF] LOVINGKINDNESS.<a id="k144b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A contradiction was raised: [If] his father had sent [through] him<a id="k144b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; a wedding gift. the reciprocated gift returns to him.<a id="k144b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] a wedding gift was sent<a id="k144b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; to his father, the reciprocated gift<a id="k144b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is to be returned<a id="k144b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; from the common funds!<a id="k144b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  R. Assi replied in the name of R &mdash; Johanan: Our Mishnah also speaks<a id="k144b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the case where the gift] was sent to his father. But, surely it was stated, IF SOME OF THE BROTHERS ACTED AS GROOMSMEN! &mdash; Read, 'TO SOME'.<a id="k144b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; But. Surely. it was taught. [WHEN] THE WEDDING GIFTS ARE RECIPROCATED! &mdash; It means this: [When] it has to be reciprocated, it is returned from the common funds. R. Assi said: There is no difficulty:<a id="k144b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Here<a id="k144b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is a case] where [the father] did not specify;<a id="k144b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; here<a id="k144b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [it refers to the case] where he did specify; as It was taught: If his father sent wedding gifts [through] him,<a id="k144b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; the reciprocated gift belongs to him.<a id="k144b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; If his father. [however.] sent wedding gifts without specifying [which son was to take them], the reciprocated gift reverts to the common estate.<a id="k144b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And Samuel explained: Here<a id="k144b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; it is a case of a levir<a id="k144b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; who is not [entitled] to receive the prospective possessions<a id="k144b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; of his dead brother' as those which he already possessed.<a id="k144b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Does this then imply that the other<a id="k144b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; must repay;<a id="k144b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [why could] he [not] say. 'Give me my <I>shoshbin</I> and I will rejoice with him'?<a id="k144b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; Has it not been taught. 'Where it is the custom to return<a id="k144b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; the [token of] betrothal<a id="k144b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; it [must] be returned, [and] where the custom is not to return. it [need] not [be] returned'; and R. Joseph b. Abba said in the name of Mar 'Ukba in the name of Samuel, 'This applies only to the case<a id="k144b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; where she died but [where] he died it [need] not [be] returned. What is the reason? Because she can say:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k145a_1:" I.e., since it is not her fault that the marriage was not consummated she is entitled to retain, the money or the object that was given to her at the betrothal."
,k145a_2:" The original recipient of the gifts."
,k145a_3:" It is not his fault that his friend died and that he cannot, consequently. reciprocate his services and gifts. How, then, can it he assumed above that the heirs are entitled to the reciprocation of the gifts?"
,k145a_4:" Lit., 'here, in what case are we engaged? &mdash; As for instance'."
,k145a_5:" The original recipient."
,k145a_6:" His shoshebin, on the occasion of the latter's own marriage."
,k145a_7:" And has thus become liable to present the gifts in reciprocation of those he had received."
,k145a_8:" Hence he must return the gifts to the dead bridegroom's heirs."
,k145a_9:" And he died or divorced her before the wedding took place."
,k145a_10:" One hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k145a_11:" V. p. 620 n. 14, <i>supra</i>"
,k145a_12:" Lit., 'but not'."
,k145a_13:" Lit., 'it teaches'."
,k145a_14:" Lit., 'came to say'."
,k145a_15:" V. B.M. 601."
,k145a_16:" May it. consequently. be assumed that only the first Tanna does, but that R. Judah does not allow the plea 'Give me husband etc.'?"
,k145a_17:" Lit., 'all the world', i.e.. even R. Judah."
,k145a_18:" Cf. n. 4; even R. Judah agrees that the plea is eligible."
,k145a_19:" Lit., 'when do they dispute'."
,k145a_20:" Lit., 'given for sinking'. i.e., 'that it be not returned under any conditions whatsoever."
,k145a_21:" And, as was stated above, even R. Judah agrees on this point"
,k145a_22:" The Sablonoth, dona sponsalitia (v. <i>infra</i> p. 628, n. 6). which the groom gives to the bride after betrothal, not forming part of the legal token of betrothal."
,k145a_23:" Viz. the irrevocability of the token of betrothal."
,k145a_24:" Lit., 'her'."
,k145a_25:" Sixty <i>maneh</i> (cf. R. Gersh. a.l.)."
,k145a_26:" As her <i>kethubah</i>, in addition to the talent (the token of betrothal) which she received. This shows that R. Meir holds that a token of betrothal is unreturnable under any circumstances. (R. Gersh.)."
,k145a_27:" Of the talent, after the amount of the <i>kethubah</i> had been deducted. This shows that according to R. Judah a token of betrothal is returnable under certain conditions."
,k145a_28:" Jose's statement is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k145a_29:" Lit., 'in what are we engaged', in the Baraitha cited."
,k145a_30:" Surely she does not."
,k145a_31:" According to R. Judah."
,k145a_32:" In consequence of which she has been divorced by her husband from whom she now claims her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k145a_33:" A woman who played the harlot is certainly not entitled to it."
,k145a_34:" So that the question of a <i>kethubah</i> could not arise. And if he were to insist on divorcing her, despite her misfortune, she would undoubtedly be entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k145a_35:" And a priest. being forbidden to live with such a wife, must divorce her,"
,k145a_36:" The Tannaim of the Baraitha."
,k145a_37:" Hence he stated that the amount of the <i>kethubah</i> must he given to her in addition to the talent which she received as the token of her betrothal."
,k145a_38:" Consequently she must in such circumstances return the difference between the talent (given to her as token of betrothal) and the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k145a_39:" Or eighty <i>zuz</i> (a <I>shekel</I> = four <I>zuz</I>)."
,k145a_40:" If she is a widow."
,k145a_41:" Of a <i>shekel</i>, viz., sixty <i>zuz</i>. The twenty <i>shekels</i> with which he betrothed her, being of a doubtful ownership (R. Jose not being certain whether a token of betrothal is unreturnable) is divided, and she accordingly retains ten <i>shekels</i>, viz., forty <i>zuz</i>. Since a widow is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i> of a <i>maneh</i>, or a hundred <i>zuz</i> he must give her in addition sixty <i>zuz</i> (thirty halves of a <i>shekel</i>)."
,k145a_42:" In which case she retains fifteen <i>shekels</i> or sixty <i>zuz</i>."
,k145a_43:" Of a <i>shekel</i> viz., forty <i>zuz</i>, thus completing the total amount of the <i>kethubah</i> of a hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k145a_44:" The token of betrothal, and gifts."
,k145a_45:" Nehardea was a place where it was customary to return both the token of betrothal and gifts."
,k145a_46:" Such as jewels which the bridegroom sends the bride after betrothal."
,k145a_47:" If she died or was divorced."
,k145a_48:" Since it might be assumed that the return of the token of betrothal implied that the betrothal was invalid, the man might In consequence be allowed to marry his first wife's sister."
,k145a_49:" That her betrothal was valid. Had It been invalid there would have been no need for a divorce. Hence a token of betrothal may be returned."
,k145a_50:" [H] 'outside', or [H]. 'invention', 'fiction', v. B.M. 9a.."
,k145a_51:" Lit., 'this', i.e., of the return of the token."
,k145a_52:" I.e., of he divorce."
,k145a_53:" I.e., at the marriage of the <I>shoshbin</I>, and not earlier."
,k145a_54:" The reciprocated gift may be of a higher value than the original one. "
}

txt:
<p>
'Give me my husband I will rejoice with him';<a id="k145a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; here also he<a id="k145a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; could say. 'Give me my <I>shoshbin</I> and I will rejoice with him'!<a id="k145a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Joseph replied: We deal here with a case where<a id="k145a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k145a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; rejoiced with him<a id="k145a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the seven days of the [wedding] feast<a id="k145a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but had no opportunity of repaying him<a id="k145a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; before he died.<a id="k145a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	May it be suggested [that the question whether a betrothed woman may advance the plea], 'Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him' [is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim? For it was taught: '[In the case where] a person betrothes a woman,<a id="k145a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] a virgin she is entitled to two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and [to] a <i>maneh</i><a id="k145a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] a widow, Where it is the custom to return the [token of] betrothal<a id="k145a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; it [must] be returned; where it is the custom not to return the [token of] betrothal [it is] not [to be] returned; [these are] the words of R. Nathan. R. Judah the Prince said, in truth [the Sages] said: Where it is the custom to return, it [must] be returned; where it is the custom not to return, it [need] not [be] returned'. [Does not] R. Judah the Prince [say exactly the same thing] as the first Tanna: [Must it] not then [be explained]<a id="k145a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that [the difference] between them lies in [the admissibility of the plea]. 'Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him,' and that there is a lacuna [in the text] which should read<a id="k145a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; thus: '[In the case where] a person betrothes a woman, [if] a virgin she is entitled to two hundred [zuz, and [to] a <i>maneh</i> [if] a widow. This applies only to the case where he has retracted but [if] she died, [the token of betrothal] is to be returned where it is the custom to return; where it is the custom not to return, it [need] not be returned &mdash; This, [furthermore.] applies only [to the case] where she died, but [where] he died.it [need] not [be] returned.' What is the reason? Because she can plead. 'Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him' And [with reference to this statement] R. Judah the Prince said<a id="k145a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'In truth [the Sages] stated [that] whether he died. or she died. it Is to be returned where it is the custom to return; where it is the custom not to return.it [need] not [be] returned';<a id="k145a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and she cannot say, 'Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him'!<a id="k145a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; No; all<a id="k145a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [may agree that] she may advance the plea. 'Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him'; and [in the case] where he died no one [in fact] disputes [this].<a id="k145a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Their dispute has reference only<a id="k145a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the case] where she died; their [point of) disagreement [centering] here on [the question whether a token of] betrothal is unreturnable.<a id="k145a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nathan holds the opinion that [a token of] betrothal is not unreturnable,<a id="k145a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Judah the Prince holds the opinion that [a token of] betrothal is unreturnable. But surely it was taught. 'Where it is the custom to return. it [must] be returned'!<a id="k145a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He means this: And [as regards the] gifts.<a id="k145a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; they [must] certainly be returned where it is the custom to return [them]. 
</p><p>
	These Tannaim [differ on the same principle]<a id="k145a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; as the following Tannaim &mdash; For it was taught: If one betrothes a woman<a id="k145a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; with a talent,<a id="k145a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] a virgin she is entitled to two hundred [<i>zuz</i>]<a id="k145a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and [to a] <i>maneh</i> [if] a widow; these are the words.of R. Meir. R. Judah said: A virgin is entitled to two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and a widow [to] a <i>maneh</i>. and the remainder<a id="k145a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; she returns to him. R. Jose said: [If] he betrothed her with twenty [<i>shekels</i>].<a id="k145a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; he gives her, [in addition,] thirty halves; [if] he betrothed her with thirty [<i>shekels</i>], he gives her, [in addition], twenty halves. Now, of what case is it spoken here?<a id="k145a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If it is suggested [of that] where she died; does she, [in such a case, it may be asked]. receive her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k145a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; But [in the case] where he died? Why, [it may be argued again.] does she<a id="k145a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; return to him the remainder? Let her advance the plea.'Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him'! If. however, [it be suggested that we deal] with [the case of] the wife of an Israelite who committed adultery,<a id="k145a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'then, it may be queried.in what [circumstances. did this happen]? If with [her] consent, does she [in such a case] receive [her]kethubah?<a id="k145a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And if under duress, she is surely permitted to [continue to live with] him!<a id="k145a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence [the Baraitha] must [deal] with [the case of] the wife of a priest who [committed adultery] under duress<a id="k145a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [point of] disagreement between them<a id="k145a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; is [the question of] whether [a token of] betrothal is unreturnable. R. Meir holds the opinion [that a token of] betrothal is unreturnable;<a id="k145a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Judah holds the opinion [that a token of betrothal is] not unreturnable,<a id="k145a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Jose is doubtful [as to] whether it is returnable or not, and, consequently. [if] he betrothed her with twenty [<i>shekels</i>]<a id="k145a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; he gives her,<a id="k145a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [in addition].thirty halves,<a id="k145a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [and if] he betrothed her with thirty [<i>shekels</i>]<a id="k145a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; he gives her twenty halves.<a id="k145a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: Wherever It is the custom to return,<a id="k145a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; it [must] be returned. And the explanation is Nehardea<a id="k145a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; What [is the practice in] the rest of Babylon? &mdash; Both Rabbah and R. Joseph stated: Presents<a id="k145a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; are returned;<a id="k145a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [tokens of] betrothal are not returned. 
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: The law [is that] whether he died or she died or he retracted., presents<a id="k145a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; are to be returned, [tokens of] betrothal are not to be returned. If she retracted, even [tokens of) betrothal [must] also be returned. Amemar said: [A token of] betrothal [must] not be returned. [This is] a preventive measure against the possibility' of assumption that betrothal would take effect in the case of her sister.<a id="k145a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Her bill of divorce [would] prove her [status]<a id="k145a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; But [the statement] of R. Ashi is to be rejected '<a id="k145a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; for there [may] be some who heard of the one<a id="k145a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; and did not hear of the other.<a id="k145a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FOR [THE RECIPROCATION OF] WEDDING GIFTS MAY BE CLAIMED THROUGH A COURT OF LAW'. Our Rabbis taught: Five things were said in respect of [reciprocation of a] wedding gift: It may be claimed through a court of law; it is to be reciprocated at its proper time;<a id="k145a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is not subject to [the restrictions of] usury;<a id="k145a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k145b_1:" If it occurred before the gift had been reciprocated."
,k145b_2:" Though it causes the cancellation of debts (cf. Deut. XV, 2ff)."
,k145b_3:" Where the gift reverted to the common estate of the heirs."
,k145b_4:" The shoshbin."
,k145b_5:" That the reciprocated gift shall be of a higher value than the original one. It might just as well have been worth less."
,k145b_6:" Deut. XV, 2."
,k145b_7:" Since it cannot be exacted at the Sabbatical year, reciprocation not being due until the groomsman celebrates his marriage. (Cf. Mak. 3b)."
,k145b_8:" The reciprocated gift was never in the possession of the first-born's father; and all he inherited was only <I>a claim for the future.</I>"
,k145b_9:" The man who has to reciprocate the wedding gift."
,k145b_10:" When his shoshbin celebrated his own marriage."
,k145b_11:" With the gift. And since he did not, it may be claimed through a court of law."
,k145b_12:" Being out of town."
,k145b_13:" Heb. <I>tabla</I>, [H] Gr. [G], an instrument from which bells were suspended, used at bridal and other processions. [Others, 'drum', 'tambourine'; v. Krauss, op cit 92ff.]"
,k145b_14:" (Either he was not within hearing distance (R. Gersh.): or, the custom had fallen into desuetude in the locality (Krauss. <i>op. cit</i>. II, 41).]"
,k145b_15:" The bridegroom."
,k145b_16:" For failing to inform him."
,k145b_17:" I.e., when the reciprocated gift is claimed through a court or when it is repaid in any other way, in the case where the giver of it did not participate in the wedding festivities, how much may he deduct from the value of the gift in lieu of the food and refreshments he would have consumed had he attended the festivities?"
,k145b_18:" Lit., 'the children of the bridechamber'."
,k145b_19:" I.e., if they bring gifts not exceeding one <i>zuz</i> in value they consume refreshments and food, at the wedding festivities, to the full value of their gift. Consequently, if the present bridegroom (the former shoshbin) had brought a gift not exceeding one <i>zuz</i> in value, the first bridegroom (to whom it was brought and from whom the reciprocated gift is now claimed) need not now return anything; since be saved the claimant (the present bridegroom) the value of a <i>zuz</i> by absenting himself from his wedding."
,k145b_20:" Guests who bring gifts worth more than a <i>zuz</i> but not exceeding four <i>zuz</i> receive greater attention, and their entertainment is worth half the value of their gifts. Hence, half the value of the reciprocated gifts may be deducted in lieu of the food and refreshments saved."
,k145b_21:" Lit., 'from here onwards'."
,k145b_22:" The more important the man and the more costly his gifts, the more the expense of his entertainment. Such a person. if he could not attend the festivities, may' consequently deduct a proportionate sum from the value of his reciprocated gift."
,k145b_23:" Lit., 'he did with him', i.e., acted as shoshbin and brought the customary gifts."
,k145b_24:" Gr. [G],' (Lat. <I>pompa</I>), 'attended with pomp and a public procession'."
,k145b_25:" The first mentioned."
,k145b_26:" Lit., 'to do with him'."
,k145b_27:" The latter."
,k145b_28:" I.e., a person need only reciprocate under conditions similar to those under which service was rendered to him. If, therefore, he is asked to act under different conditions he may refuse, and there is no obligation on his part either to reciprocate the gifts or to come to the wedding."
,k145b_29:" V.<i>supra</i> n. 4,"
,k145b_30:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 7'"
,k145b_31:" V.. <i>supra</i> n. 8."
,k145b_32:" Such as fields and vineyards."
,k145b_33:" E.g., cattle that wander about, and are exposed to public view."
,k145b_34:" Who preaches to large audiences and is thus able to give public display to his knowledge."
,k145b_35:" Lit., sela'im."
,k145b_36:" Heb.. <I>Tekoa'</I>, [H], a Palestine town famous for its oils. Others, 'rich in the ownership of houses.'"
,k145b_37:" [Who by his creative powers is continually able to establish new points and evolve new principles. thus making his knowledge as continually productive as the possession of money and choicest oils.]"
,k145b_38:" Lit., '(things that are) measured',"
,k145b_39:" Lit., 'cellar', 'store-room'."
,k145b_40:" (Who keeps his store of traditional teachings in readiness for guidance whenever the occasion arises.]"
,k145b_41:" The discussions and interpretations of the Mishnah and Baraithoth, and the decisions arrived at, which are indispensable for right practice and conduct."
,k145b_42:" Prov. XV, 15."
,k145b_43:" [Who is often in difficulty in finding his way through the maze of the involved and intricate argumentation.]"
,k145b_44:" Lit., 'this',"
,k145b_45:" Where the teachings are given clearly and precisely."
,k145b_46:" Eccl. X, 9, Heb. [H], 'is warmed up'. (E.V. 'endangered')."
,k145b_47:" Lit., 'these'."
,k145b_48:" [The study of the Mishnah alone, in the absence of the principles underlying the teaching thereof', affords no competence for the giving of decisions, V. Sotah 22a.]"
,k145b_49:" The study of the Gemara affords a sensible appreciation of the principles of the teaching of the Mishnah and thus enables the student to make practical application of his learning.]"
,k145b_50:" Prov. XV. 15"
,k145b_51:" Others, 'greedy. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the Sabbatical year<a id="k145b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; does not cause Its cancellation;<a id="k145b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the firstborn does not receive of it a double portion.<a id="k145b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It may be claimed through a court of law'; what is the reason? &mdash; It is like a loan. 'And it is not subject to [the restrictions of] usury' &mdash; because he<a id="k145b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; did not give it to him with this intention<a id="k145b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And the Sabbatical year does not cause Its cancellation' &mdash; because the Scriptural [injunction], he shall not exact,<a id="k145b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be applied to it.<a id="k145b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And the firstborn does not receive a double portion' &mdash; because it is prospective.<a id="k145b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and a firstborn does not receive [a double portion] in prospective [property] as in that which was in [his father's] possession [at the time of his death].
</p><p>
	R. Kahana said, [This is] the rule of groomsmanship: [If] he<a id="k145b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; was In town,<a id="k145b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he should have come.<a id="k145b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] he<a id="k145b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [could] hear the sound of the [wedding] bells,<a id="k145b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he should have come.<a id="k145b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] he [could] not hear the sound of the bells,<a id="k145b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the [other]<a id="k145b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; should have informed him. He has, therefore, a grievance [against him],<a id="k145b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but [must] nevertheless repay him.
</p><p>
	And up to how much?<a id="k145b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Abaye said: Wedding guests<a id="k145b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; are in the habit of putting in their stomachs up to the value of a <i>zuz</i> brought in their hands;<a id="k145b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; up to four [<i>zuz</i>].a half [of the value of the gifts] is paid;<a id="k145b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in case of any higher values,<a id="k145b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; every man according to his importance.<a id="k145b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a person rendered service [to a bridegroom]<a id="k145b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; at a public<a id="k145b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [wedding] and he<a id="k145b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [now] desires [the latter] to reciprocate his services<a id="k145b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; at [a] private [wedding] he<a id="k145b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; may tell him, 'At a public [wedding] I will act for you as you have acted for me.<a id="k145b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If he rendered service to one<a id="k145b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [who married] a virgin, and he [now] desires [the latter] to reciprocate<a id="k145b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [on the occasion of his marriage] with a widow he<a id="k145b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; can say to him, '[At your marriage] with a virgin I will act for you as you acted for me'<a id="k145b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If he rendered service to one<a id="k145b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; on [the occasion of his] second [marriage] and he [now] desires [the latter] to reciprocate<a id="k145b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; on [the occasion of his own] first [marriage], he<a id="k145b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; can say to him, 'When you will marry a second wife I will reciprocate'.<a id="k145b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If he rendered service to one<a id="k145b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [on the occasion of his marriage] with one [woman] and he [now] desires [the latter] to reciprocate<a id="k145b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [on the occasion of his marriage] with two, [the latter] can say to him, '[On the occasion of your marriage] with one I will act for you as you acted for me.'<a id="k145b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Rich in possessions<a id="k145b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] rich in pomp<a id="k145b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; that is a master of <I>aggadoth</I>.<a id="k145b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Rich in money<a id="k145b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] rich in oil<a id="k145b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; that is a master in dialectics.<a id="k145b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Rich in products<a id="k145b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] rich in stores<a id="k145b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; that is a master of traditions.<a id="k145b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; All. [however]. are dependent on<a id="k145b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; the master of wheat. [i.e.] Gemara.<a id="k145b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in the name of Rab: What [character is meant] by the Scriptural text, <I>All the days of the poor are evil</I>?'<a id="k145b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A master of Gemara;<a id="k145b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast'' refers to<a id="k145b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; a master of the Mishnah<a id="k145b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba reversed the order; and this is what R. Mesharsheya stated in the name of Raba: What [characters are referred to] in the Scriptural text, Whoso quarrieth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood is warmed up thereby?<a id="k145b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is He that quarrieth stones shall be hurt therewith, has reference to<a id="k145b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; the masters of the Mishnah;<a id="k145b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and he that cleaveth wood is warmed up thereby, has reference to<a id="k145b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; the masters of Gemara<a id="k145b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanina said: <I>All the days of the poor are evil</I>.<a id="k145b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; refers [to him]<a id="k145b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; who has a wicked wife; <I>but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast</I>,<a id="k145b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; refers'<a id="k145b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [to him] who has a good wife.
</p><p>
	R. Jannai said: <I>All the days of the poor are evil</I><a id="k145b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to<a id="k145b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; one who is fastidious; <I>but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast</I><a id="k145b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to one of a robust constitution.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: <I>All the days of the poor are evil</I>,<a id="k145b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to one who is compassionate; <I>but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast</I>,<a id="k145b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to one who is cruel. And R. Joshua b. Levi said: <I>All the days of the poor are evil</I>,<a id="k145b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to an impatient<a id="k145b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; man; <I>but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast</I>,<a id="k145b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a contented man.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k146a_1:" During which days, at least, the poor were provided with wholesome and substantial meals."
,k146a_2:" For a poor man, who is in the habit of consuming all the week nothing but dry bread, the meat and the other expensive foodstuffs, with which he is supplied on Sabbaths and Festivals, cause indigestion."
,k146a_3:" [Not in our texts]."
,k146a_4:" On the morning after the betrothal it was customary for the bridegroom to send to the house of his father-in-law, in honour of the bride, jewels and various kinds of wine or oil. [These gifts were known as <I>Sablonoth</I>, [H], <I>dona sponsalitia</I>, derived according to Kohut from Gr, [G] and according to Maimonides from [H] 'to carry', [H] 'gift' from [H].]"
,k146a_5:" The presents."
,k146a_6:" Even in the case where he or she died, or where he desired to divorce her. It is assumed that the bridegroom, thanks to his joy and satisfaction with the company and the meal, however small the latter might have been. has definitely determined to present the gifts wholeheartedly and permanently."
,k146a_7:" As the wife's property."
,k146a_8:" Cf. p. 628, n. 8."
,k146a_9:" Which the bridegroom had in the house of his father-in-law."
,k146a_10:" Only then may the gifts be reclaimed."
,k146a_11:" Lit., 'taught'."
,k146a_12:" Lit., 'thing'."
,k146a_13:" Who had a meal of the value of a <i>denar</i> at the house of his father-in-law."
,k146a_14:" The meal."
,k146a_15:" To his own house."
,k146a_16:" <i>Halachah</i>."
,k146a_17:" [Cf Neh. VII, 2. Here probably an hereditary title]."
,k146a_18:" Lit., 'made',"
,k146a_19:" Before the wedding."
,k146a_20:" The drink he had could not have been worth a <i>denar</i>."
,k146a_21:" For medicinal purposes (Rashb.). A pearl was regarded as a life-giving substance. Cf. M. A. Canney. <I>JMEOS</I>. XV, 43ff."
,k146a_22:" Since the drink was brought to the door."
,k146a_23:" A bridegroom who consumed a meal of less value than a <i>denar</i>."
,k146a_24:" In a case where the gifts are reclaimed,"
,k146a_25:" According to Raba who stated that if the value of the meal was less than a <i>denar</i> the gifts may he reclaimed, has the bridegroom to pay at least for what he has consumed? (Cf. Tosaf. a.l., s.v., [H])."
,k146a_26:" Lit., 'what',"
,k146a_27:" That took place during the time they were at the bride's house."
,k146a_28:" The gifts themselves."
,k146a_29:" The bride."
,k146a_30:" Are they to be returned or not?"
,k146a_31:" Lit., 'what'."
,k146a_32:" Since here, unlike the wording of the previous citation, the expression. 'intended to be used up'. does not occur, it is assumed to refer to all cases, even to those where they were not used up."
,k146a_33:" I.e., articles of little value, the return of which one does not expect. Hence, even if they were not used up they need not be returned."
,k146a_34:" Of flax that grew in that year."
,k146a_35:" The mention of Pentecost."
,k146a_36:" That its harvests are earlier than those of other countries."
,k146a_37:" Lit., 'his plea is a plea'. i.e., if he reclaims such gifts. asserting that he had sent them at the Pentecost season, he is believed. Though that season is too early for the harvest in other countries it is not so in Palestine."
,k146a_38:" [H] 'in the habit of sniffing'."
,k146a_39:" A husband who finds his wife to be affected with a hidden defect is entitled, under certain conditions, to divorce her without a <i>kethubah</i>."
,k146a_40:" He had with him a radish. According to others, a date."
,k146a_41:" The incident occurred near that district; and the object of his test was to ascertain whether she could sense the smell of the radish. According to the other interpretation. he expected her to reply that she sensed the smell of a date and not that of a radish, "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Joshua b. Levi further stated: 'All the days of the poor are evil? Surely there are Sabbaths and Festivals!<a id="k146a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The explanation, however, is] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: A change of diet is the beginning of sickness'<a id="k146a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; It is written in the Book of Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are evil; Ben Sira says: The nights also. Lower than [all] roofs is his roof, [and] the rain of other roofs [pours down] upon his roof; on the height of mountains is his vineyard. [and] the earth of his vineyard [is washed down] into the vineyards [of others].<a id="k146a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A PERSON HAD SENT WEDDING PRESENTS TO THE HOUSE OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW,<a id="k146a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; EVEN IF HE SENT A HUNDRED <I>MANEH</I> AND ATE THERE A BRIDEGROOM'S MEAL, [ EVEN IF IT WERE ONLY OF THE VALUE] OF ONE <I>DENAR</I>, THEY<a id="k146a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [CANNOT [ANY MORE] BE RECLAIMED.<a id="k146a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF. HOWEVER]. HE DID NOT EAT THERE A BRIDEGROOM'S MEAL THEY<a id="k146a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE RECLAIMED. [IF] HE SENT MANY PRESENTS WHICH WERE TO  RETURN WITH HER TO THE HOUSE OF HER HUSBAND.<a id="k146a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; THESE MAY BE RECLAIMED.<a id="k146a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF. HOWEVER, HE SENT A] FEW PRESENTS WHICH SHE WAS TO USE AT THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER, [THESE MAY] NOT BE RECLAIMED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba said: Only [when the meal<a id="k146a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; was worth] a <i>denar</i>,<a id="k146a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but not [when it was worth] less than a <i>denar</i>. [Is not this] obvious? We have, [surely], learnt, ONE <I>DENAR</I>! &mdash; It might have been assumed that the same law [applies] even [to the case where it was worth] less than a <i>denar</i>, and that [the reason] why a <i>denar</i> was mentioned<a id="k146a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [was because that] was the usual cost,<a id="k146a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; hence [it was necessary to] teach us [that we do not say so].
</p><p>
	We learnt, HE ATE; what [is the law if] he drank? We learnt, HE; what [is the law in the case of] his representative?<a id="k146a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt, THERE; what [if] it<a id="k146a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; was sent to him?<a id="k146a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Come and hear what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It once happened with a' certain man who had sent to the house of his father-in-law a hundred wagons of jars of wine and jars of oil, and vessels of silver and of gold and silk garments while he [himself]. in his joy. came riding. and stopped at the door of the house of his father-in-law. They brought out a cup of something warm and he drank and died. This practical question<a id="k146a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; was brought up by R. Aha. the 'Governor of the Castle',<a id="k146a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; before the Sages at Usha, and they decided, 'Gifts which were intended<a id="k146a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to be used up<a id="k146a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be reclaimed; and such as are not intended to be used up<a id="k146a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; may be reclaimed. From this it may be inferred [that] even if he [only] drank; from this it may [also] be inferred [that] even [if the meal was worth less than a <i>denar</i>.<a id="k146a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi asked: 'Who can tell us that they did not crush a pearl<a id="k146a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for him which was worth a thousand <i>zuz</i> and gave him to drink! [May] it be inferred, [however that] even if [it] was sent to him?<a id="k146a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [No;] it is possible [that] anywhere [near] the door of the house of one's father-in-law is [the same] as the house [itself].
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Has he<a id="k146a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; to pay<a id="k146a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in proportion?<a id="k146a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [Further:] Is he entitled to<a id="k146a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the appreciation of the gifts?<a id="k146a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [Do we say that] since if they<a id="k146a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; are available they are returned to him, the appreciation took place in his possession; or, perhaps. since if they were lost or stolen she<a id="k146a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; has to make compensation. the appreciation took place in her possession? &mdash; This is undecided.
</p><p>
	Raba inquired: What [is the law in the case of] gifts intended to be used up that were not used up?<a id="k146a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Come and hear: 'And this practical question was brought up by R. Aha, the governor of the castle, before the Sages at Usha and they decided [that] gifts intended to be used up [can] not be reclaimed, and such as are not intended to be used up may be reclaimed' &mdash; Does<a id="k146a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; not [this refer] even [to the case] where they were not used up! &mdash; No; where they were used up. Come and hear: [IF, HOWEVER, HE SENT A] FEW PRESENTS WHICH SHE WAS TO USE AT THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER, [THESE MAY] NOT BE RECLAIMED!<a id="k146a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba interpreted [the Mishnah as referring to] a veil or a hair-net.<a id="k146a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It once happened that a certain person sent to the house of his father-in-law new wine and new oil and garments of new linen<a id="k146a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; at [the] Pentecost season. What does [this]<a id="k146a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; teach us? &mdash; If you wish I would say: The praise of the land of Israel.<a id="k146a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you prefer [it] I would say: That if he advances [such] a plea it is accepted.<a id="k146a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It once happened that a certain person was told [that] his wife was defective in the sense of smell<a id="k146a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; He followed her into a ruin to test her<a id="k146a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; He said unto her, 'I sense the smell of radish<a id="k146a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; in Galilee.'<a id="k146a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k146b_1:" Jericho was famous for its dates which were so sweet that radishes had to he eaten with them to mitigate their excessive sweetness."
,k146b_2:" Where the husband claimed her possessions as her heir."
,k146b_3:" And had he found her to he defective, as he suspected, he would have insisted on divorcing her, he forfeited thereby his rights to be her heir. As soon as one determines to divorce his wife, if she were found to be suffering from some defect, he loses the privileges of an heir unless a reconciliation between them subsequently took place."
,k146b_4:" Since in that case there was no time for their reconciliation before death took place."
,k146b_5:" And divorced her."
,k146b_6:" Sent by the bridegroom to the bride."
,k146b_7:" Where foodstuffs are returned,"
,k146b_8:" Or any other foodstuff."
,k146b_9:" Below the current market price."
,k146b_10:" The size is given in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k146b_11:" Even if he recovers from that illness."
,k146b_12:" Since he left for himself some land it is assumed that he did not intend the gift to be conditional upon his death, and it is. therefore, regarded as having been given by a man in good health. It is, consequently. valid even if he recovered from his illness."
,k146b_13:" If he recovered. Since he left nothing for himself it is obvious that at the time he made the gift he did not expect to live any longer. Had he hoped to recover from his illness he would not have given away all his landed property, leaving himself destitute."
,k146b_14:" [H] lit., assumption'. 'estimation'."
,k146b_15:" Lit., 'that we go after assumption', i.e., that the assumed motives and intentions of a testator are to be taken into consideration when deciding the legality of his 'statements In our Mishnah, the assumed motive and intention are obviously the determining factors (V., notes 3, 4); who is its author?"
,k146b_16:" Lit., 'country of (i.e., beyond) the sea'."
,k146b_17:" Since it was not specifically made conditional upon his son's death."
,k146b_18:" Lit., 'write them'. Thus it has been shown that R. Simeon b. Menasya takes the assumed motive and intention into consideration,"
,k146b_19:" Others, 'of Shezar', [Sedschut between Akko and Kefar 'Anan, in Gallilee. v. Klein, NB. p. 7.]"
,k146b_20:" [H] 'collar', the chain, or iron band round a prisoner's neck."
,k146b_21:" Though he only authorized the writing of the divorce, and not its delivery, it is assumed that he had forgotten to mention the latter owing to the perturbed state of his mind"
,k146b_22:" Lit., 'they returned to say'."
,k146b_23:" Because it is assumed that his motive and intentions were to have his wife divorced so that she might be exempt from the levirate marriage and from <i>halizah</i>.. Since the same principles of motive and intention underlie the law of our Mishnah, it may be taken to represent the view of R. Simeon Shezuri."
,k146b_24:" Our Mishnah."
,k146b_25:" By this instruction It was made clear that he wished his wife to be legally divorced; and since this cannot be done without the delivery of the bill of divorcement, his instruction must he taken to, extend to, the delivery also. For the case of our Mishnah, however, this argument cannot be applied."
,k146b_26:" In the case of the father who gave all his property to a stranger. since he did not give it away so long as he believed his son to he alive, it is clear that the sole reason why he gave it away subsequently was the reported death of his son."
,k146b_27:" From the case of our Mishnah Since most ailing persons recover, there is not necessarily any reason for the assumption that the gift was due to the testator's belief that he would not recover."
,k146b_28:" Lit., 'who taught that'. "
}

txt:
<p>
She said to him, 'Would that one gave me of the dates of Jericho and I would eat with it.'<a id="k146b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thereupon] the ruin fell upon her and she died. The Sages decided:<a id="k146b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Since he only followed her in order to test her,<a id="k146b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not [entitled to be] her heir [if] she died [during the test]<a id="k146b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FEW PRESENTS WHICH SHE WAS TO USE AT THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER, ETC. Rabin the elder sat before R. Papa and stated [the following]: Whether she died, or he died, [or] he retracted,<a id="k146b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the wedding gifts are to be returned, foodstuff[s] and drink[s]<a id="k146b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; are not to be returned. If [however] she retracted, even a bundle of vegetables [must be returned]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: And it is valued for them<a id="k146b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; at the cheap[er] price of meat,<a id="k146b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Up to how much is [considered] cheap? &mdash; Up to a third.<a id="k146b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A DYING MAN GAVE ALL HIS PROPERTY IN WRITING, TO OTHERS, AND LEFT [FOR HIMSELF] SOME [PIECE OF] LAND<a id="k146b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS GIFT<a id="k146b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IS VALID.<a id="k146b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF, HOWEVER,] HE DID NOT LEAVE [FOR HIMSELF] SOME [PIECE OF] LAND, HIS GIFT IS INVALID<a id="k146b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Who is the Tanna [that holds the view] that the assumed motive<a id="k146b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is a determining factor?<a id="k146b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Nahman replied: It [is the view of] R. Simeon b. Menasya. For it was taught: In the case of [a person] whose son went to a distant country<a id="k146b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and having heard that the latter had died. assigned all his property, in writing. to a stranger. though his son subsequently appeared. his gift is. [nevertheless]. legally] valid.<a id="k146b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Menasya said: His gift is not [legally] valid; for had he known that his son was alive, he would not have given it away.<a id="k146b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth said: It [is the view of] R. Simeon Shezuri.<a id="k146b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; For It was taught: At first it was held [that] when one who was led out in chains,<a id="k146b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; said, 'Write a bill of divorce for my wife', It is to be written and delivered [to her];<a id="k146b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; later, however, It was held<a id="k146b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [that the same law applies] also [to] one who goes out [to sea] or on a caravan [journey]. R. Simeon Shezuri said: [The same law] also [applies to one] who is dangerously [ill]<a id="k146b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	For what reason, however, does not R. Nahman establish it<a id="k146b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with [the view of] R. Simeon Shezuri? &mdash; There [the case is] different, since he said, 'write'.<a id="k146b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And why does not R. Shesheth establish it<a id="k146b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with [the view of] R. Simeon b. Menasya? &mdash; A well grounded assumption<a id="k146b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is different.<a id="k146b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Who is the author of the following ruling<a id="k146b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; which was taught by our Rabbis? 'If a person was lying ill in bed, and was asked, "To whom [shall] your estate [be given]?" and he replied
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k147a_1:" Because it is assumed that if he had known the facts he would not have given his estate to X but to his son or his wife."
,k147a_2:" Since the Rabbis, as has been shown above, do not admit the principle of assumed motive."
,k147a_3:" In such a case as this, where the testator specifically said that he thought he had no son and that only because he was told that he had no son his estate was to be given to a stranger. even the Rabbis admit that motive which need no longer be merely assumed is the determining factor."
,k147a_4:" Lit., 'and he that threw (i.e.. argued) what did he throw?' How could he even for one moment assume that the' Rabbis would not in such a case hold the same view as R. Simeon h. Menasya, when the difference between the two cases is so self evident?"
,k147a_5:" The testator,"
,k147a_6:" The mention of the death of his son might not have been due at all to his desire to indicate the cause of his giving away his estate to strangers. It might have been a mere expression of sorrow at having no son to survive him, a fact which the disposal of his estate had brought to his mind."
,k147a_7:" Even if made verbally, is as binding as if attended by a legal symbolic acquisition."
,k147a_8:" Num. XXVIII, 8."
,k147a_9:" The superfluity of the expression of [H] or, according to others, of [H]"
,k147a_10:" As the transfer of a father's estate to a daughter takes place without symbolic acquisition so does the transfer of the gift of a dying man."
,k147a_11:" Lit., 'from here'."
,k147a_12:" Ibid, v. 9."
,k147a_13:" The superfluous, [H] or [H]"
,k147a_14:" Cf. <i>supra</i>, n. 8."
,k147a_15:" That were enumerated in Num XXVII, 9-11"
,k147a_16:" In the case of a daughter."
,k147a_17:" Ibid. v. 8."
,k147a_18:" V. <i>supra</i> 109b."
,k147a_19:" Num. XXVII, 9"
,k147a_20:" The expression is not in any way superfluous."
,k147a_21:" The validity of a verbal gift made' by a dying man."
,k147a_22:" Lit., 'from here'."
,k147a_23:" II Kings, XX 1"
,k147a_24:" I.e., Hezekiah was to set his house in order (Heb., Zaw [H], lit., <I>command</I>) by nothing more than his <I>verbal</I> instruction,"
,k147a_25:" II Sam. XVII, 23."
,k147a_26:" Ahitophel set his house in order, (Heb., wa-yezav, [H], 'and he commanded') by his verbal instructions only."
,k147a_27:" Lit., 'be not '"
,k147a_28:" Fine weather at that season is an indication of a good wheat harvest for that year."
,k147a_29:" I.e., <I>cloudy</I> weather at Pentecost is an indication of a good harvest for that year. <I>Cloudy</I>, Heb. <I>balul</I>, [H], is easily interchangeable with <I>barrur</I>, [H], clear."
,k147a_30:" And the wheat harvest of that year will be successful."
,k147a_31:" Lit., 'exit'."
,k147a_32:" On the Temple altar."
,k147a_33:" The column of smoke."
,k147a_34:" Lit., masters of houses'."
,k147a_35:" The prevalence of the South wind which caused the column of smoke to incline towards the North."
,k147a_36:" Lit., 'many'."
,k147a_37:" And as they could not be stored away for long. prices would fall."
,k147a_38:" The north wind. Cf. p. 635, n. 18."
,k147a_39:" Consequently prices would rise."
,k147a_40:" The west wind by which it was driven would cause a moderate rainfall and plentiful crops."
,k147a_41:" The east wind by which it was driven towards the north would cause a scanty rainfall and meagre crops; and prices would consequently rise."
,k147a_42:" Lit.. 'when they brought'."
,k147a_43:" When it requires no more rain."
,k147a_44:" In the Temple."
,k147a_45:" The north where stood the table on which was placed the shewbread."
,k147a_46:" Crops of wheat which are required for the shewbread."
,k147a_47:" The south where stood the candelabra, for the lighting of which olive oil was used. is beneficial to olives."
,k147a_48:" At any rate, it has been stated in this Baraitha that 'the east wind is always beneficial and the west wind is always harmful', how, then, was the reverse stated in the previous Baraitha, reported by R. Isaac b. Abdimi? (V., notes 5 and 6)."
,k147a_49:" The latter Baraitha which states that the east wind is beneficial and the west wind harmful."
,k147a_50:" Refers to Babylon which is situated in a valley and has an abundance of water. A heavy yearly rainfall, there, is harmful; a light one beneficial."
,k147a_51:" The first Baraitha."
,k147a_52:" Palestine, which is a dry highland country. There the west wind with its heavy rains is beneficial while the dry east wind is harmful."
,k147a_53:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 635. n. 11"
,k147a_54:" I.e., 'most of it' (Rashb.)."
,k147a_55:" Lit., 'as to what comes out of it'. "
}

txt:
<p>
"I thought I had a son; now, [however] that I have no son, [let] my estate [be given] to X"; [or] if a person was lying ill in bed, and on being asked to whom his estate [shall be given]. he replied, "I thought my wife was with child; now' [however] 'that my wife is not with child, [let] my estate [be given] to X"; and it [subsequently] transpired that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is invalid,'<a id="k147a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it to be assumed that this [statement represents the view of] R Simeon b. Menasya and not [that of] the Rabbis?<a id="k147a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It may even be said [to represent the view of] the Rabbis, [but] 'I thought' is different.<a id="k147a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And what did he that raised the question imagine?<a id="k147a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might be suggested that he<a id="k147a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; was merely mentioning his grief,<a id="k147a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; hence [it was necessary] to teach us [that this is not so]. 
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in the name of Rab: Whence [is it proved] that the gift of a dying man<a id="k147a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [is considered valid] by the Torah? &mdash; For it is said, <I>Then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter</I><a id="k147a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [which<a id="k147a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; implies that] there exists another transfer which is [the same] as this [one]. And which is it? It is the gift of a dying man.<a id="k147a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha said: [It may be derived] from the following.<a id="k147a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>Then shall ye give his inheritance unto his brethren</I>,<a id="k147a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [which<a id="k147a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; implies that] there exists another giving which is like this [one]. And which is it? It is the gift of a dying man.<a id="k147a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Why does not R. Nahman derive it from, <I>Then ye shall cause to pass</I>?<a id="k147a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He requires that [expression] for [the following], according to Rabbi. For it was taught: Rabbi said, In [the case of] all [the relatives<a id="k147a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the expression of] 'giving' is used but here<a id="k147a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [the expression] used is that of 'causing to pass',<a id="k147a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [in order to teach] you that no other but a daughter causes an inheritance to pass from one tribe to [another] tribe, since [in her case] her son and her husband are her heirs.<a id="k147a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And why does not R. Zera derive it from, Then shall ye give?<a id="k147a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is the usual [expression] of Scripture.<a id="k147a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Menashya b. Jeremiah said: [It<a id="k147a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may be derived] from the following:<a id="k147a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death; and Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, 'Thus saith the Lord; Set thy house in order for thou shalt die, and not live',<a id="k147a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; by mere verbal instruction.<a id="k147a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Ezekiel said: [It<a id="k147a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may be derived] from the following: And when Ahitophel saw that his counsel was not followed. he saddled his ass and arose, and got him home into his city and set his house in order, and strangled himself.<a id="k147a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; by mere verbal instruction.<a id="k147a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Ahitophel advised his sons three things: Take no part<a id="k147a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; in strife, and do not rebel against the government of the House of David, and [if] the weather on the Festival of Pentecost is fine sow wheat<a id="k147a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar Zutra stated: It was said, 'cloudy'<a id="k147a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; The Nehardeans said in the name of R. Jacob: 'Fine' [does] not [mean] absolutely fine, nor does 'cloudy' mean completely overcast, but even [when it is] 'cloudy' and the north wind blows [the clouds], it is regarded as 'fine'.<a id="k147a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba said to R. Ashi: We rely upon [the weather information] of R. Isaac b. Abdimi. For R. Isaac b. Abdimi said: [At] the termination of<a id="k147a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; the last day of Tabernacles, all watched the smoke of the wood pile.<a id="k147a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] it<a id="k147a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; inclined towards the north, the poor rejoiced and landowners<a id="k147a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; were distressed because [that<a id="k147a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; was an indication] that the yearly rains would be heavy<a id="k147a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and the crops would decay.<a id="k147a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] it inclined towards the south, the poor were distressed and landowners rejoiced because [that<a id="k147a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; was an indication] that the yearly rains would be scanty and the crops could be preserved.<a id="k147a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] it inclined towards the east, all were glad;<a id="k147a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; towards the west, all were distressed.<a id="k147a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A contradiction was raised: The east [wind] is always beneficial; the west [wind] is always harmful; the north wind is beneficial for wheat that reached<a id="k147a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [the stage of] a third [of its maturity].<a id="k147a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; and harmful for olives in blossom; and the south wind is injurious' for wheat that reached<a id="k147a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [the stage of] a third [of maturity] and beneficial for olives in blossom. And R. Joseph. (others say Mar Zutra and others say. R. Nahman b. Isaac), said: Your mnemonic is, 'Table in the north and candelabra in the south;<a id="k147a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; the one<a id="k147a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Increases Its own<a id="k147a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other<a id="k147a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; increases Its own.<a id="k147a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There is no difficulty: This<a id="k147a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; for us,<a id="k147a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; and that<a id="k147a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; for them<a id="k147a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: Abba Saul said: Fine [weather at] the Festival of Pentecost is a good sign<a id="k147a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; for all the year. 
</p><p>
	R. Zebid said: If the first day of the New Year is warm, all's the year will be warm; if cold, all<a id="k147a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; the year will be cold. Of what [religious] significance is this<a id="k147a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [weather information]?
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k147b_1:" When he offered up a special prayer for rain. If the signs indicated heavy rains. his prayer had to be modified."
,k147b_2:" At this point is resumed the discussion of the theme introduced by R. Zera (p. 634)."
,k147b_3:" Biblically the gift would not be valid unless attended by actual or symbolic acquisition."
,k147b_4:" As a result of any resistance which might be offered to his instructions. Hence, legal force was given to his verbal and informal instructions as if legal acquisition had taken place."
,k147b_5:" That the validity of the verbal gift of a dying man n only Rabbinical."
,k147b_6:" Lit., 'and he returned'."
,k147b_7:" And the buyer cannot claim the debt from the borrower. He only bought the rights of the creditor which now exist no more. He can, however, reclaim from the creditor (the seller) the sum he paid him for the bond."
,k147b_8:" A debt he inherited."
,k147b_9:" B.K. 92a; B.M. 20a; Kid. 38a."
,k147b_10:" Lit., 'you said'."
,k147b_11:" The validity of the verbal gift of a dying man."
,k147b_12:" Lit., 'and they made it'."
,k147b_13:" For the reason given <i>supra</i>, viz., lest his mind become affected."
,k147b_14:" Lit., 'shall dwell'."
,k147b_15:" Lit., 'he said nothing'. X cannot acquire the right of living in the house or that of eating the dates. since the former is abstract, while the dates are nol yet in existence. As such rights cannot be given away by one in good health, even by means of symbolic and legal transfer, the acquisition of the object itself (the house or the tree) being required, a dying man also cannot by his mere verbal instructions (though valid in the acquisition of concrete and existing objects), confer such rights."
,k147b_16:" Lit., 'until he would say'."
,k147b_17:" By transferring the possession of the concrete object. the abstract or the yet non-existing. may also simultaneously he transferred."
,k147b_18:" Lit., 'to say'."
,k147b_19:" Lit., 'thing'."
,k147b_20:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k147b_21:" Lit.. 'there is not', i.e., that the only difference between the rights of a healthy, and those of a dying man consists in the privilege of the latter to transfer possession by a mere verbal instruction, while in the case of the former, actual or symbolic acquisition must take place. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; In respect of the prayer of the High Priest [on the Day of Atonement]<a id="k147b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba,<a id="k147b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; however, said in the name of R. Nahman: The [validity of a verbal] gift of a dying man is a mere [provision] of the Rabbis<a id="k147b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; lest his mind become affected.<a id="k147b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But did R. Nahman say so?<a id="k147b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Nahman said: Although Samuel had stated that if a person sold a bond of indebtedness to another and subsequently<a id="k147b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; remitted [the debt] it is remitted,<a id="k147b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and that even an heir may remit,<a id="k147b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel, [nevertheless]. admits that if he presented it to him as the gift of a dying man, he cannot [subsequently] remit it.<a id="k147b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now]. if it is agreed'<a id="k147b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; that [this<a id="k147b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is] Biblical, one can well understand the reason why one cannot remit [the debt]; if, however, It is maintained<a id="k147b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; that [this is merely] Rabbinical, why should he not be able to remit [it]? &mdash; It is not Biblical; but was given<a id="k147b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same force] as [a law] of the Torah.<a id="k147b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: If a dying man said, 'Let X live<a id="k147b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; in this house', or,'Let X eat the fruit of this date-tree', his Instructions are to be disregarded<a id="k147b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; unless he used the following expression:<a id="k147b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Give this house to X that he may live in it', or 'Give this date-tree to X that he may eat of its fruit'<a id="k147b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Does this mean to imply<a id="k147b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; that R. Nahman holds the opinion that [only] the rights<a id="k147b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; that a man in good health may confer,<a id="k147b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may also be conferred by<a id="k147b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; a dying man, [while those] which a man in good health cannot confer,<a id="k147b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; can neither be conferred by a dying man?<a id="k147b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely Raba said in the name of R Nahman:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k148a_1:" I.e. &mdash; the verbal loan which someone owes him shall he paid by that person to X."
,k148a_2:" Through the mere verbal instruction of the testator. Had he been in good health. he could not transfer in this way a verbal loan, which, since a person usually spends the money he borrows, is not In existence."
,k148a_3:" Lit., 'it is not'."
,k148a_4:" He cannot transfer an abstract thing (cf. p. 637 n. 16). How', then, could it be said that. apart from only one difference (v. note 6), there was no distinction between the power of a healthy, and those of a dying man?"
,k148a_5:" I.e.. the verbal loan; it is considered to be in the possession of the dying man who accordingly has the power to transfer it as gift to another person. since the gift of a dying man is treated as an inheritance, v. <i>infra</i> 149a. This, however, does not apply to a man in good health, since his gift is not regarded as an inheritance."
,k148a_6:" Lit., 'it is'."
,k148a_7:" Lit., 'said',"
,k148a_8:" The creditor, borrower and X; v. 147b-148a."
,k148a_9:" On the branches; and since the branches are attached to the tree they are regarded as ground. Consequently it is a case of one who left for himself some ground, and who, in accordance with our Mishnah, cannot withdraw his gift. even if he recovers."
,k148a_10:" And when he gave the tree to the first, he gave him the branches also. Hence he left for himself no ground at all, and can withdraw the gift if he recovers."
,k148a_11:" Lit., 'to say'."
,k148a_12:" The text and interpretation here adopted (cf. Rashb. second version; R. Gersh. first versionl; and BaH, a.l.) differ from the version in the current editions and from its rather difficult interpretation to which commentators had recourse. A translation of that version would run somewhat as follows: (If he left the fruit) for himself (giving away the tree) except its fruit, what (is the law)? (Is it assumed that for oneself one makes liberal reservation and, consequently. he left for himself the place of the fruit also, and the gift is. accordingly, valid; or is there no difference between reserving for oneself and for another)? Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: If (some reason) could be found for the decision (that where a person gave) a date-tree to one (man) and its fruit to another, the place of the fruit is not reserved; (if he gave) a date-tree to one and reserved the fruit for himself, he did reserve the place of the fruit. What is the reason? &mdash; Wherever it is a case of personal interests one makes liberal reservation."
,k148a_13:" In addition to, 'Give him the date tree'. Does the superfluous addition, 'except etc.', imply that he wished to reserve for himself the place of the fruit and, consequently, he cannot anymore withdraw? (V. note l)."
,k148a_14:" V. note 3'"
,k148a_15:" V. notes on R. Zebid's statement, <i>infra</i> 148b."
,k148a_16:" The enquiry above, and R, Nahman's statement."
,k148a_17:" <i>Supra</i> 63a, 64a. "
}

txt:
<p>
If a dying man said, 'Give my loan to X',<a id="k148a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; his loan is [immediately] acquired by X;<a id="k148a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; although a man in good health has no<a id="k148a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [such power]!<a id="k148a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Papa replied: Since an heir inherits it.<a id="k148a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha the son of R. Ika replied: A loan is also transferable<a id="k148a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in [the case of] a man in good health; and [this is) in accordance with [the statement] of R Huna in the name of<a id="k148a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab. For R. Huna said in the name of Rab: [If one said] 'You owe me a <i>maneh</i>, give it to X', in the presence of the three persons,<a id="k148a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; X acquires possession. 
</p><p>
	The question was raised: [If dying man gave instructions for his] date-tree [to be given] to one [person] and the fruit thereof to another, what [is the law.]? Has he [in such a case]. left [for himself] the place of the fruit<a id="k148a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; or did he not leave?<a id="k148a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If [some reason] be found for the decision<a id="k148a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [that if the fruit were given] to another [person, the dying man does] not reserve [their place, the question may be asked]: What [is the law if] he said,<a id="k148a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; except its fruit'?<a id="k148a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: [Even] if [some reason] be found for the decision<a id="k148a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [that in the case where the] date-tree [was given] to one [person] and the fruit thereof to another, the place of the fruit is not [regarded as] reserved, [if he specifically added,] 'Except its fruit', he [thereby] reserved the place of the fruit; and [this is] in accordance with [the view of] R, Zebid<a id="k148a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; who stated that if he wished to attach mouldings to it he may do [so]. From this it clearly follows that because he reserved the upper storey he also reserved the place of the mouldings. [so] here also, since he said, 'Except its fruit'. he reserved the place of the fruit. 
</p><p>
	R. Abba said to R. Ashi: We learnt it<a id="k148a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in connection with [the following statement] of R. Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: When someone, in selling a house to another, told him, 'On condition that the upper storey [remains] mine', the upper storey [remains] his.<a id="k148a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k148b_1:" For the projection of mouldings from the upper storey."
,k148b_2:" The seller of the house."
,k148b_3:" Lit., 'to bring out',"
,k148b_4:" The upper storey which he retained for himself by specifying when selling the house, 'except its upper storey'."
,k148b_5:" Lit., 'brings out'."
,k148b_6:" In succession. one after the other."
,k148b_7:" l.e., if his intention from the very beginning was to distribute all his estate among these."
,k148b_8:" Even if no legal acquisition took place. since the verbal gift of a dying man is legally valid."
,k148b_9:" Because he left nothing for himself, in which case, as stated in our Mishnah, he may withdraw the gifts he made in the expectation of death."
,k148b_10:" I.e., if his intention at first was not to give away all his estate, and only after giving a portion to one he reconsidered the matter and made the gifts to the others."
,k148b_11:" Because with the last gift, the dying man left nothing for himself. In the case of all the previous gifts there was always something over."
,k148b_12:" When pausing to think, he may not have been considering whether to give or not but only what to give. In which case his mind was made up from the beginning to distribute all his estate and, consequently. he should he able to withdraw all the gifts he made."
,k148b_13:" And since the man was pausing for reflection, after every gift he made. it is obvious that it was not his first intention to distribute all his estate."
,k148b_14:" And consequently he was not left destitute."
,k148b_15:" He did not present specified portions but all his possessions wherever they may be situated."
,k148b_16:" No other possessions than those of which he had disposed."
,k148b_17:" If a dying man presented all his estate to one person and then, in accordance with his rights (v. <i>supra</i> 135b). withdrew a part of the gift, and presented that part to another person."
,k148b_18:" Of the entire gift made to the first. The question is whether it is assumed that by his withdrawal of that part, presenting it to the second person. he also indicated the complete withdrawal of the entire gift he made to the first and that, therefore, when he made the gift to the second he was in possession of the rest of his estate; and, consequently, if he recovered he cannot withdraw the gift from the second; while if he died. his heirs may claim from the first the return of bis gift."
,k148b_19:" And the second acquires possession of whatever was given to him, while the first retains the ownership of the rest. If the testator subsequently recovers he may consequently withdraw both gifts (since when disposing of the estate he had left himself nothing), whereas if he dies the heirs would have no claim at all upon either of the donees."
,k148b_20:" Lit., 'all of them',"
,k148b_21:" Which he withdrew from the first,"
,k148b_22:" And if so, it may be proved from here that the withdrawal of a part is the same as the withdrawal of the whole,"
,k148b_23:" And desires to withdraw the gifts. The first cannot retain possession because when the gift was made to him the testator was left with nothing. The right of ownership on the part of the second is discussed in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k148b_24:" That the Baraitha cited refers to a case of recovery."
,k148b_25:" Lit., 'of them'."
,k148b_26:" [I.e., the remaining part of the estate (Alfasi).]"
,k148b_27:" Ned. 43b."
,k148b_28:" The testator."
,k148b_29:" Because when he received the gift the testator had left for himself nothing."
,k148b_30:" Since in such a case possession is acquired by the recipients whether the testator had left anything for himself or not. Consequently it must he concluded that the final clause refers to the case where the testator recovered; and since the final clause refers to a case of recovery the first clause also must refer to such a case."
,k148b_31:" The first clause of the Baraitha cited."
,k148b_32:" Lit., 'and let it be also',"
,k148b_33:" V note 9"
,k148b_34:" To the argument that the Baraitha supplies no proof to the statement that the partial withdrawal is considered complete withdrawal,"
,k148b_35:" Because when the part was given to him, the rest of the estate having been withdrawn from the first, the testator was in possession of some property."
,k148b_36:" Since the first is retaining the remainder of the estate while the second acquires possession of its part."
,k148b_37:" Owing to the fact that the testator in distributing his estate had left nothing for himself."
,k148b_38:" The second donee acquires ownership because when the gift was given to him the testator (having withdrawn the gift from the first) was in possession of property. The first does not acquire ownership because the gift has been withdrawn from him in favour of the testator (if he recovers) or his heirs (if he dies)."
,k148b_39:" The first acquires ownership because when he was given the gift the testator was still in possession of some of his estate. The second does not acquire ownership because when the gift was given to him the testator had left for himself nothing. Had the testator died both would have acquired ownership."
,k148b_40:" May he withdraw his donation?"
,k148b_41:" Without any reservation in case of recovery."
,k148b_42:" Placing them at the disposal of anyone who would take possession of them."
,k148b_43:" So that it is possible for the property to fall into the hands of some poor man."
,k148b_44:" Because the property may happen to fall into the hands of a rich man."
,k148b_45:" These expressions, some of which are synonymous, cannot be exactly rendered into English."
,k148b_46:" In making a gift to anyone."
,k148b_47:" V. p. 643, n. 8."
,k148b_48:" Who maintained <i>supra</i> 130) that a person may appoint one of his heirs to be the sole inheritor of all his estate. "
}

txt:
<p>
The question was [accordingly] raised: [If one sold] a house to one and [its] upper storey to another, what [is the law']? Is it [assumed that he] reserved [some air space in the courtyard]<a id="k148b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? If [some reason] could be found [for the decision that if] a house [was sold] to one and [its] upper storey' to another [the seller] reserved nothing [of the air space of the courtyard], what [is the law when he specifically added]. 'Except its upper storey'? Raba said in the name of R, Nahman: If you can find [a reason] for the decision [that he who sold] a house to one and [its] upper storey to another has not reserved [anything from the air space of the courtyard, if he specifically added]. 'Except [its] upper storey', he did reserve [a portion of the air space of the courtyard]. And [this is] in accordance with [the view] of R. Zebid who stated that if he<a id="k148b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; wished to attach<a id="k148b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; mouldings to it,<a id="k148b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he may do so.<a id="k148b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; From this it clearly follows [that] because he [specifically] reserved [for himself] the upper storey. he has also reserved the place of the mouldings. 
</p><p>
	R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If a dying man gave all his property in writing. to strangers,<a id="k148b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [the following] should be noted: If he did it by way of distribution,<a id="k148b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [then if] he died all of them acquire possession;<a id="k148b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] he recovered he may withdraw in [the case of] all of them.<a id="k148b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If, [however,] he did it after consideration,<a id="k148b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [then if] he died, all of them acquire possession;<a id="k148b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] he recovered, he may only withdraw in [the case of] the last,<a id="k148b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it not possible that he merely considered the [matter]<a id="k148b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and then gave [the further gifts]? &mdash; It is usual for a dying man carefully' to consider [the whole matter] first and subsequently to distribute [the gifts].<a id="k148b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Aba b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If a dying man gave all his property. in writing, to strangers and [then] recovered, he may not withdraw [the gifts], since it may be suspected that he has possessions in another country<a id="k148b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Under what circumstances, however, is [the case of] our Mishnah, where it is stated [that if] he did not leave some ground his gift was invalid, possible? &mdash; R. &mdash; Hama replied: [In the case] where he said, 'All my possessions'.<a id="k148b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar son of R. Ashi replied: [In the case] where it is known to us that he has none.<a id="k148b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Is partial withdrawal<a id="k148b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [considered] complete withdrawal<a id="k148b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k148b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: [If a dying man gave] all his possessions<a id="k148b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; to the first, and a part of them<a id="k148b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to the second, the second acquires ownership [and] the first does not. Does not [this refer to the case] where [the testator] died?<a id="k148b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  No; where he recovered.<a id="k148b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Logical reasoning also supports this [view];<a id="k148b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; since the final clause reads: [If he gave] a part of his possessions<a id="k148b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; to the first and all of them<a id="k148b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; to the second, the first acquires ownership [and] the second does not.<a id="k148b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now,] if [the Baraitha] is said [to refer to the case] where he<a id="k148b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; recovered, one can well understand why the second does not acquire possession;<a id="k148b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, it is said [to refer to the case] where he<a id="k148b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; died, both should have acquired ownership!<a id="k148b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: Even if it<a id="k148b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; be explained<a id="k148b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [as referring to the case] where he<a id="k148b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; recovered [the following objection may be raised].<a id="k148b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; If it is said [that] partial withdrawal is [considered] complete withdrawal, one can at least understand why the second acquires possession;<a id="k148b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, It is said [that] partial withdrawal is not [considered] complete withdrawal, [the testator] should be [regarded] as one who distributes [his possessions]<a id="k148b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and none of them should acquire ownership!<a id="k148b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; And the law [is that] partial withdrawal is [considered] complete withdrawal. [Hence.] the first clause [of the Baraitha] may be applicable either [to the case] where he died or [to that] where he recovered:<a id="k148b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; the final clause can only be applicable [to the case] where he recovered.<a id="k148b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: [If a dying man] consecrated all his possessions and [subsequently] recovered, what [is the law]?<a id="k148b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it assumed that whenever it is a case of consecrated objects the transfer of possession made is unqualified<a id="k148b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; or, perhaps, when it is a matter of personal interests one does not transfer unqualified possession? [If the answer is in the affirmative, the question arises] what [is the law in the case where] he renounced the ownership of all his property?<a id="k148b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it assumed that since [ownerless property may be seized] by the poor<a id="k148b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; as well as by the rich, he transfers [therefore] unqualified possession<a id="k148b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; or, perhaps, whenever it is a matter of personal interests one does not transfer unqualified possession? [If the answer is in the negative,]<a id="k148b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; what, [it may be asked. is the law where] he distributed all his possessions among the poor? Is it assumed [that in a matter of] charity he has undoubtedly transferred unqualified possession or, perhaps, wherever it is a matter of personal interests one does not transfer unqualified possession? &mdash; This is undecided. 
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth stated: 'He shall take', 'acquire', 'occupy' and own'<a id="k148b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; [used by a dying man]<a id="k148b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; are all [legal] expressions denoting gift. In a Baraitha it was taught: [The expressions of] 'he shall receive the bequest'<a id="k148b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'he shall be heir' [are] also [legal] in [the case of] one who is entitled to be his heir; and this is [in accordance with the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka.<a id="k148b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k149a_1:" The testator."
,k149a_2:" The person named."
,k149a_3:" Of the possessions bequeathed."
,k149a_4:" For the donee."
,k149a_5:" The donee."
,k149a_6:" V. note 3"
,k149a_7:" Do these expressions legally ratify a gift?"
,k149a_8:" May he, if he recovers, cancel the sale as he may withdraw a gift?"
,k149a_9:" Lit., 'that'."
,k149a_10:" In such a case it is obvious that he kept the purchase money in readiness for the purpose of returning it should he recover and decide to cancel the sale."
,k149a_11:" In such a case he cannot, on recovery, cancel the sale."
,k149a_12:" Or that the property he possessed belonged to another person. Is this spontaneous admission sufficient to entitle the person named to the ownership of the sum or objects mentioned?"
,k149a_13:" Issur, while still a heathen, had married Rachel, one of Mar Samuel's captive daughters. (Cf. Keth. 23a). While she was in her pregnancy and before she gave birth to the child (the future R. Mari). Issur embraced Judaism; and Mari was accordingly born from parents both of whom professed the Jewish faith, while his conception took place when one of them was still a heathen."
,k149a_14:" l.e., while his father was still a heathen.V. n. 15. Hence he was not entitled to the heirship of his father's estate (v. Kid. 18a)."
,k149a_15:" V. p. 644, n. 16,"
,k149a_16:" Lit., 'made'."
,k149a_17:" Lit., 'where he is'."
,k149a_18:" <i>Meshikah</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, <i>supra</i>."
,k149a_19:" Heb., halifin (V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). whereby possession may be gained though the object to be acquired is kept elsewhere."
,k149a_20:" Cf. B.M. 46a."
,k149a_21:" That might be presented to him at the same time. (V. Kid. 26a). One may acquire a movable object (including money) by the acquisition of land that was sold or presented simultaneously with it though the former may not actually be delivered at that time."
,k149a_22:" Issur, Mari and Raba. Lit., 'three of them', v. <i>supra</i> 144a. A person may instruct another from whom he claims anything to give it to a third party; and, if all the three are present at the time the instruction was given, the transfer is immediately binding even though the object itself was not with them."
,k149a_23:" And thus the money would remain in Raba's possession. who held the view that he was entitled, as anyone else, to retain the sum of money which, on the death of Issur who was a proselyte, would become ownerless and free to anyone who would first gain possession of it."
,k149a_24:" Surely there is a way by which R. Mari could obtain the twelve thousand <i>zuz</i>!"
,k149a_25:" The discussion at the academy having been reported to Issur."
,k149a_26:" And R. Mari thus acquired ownership of the twelve thousand sins."
,k149a_27:" Lit., 'plea', 'argument'."
,k149a_28:" It is possible that Raba had no intention whatsoever to appropriate Issur's money and that the whole discussion of the possible legal means whereby R. Mari could acquire possession of his father's money was only the master's method of impressing these subtle laws upon his students' minds. No one at the academy suspected for one moment that the master would in all earnestness desire to retain the money he held as a deposit from one who obviously confided in him. Had Raba been in earnest he would not have spoken publicly about such a matter when he well knew that Issur was still alive and could easily find legal means whereby to transfer possession to his son, if not to reclaim the deposit himself. Raba's pretended annoyance and ironical exclamation, 'They teach people what to say and cause me loss', must have been just a mild chiding to the students or their friends who deprived him of the satisfaction of passing on the money to R. Mari as a generous gift rather than as something legally due to him. The mention of the fact that R. Mari was [H] 'at the master's house', i e 'school', which according to the ordinary interpretations has not much point (cf. Strashun a.l.) receives a new significance. It was discussed by Raba publicly despite the fact that <I>R. Mari was himself at the school</I> (perhaps Raba's very own school) and would well be aware of the whole discussion and could, if he chose, report it himself to his father and give him the necessary legal advice. The mention of R. Mari's presence at the school is probably the key to the indication of Raba's integrity and honour. "
}

txt:
<p>
What [if he<a id="k149a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; said]. 'Let him<a id="k149a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; have the benefit of them'?<a id="k149a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Does he, [thereby] imply that they all shall be [treated as] a gift<a id="k149a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or, perhaps, he [only] meant that he<a id="k149a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; shall have some benefit from them? What [is the law where he<a id="k149a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; said]. 'He<a id="k149a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; shall see them', 'Stand in them', 'Recline upon them'?<a id="k149a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is undecided.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: What [is the law' in a case where a dying man] has sold all his possessions?<a id="k149a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If he recovered he may not withdraw; sometimes, however, Rab Judah said in the name of Rab [that] if he recovered he may withdraw. But there is no contradiction [between the two statements]. The one<a id="k149a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [refers to the case] where the money is [still] available;<a id="k149a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the other<a id="k149a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the case] where he paid away for his debt.<a id="k149a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: What if a dying man [spontaneously] admitted [a debt]?<a id="k149a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Come and hear: The proselyte Issur<a id="k149a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; had twelve thousand <i>zuz</i>: [deposited] with Raba. The conception of his son R. Mari was not in holiness,<a id="k149a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; though his birth [was] in holiness, and he was [then] at school. Raba said: How could Mari gain possession of this money? If as an inheritance; [surely] he is not entitled to [it as] an heir.<a id="k149a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If as a gift; the gift [surely] of a dying man has been given<a id="k149a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; by the Rabbis [the same legal force] as [that of] an inheritance, [and consequently], whosoever is entitled<a id="k149a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; to an inheritance is [also] entitled to a gift [and] whosoever is not entitled to an inheritance is not entitled to a gift [either]. If by pulling;<a id="k149a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; they are [surely] not with him. If by exchange;<a id="k149a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; a coin [can] not be acquired by 'exchange'.<a id="k149a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; If on the basis of land;<a id="k149a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; he has no land. If In the presence of the three of us;<a id="k149a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; if he [were to] send for me I would not go.<a id="k149a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ika son of R. Ammi demurred: Why?<a id="k149a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Let Issur acknowledge that that money belongs to R. Mari and [the latter] would acquire it by [virtue of this] admission! Meanwhile,<a id="k149a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; there issued [such] an acknowledgement from the house of Issur.<a id="k149a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [Whereupon] Raba was annoyed [and] said,'They teach people what to say<a id="k149a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and cause loss to me'.<a id="k149a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k149b_1:" Rab Judah and R. Jeremiah b. Abba."
,k149b_2:" I.e., why is the gift of a dying man valid in such a case, even if he recovered?"
,k149b_3:" That even the reservation of some movables renders the gift valid."
,k149b_4:" [H] <I>kol shehu</I>, lit., 'any so ever'. "
,k149b_5:" Since the slave himself is part of the property the master gave him."
,k149b_6:" Not specifying which."
,k149b_7:" A slave is regarded as 'land', (real estate), and it is possible that by the reservation of 'some land' his master may have meant to exclude him. Hence, (since the property or a slave belongs to his master), the slave acquires nothing."
,k149b_8:" Even if the master had reserved some land."
,k149b_9:" Since people do not describe a slave as 'land'."
,k149b_10:" By which expression he may rightly have meant the exclusion of the slave. Git. 8b; <i>Pe'ah</i> III, 8. "
}

txt:
<p>
	AND LEFT FOR HIMSELF SOME [PIECE OF] LAND, HIS GIFT IS VALID. And how much is SOME? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Land sufficient for his maintenance, while R. Jeremiah b. Abba said [even if only] movables [that are] sufficient for his maintenance.
</p><p>
	R. Zera exclaimed: 'How accurate are the reported traditions of the elders!<a id="k149b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason [in the case of the reservation of] land?<a id="k149b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [Because] he depended on it [for his maintenance] if he should recover; [in the case of] movables also [it may be assumed that] he depended on them if he were to recover'. R. Joseph demurred: Where is the accuracy? [Against him] who said, 'movables',<a id="k149b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be objected that] we learned, land; [while against him] who said, 'sufficient for his maintenance', [it may be objected that] we learnt, 'whatsoever'!<a id="k149b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied to him: [Do you suggest that] wherever 'land' is stated, land only [is meant]? Surely we learnt: If one gave all his property to his slave, in writing, [the latter] goes forth [as] a free man.<a id="k149b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;  [If] he left [for himself] any land whatsoever,<a id="k149b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [the slave] does not go forth [as] a free man.<a id="k149b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon said: [The slave] is always<a id="k149b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; free<a id="k149b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; unless [the master] said, 'All my possessions are given to my slave X, except a ten thousandth part of them'.<a id="k149b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k150a_1:" Though this Mishnah speaks only of 'land', 'movables' are included."
,k150a_2:" Lit., 'they made'."
,k150a_3:" If a person allotted to his wife a share in his lands when he distributed them to his sons, she loses thereby the claims of her <i>kethubah</i> (v. <i>supra</i> 132a). If, however, he gave her a share in movables only. her rights are not impaired."
,k150a_4:" From the fact that, in the case of a slave, 'movables' are regarded as 'land', though the latter term only is used, it follows that the expression 'land' may include movables; how, then, could R. Joseph urge that since our Mishnah spoke of 'land', movables could not have been included?"
,k150a_5:" In the case of a slave."
,k150a_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k150a_7:" V. p. 324. n. 8."
,k150a_8:" Lit., property which has no security, i.e., from which creditors cannot collect their debts."
,k150a_9:" Confirming the sale of the land."
,k150a_10:" By performing some kind of work on the estate. V. <i>Supra</i> 42a; 77b."
,k150a_11:" In this case only, for the reason given, R. Joseph maintains, could the term 'land' include movables. Elsewhere, however, 'land' implies real estate only."
,k150a_12:" Who objected (supra, 149b) to the interpretation that 'some' in our Mishnah meant, 'sufficient for one's maintenance'. V. Rashb."
,k150a_13:" [H]"
,k150a_14:" Lit., 'it has not'."
,k150a_15:" Lit., 'shear'."
,k150a_16:" Lit., 'maneh and a half' (bis)."
,k150a_17:" Which has to be given to the priest. Deut. XVIII, 4."
,k150a_18:" Hul. 137b."
,k150a_19:" Lit., 'and we said'."
,k150a_20:" Which shows, contrary to R. Joseph's argument, that even where the expression, 'any (quantity) whatsoever' is used, a minimum is required"
,k150a_21:" Lit., 'said'."
,k150a_22:" A <i>maneh</i> and a half per ewe."
,k150a_23:" A fifth of the first Tanna's quantity."
,k150a_24:" Elsewhere, however, where 'any quantity whatsoever' (kol shehu), is mentioned no minimum is required. Hence R. Joseph's objection (<i>supra</i> 149b), against the interpretations of the elders is well founded."
,k150a_25:" Since It is sometimes removed from its place, it is included in the movables."
,k150a_26:" Which is always kept in its place on the ground."
,k150a_27:" It can be removed from its place since it is not actually fixed to the ground."
,k150a_28:" Though, as regards Biblical laws, slaves are regarded as 'land' or 'real estate' as, e.g., in the case of oaths and acquisition by means of money, deed and possession, the question here is whether in the course of ordinary conversation people describe a slave as 'real estate' or as 'movables'."
,k150a_29:" Lit., 'and at the time'."
,k150a_30:" Lit., 'all of them'."
,k150a_31:" Lit., 'they were in it'"
,k150a_32:" <i>Supra</i> 88a."
,k150a_33:" Where the town only was sold, and all movables were, consequently, excluded."
,k150a_34:" 'Even', suggests that they are not in fact like 'movables'."
,k150a_35:" Lit., 'but what have you to say'."
,k150a_36:" I.c., 'slaves'."
,k150a_37:" And this is the reason why 'even' was used."
,k150a_38:" Lit., 'you may even say'. in relation to the first case."
,k150a_39:" Hence slaves who can move about could not have been in the mind of the person who sold 'a town' that cannot move. In other cases, however. where no particular kind of real estate was mentioned, slaves also may have been included, while in the ease where only 'movables' were specified, slaves may have been excluded."
,k150a_40:" V. <i>supra</i> 149b, for notes on the following citation."
,k150a_41:" As the slave does not gain his freedom where his master has reserved some real estate so he does not gain his freedom when his master reserved some movables."
,k150a_42:" v. p. 647. n. 8."
,k150a_43:" I.e., when the master reserved for himself 'any movables' whatsoever."
,k150a_44:" Slaves."
,k150a_45:" A woman can collect her <i>kethubah</i> from real estate only (v. <i>infra</i> 150b) and not from movable objects."
,k150a_46:" It has thus been proved from R. Nahman's statement that a slave is regarded as movables; and not as real estate. "
}

txt:
<p>
And R. Dimi b. Joseph said in the name of R. Eleazar: Movables<a id="k150a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of a slave were regarded<a id="k150a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; as a reservation; but movables in the case of a <i>kethubah</i><a id="k150a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; were not regarded as a reservation!<a id="k150a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There,<a id="k150a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [R. Joseph retorted,] it would have been proper that [the term] 'land', should not have been used [at all]; only because in the first part [of the Mishnah] it was stated, 'R. Akiba said: Land of any size is liable to [have the ears at its] corner[s left for the poor], and to [the bringing of its] first ripe fruit [to Jerusalem]; a <i>prosbul</i><a id="k150a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; may be written in connection with it;<a id="k150a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and movable property<a id="k150a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; may be acquired in conjunction with it by means of money, deed<a id="k150a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and possession',<a id="k150a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [the term] 'land' was in consequence used [in the second part of this Mishnah also].<a id="k150a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And [do you suggest. Abaye again asked R. Joseph,<a id="k150a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that] wherever 'whatsoever'<a id="k150a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; was taught no [minimum] size is required?<a id="k150a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learnt: R. Dosa b. Horkinas said: Five ewes which supply<a id="k150a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [fleeces of the weight of] a <i>maneh</i> and a half each,<a id="k150a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; are subject to [the law of] 'the fist of the fleece'.<a id="k150a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Sages said, '[Even] five ewes [which] supply any [quantity] whatsoever [of wool]'<a id="k150a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And to the question,<a id="k150a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; how much [was meant by] any [quantity] 'whatsoever',<a id="k150a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab replied: A [total of a] <I>maneh</I> and a half, provided each supplies [no less than] a fifth [of the total quantity]!<a id="k150a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There, [R. Joseph retorted], it would have been proper that [the expression] 'any [quantity] whatsoever' should not have been used [at all]; only because the first Tanna speaks<a id="k150a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; of a large quantity.<a id="k150a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [the Sages] also speak<a id="k150a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; of a small quantity,<a id="k150a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; which is described [as] 'any quantity whatsoever'.<a id="k150a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[It is] obvious [if a person] said, 'My movables [shall be given] to X', [the latter] acquires possession of all the things he used except wheat and barley. [If he said], 'All my movables [shall be given] to X'.[the latter] acquires possession even of wheat and barley and even of the upper millstone,<a id="k150a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; except the lower millstone.<a id="k150a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he said], 'All that can be moved', [the latter] acquires possession even of the lower millstone.<a id="k150a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; The question. [however]. was raised: Is a slave regarded as real estate or as movables!<a id="k150a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R Aha son of R. Awia said to R. Ashi, Come and hear: He who sold a town has [also] sold [its] houses, ditches and caves, [its] bath houses, olive presses and irrigation works, but not the movables [that it contains]. In the case, however,<a id="k150a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; where he said, 'It and all that it contains', all its contents,<a id="k150a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; even if it consisted of<a id="k150a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; cattle or slaves, are sold.<a id="k150a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now.] if it is granted [that slaves are] like movables, one can well understand why they are not included in the sale in the first [case];<a id="k150a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, it is assumed [that] they are like real estate, why are they not included in the sale? &mdash; What, then, [is it suggested, that] they are like movables? Why 'even'?<a id="k150a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; All, however, that can be said in reply<a id="k150a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [is that] movables which [can] move [of themselves]<a id="k150a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; are different from movables that [can] not move;<a id="k150a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; so also it may be said<a id="k150a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [that slaves] are like real estate [but that] real estate that moves is different from real estate that does not move.<a id="k150a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said to R. Ashi, Come and hear:<a id="k150a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; If one gave all his property to his slave, in writing, [the latter] goes forth [as] a free man. [If] he left [for himself] any land whatsoever [the slave] does not go forth [as] a free man. R. Simeon said: [The slave] is always free unless [the master] said, 'All my possessions are given to my slave X, except a ten thousandth part of them'. And R. Dimi b. Joseph said in the name of R. Eleazar: Movables in the case of a slave are regarded as a reservation,<a id="k150a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; but movables in the case of a <i>kethubah</i> are not regarded as a reservation.<a id="k150a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba asked R. Nahman, 'What is the reason?' [To which the latter replied.] 'A slave is [regarded as] movables, and [in the case of] movables,<a id="k150a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; movables<a id="k150a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; are regarded as a reservation; the <i>kethubah</i> of a woman, however, is [payable from] real estate,<a id="k150a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and [in the case] of real estate, movables<a id="k150a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [are] not [regarded as] a reservation.<a id="k150a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k150b_1:" R. Ashi."
,k150b_2:" Rabina."
,k150b_3:" The reason why the reservation of some movables deprives the slave of his freedom."
,k150b_4:" And not to use reason given by R. Nahman."
,k150b_5:" Lit., 'cut'. In order that the slave may procure his freedom it is essential that the master should present him, with a writ 'of emancipation which definitely severs (cuts off) all connections and all relationships between master and slave. Where, however, the master reserves for himself in the writ something, whether in land or in movables, the separation between them effected by it is not complete. Furthermore, it may also be assumed that by that reservation the slave himself may have been intended. In other cases, however, R. Ashi maintains, it is possible, contrary to R. Nahman (Rashb.), or even R. Nahman would agree (R. <i>Tam</i>), that a slave is spoken of as 'land' or 'real estate'."
,k150b_6:" Lit., 'until'."
,k150b_7:" Otherwise, the laws stated are inapplicable."
,k150b_8:" Lit., 'these'."
,k150b_9:" Lit., 'causes to flee'."
,k150b_10:" <i>Supra</i> 146b; <i>Pe'ah</i> III, 7."
,k150b_11:" V. <i>supra</i> 149b."
,k150b_12:" <i>Supra</i> 131b (q.v. for notes). 144a, Git. 14a."
,k150b_13:" <i>Supra</i> 132a, q.v. for notes, <i>Pe'ah</i>, ibid."
,k150b_14:" I. e., that it shall not pass over into his possession by virtue of his becoming her husband."
,k150b_15:" To a stranger, if she did so she may, on the death of her husband, or if divorced, reclaim her estate. Since no sane person would give away all his possessions and leave for himself nothing, it is obvious that the sole purpose of her presentation of the whole of her estate must have been the prevention of her husband from acquiring ownership thereof. IF, however, she left some portion of the estate for herself, this law does not apply, the gift is valid and she is not entitled ever to reclaim it."
,k150b_16:" Lit., 'and in all of them', i.e. the four out of the five cases."
,k150b_17:" Though in every case the term, 'land' was used."
,k150b_18:" The <i>kethubah</i>."
,k150b_19:" That is in accordance with Talmudic Law. In virtue, however, of a Gaonic enactment ascribed to R. Hunai (8th century), a <i>Kethubah</i> is payable also out of movables; v. Eben ha-'Ezer, 100. 1.]"
,k150b_20:" Because from such movables a <i>kethubah</i> may be collected as from real estate, v. Keth. 55a. If the husband, therefore, reserved these for her, she loses her rights to the <i>kethubah</i> as if he had reserved for her real estate."
,k150b_21:" Either a dying man, or one in good health where symbolic acquisition took place."
,k150b_22:" Lit., 'is called property'."
,k150b_23:" <i>Supra</i> 149b."
,k150b_24:" I.e., land."
,k150b_25:" Kid. 26a."
,k150b_26:" The conclusion of the previous citation, <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k150b_27:" Movables, such as garments."
,k150b_28:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, <i>Meshikah</i>."
,k150b_29:" Kid., l.c."
,k150b_30:" Lit., 'that'."
,k150b_31:" <i>Supra</i> 77b, q.v. for notes. The case of R. Papa quoted as an example of 'property which has no security', clearly proves that money is also called 'property'. "
}

txt:
<p>
He<a id="k150b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; replied to him:<a id="k150b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; We explain this<a id="k150b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; as being due to [the fact<a id="k150b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; that the freedom] certificate is not complete.<a id="k150b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: [In] five [cases] it is necessary<a id="k150b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that all one's possessions shall be given away in writing;<a id="k150b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and they are the following:<a id="k150b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [The case of a] dying man; one's slave; one s wife, one's sons; [and] a woman who keeps her husband away from her estate.<a id="k150b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A dying man' &mdash; for we learnt: IF A DYING MAN GAVE ALL HIS PROPERTY, IN WRITING, TO OTHERS, AND LEFT [FOR HIMSELF] SOME [PIECE OF] LAND, HIS GIFT IS VALID. [IF, HOWEVER], HE DID NOT LEAVE [FOR HIMSELF] SOME [PIECE OF] LAND, HIS GIFT IS INVALID.<a id="k150b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'One's slave' &mdash; for we learnt: If one gave all his property to his slave, in writing. [the latter] goes forth [as] a free man. [If] he left [for himself] some lands [the slave] does not go forth [as] a free man.<a id="k150b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'One's wife' &mdash; for Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: If [a dying man] gave all his property to his wife, in writing. he [thereby] only appointed her administratrix.<a id="k150b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'One's sons' &mdash; for we learnt: If [a person] assigns all his property to his sons in writing, and he has assigned [also] to his wife [a piece of] land of any size whatsoever, she loses [the claims of] her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k150b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A woman who keeps her husband away from her estate' &mdash; for a Master said: A woman who [desires to] keep [her husband] away [from her estate],<a id="k150b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; must give away all her estate, in writing.<a id="k150b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; In all these [cases]<a id="k150b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; movables are [also regarded as] a reservation,<a id="k150b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; except [in that] of a <i>kethubah</i> since [in respect to it] the Rabbis have enacted [that a woman has a claim] upon lands, [but] have not provided [her with the right of collecting it]<a id="k150b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; from movables.<a id="k150b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Amemar said: Movables that are entered in the <i>kethubah</i> and are [also] available, are [regarded as] a reservation.<a id="k150b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[If a person]<a id="k150b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; said, 'My property [shall be given] to X', slave[s] are included,<a id="k150b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; for we learnt: If one gave all his property to his slave in writing, [the latter] goes forth [as] a free man.<a id="k150b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Land is described [as] property; for we learnt: Property which has a security<a id="k150b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; may be acquired by means of money, deed and possession.<a id="k150b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; A cloak is called property, for we learnt:<a id="k150b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And that which has no security<a id="k150b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; can only be acquired by means of pulling.<a id="k150b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Money is called property; for we learnt: And that which has no security may be acquired in conjunction with property which has a security. [bought jointly with it,] by means of money, deed and possession;<a id="k150b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; as in the case of<a id="k150b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa [who] had a [money claim of] twelve thousand <i>zuz</i> at Be-Huzae, [and] he passed them over into the possession of R. Samuel b. Aha by virtue of the threshold of his house, [and] when the latter came [back] he went out to meet him as far as Tauak.<a id="k150b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; A deed is called property; for Raba b. Isaac said: There are two [kinds] of deeds. [If a person says.] 'Take possession of the field on behalf of X, and write for him the deed', he may withdraw the deed but not the field. [If. however, he says. 'Take possession of the field] on condition that you write for him the deed', he may withdraw both the deed and the field. But R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Huna: There are three [kinds of] deeds. Two have just been described. [And the] third is one which the seller writes before [the sale] in accordance with the law we have learnt that
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k151a_1:" <i>Supra</i> 77a, q.v., for notes."
,k151a_2:" For the purposes of Temple repair."
,k151a_3:" V. Shek. IV, 7: and cf. BaH a Rashb."
,k151a_4:" Lit., 'For the requirements'. i.e., to persons who require burnt-offerings."
,k151a_5:" Cf. previous note."
,k151a_6:" Shek. IV, 7, Zeb. 150a, Tem. 20a, 31b."
,k151a_7:" Shek. IV, 8."
,k151a_8:" So R. Gersh. According to Rashb., 'they estimate for him', put them up to auction so that he might redeem them."
,k151a_9:" 'Ar. 23b, B.K., 102b."
,k151a_10:" Meg. 27a."
,k151a_11:" The Following are key-words used as an aid in the recollection of the ensuing incidents."
,k151a_12:" Who would, otherwise, have acquired the ownership of her property through their marriage. Cf. <i>supra</i> 150b."
,k151a_13:" To claim the return of her property."
,k151a_14:" When she presented the gift she specifically mentioned that it was made on account of her intended marriage."
,k151a_15:" Since she carried out the intention upon which the gift depended, she can no longer reclaim the gift."
,k151a_16:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 137b, q.v. for notes."
,k151a_17:" Lit., 'these words'."
,k151a_18:" As the reason for the making of her gift has now disappeared, she is entitled to the return of her property."
,k151a_19:" Who was on her death-bed."
,k151a_20:" A dying person who gave away all his property to another may withdraw it only if he recovers. Since this woman, however, died, her gift to Rami should remain valid as the gift of a dying person which cannot be withdrawn."
,k151a_21:" R. Nahman."
,k151a_22:" I.e., in the case where he gave away all his possessions."
,k151a_23:" Even if he did not recover. Hence, in this case, the dying mother was within her rights when she, withdrawing the gift from Rami, gave it to R 'Ukba. The estate, therefore, rightly belonged to the latter."
,k151a_24:" Lit., 'say'."
,k151a_25:" That a dying person may withdraw a gift he made."
,k151a_26:" As in this case where the mother did not withdraw the estate for herself but for R.'Ukba."
,k151a_27:" R. Nahman."
,k151a_28:" [H] (root, [H], pluck), 'a bag made of hairless skins', From which the hair was plucked."
,k151a_29:" R. Amram."
,k151a_30:" And since there was no 'pulling', (<i>meshikah</i> v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), there was no legal acquisition of the bequest."
,k151a_31:" Hence, R. Amram acquired possession of the bequest even though it had not been actually delivered to him."
,k151a_32:" Lit., 'master'."
,k151a_33:" Since the estate was given to him."
,k151a_34:" V., <i>supra</i> notes 3 and 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
a deed may be written for the seller though the buyer is not with him. [In this case,] as soon as [the buyer] takes possession of the ground he acquires [also] the deed, irrespective of the place in which it is kept. And this accords with what we have learnt [that] movable property may be acquired with landed property by means of money. deed and possession.<a id="k151a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Cattle are called property; for we learnt: If a person consecrated his property<a id="k151a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; which contained cattle suitable [as sacrifices] for the altar; males are to be sold<a id="k151a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for<a id="k151a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; burnt offerings, and females are to be sold for<a id="k151a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; peace offerings.<a id="k151a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Birds are called property; for we learnt: If a person consecrated his property which contained things suitable [for sacrifices] for the altar, [such as] wines, oils and birds [etc.].<a id="k151a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Phylacteries are called property; for we learnt: If a person consecrated his property, [his] phylacteries [also] are taken away<a id="k151a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from him.<a id="k151a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: What [is the law in the case of] a scroll of the Law; is [it] not [regarded as] property, since It is unsalable because it is prohibited to sell it, or, perhaps. since it may be sold in order to study Torah or to take a wife,<a id="k151a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; it is [regarded as] property? &mdash; This is undecided.
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic:<a id="k151a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>Zutra, the mother of Amram of two sisters, R. Tobi and R. Dimi and R. Joseph</I>.)
</p><p>
	The mother of R. Zutra b. Tobia gave her property in writing. to R. Zutra b. Tobiah, because she intended to marry R. Zebid.<a id="k151a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; She [duly] married, but was [subsequently] divorced. She [thereupon] appeared before R. Bibi b. Abaye.<a id="k151a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: [She made a gift of her property] because she desired to marry<a id="k151a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and, behold she married.<a id="k151a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said unto him, 'Because you are [yourselves] frail [beings] you speak frail words'.<a id="k151a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Even according to him who said [that a gift given by] a woman who wished to keep it away from her future husband is acquired [by the recipient], this law is only applicable<a id="k151a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [to a case] where [the woman] did not declare her reason. Here, however, she has [specifically] declared that [she made the gift] because she [wished] to marry. and, surely. [though] she married, she was [now] divorced.<a id="k151a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The mother<a id="k151a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; of Rami b. Hama gave her property in writing to Rami b. Hama, in the evening; [but] in the morning she gave them in writing to R. 'Ukba b. Hama. Rami b. Hama came before R. Shesheth who confirmed him in the possession of the property. R. 'Ukba b. Hama, [however]. went to R. Nahman who [similarly] confirmed him in the possession of the property. R. Shesheth [thereupon] appeared before R. Nahman [and] said unto him, 'what is the reason [that] the Master has confirmed R. 'Ukba b. Hama in possession? Is it because she retracted? Surely she died'!<a id="k151a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k151a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; replied unto him: Thus said Samuel, 'Wherever a person may retract if he recovered,<a id="k151a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he may [also] withdraw his gift'.<a id="k151a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; May it be suggested<a id="k151a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; that Samuel said [this<a id="k151a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case only where the withdrawal was] for himself; did he, [however], say [this<a id="k151a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case where the withdrawal was in favour] of another person?<a id="k151a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k151a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; replied unto him: Samuel distinctly stated, 'whether for himself or for another'.
</p><p>
	The mother of R. Amram the pious had a case<a id="k151a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; of notes [of indebtedness]. While she was dying she said, 'Let it be [given] to my son Amram'. His brothers appeared before R. Nahman [and] said to him, 'Surely he<a id="k151a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; did not pull<a id="k151a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [the case of documents]'! He replied unto them: The instructions of a dying person [are regarded legally] as written and delivered.<a id="k151a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The sister of R. Tobi b. R. Mattenah gave her possessions, in writing. to R. Tobi b. R. Mattenah in the morning. In the evening, Ahadboi son of R. Mattenah came [and] wept before her, saying: Now [people will] say [that] one<a id="k151a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; is a scholar<a id="k151a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other is no scholar. [So] she gave them in writing to him. He [subsequently] appeared before R. Nahman, [who] said unto him: Thus said Samuel, 'Wherever a person may retract if he recovers, he may [also] withdraw his gift'.<a id="k151a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The sister of R. Dimi b. Joseph had a piece of an orchard. Whenever she fell ill she transferred the ownership of it to him,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k151b_1:" Lit., 'sent'."
,k151b_2:" So that she shall not be able again to retract."
,k151b_3:" In such a case the donor cannot withdraw, (Cf. our Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 146b.)"
,k151b_4:" Lit., 'and they (i.e., witnesses) acquired from her', by means of symbolic acquisition, on behalf of R. Dimi. Legal acquisition under such conditions prevents the testator from withdrawing the gift on recovery unless a specific declaration was made at the time making it evident that the presentation was due to the expectation of death."
,k151b_5:" To reclaim her piece of orchard."
,k151b_6:" Lit., 'to him, come'."
,k151b_7:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k151b_8:" He would place him under the ban."
,k151b_9:" R. Nahman."
,k151b_10:" Lit., 'that this woman is dying'."
,k151b_11:" Lit., 'she was instructing'."
,k151b_12:" Lit., 'a gift of &hellip; in part'."
,k151b_13:" Cf.. BaH. a.l. Current texts read: 'The Rabbis said it before Raba in the name of Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman who said it in the name of R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health and it is like the gift of a dying man. It is like the gift etc."
,k151b_14:" Lit., 'they said it.'"
,k151b_15:" And if he died the recipient acquired its ownership."
,k151b_16:" I.e. 'do not attribute to him such absurd views', v. <i>supra</i> p. 27. n. 2."
,k151b_17:" <i>Supra</i> 146b."
,k151b_18:" Lit., 'where they (i.e.. a court of law or witnesses) did not acquire From him', on behalf of the donee, by means of symbolic acquisition."
,k151b_19:" Lit., 'they took possession from his hand'. Cf. previous note but one."
,k151b_20:" Lit., 'instructed', or (cf. BaH) 'symbolic acquisition took place', v. <i>infra</i> p. 660."
,k151b_21:" [H], 'brooch, 'buckle', or 'a wrap that is pinned on' (Jast.); [or 'veil', v. Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>. I, 188.]"
,k151b_22:" V. <i>infra</i> 156b. The brooch or wrap was certainly a gift of a portion only of the estate, and there was no symbolic acquisition! Had there been some legal form of acquisition, an expression other than 'her words' would have been used."
,k151b_23:" I.e., she stated distinctly the reason of the gift she was making. An instruction given in such circumstances, if followed by the death of the testator, requires no symbolic acquisition whether a portion of, or all the estate was presented."
,k151b_24:" Since a divorce or the liberation of a slave does not take effect until actual delivery of the respective documents has taken place, and by that time the husband or master is dead and be can neither divorce nor liberate."
,k151b_25:" Git. 13a. Even though, apparently, there was no symbolic acquisition. How, then, can Raba maintain that such acquisition is required?"
,k151b_26:" Lit., 'and from that that they did not acquire of him'. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 656, n. 4."
,k151b_27:" The disposal of the <i>maneh</i>."
,k151b_28:" With which it was mentioned in the same context."
,k151b_29:" Actual delivery of it being required."
,k151b_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 656, n. 4."
,k151b_31:" The case of the <i>maneh</i>."
,k151b_32:" Lit., 'and when those Mishnayoth were taught'."
,k151b_33:" In which case no symbolic acquisition is required. [The words that follow do not occur in some MSS. and are best left out.]"
,k151b_34:" Lit., 'they made it'."
,k151b_35:" Which requires no symbolic acquisition."
,k151b_36:" Lit., 'a gift &hellip; in part'."
,k151b_37:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 656, n. 4 and 5. "
}

txt:
<p>
but as [soon as] she recovered she withdrew. On one occasion she fell ill and sent [word] to him, 'Come [and] take possession'. He replied,<a id="k151b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have no desire'. [Thereupon] she [again] sent [word] to him, 'Come [and] take possession in whatever manner you desire'.<a id="k151b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [Then] he went, left for her [some portion of the intended gift]<a id="k151b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and [symbolic] acquisition from her was [also] arranged.<a id="k151b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; As she [again] recovered she retracted [and] came before R. Nahman.<a id="k151b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He sent for him.<a id="k151b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; He, [however,] did not come, saying, 'Why should I come? Surely, [some portion of the estate] was left to her and [symbolic] acquisition from her [also] took place.'<a id="k151b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thereupon] he sent to him, [the following message]: 'If you do not come I will chastise you with a thorn that causes no blood to flow'.<a id="k151b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k151b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; asked the witnesses how the incident had occurred, [and] they told him [that when she sent for her brother] she exclaimed thus: 'Alas that I am dying'.<a id="k151b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He said unto them: If so, the disposal<a id="k151b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [of her estate was] due to [her expectation of] death, and he that gives instructions owing to [his expectation of] death, may retract.
</p><p>
	It was stated: [In the case where] a dying man presented a part<a id="k151b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [of his estate], Raba<a id="k151b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said in the name of R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health and requires [symbolic] acquisition. The Rabbis reported the following,<a id="k151b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of Raba, in the name of Mar Zutra, son of R. Nahman, who reported in the name of R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health; and it is like the gift of a man who is dying. 'It is like the gift of a man in good health', in that if he recovered he [can] not retract; and 'it is like the gift of a man who is dying', in that no [symbolic] acquisition is required.<a id="k151b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said unto them: Did I not tell you [that] you shall not hang empty jars on R. Nahman?<a id="k151b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus said R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health and requires [symbolic] acquisition.
</p><p>
	Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: [IF] HE LEFT [FOR HIMSELF] ANY LAND WHATSOEVER, HIS GIFT IS VALID.<a id="k151b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not [this refer to the case] where no [symbolic] acquisition from him took place?<a id="k151b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; where symbolic acquisition did take place. If so.explain the second clause: [IF. HOWEVER] HE DID NOT LEAVE [FOR HIMSELF] ANY LAND WHATSOEVER, HIS GIFT IS INVALID!<a id="k151b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if, [as you assert, our Mishnah refers to the case] where symbolic acquisition took place.<a id="k151b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; why is his gift invalid? &mdash; He replied unto him: Thus said Samuel, 'If a dying man gave all his property, in writing, to strangers, although [symbolic] acquisition took place,<a id="k151b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he may retract if he recovered, because it is known that he disposed<a id="k151b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [of his estate] only on account of [his expectation of] death.
</p><p>
	R. Mesharsheya raised an objection against Raba: The mother of the sons of Rokel once fell ill and she said, 'Let my brooch<a id="k151b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; be given to my daughter', and it was worth twelve <i>maneh</i>,' and when she died they fulfilled her words?<a id="k151b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There [it was a case] of an Instruction [clearly] given owing to [the expectation of] death.<a id="k151b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina raised an objection against Raba: If a person said, 'Give this bill of divorce to my wife', or, '[Give] this writ of emancipation to my slave', and he died, it must not be delivered after [his] death.<a id="k151b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [If. however, he said.] 'Give a <i>maneh</i> to X, and he died, it is to be given [to X] after [the testator's] death!<a id="k151b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; And what reason is there to assume that no symbolic acquisition took place?<a id="k151b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Because it<a id="k151b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is obviously] similar to a bill of divorce;<a id="k151b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; as a bill of divorce is not an object for [symbolic] acquisition.<a id="k151b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; so this<a id="k151b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; also [was not attended by] a symbolic acquisition!<a id="k151b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k151b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; also [it is a case] of one giving instructions [clearly] on account [of his expectation] of death. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: Elsewhere, an Instruction [given] owing to [the expectation of] death requires [symbolic] acquisition. but the Mishnayoth mentioned refer [to the case]<a id="k151b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of one who distributed all his estate,<a id="k151b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; for in such a case it was given the same legal force as<a id="k151b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; the gift of a dying man.<a id="k151b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And the law is [that where] a dying man presented a part [of his estate].<a id="k151b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [symbolic] acquisition is required although he [subsequently] died. [If. however] his instructions [concerning the gift] were due to [his expectation of] death, no [symbolic] acquisition is required. This, however, [only] when he died; [if] he recovered he [may] retract even though [symbolic] acquisition from him took place.<a id="k151b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k152a_1:" That is where be distributed all his estate (Rashb.)."
,k152a_2:" The recipient."
,k152a_3:" I.e., his claim has a double force. That of the gift of a dying man and that of legal acquisition."
,k152a_4:" Owing to the symbolic acquisition that took place."
,k152a_5:" Which someone owes him."
,k152a_6:" Although the money was not, at the time, in his possession and the gift was not made in the presence of the three parties concerned (v. 144a)."
,k152a_7:" By the unnecessary mention of symbolic acquisition."
,k152a_8:" The donee."
,k152a_9:" And not merely by virtue of his instructions, being a dying man."
,k152a_10:" Hence it was difficult for Samuel to give a decision on the matter. It may be added that the same difficulty would also arise even where no deed was written and symbolic possession was accompanied by verbal instructions only, or where a deed alone was written unattended by any symbolic acquisition. The mere Fact that the testator had recourse to the unnecessary symbolic form of acquisition raises the question whether his intention thereby was not to annul his first transfer (that of a dying man) and postpone until after his death the donee's acquisition of the gift. Had he wished him to acquire immediate possession there would have been no need For the additional symbolic acquisition. His mere word as a dying man would have done that. Once the possibility of postponement until after death is granted, the donee can no more acquire possession, because as soon as death had taken place the entire estate of the dead man had passed over into the ownership of his legal heirs. (So Rashb.; v. however Tosaf. s.v. [H].)"
,k152a_11:" Lit., 'on that of Rab'."
,k152a_12:" CF. previous note."
,k152a_13:" Rab."
,k152a_14:" I.e., the deed."
,k152a_15:" Before the deed was written or the <i>maneh</i> delivered to X."
,k152a_16:" By his demand that a deed also be written which, since his mere verbal instruction as a dying man would have been sufficient, was unnecessary."
,k152a_17:" The donee."
,k152a_18:" CF. <i>supra</i> p. 658, n. 10."
,k152a_19:" <i>Supra</i> 135b, q.v. notes a.l. The legal force given to the word of a dying man extends only to monetary gifts but not to the delivery of a deed."
,k152a_20:" It is assumed that the testator's request for a written document was for the purpose of strengthening the donee's claim; not to weaken it."
,k152a_21:" In the report above it was stated that any unnecessary addition of a deed to the verbal instructions of a dying man was according to Rab assumed to be in favor of the donee and according to Samuel against him, while here the reverse is reported!"
,k152a_22:" Lit., 'that of Rab upon Rab, there is no difficulty'."
,k152a_23:" Lit., 'that'."
,k152a_24:" Lit., 'where they acquired of him'. In such a case the testator obviously wished to improve the donee's claims."
,k152a_25:" CF. previous note. It is possible, therefore, that the testator desired acquisition of the gift effected by means of a deed and since he died the deed is no longer of any avail."
,k152a_26:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 12."
,k152a_27:" The donee's."
,k152a_28:" Lit., 'power'; by the inclusion of the formula given below. "
}

txt:
<p>
	It was stated: [As to] the gift<a id="k152a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of a dying man [in the deed of] which was recorded [symbolic] acquisition. the school of Rab in the name of Rab reported [that the testator] has [thereby] made him<a id="k152a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; ride on two harnessed horses;<a id="k152a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but Samuel said: I do not know what decision to give on the matter. The school of Rab reported in the name of Rab, that he made him ride on two harnessed horses, for it is like the gift of a man in good health<a id="k152a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] 'it is [also] like the gift of a dying man. 'It is like the gift of a man in good health', in that, if he recovered, he [can] not retract, [and] 'it is like the gift of a dying man' in that, if he said [that] his loan<a id="k152a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [shall be given] to X, his loan [is to be given] to X.<a id="k152a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel, however, had said, 'I do not know what decision to give on the matter' since it is possible that<a id="k152a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he decided not to transfer possession to him<a id="k152a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; except through the deed,<a id="k152a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and no [possession by means of a] deed [may be acquired] after [the testator's] death.<a id="k152a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A contradiction was pointed out [between one statement] of Rab and another statement of his,<a id="k152a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and [between one statement] of Samuel and another statement of his.<a id="k152a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; For Rabin sent in the name of R. Abbahu: Be [it] known to you that R. Eleazar had sent to the Diaspora in the name of our Master<a id="k152a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] where a dying man said, 'Write<a id="k152a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and deliver a <i>maneh</i> to X', and he died,<a id="k152a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; they must neither write [the deed] nor deliver [the <i>maneh</i>], because it is possible that [the testator]<a id="k152a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; had decided not to transfer possession to him<a id="k152a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; except through the deed,<a id="k152a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and no [possession by means of a] deed [may be acquired] after [the testator's] death.<a id="k152a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel [that] the law is that one may both write and deliver.<a id="k152a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [Does not this present] a contradiction [between one statement] of Rab and another statement of his [and between one statement] of Samuel and another statement of his?<a id="k152a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction between the two statements of Rab.<a id="k152a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; One<a id="k152a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [deals with the case] where symbolic acquisition took place;<a id="k152a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the other<a id="k152a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; where no symbolic acquisition took place.<a id="k152a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; There is [also] no contradiction between the two statements of Samuel,<a id="k152a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [because in the latter case the reference is to one] who [specifically] strengthened his<a id="k152a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; claims.<a id="k152a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac sat behind Raba while Raba was sitting before R. Nahman when he addressed to him the [following] enquiry: Did Samuel say. 'since it is possible that he decided not to transfer possession to him except through the deed, and no [possession by means of a] deed [may be acquired] after [the testator's] death'? Surely Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, 'If a dying man gave all his property, in writing, to strangers. although [symbolic] acquisition took place. he may retract if he recovered
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k152b_1:" Cf. p. 656. n. 6."
,k152b_2:" From this it follows that if the testator did die the donee acquires possession after the death of the testator though a deed was written. How, then, could it be said in the name of Samuel that where a deed was written there can be no acquisition after death?"
,k152b_3:" LIt., 'showed.' 'told'."
,k152b_4:" [Or 'he (Raba) remained silent', having understood what R. Nahman meant to signify by the wave of his hand.]"
,k152b_5:" Lit., 'his power'. In such a case the donee acquires possession after death even where the testator ordered the writing of a deed."
,k152b_6:" I.e., 'witnesses'."
,k152b_7:" I.e., from the testator on behalf of the donee, by means of symbolic acquisition."
,k152b_8:" <i>Supra</i> 136a."
,k152b_9:" Lit., 'this'."
,k152b_10:" Lit., 'and he wrote to this'."
,k152b_11:" <i>Supra</i> 135b. Hence the second donee acquires the ownership of the gift."
,k152b_12:" Lit., 'caused him to merit', i.e., to acquire the right of 'ownership', by means of delivering to him the deed."
,k152b_13:" Lit., 'this', presenting to him all his estate."
,k152b_14:" Owing to the delivering of the deed to the donee, which Rab holds has the same effect as symbolic acquisition."
,k152b_15:" Which cannot be withdrawn."
,k152b_16:" And since it can be withdrawn if the testator recovered, it may also be withdrawn while he is still on his deathbed. Hence it was within the rights of the testator to present it to the second who, consequently, acquires its ownership."
,k152b_17:" Rab and Samuel."
,k152b_18:" <i>Supra</i> 152a top. Why, then, should they express the same principles again?"
,k152b_19:" Lit., 'in that',"
,k152b_20:" Lit., 'said'."
,k152b_21:" Lit., 'they acquired for him'. And since the donee's claim has a double force, that of the gift of a dying man and that of symbolic acquisition, the gift cannot be withdrawn."
,k152b_22:" Hence the second case was necessary."
,k152b_23:" Since there was no symbolic acquisition."
,k152b_24:" Where symbolic acquisition did take place."
,k152b_25:" Lit., 'thus',"
,k152b_26:" [Or, 'from the school of Rab', after Rab's death in 247.]"
,k152b_27:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 656, n. 4 and 5."
,k152b_28:" And subsequently the estate was presented to a second person. (Cf. R. Gersh.) The question is whether, under such circumstances, the first or the second acquires the ownership of the estate."
,k152b_29:" Lit., 'sent'."
,k152b_30:" Lit., 'there is nothing'; and the first donee acquires the legal ownership of the gift. Samuel's view, <i>supra</i>, that the existence of a deed in addition, to symbolic acquisition may imply a desire, on the part of the testator to postpone until after his death the donee's acquisition of the gift does not apply to this case, since here symbolic acquisition had not been entered in the deed itself. (CF. R. Gersh.). [V. however' Rashb., who refers the question back to the case of [H] where the deed was delivered to the first donee.] "
}

txt:
<p>
because it is known that the [symbolic] acquisition took place<a id="k152b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; only on account of [his expectation of] death'!<a id="k152b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; He answered him<a id="k152b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; by [a wave of] his hand and remained silent.<a id="k152b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; When he rose, R. Nahman b. Isaac asked Raba, 'What did he indicate to you?' [Raba] replied to him,' That Rab Judah's report refers to the case] where [the testator] strengthened the donee's claims.'<a id="k152b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; In what manner [is it indicated that one wished to] strengthen the donee's claims? &mdash; R. Hisda replied: [By including in the deed the formula]. 'And we<a id="k152b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; acquired from him<a id="k152b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; in addition to this [presentation of the] gift.'<a id="k152b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[It is] obvious [that where a dying man] gave [all his estate] in writing to one man<a id="k152b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and [subsequently] to another<a id="k152b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the [law is the] very same as [that which] R. Dimi enunciated when he came, [vis., one] will annuls [another] will.<a id="k152b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [If. however.] he wrote [a deed of the gift] and handed<a id="k152b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it<a id="k152b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to one<a id="k152b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and [subsequently] wrote [a deed of the gift] and handed<a id="k152b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it<a id="k152b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; to another,<a id="k152b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: The first acquires [its] ownership; while Samuel said: The second acquires [its] ownership. Rab said, 'the first acquires [its] ownership' for<a id="k152b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; it is like the gift of a person in good health;<a id="k152b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; while Samuel said, the second acquires [Its] ownership', for it is like the gift of a dying man.<a id="k152b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But surely their<a id="k152b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; difference of opinion on the [principle] has [already] once been expressed in [the case of] the [deed of a] gift of a dying man, in which symbolic acquisition was entered!<a id="k152b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [Both are] required. For if [their dispute] had been stated [in connection] with the first case,<a id="k152b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] Rab adheres<a id="k152b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; to [his opinion], because symbolic acquisition took place;<a id="k152b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but in this case,<a id="k152b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; where no symbolic acquisition took place, it might have been suggested [that] he agrees with Samuel.<a id="k152b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And if [their dispute] had been stated [in connection] with the second case,<a id="k152b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] Samuel adheres<a id="k152b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; to [his opinion];<a id="k152b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but in that [case]'<a id="k152b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been suggested [that] he agrees with Rab. [Hence both were] required.
</p><p>
	At Sura they taught as above.<a id="k152b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; At Pumbeditha they taught as follows.<a id="k152b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: [The following enquiry] was sent from the academy<a id="k152b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; to Samuel. 'Will our Master instruct us [as to] what [is the law in the case where] a dying man gave all his estate to strangers, in writing; and symbolic acquisition [also] took place,<a id="k152b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [but was not entered in the deed]?'<a id="k152b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied<a id="k152b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; to them: 'After [symbolic] acquisition no withdrawal is of any avail'.<a id="k152b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k153a_1:" Lit., 'these words'."
,k153a_2:" [A place in Babylonia, south of Sura. R. Hisda held a school there before his appointment as Head of the Academy at Sura.] Current texts read, 'Kufri', perhaps 'Cyprus'."
,k153a_3:" Who, while on his death-bed, had presented his estate to a stranger."
,k153a_4:" Desiring, on recovery, the return of his estate."
,k153a_5:" Lit., cause to acquire'. Had he presented his estate without allowing symbolic acquisition to take place be could retract on recovery. After symbolic acquisition one has no right to withdraw."
,k153a_6:" Of a dying man who presented all, or part of his estate, and 'symbolic acquisition' was entered on the deed."
,k153a_7:" Lit., 'written',"
,k153a_8:" 'The gift is to belong to the donee',"
,k153a_9:" Possession of which by the donee is not acquired until after the death of the testator who, if he recovers, may withdraw the gift."
,k153a_10:" Possession of which is acquired immediately, and no withdrawal is possible even if the gift consisted of the testator's entire estate."
,k153a_11:" Lit., 'and that that he wrote'."
,k153a_12:" Lit., 'a mere omen of life' (v. Rashb.)"
,k153a_13:" V. p. 662, n, 12."
,k153a_14:" Lit., 'it is written therein'."
,k153a_15:" 'From life' (unlike, 'in life') is regarded as a definite indication that the testator desired to transfer possession while he was still alive, i.e., at once."
,k153a_16:" That, unlike 'in life', possession is acquired at once as if the gift had been made by a man in good health."
,k153a_17:" To ask For R. Nahman's ruling on the legality of withdrawing a gift in the deed of which was enacted 'in life and in death',"
,k153a_18:" A disciple of Rab."
,k153a_19:" Lit., 'he said',"
,k153a_20:" Samuel was the head of the College at Nehardea and a native of that town,"
,k153a_21:" Though the Nehardean scholars themselves decided the law to be in accordance with Rab's view, R. Nahman did not consider it proper to give a ruling contrary to Samuel's view in the place where Samuel had enjoyed supremacy and preferred to send the case to a place under Rab's jurisdiction."
,k153a_22:" On a deed of a gift in which she wrote 'from life', and now wished to withdraw the gift."
,k153a_23:" Lit., 'did'."
,k153a_24:" Telling the woman that she was not entitled to withdraw the gift."
,k153a_25:" She demanded a written statement that (in accordance with the view of Rab) she was entitled to withdraw the gift."
,k153a_26:" To put an end to the disturbance she created."
,k153a_27:" Lit., 'upon them'."
,k153a_28:" This is an extract from a Mishnah (B.M. 75b), dealing with workmen who broke the arrangements entered into with their employers. 'Deceive them', was expressly to be inserted in order to indicate that the statement dictated by Raba was to be of no value whatsoever to the woman, its only object being to make her believe that it contained a decision in her favour and that, consequently, the disturbance she created might come to an end."
,k153a_29:" Perceiving the subterfuge."
,k153a_30:" Lit., 'his'."
,k153a_31:" To ward off thereby the imprecation. IF the curse was to be fulfilled the soaking of the clothes might form a substitute For the drowning of their wearer or of any of his possessions."
,k153a_32:" In the deed of a gift be made of his entire estate."
,k153a_33:" At the time the gift was made and, consequently, be claims his right to retract."
,k153a_34:" And that, consequently, he cannot retract."
,k153a_35:" When he made the gift. If no such proof is forthcoming, the donee is entitled to the gift."
,k153a_36:" The donee. The gift is regarded as being in the possession of its original owner until proof to the contrary is produced."
,k153a_37:" As was customary to enter in a deed of a gift that was written after the death of the testator, to indicate that the gift was made by a dying man and that, having died from that same illness, he did not retract."
,k153a_38:" Lit., 'to the house of his world', i.e., eternity. "
}

txt:
<p>
They understood him to mean [that] this decision<a id="k153a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [applied only to the case of withdrawal in favour] of a stranger but not for himself. R. Hisda, [however]. said unto them: When R. Huna came from Kafri<a id="k153a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he explained it [to mean]. 'whether for himself or for others'.
</p><p>
	There was a certain [man]<a id="k153a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; from whom [symbolic] acquisition was taken, who came before R. Huna.<a id="k153a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [The latter] said, 'What can I do for you [in such a case] where you did not transfer possession as [other] people do?'<a id="k153a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	There was a certain [deed of] a gift<a id="k153a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in which there was entered,<a id="k153a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'in life and in death'.<a id="k153a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: Behold it is [to be treated] like the [usual] gift of a dying man;<a id="k153a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel said: Behold it is [to be treated] like the gift of a man in good health.<a id="k153a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said, 'Behold, it is like the gift of a dying man &mdash; since it contains the entry. 'in death', [the testator] meant [thereby] the donee [to acquire possession] after death, while the insertion,<a id="k153a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'in life', was just for good luck;<a id="k153a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel said, 'Behold, it is like the gift of a man in good health' &mdash; since it contained the entry, 'in life', [the testator thereby] meant [to transfer possession] while he was alive, while his entry<a id="k153a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; of, 'and in death', [is only] like one saying. 'from now and for evermore'.
</p><p>
	The scholars of Nehardea stated: The law is in accordance with [the decision] of Rab.
</p><p>
	Raba said: If, however, the deed contains the entry.<a id="k153a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'from life', [the donee] acquires [immediate] possession.<a id="k153a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Amemar said: The law is not according [to the view] of Raba. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: [Is not this] obvious, seeing that the scholars of Nehardea distinctly said [that] the law was in accordance with [the decision] of Rab! &mdash; It might have been assumed [that where the entry was]. 'from life', Rab agrees,<a id="k153a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was necessary to teach us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	There was a certain [person] who once came [with an enquiry]<a id="k153a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; to Nehardea before R. Nahman, [but] he sent him to Shumtamya before R. Jeremiah b. Abba,<a id="k153a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; declaring.<a id="k153a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'This is Samuel's province;<a id="k153a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; how could we act in accordance with [a decision] of Rab!'<a id="k153a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	There was a certain [woman] who once came before Raba [to ask for his ruling].<a id="k153a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [As] Raba gave his decision<a id="k153a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with his traditional [teaching]<a id="k153a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; she worried him.<a id="k153a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; He [consequently]<a id="k153a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; said to R. Papa. the son of R. Hanan, his scribe: Go, write for her [a statement [ but add to it,'He may hire at their expense<a id="k153a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or deceive them'.<a id="k153a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; She<a id="k153a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; called out, 'May your<a id="k153a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; ship sink! Are you trying to fool me?' Raba's clothes were soaked in water;<a id="k153a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet he did not escape the drowning.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF HE HAS NOT ENTERED IN IT<a id="k153a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [THAT] HE WAS LYING SICK, [AND] HE [NOW] PLEADS, 'I WAS LYING SICK',<a id="k153a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEY PLEAD, 'YOU WERE IN GOOD HEALTH,<a id="k153a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS A DYING MAN;<a id="k153a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [THESE ARE] THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER<a id="k153a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST PRODUCE THE PROOF.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Once a [deed of a] gift contained the entry, 'As he was lying sick in his bed', but not,<a id="k153a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And as a result of his illness he departed from the world'.<a id="k153a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k153b_1:" Lit., 'upon him'. Since there is no evidence that the testator recovered from the illness during which be made the gift, the fact that be is dead is sufficient ground for the assumption that be died from that illness."
,k153b_2:" Lit., 'most of whom'."
,k153b_3:" Lit., 'upon them'."
,k153b_4:" If among the victims there was, for example, an Israelite who had married the daughter of a priest, it is assumed that he remained alive, and his wife is, consequently. forbidden to eat of the heave-offering. Had it been assumed that her husband was dead she, as the daughter of a priest, would have regained her right to eat of the heave-offering (cf. Git. 28b)."
,k153b_5:" If a priest who had married the daughter of an Israelite (and who had, thereby. conferred upon her the right of eating of the heave-offering) was among the passengers, it is assumed that he is dead, and his wife is henceforth deprived of the privilege he had conferred upon her (cf. Git. ibid.)."
,k153b_6:" To assume that the testator recovered from the illness during which be made the gift."
,k153b_7:" Lit., 'goes'."
,k153b_8:" In the case of a deed wherein the gift is recorded but in which there is no entry as to whether the donor was sick or in good health at the time the gift was made."
,k153b_9:" The donor From the donee or vice versa,"
,k153b_10:" The donor."
,k153b_11:" The donees."
,k153b_12:" At the time the case is heard in court,"
,k153b_13:" So that the gift was made by a dying man."
,k153b_14:" R. Jacob and R. Nathan."
,k153b_15:" Whether a decision is to be formed on the basis of the conditions in which a person or an object is found at the time the decision had to be given or on the basis of the condition in which be or it was presumed to be."
,k153b_16:" And nothing may be removed from the valley into a public domain and vice versa."
,k153b_17:" Since in the summer the crops have been removed from it, and the public use it as a thoroughfare."
,k153b_18:" Any doubtful case of uncleanness in a public domain, is treated as 'clean'."
,k153b_19:" When the valley is sown."
,k153b_20:" Because the public abstain from using it on account of its growing crops."
,k153b_21:" Lit., 'to here and to here'; as regards the Sabbath (v. <i>supra</i> p. 665, n. 15), and as regards 'doubtful Levitical uncleanness' which in a private domain is regarded as unclean. Consequently. if a person entered the valley and is not certain whether he entered it in summer or in winter he should, according to R. Nathan, be regarded as clean if his case was dealt with by the court in the summer, and as unclean if dealt with in the winter. According to R. Jacob, who does not take into consideration the time the decision is given, the person would always be regarded as clean whatever the season in which his case is dealt with (since a person is presumed to be usually clean), unless witnesses testified that they saw him enter the valley in winter."
,k153b_22:" That a walled valley in the summer season is subject to the laws of a public domain in respect of Levitical uncleanness."
,k153b_23:" Lit., 'they did not teach but',"
,k153b_24:" Since the time when a wall was put round it."
,k153b_25:" Even in the summer season. Once it has acquired the status of a private domain it retains that status permanently. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rabbah said: Behold, he is dead and his grave indeed proves this.<a id="k153b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye [however] said to him: [How] now! If [in the case of] a ship [that sank], where most of the passengers<a id="k153b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; are doomed to perish, [we] apply to the victims<a id="k153b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the restrictions of living<a id="k153b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; men and the restrictions of dead<a id="k153b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; men, how much more [ought we to do] so<a id="k153b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the case of] sick men, of whom most do recover.
</p><p>
	R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua. said: In accordance with whose [view] may that reported statement of Rabbah be justified?<a id="k153b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; In accordance with [the view of] R. Nathan. For it was taught:<a id="k153b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Who takes away from whom?<a id="k153b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k153b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; takes away of their<a id="k153b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; possession without proof, but they [can] not take away of his possession except by [the production of] proof; these are the words of R. Jacob. R Nathan, [however]. said: If he<a id="k153b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was in good health,<a id="k153b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he must produce proof that [at the time the gift was made] he was lying sick;<a id="k153b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; if he was lying sick,<a id="k153b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k153b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; must produce proof that [at the time the gift was made], he was in good health.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: As regards [Levitical] uncleanness also [they<a id="k153b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; differ in their views on the same principles]<a id="k153b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; as in [this] dispute. For we learnt: A [walled] valley in the summer [is subject to the laws of] a private domain in respect of the Sabbath<a id="k153b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and [to those of] a public domain<a id="k153b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of [Levitical] uncleanness.<a id="k153b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; In the rainy season<a id="k153b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it is regarded as a private domain<a id="k153b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in both respects.<a id="k153b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: This<a id="k153b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; has reference only<a id="k153b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the case] where a winter has not passed over it,<a id="k153b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but [where] a winter has passed over it, [it is regarded as] a private domain in all respects.<a id="k153b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k154a_1:" This question may apply to the statements of both R. Meir and the Sages."
,k154a_2:" Who testify as to the state of the health of the donor at the time the gift was made."
,k154a_3:" Required by the Sages. (For the proof required by R. Meir, v, <i>infra</i>.)"
,k154a_4:" The signatures of the witnesses on the deed must be verified before a court, and only when the validity of the deed had been established, independently of the donor's admission, have the donees established their right to the ownership of the gift."
,k154a_5:" R. Meir and the Sages in our Mishnah."
,k154a_6:" Lit., 'in dispute'."
,k154a_7:" <i>Supra</i> 153b. V. p. 665, n. 14."
,k154a_8:" As an aid to memory in pairing the Tannaitic authorities. M = Meir, N = Nathan, I (Y) = Jacob, H = Hakamim, the Sages, the Rabbis."
,k154a_9:" That the condition of the person at the time the lawsuit is before the court is the determining factor. And since the donor is then in good health it is assumed that he was in a similar condition when the gift was made. Hence it is for him to bring witnesses who could testify that at that time he was lying sick."
,k154a_10:" The Sages of our Mishnah."
,k154a_11:" Who maintains that the gift cannot be taken out of the confirmed possession of its original owner (the donor), unless witnesses can be brought by the donee to testify that at the time the gift was made he was in good health."
,k154a_12:" Before a court."
,k154a_13:" So that the validity of the deed shall not in any way be dependent on the donor's own word."
,k154a_14:" And he only disputes its present force, by pleading, for instance, in the case of a deed of a gift, that he was lying sick when he made the gift, or, in the case of a note indebtedness, that he repaid the debt."
,k154a_15:" Hence, the deed spoken, of in our Mishnah is valid, and the donor must bring witnesses as proof that he was a sick man at the time the gift was made."
,k154a_16:" V. n. 3, <i>supra</i>"
,k154a_17:" Hence it is incumbent upon the donee to procure the necessary attestation."
,k154a_18:" R. Meir and the Sages."
,k154a_19:" Whether a deed acknowledged by its writer as genuine, also requires attestation before a court."
,k154a_20:" Witnesses who identified their signatures on a deed."
,k154a_21:" By asserting that they signed under compulsion or when they were minors."
,k154a_22:" Who requires no attestation of a document on the part of the witnesses in a case where the debtor himself admitted that he wrote it. The validity of the deed, which has been acknowledged by the debtor, cannot, therefore, be impaired by the statements of the witnesses."
,k154a_23:" A document, though admitted by the debtor to be genuine, requires the attestation of the witnesses before a court; and since the witnesses are, accordingly, the sole authorities for its validity, they are also to be believed when they declare it to be disqualified. Now, since the dispute between R. Meir and the Sages in the Baraitha depends on the same principles as those underlying their dispute in our Mishnah, why should a repetition be necessary?"
,k154a_24:" The Baraitha."
,k154a_25:" Hence the debtor's admission is disregarded."
,k154a_26:" Our Mishnah."
,k154a_27:" The donor."
,k154a_28:" When, after admitting that he wrote the deed, he states that he was a sick man when he made the gift."
,k154a_29:" Referred to in our Mishnah."
,k154a_30:" Why do the Sages require the donee, and not the donor, to produce the proof?"
,k154a_31:" Lit., 'we shall say'."
,k154a_32:" Given by a man in good health."
,k154a_33:" Lit., 'in all of them it is written'."
,k154a_34:" Lit., 'walking on his feet'."
,k154a_35:" Lit., 'it is not written in it',"
,k154a_36:" That are given by dying men."
,k154a_37:" Lit., 'it may be said thus and it may be said thus'."
,k154a_38:" Or property."
,k154a_39:" Hence the gift cannot be taken away from the donor unless reliable proof is produced by the donee."
,k154a_40:" I.e., they differ on the same points as R. Huna on the one hand, and R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, on the other, <i>supra</i>."
,k154a_41:" Lit., 'and stood up' Cf Rashb."
,k154a_42:" A minor, under twenty years of age, is not eligible to sell any of his father's estate. Hence, the property he sold should belong to the surviving members of the family. [The words 'of his death' do not occur in some MSS.; v.D.S]."
,k154a_43:" I.e., 'the buyers'. This is the present assumption of R. Johanan. V. answer of R. Lakish, <i>infra</i>."
,k154a_44:" Lit., 'what is he to examine him'; to exhume him, so as to ascertain his age by a post-mortem."
,k154a_45:" Cf. Semahoth IV, 12; <i>infra</i> 155a. Hence the examination could not produce any reliable evidence of his age. "
}

txt:
<p>
In what [manner is] proof [produced]?<a id="k154a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R, Huna said: Proof [is produced] by witnesses.<a id="k154a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said: Proof<a id="k154a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [is produced] by the attestation of the deed.<a id="k154a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna said, 'Proof [is produced] by witnesses' [for he holds that] they<a id="k154a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on [the same] principles<a id="k154a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [as those] of R. Jacob and R. Nathan;<a id="k154a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; (Mnemonic: <i>MeNIaH</i>)<a id="k154a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir [is of the same opinion] as R. Nathan<a id="k154a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Rabbis<a id="k154a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [are of the same opinion] as R. Jacob.<a id="k154a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said, 'Proof [is produced] by the attestation of the deed,' [because] they differ [on the question whether, in the case] where a person admitted that he wrote a deed, [independent] attestation<a id="k154a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is required;<a id="k154a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Meir is of the opinion [that] where one admitted that he wrote a deed,<a id="k154a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; no [independent] attestation is required<a id="k154a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Rabbis<a id="k154a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; are of the opinion [that], where one admitted that he wrote a deed, [independent] attestation [also] is required.<a id="k154a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But [did] they<a id="k154a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [not], however, once dispute on this [question]?<a id="k154a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught [in a Baraitha]: They<a id="k154a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it;<a id="k154a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; these are the words of R. Meir.<a id="k154a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Sages say: They are believed!<a id="k154a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Both are] required. Because if [their] dispute] had been stated [in connection with] that [alone],<a id="k154a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] did the Rabbis say [that attestation of the witnesses was necessary] because the witnesses are all-powerful and they themselves impair [the validity of] the document,<a id="k154a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but here,<a id="k154a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; where all [the force of the document] does not depend on him,<a id="k154a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed [that he is] not [believed].<a id="k154a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; And if [their dispute] had been stated in [connection with] this [alone], [it might have been assumed that] in this [case only] did R. Meir say [that the donor is not believed], but in that [case] it might have been assumed [that] he agrees with the Rabbis. [Hence both were] required.
</p><p>
	Rabbah likewise stated [that the] proof<a id="k154a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is by witnesses. Abaye said unto him: What is the reason?<a id="k154a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; If it be said<a id="k154a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Because in all [deeds]<a id="k154a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; it is entered,<a id="k154a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; "As he was [able] to walk about<a id="k154a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; in the street", and in this [deed] no such entry is made,<a id="k154a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [therefore] it is to be concluded [that when the gift was made] he was a dying man', [it may be retorted], 'On the contrary! Since in all [deeds]<a id="k154a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; it is entered,<a id="k154a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; "As he was lying sick in his bed,", and [in] this [deed] no such entry is made,<a id="k154a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [therefore] it is to be concluded [that when he made the gift] he was in good health!' &mdash; As one inference is just as reasonable as the other,<a id="k154a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [replied Rabbah,] the money<a id="k154a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is to remain in the possession of its [original] owner.<a id="k154a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And [the following are] in the [same] dispute.<a id="k154a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Johanan said: Proof [must be produced] by witnesses; and R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Proof [consists] in the attestation of the deed. R. Johanan pointed out [the following] objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish: It once happened at Bene-Berak that a person sold his father's estate, and died. The members of the family, thereupon,<a id="k154a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; protested [that] he was a minor at the time of [his] death.<a id="k154a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k154a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; came [to] R. Akiba and asked whether the body might be examined.<a id="k154a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied to them: You are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, [the] signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.<a id="k154a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k154b_1:" Lit., 'to me, that I said'."
,k154b_2:" [Var. lec., 'they', i.e., the members of the family.]"
,k154b_3:" Lit., 'to you, that you said'."
,k154b_4:" Witnesses would not sign a deed of sale unless they were satisfied that the seller has attained the legal age. Their attested signatures would, consequently, supply sufficient evidence that the sale was legally valid."
,k154b_5:" Since the members of the family did not, of course, possess the deed, the question of their procuring attestation of the deed cannot possibly arise,"
,k154b_6:" R. Akiba."
,k154b_7:" They had consideration for the honour of their relative."
,k154b_8:" Lit., 'let him be&nbsp;&hellip;' (bis). Would strangers consent to lose their purchase money out of consideration for the corpse of the men who appropriated their money?"
,k154b_9:" If this argument had been the only proof that it was the relatives who protested."
,k154b_10:" The buyers."
,k154b_11:" Lit., 'one'."
,k154b_12:" Lit., 'this'."
,k154b_13:" [Bar Kappara was known as the author of a Mishnah which has not been preserved. On its character, see Weiss, Dor ii, 219.Cf. however Halevy, Doroth ii, 123-125.]"
,k154b_14:" Lit., 'eating'."
,k154b_15:" Lit., 'and he came'."
,k154b_16:" Lit., 'called'."
,k154b_17:" Lit., 'to say'."
,k154b_18:" Lit., 'this (one)'."
,k154b_19:" I.e., it is a forged document."
,k154b_20:" The witnesses."
,k154b_21:" Heb., [H] (cf., pistis, [H] [G], trust), a deed of a feigned sale that the other had arranged with him for the purpose of making people believe that he is a landowner or a wealthier man than he actually is."
,k154b_22:" He entrusted the buyer with the deed before he received payment."
,k154b_23:" To testify that his statement, which invalidates the deed, is in accordance with the facts,"
,k154b_24:" Lit., 'go after'."
,k154b_25:" I.e., since the seller once admitted that the deed was written by him, his attempt to disqualify it is disregarded."
,k154b_26:" The statement that one is to be guided by the deed (v. previous note)."
,k154b_27:" Is it likely that Bar Kappara's Mishnah represents the view of an individual only?"
,k154b_28:" Even the Sages. (This statement is modified <i>infra</i>.)"
,k154b_29:" Lit., 'the words of all'."
,k154b_30:" R. Meir and the Sages."
,k154b_31:" Keth. 18b. Cf. <i>supra</i> 154a, q.v. for notes."
,k154b_32:" Lit., 'if'."
,k154b_33:" Witnesses, according to the Sages. are justly entitled to invalidate a deed, despite the debtor's admission that he wrote it."
,k154b_34:" Once he himself admitted that he wrote the deed, it is assumed that no witnesses would have signed it if it represented a purely fictitious transaction, and, consequently, even the Sages agree that he has no further power subsequently to invalidate it. Hence, no attestation is needed."
,k154b_35:" Although they admitted the authenticity of the deed, (i.e.. that the seller had written it), and only disputed its validity (by asserting that he was a minor). How, then, could R. Johanan say that once a person admitted the authenticity of a deed, (i.e., that he wrote it) he cannot any more dispute its validity?"
,k154b_36:" A disciple of R. Johanan."
,k154b_37:" Who reported in his name."
,k154b_38:" Which clearly proves that, according to R. Johanan, the Sages require attestation even when the authenticity of a deed had been admitted."
,k154b_39:" That no attestation is needed when the giver of the deed had admitted writing it,"
,k154b_40:" Thus it is the Sages, and not R. Meir, who require no attestation, when the writing of a deed had been admitted."
,k154b_41:" Lit., 'and what (is meant by) \"the words of all\"? Surely, according to what has been said, R. Meir disagrees'."
,k154b_42:" I.e., the donee; which shows that, according to the Sages. the admission by the donor that he wrote the deed does not remove from the donee the need of attestation, while according to R. Meir it does"
,k154b_43:" The view in the last clause of our Mishnah, which is attributed to the Sages. is really the view of R. Meir, while the view attributed to R. Meir is in reality that of the Sages."
,k154b_44:" <i>Supra</i>, quoted from Keth, 18b. V. 154a for notes."
,k154b_45:" <i>Supra</i> 154a. How, then, could he say here, 'proof (can be produced) only through attestation of the deed'?"
,k154b_46:" The view attributed, <i>supra</i>, to R. Johanan is really that of R. Lakish, and vice versa,"
,k154b_47:" Is the objection which R. Johanan raised against R. Lakish (<i>supra</i> 154a) to be reversed and read as if R. Lakish had raised it against R. Johanan? "
}

txt:
<p>
[Now]. according to my interpretation<a id="k154b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [of our Mishnah that] evidence [is produced] by [the testimony of] witnesses, one can well understand why, when he<a id="k154b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; asked the buyers [to] bring witnesses and they [could] not obtain [them]. they came to ask him whether the body might [not] be examined. But according to your interpretation<a id="k154b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; that evidence [consists] in the attestation of the deed, why should they [wish] to examine [the body]? Let them procure the attestation of their deeds and [thus] gain possession of the property!<a id="k154b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Do you think, [replied R. Lakish], that the property was in the possession of the members of the family and that the buyers came to protest? [This was not the case.] The property was in the possession of the buyers, and the members of the family came and protested.<a id="k154b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Logical reasoning also [supports] this [view]. Since when he<a id="k154b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; said to them, 'You are not permitted to dishonour him', they remained silent. If it is granted [that] the members of the family protested, one can well understand why they remained silent;<a id="k154b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, it be assumed [that] the buyers protested, why [it may be asked] did they remain silent? They should have replied to him, 'We paid him money; let him be dishonoured!'<a id="k154b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If [only] because of this<a id="k154b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [there would be] no argument. [for R. Akiba may] have said to them<a id="k154b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; thus: In the first place,<a id="k154b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [a post mortem must not be held] because you are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, in case you might say. 'He took [our] money. let him be dishonoured', the signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.
</p><p>
	R. Simeon b. Lakish enquired of R. Johanan: With reference<a id="k154b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to what has been taught in the Mishnah of Bar Kappara<a id="k154b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [that], 'If a person was enjoying<a id="k154b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [the usufruct of] a field on the strength<a id="k154b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of the current belief that it [was] his, and someone lodged<a id="k154b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; a protest against him claiming.<a id="k154b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; "It is mine"; and the first<a id="k154b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; produced his deed, stating,<a id="k154b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; "You sold it to me" or "You gave it to me as a gift", if [the latter] said, "I never saw this deed",<a id="k154b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the deed is to be attested by those who signed it;<a id="k154b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; if, [however], he said, "It was a deed of trust<a id="k154b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; or a deed [given on] trust<a id="k154b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [for something] which I sold you but [for which] you did not pay me the price", then if witnesses<a id="k154b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; are available, one must be guided by<a id="k154b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; witnesses, but if [they are] not [available] one is to be guided by<a id="k154b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the deed.'<a id="k154b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Are we to assume [asked Resh Lakish, that] this<a id="k154b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is [in accordance with the opinion of] R. Meir, who stated that where one admits that he wrote the deed, attestation is not required, but not [in accordance with the view of] the Rabbis?<a id="k154b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He [R. Johanan] replied to him: No; because I maintain [that] all<a id="k154b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; agree<a id="k154b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [that where] one admitted that he wrote a deed no attestation is required. But, surely, [Resh Lakish rejoined,] they<a id="k154b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; are actually in dispute [on this question]; as it was taught, 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: They are believed'!<a id="k154b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him: [Should] he, because<a id="k154b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; witnesses are all-powerful and [may] impair [the validity of] a deed,<a id="k154b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [have the same power as if] all depended on him!<a id="k154b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; But, Resh Lakish asked him again, in your [own] name it was reported that, 'the members of the family have justly protested'!<a id="k154b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him, 'This [was] said [by] Eleazar;<a id="k154b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; I have never said such a thing.'
</p><p>
	R. Zeira said: If R. Johanan could contradict his disciple R. Eleazar,<a id="k154b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; would he contradict his master R. Jannai? For R. Jannai said in the name of Rabbi: [Though] one admits that he wrote a deed, attestation is [nevertheless] required. And R. Johanan said to him: 'Is not this, Master, [the law enunciated in] our Mishnah [where it is stated] AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF, [and] proof [can be produced] only through the attestation of the deed?'<a id="k154b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Acceptable, however, are the words of our master Joseph. For our Master Joseph, in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel, said: 'This<a id="k154b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; is the view of the Sages. but R. Meir said: [Though] one admits the writing of a deed, attestation is [nevertheless] required;<a id="k154b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; and [as to the expression] 'all agree',<a id="k154b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [the words] of the Rabbis in relation to [those of] R. Meir [may be described as] the words of all. But, surely, we learnt the reverse: AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF?<a id="k154b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Reverse [the order].<a id="k154b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely. it was taught. 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. And the Sages say: They are believed'?<a id="k154b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Reverse [the order]. But, surely, R. Johanan said: Proof [must be produced] by witnesses?<a id="k154b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Reverse [the order].<a id="k154b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it [then] to be assumed [that] the objection also is to be reversed?<a id="k154b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No;
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k155a_1:" Lit., 'to me, that I said'."
,k155a_2:" Lit., 'to go down into'."
,k155a_3:" And why the relatives were driven to protest. The buyers may have been able to secure the attestation of their deeds."
,k155a_4:" V. p. 672, n. 12."
,k155a_5:" Surely there were no witnesses to testify that the seller was of age at the time of the sale!"
,k155a_6:" This is the reason why the property was allowed to be seized by the buyers. Elsewhere, however, witnesses must be procured."
,k155a_7:" Lit., 'From when'."
,k155a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 669. n. 1."
,k155a_9:" <i>Supra</i> 154a, q.v. for notes. "
}

txt:
<p>
thus said R. Johanan to R. Simeon b. Lakish: According to my interpretation that<a id="k155a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; proof [is produced] through the attestation of the deed, one can well understand how it was possible for the buyers to seize<a id="k155a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the property.<a id="k155a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; according to you, however, since you maintain [that] proof [is to be produced] through [the evidence of] witnesses, how was it possible for the buyers to seize<a id="k155a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the property?<a id="k155a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him: In the case of a protest on the part of members of the family I agree with you that it is no [legal] protest; [for] what do they plead? [That] he was a minor! [But] it is an established fact [that[ witnesses do not sign a deed unless [they know that] he was of age.<a id="k155a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: At what age<a id="k155a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [may] a minor sell his [deceased] father's estate? &mdash; Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: [When he is] eighteen years of age. And R. Huna b. Hinena said in the name of R. Nahman: [When] twenty years of age.
</p><p>
	R. Zera raised an objection: It once happened at Bene-Berak that a person sold his father's estate, and died. The members of his family. thereupon.<a id="k155a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; protested. asserting [that] he was a minor at the time of [his] death. They came [to] R. Akiba and asked whether the body might be examined. He replied to them: You are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, [the] signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.<a id="k155a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now], according to him who said, 'Eighteen years of age'.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k155b_1:" Because if the signs of maturity could not be found on the body of the youth he would rightly be regarded as a minor."
,k155b_2:" Lit., 'when they examined him, what is it?'"
,k155b_3:" Nid. 47b; Yeb, 80a, 97a."
,k155b_4:" Whose brother died childless and whose duty it is to marry his widow (V Deut. XXV, 5ff) or to perform <I>halizah</I> (V. Glos)."
,k155b_5:" The legal signs of maturity."
,k155b_6:" The relatives of the widow, who desire to procure her freedom from the marriage or <I>halizah</I>."
,k155b_7:" [H] wanting in procreative power."
,k155b_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k155b_9:" Cf. p, 673. n. 10. From this it follows that once the age of twenty had been reached, a person is considered to have attained legal majority though his body did not develop any signs of maturity. What, then, would be the use of the exhumation?"
,k155b_10:" The law that he is regarded as a saris. Described in Yeb. 80b."
,k155b_11:" V. p. 673. n, 13."
,k155b_12:" If these additional symptoms of a saris, however, did not appear. he is regarded as a minor provided the 'two hairs' have also not appeared. Hence an examination of the corpse could well reveal whether he was still a minor or not."
,k155b_13:" That the additional symptoms of a saris apart from the absence of two hairs are required."
,k155b_14:" If two hairs did not appear."
,k155b_15:" Lit., 'most of his years', i.e., until he is thirty-six years of age. Man's span of life is assumed to be seventy years. (Cf. Ps. XC, 10)."
,k155b_16:" Of one who developed symptoms of a saris."
,k155b_17:" For his decision as to whether it was a case of an established saris."
,k155b_18:" The eighteenth year of a person's age. according to Raba, or his twentieth year, according to R. Huna b. Hinena, where he has grown the two hairs."
,k155b_19:" Lit., 'as before time or as after time'."
,k155b_20:" Cf. previous note."
,k155b_21:" Lit., 'it was said'."
,k155b_22:" To obtain a ruling on the legality of his action."
,k155b_23:" Lit., 'told them'."
,k155b_24:" Lit., 'be did not do anything'."
,k155b_25:" Cf. p. 6740. 11."
,k155b_26:" Lit., 'there'."
,k155b_27:" And it was for this reason only that he treated him as one under age."
,k155b_28:" Others, Rab."
,k155b_29:" Lit., 'knows the nature of carrying and giving'."
,k155b_30:" Though she is under twenty, her intelligence entitles her to the rights of one who is of age."
,k155b_31:" Lit., 'and he should send to him'."
,k155b_32:" Lit., 'the incident that was, was so'."
,k155b_33:" At which age she becomes subject to the obligation of performing the commandments."
,k155b_34:" Desiring to withdraw the sale on the plea that he did not understand the nature of buying and selling."
,k155b_35:" The youth."
,k155b_36:" That be might in consequence be regarded as irresponsible for his actions."
,k155b_37:" [H], 'written document'."
,k155b_38:" Which is a lengthy document."
,k155b_39:" Which is a very short document. (CF. n. 16, <i>supra</i>.)"
,k155b_40:" By the argument he advanced the youth revealed that he was not lacking in intelligence. His sale must consequently be regarded as valid."
,k155b_41:" Raba."
,k155b_42:" That argument; but that the youth himself was incapable of any such reasoning."
,k155b_43:" Lit., 'to know he knows'."
,k155b_44:" His throwing of the date stones."
,k155b_45:" Lit., 'and that is why he did so'."
,k155b_46:" The evidence of a youth under twenty years of age but over thirteen, who produced the signs of maturity. though he is incapable of carrying on business transactions"
,k155b_47:" Lit., 'he did not say them but'."
,k155b_48:" Only when the evidence is given in connection with a dispute concerning movable objects is his evidence valid."
,k155b_49:" The Mishnah which regards his sale as invalid speaks of real estate and not of movables."
,k155b_50:" Lit., 'but from now'."
,k155b_51:" Of the ages of six or seven."
,k155b_52:" Lit., 'that'."
,k155b_53:" Keth. 70a, Git. 59a, 65a."
,k155b_54:" Surely a child can hardly be relied upon as a witness!"
,k155b_55:" In the case of the evidence of witnesses."
,k155b_56:" Deut., XIX, 17, referring to witnesses. (Cf. Shebu. 30a)."
,k155b_57:" Where children of six or seven give evidence."
,k155b_58:" That of a boy who is thirteen years and one day old, who is unable to carry on transactions and whose sale of real estate is invalid. "
}

txt:
<p>
one can well understand the reason why they came and asked whether the corpse might be examined.<a id="k155b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, it is said, 'At twenty', what useful purpose could the examination serve?<a id="k155b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learnt:<a id="k155b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [If at the] age of twenty he<a id="k155b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; did not produce two hairs,<a id="k155b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k155b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; shall bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he [becomes] a saris;<a id="k155b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he may neither perform <I>halizah</I><a id="k155b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; nor the levirate marriage!<a id="k155b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Has it not been stated in connection with this [Mishnah], 'R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said in the name of Rab: That<a id="k155b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; only [applies to the case] where [other] symptoms of a saris<a id="k155b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [also] appeared on his body!'<a id="k155b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: [This; may] also [be arrived at by] deduction. For it was taught, 'And he [becomes] a saris', from which [this]<a id="k155b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; may [well] be deduced.
</p><p>
	And. [in the case] where no symptoms of a saris developed, how long [is one regarded a minor]?<a id="k155b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hiyya taught: Until he has passed middle age.<a id="k155b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whenever [such a case]<a id="k155b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; came before R. Hiyya<a id="k155b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he used to tell them, if [the youth was] emaciated, 'Let him [first] be fattened'; and if he was stout, he used to tell them, 'Let him [first] be made to lose weight'; for these symptoms appear sometimes as a result of emaciation [and] sometimes they develop as a result of stoutness.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: [Is] the intervening period<a id="k155b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [regarded] as that of under, or over age?<a id="k155b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: The Intervening period is [regarded] as that of under age.<a id="k155b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba son of R. Shila said in the name of R. Nahman: The intervening period is [regarded] as that of over age.<a id="k155b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; That [view] of Raba, however, was not stated<a id="k155b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; explicitly but was arrived at<a id="k155b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; inferentially. For there was a certain [youth], who during [his] 'intervening period' went and sold the estate [of his deceased father]. He came before Raba<a id="k155b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [who] decided<a id="k155b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; that the action was illegal.<a id="k155b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [The student] who saw [what had happened] thought [that Raba's reason was] because during the intervening period [one is regarded] as being under age;<a id="k155b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but this is not [so]. In this [particular] case<a id="k155b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [Raba] observed excessive foolishness, for [the youth] was [also] liberating his slaves [without any apparent cause].<a id="k155b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Giddal b. Menashya sent [the following enquiry] to Raba:<a id="k155b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Will our Master Instruct us [as to] what [is the ruling in the case of] a girl [who is] fourteen years and one day old [and] understands how to carry on business.<a id="k155b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; He sent [word] to him [in reply]: If she understands how to carry on a business, her purchase is [legal] purchase and her sale is [legal] sale.<a id="k155b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did he not enquire of him<a id="k155b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [about the case of] a boy? &mdash; The incident happened to be such.<a id="k155b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did he not address his enquiry<a id="k155b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [with reference to] a girl [who is] twelve years and one day old?<a id="k155b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That case happened to be of such a nature.<a id="k155b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain [youth who was] under twenty [years of age] sold the estate [he inherited] from his father in accordance with [the decision sent to] Giddal b. Menashya. [When] he appeared before Raba<a id="k155b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; his relatives told him,<a id="k155b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Go [and] eat dates, and throw the stones at Raba'.<a id="k155b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; He did so; [and Raba] said to them, 'His sale is not a [legal] sale'. When the verdict<a id="k155b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; had been written out for him, the buyers said to him, 'Go tell Raba: The scroll of Esther<a id="k155b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [may be obtained] at a <i>zuz</i> [and] the master's written verdict<a id="k155b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [cannot be obtained] at [less than] a <i>zuz</i>!' He went and told him [so]. [Thereupon. Raba] said to them, 'His sale is a [legal] sale'.<a id="k155b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [When] the relatives told him<a id="k155b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] the buyers had taught him,<a id="k155b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k155b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; replied to them, '[But] he understands [that which] is explained; [and] since he understands when explained, he possesses intelligence,<a id="k155b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; and his [previous] action<a id="k155b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; was due to<a id="k155b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; his excessive impudence.
</p><p>
	R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: As regards [the giving of] evidence, his<a id="k155b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; testimony [is legal] evidence. Mar Zutra said: This applies only<a id="k155b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; to [the case of] movables<a id="k155b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to [that of] real estate. Said R. Ashi to Mar Zutra: Why only movables? [Is it] because his sale [of these] is a [legal] sale?<a id="k155b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k155b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; [would] the evidence of little children,<a id="k155b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; of whom<a id="k155b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; we learnt [that] their purchase [is a valid] purchase and their sale [is a legal] sale in [the case of] movables,<a id="k155b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; also [be regarded as legal] evidence?<a id="k155b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him: There<a id="k155b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; it is required [that] both the men shall stand<a id="k155b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; which is not [the case].<a id="k155b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Amemar said: His<a id="k155b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; gift [is a valid] gift. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: [How] now! If in the case of a sale, where he receives money, it has been said that it is not [valid] because it is possible [that] he might sell too cheaply, how much more so [in the case of] a gift where he receives nothing! He replied to him:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k156a_1:" That a child is not entitled to sell on account of a possible loss he may incur through his inexperience."
,k156a_2:" In which case he made a profit."
,k156a_3:" The Mishnah, surely, draws no distinction between sales at a profit or at a loss!"
,k156a_4:" Lit., 'You said'."
,k156a_5:" Lit., 'go'."
,k156a_6:" The donee."
,k156a_7:" Lit., 'things'."
,k156a_8:" Though he is thirteen years and one day old; or, in the case of a girl, twelve years and a day."
,k156a_9:" Betrothal is not legal unless the examination had revealed signs of maturity."
,k156a_10:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k156a_11:" A woman's refusal to live with a person to whom she was married during her minority. She can do so only before the signs of maturity have appeared."
,k156a_12:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Even if he has grown two hairs,</font>"
,k156a_13:" The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to a young woman."
,k156a_14:" Lit., 'why to me'."
,k156a_15:" Since he was allowed to betroth he must have been examined and found to have produced the necessary signs of maturity."
,k156a_16:" In such a case no formal betrothal is necessary. A boy who is over nine years of age becomes the legal husband of his dead brother's wife by the mere act of coition. If he desires, subsequently, to divorce her he must undergo an examination for signs of maturity."
,k156a_17:" Whose husband had died childless."
,k156a_18:" Nid. 45a; Sanh. 55b."
,k156a_19:" I.e., it was necessary to teach that an examination for signs of maturity is required before <i>halizah</i> could be allowed to be performed."
,k156a_20:" Deut. XXV, 7. The specific mention of man implies that the male only must be of age."
,k156a_21:" Nid. 52b; Yeb, 105b. And a girl under age may consequently participate in the ceremony of <i>halizah</i>."
,k156a_22:" I.e., the hair."
,k156a_23:" And not merely until one has grown two hairs. V. Nid. 52a."
,k156a_24:" But in accordance with the first Tanna (Nid. 52a) that her right ceases with the growth of the two hairs."
,k156a_25:" The twentieth year of age according to one authority; the eighteenth, according to another."
,k156a_26:" <i>Supra</i> 155b, q.v. for notes."
,k156a_27:" That a youth of the age of thirteen and one day, who is able to carry on business transactions, may sell the estate he inherited from his father, whether it consists of movables or of real estate."
,k156a_28:" That the evidence of a youth who is unable to transact business and is of the age of thirteen and one day, is legal only in the case of a dispute on movable objects, but not in that of real estate."
,k156a_29:" That the gift made by such a youth (of the age and character described in the previous note) is legal, though a sale be contracted is invalid."
,k156a_30:" Mentioned above. In the case of betrothal, divorce, <i>halizah</i> and declarations of refusal, age alone is no guide unless signs of maturity also appeared. As regards the legality of the sale of an estate inherited from his Father, a youth, if be is not intelligent enough to carry on business transactions, must be twenty years of age, and must also produce signs of maturity. If at the age of twenty no signs of maturity had appeared. the youth remains legally a minor until he had obtained the age of thirty-six, unless marks of a saris had meanwhile made their appearance."
,k156a_31:" Others, R. Eliezer."
,k156a_32:" Lit., 'possessions which have a secure foundation."
,k156a_33:" Which the buyer pays for the land."
,k156a_34:" Setting out and confirming the sale."
,k156a_35:" The buyer performs some kind of work on the land purchased."
,k156a_36:" Lit., 'possessions which have no secure foundation'."
,k156a_37:" Heb., <i>meshikah</i>, v. Glos, R. Eleazar is of the opinion that a dying man's verbal instruction has no more legal force than that of a person in good health. Hence, unless legal acquisition took place, the donee acquires no possession even if the donor died; and in case of recovery, the donor may retract even where only a part of his estate had been given away. "
}

txt:
<p>
And according to your reasoning,<a id="k156a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] he sold [something] worth five for six<a id="k156a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; would his sale indeed be [legally] valid?<a id="k156a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But [this is the reason]: The Rabbis were well aware that a child is susceptible to the temptations of money; and if it would have been laid down<a id="k156a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] a sale of his is legally valid, [people] might sometimes rattle money before him [and] he would be tempted<a id="k156a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to sell all the possessions of his [dead father]. In the case of a gift, however, [it is known that] had he not had [some] benefit from him<a id="k156a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he would not have presented him with a gift; the Rabbis, [therefore.] said [that] his gift shall be a [legal] gift in order that people might render him service.<a id="k156a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: [A youth] must be examined [to ascertain whether he has the signs of maturity]<a id="k156a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of betrothal,<a id="k156a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; divorce, <i>halizah</i>,<a id="k156a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [declarations of] refusal.<a id="k156a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But in regard to the sale of the estate of his father, he cannot do so until he becomes twenty years of age.<a id="k156a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But since [the youth]<a id="k156a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; was examined in respect of his betrothal what need is there<a id="k156a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [for an examination] in respect of [his] divorce?<a id="k156a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [law] is required only [in the case] of a youth who married his dead brother's widow.<a id="k156a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: [If] a boy of the age of nine years and a day had connexion with his sister-in-law,<a id="k156a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he has acquired her [as wife] and may not divorce her until he had attained [legal] age.<a id="k156a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'[In respect] of <I>halizah'</I><a id="k156a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; to exclude [the ruling] of R. Jose who said, 'In the [Biblical] section [of <i>halizah</i>] it is written, Man;<a id="k156a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but [in the case of] a woman there is no difference between a major and a minor';<a id="k156a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was necessary to teach us that 'woman' is compared to 'man', contrary to [the view of] R. Jose.
</p><p>
	'And [in respect of declarations of] refusal', [this had to be mentioned] in order to exclude [the ruling] of R. Judah who said: [A girl can exercise the right of refusal] until the black<a id="k156a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; predominates;<a id="k156a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was necessary to teach us that [the law is] not in accordance with [the view of] R. Judah.<a id="k156a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And [in respect of] the sale of the estate of his father, until he becomes twenty years of age' [had to be taught] in order to exclude [the view] of him who said [the youth need only be] eighteen years of age.
</p><p>
	The law [is that during the] 'intervening period'<a id="k156a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [one is regarded] as being under age.<a id="k156a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; The law [is] in accordance with Giddal b. Menashya.<a id="k156a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; The law [is] in accordance with Mar Zutra.<a id="k156a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; The law is according to Amemar.<a id="k156a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And the law is in accordance with [what] R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel, in all [cases].<a id="k156a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF [A PERSON] DISTRIBUTED HIS POSSESSIONS VERBALLY, R. ELEAZAR<a id="k156a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID, WHETHER HE WAS IN GOOD HEALTH OR DANGEROUSLY ILL, [ALL] REAL ESTATE<a id="k156a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; IS ACQUIRED BY MEANS OF MONEY,<a id="k156a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; DEED<a id="k156a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; AND POSSESSION,<a id="k156a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE MOVABLE OBJECTS<a id="k156a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE ONLY ACQUIRED BY MEANS OF PULLING.<a id="k156a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k156b_1:" The Sages."
,k156b_2:" Cf. <i>Supra</i>, 151b, q.v. for notes. Since the verbal instructions of the mother were in this case carried out, how could R. Eleazar maintain that the word of a dying man has no more force than that of one in good health?"
,k156b_3:" They were wicked men and the instructions of their mother, who deprived them of a portion of her estate in favour of her daughter, were carried out, (though there was no legal acquisition on behalf of the daughter), as some sort of punishment for their wickedness. No inference, therefore, as regards the case of other testators, may be derived from this special one."
,k156b_4:" Cf. <i>supra</i>, note 1,"
,k156b_5:" Lit., 'was'."
,k156b_6:" [In Galilee near Gush Halab, v. Neubauer, Geographie, 228ff.]"
,k156b_7:" Who were not themselves present to acquire possession."
,k156b_8:" Lit., 'he went"
,k156b_9:" Unsuitable for cultivation and, therefore, obtainable at a very low price."
,k156b_10:" Lit., 'and said',"
,k156b_11:" R. Eliezer assumed that the Meronite was a dying man, when he disposed of his property. and since he was compelled to transfer possession by means of land, it is to be inferred that the mere verbal instructions of a dying man have no legal force. How, then, R. Eliezer argued, could the Sages maintain that the verbal disposition of his estate by a dying man is legally valid?"
,k156b_12:" The Sages."
,k156b_13:" Had he been in a dying condition his verbal Instruction alone would have been sufficient."
,k156b_14:" It is forbidden to grow in the same vineyard heterogeneous plants even though one is used for human, and the other only for animal consumption."
,k156b_15:" I.e., plants for human consumption or use. Thistles are mere weeds and as a rule are not allowed to grow among the vines, V. Kil. v, 8."
,k156b_16:" Current editions insert the following, 'Saffron is well suitable, but of what use are thistles'. It is wanting in most MSS, and is unintelligible in this context."
,k156b_17:" R. Eliezer, therefore, regards thistles as a proper plant that comes under the prohibition of the growing of heterogeneous kinds, The Sages, however, do not class them as a plant since in most parts of the world they are not grown."
,k156b_18:" Whether he left some of his estate for himself or not."
,k156b_19:" When it is forbidden to arrange legal transactions."
,k156b_20:" Who requires legal acquisition even in the case of the gift of a dying man."
,k156b_21:" The dying man's."
,k156b_22:" Seeing that no legal acquisition is being arranged he will feel that he is already being regarded as a dying man. As this mental anguish might accelerate his death, the Sages have allowed legal acquisition to be performed even on the Sabbath in order to ensure the patient's peace of mind. Legally, however, the mere word of a dying man transfers possession to the donees."
,k156b_23:" Others, 'The Sages'. cf. <i>supra</i> p. 679. n. 1."
,k156b_24:" Those of a dying man distributing his property."
,k156b_25:" Writing is one of the manual labors that are forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k156b_26:" Since a written document may be prepared, and symbolic acquisition may be arranged."
,k156b_27:" That no written deed or symbolic acquisition is necessary."
,k156b_28:" When these are forbidden, and the rule, 'whenever something is suitable for fusion, actual fusion is not essential', cannot be applied."
,k156b_29:" When writing and acquisition are permissible and possible, and the rule, 'Whenever something is suitable etc.' (V. previous note) may be applied."
,k156b_30:" Because he himself is not legally entitled to acquire possessions."
,k156b_31:" Since he is himself able to acquire possession."
,k156b_32:" In his absence."
,k156b_33:" Who cannot himself acquire."
,k156b_34:" Since he himself is entitled to acquire and be may also appoint an agent to act on his behalf, others also, much more than in the case of a minor, are entitled to acquire possession for him in his absence."
,k156b_35:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 681, n. 7."
,k156b_36:" And the rule, 'Whenever fusion is possible. actual fusion is not essential', can be applied. Since writing and acquisition are possible on a week-day, actual writing and acquisition are not indispensable."
,k156b_37:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 681, n. 11. "
}

txt:
<p>
THEY<a id="k156b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID UNTO HIM: THE MOTHER OF THE SONS OF ROKEL ONCE FELL ILL; AND SHE SAID, 'LET MY BROOCH WHICH IS WORTH TWELVE <I>MANEH</I> BE GIVEN TO MY DAUGHTER', AND WHEN SHE DIED, HER INSTRUCTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT!<a id="k156b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; HE REPLIED TO THEM: [AS TO] THE SONS OF ROKEL, MAY THEIR MOTHER BURY THEM!<a id="k156b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was taught: R. Eliezer<a id="k156b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; said to the Sages, 'Once there lived<a id="k156b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a man of Meron<a id="k156b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in Jerusalem and he possessed much movable property which he desired to give away as gift[s]. He was told, [however. that] there was no means [of carrying out his wish] unless he transferred possession [to the donees]<a id="k156b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; by virtue of land [transferred to them at the same time]. He consequently<a id="k156b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; purchased a rocky<a id="k156b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; piece of land near Jerusalem and gave the following instructions:<a id="k156b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; "Its northern side [shall be given] to X, and [together] with it a hundred sheep and a hundred casks; and its southern side [shall be given] to Y, and together with it a hundred sheep and a hundred casks". And when he died the Sages carried out his instructions'.<a id="k156b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k156b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; replied to him, '[Is there any] proof from there? The Meronite was in good health'!<a id="k156b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE REPLIED TO THEM: [AS TO] THE SONS OF ROKEL, MAY THEIR MOTHER BURY THEM! Why did he curse them? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: They allowed thistles to grow in [their] vineyard; and R. Eliezer [is thereby consistent] with his view. For we learnt: If [a person] allows thistles to grow in a vineyard he [thereby], R. Eliezer says, causes [the fruit] to be forbidden;<a id="k156b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sages say: one does not cause [the fruit of a vineyard] to be forbidden unless [he grows] a plant the like of which [people] usually allow to grow.<a id="k156b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said<a id="k156b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina: What is R. Eliezer's reason? Because in Arabia they allow thistles to grow in their fields [as fodder] for their camels.<a id="k156b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Levi said: [Symbolic] acquisition may be acquired from a dying man<a id="k156b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; even on the Sabbath;<a id="k156b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but [this is] not due to a consideration of the view of R. Eliezer,<a id="k156b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but to the possibility that his<a id="k156b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [peace of] mind might be disturbed.<a id="k156b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. ELIEZER<a id="k156b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID: ON THE SABBATH, HIS [VERBAL] INSTRUCTIONS<a id="k156b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE LEGALLY VALID, BECAUSE HE IS UNABLE TO WRITE,<a id="k156b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT ON A WEEK-DAY.<a id="k156b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOSHUA SAID: [IF] THEY SAID [THIS]<a id="k156b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; IN [RESPECT OF] THE SABBATH<a id="k156b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; HOW MUCH MORE SO IN [THE CASE OF] A WEEK-DAY?<a id="k156b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; SIMILARLY: ONE MAY ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP ON BEHALF OF A MINOR<a id="k156b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT ON BEHALF OF [A PERSON WHO IS] OF AGE,<a id="k156b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA SAID: [IF THEY ALLOWED POSSESSION<a id="k156b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; TO BE ACQUIRED] ON BEHALF OF A MINOR,<a id="k156b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; HOW MUCH MORE SO ON BEHALF OF [A PERSON WHO IS] OF AGE.<a id="k156b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whose [version is represented in] our Mishnah? &mdash; It [is that of] R. Judah. For it was taught: R. Meir stated, 'R. Eliezer said: On a week-day his [verbal] instructions<a id="k156b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; are legally valid because he is able to write,<a id="k156b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; but not on the Sabbath.<a id="k156b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k157a_1:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 10."
,k157a_2:" When writing and acquisition are permissible."
,k157a_3:" When these are not permissible and some provision has to be made for giving legal force to the dying man's wishes."
,k157a_4:" Cf. p. 681, n. 17."
,k157a_5:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 16."
,k157a_6:" For notes on R. Judah's version, v. our Mishnah <i>supra</i> 156b."
,k157a_7:" R. Judah's version of the respective views of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua follows that recorded in the Mishnah."
,k157a_8:" Lit., 'the'."
,k157a_9:" Lit., 'upon him'."
,k157a_10:" E.g., brothers or other relatives who had no other heirs but him."
,k157a_11:" The marriage contract of his widow."
,k157a_12:" But he left neither money nor possessions wherewith to meet his obligations."
,k157a_13:" The son did not consequently inherit from his father whose estate would, therefore, be inherited by his living heirs."
,k157a_14:" Hence, the son inherited his father's estate, and they, as the son's creditors, are entitled to seize it for their debts."
,k157a_15:" Lit., 'say'."
,k157a_16:" The claim of the creditors is considered to be of equal force with that of the heirs."
,k157a_17:" V. note 3."
,k157a_18:" The claim of the heirs is regarded as certain, since they are entitled to the estate as the heirs either of the Father or of the son, while the claim of the creditors is doubtful, and no 'doubt' may supplant a 'certainty'."
,k157a_19:" Even though no security on the lender's real estate had been entered in it."
,k157a_20:" Or sold. No one, it is assumed, would lend money without proper security, and the omission of the guarantee from the bond is regarded as a mere scribal oversight. Furthermore, any future buyer (or subsequent lender on the security) of the lands is assumed to have known of the existence of the loan (since the issue of a written note ensures for the matter due publicity), and must have consented to take the risk of having to surrender them to the creditor should the latter find no other property from which to collect his debt. (Cf. B.M. 14a)."
,k157a_21:" Lit., 'by the hands'."
,k157a_22:" Without a written note."
,k157a_23:" Such as has not been sold or mortgaged."
,k157a_24:" <i>Infra</i> 175a, <i>supra</i> 42a."
,k157a_25:" I.e., not only what be already possesses but also that which he may purchase in the future shall be mortgaged for the debt."
,k157a_26:" After the note had been issued. Is the creditor entitled to seize this property if it was sold?"
,k157a_27:" I.e., the lender is entitled to seize any real estate bought and sold after the date of the note."
,k157a_28:" Has a mortgage, according to the Rabbis, more force than a sale, and may the lender, therefore, seize the sold land or not?"
,k157a_29:" The borrower."
,k157a_30:" After the date of the loan, and the latter points to this fact as evidence that the loan had already been repaid. Had he not repaid his debt, one authority (Admon) maintains (Keth. 110a), the lender would not have sold him the field but would have retained its purchase money as payment of the loan. The fact that he did sell it confirms, in Admon's opinion, the borrower's claim; and the lender consequently forfeits his right to seize it."
,k157a_31:" By the sale of the land."
,k157a_32:" Keth. 110a. The sale, then, according to the Sages, is no evidence that the loan had been repaid; and the creditor is, therefore, entitled to seize the land though it was bought after the date of the note of indebtedness. Thus it has been proved, in answer to Samuel's enquiry, that property purchased after the loan was made may be seized by the creditor."
,k157a_33:" [Lit., 'say'. Following the reading of R. Gersh. and MSS.]"
,k157a_34:" The borrower."
,k157a_35:" I.e., when the property is still in the borrower's own possession."
,k157a_36:" And no question would arise in such a case."
,k157a_37:" I.e., where the land is no more in the possession of the borrower."
,k157a_38:" Since at the time the debt was incurred the son was not yet in possession of his inheritance; and after it came into his possession it was, as soon as he was killed, automatically transmitted to his heirs. As our Mishnah, however, regards the creditors' plea as tenable, it must be inferred that even an estate that was acquired and transmitted to others, after the date of a loan, is also mortgaged to the creditors."
,k157a_39:" The claim of the creditors, in our Mishnah, is not based on the law of mortgage but on moral considerations. Hence no inference may be drawn from it on the law of the mortgage of property bought and sold after the date of a loan."
,k157a_40:" Since, as has just been asserted, the creditors have no legal claim upon the dead man's estate, the bond of indebtedness is of no value, and the loan, as far as this estate is concerned, becomes merely a verbal one."
,k157a_41:" Only in the case of a loan for which a bond of indebtedness had been given is it the moral duty of orphans to repay their father's debt. The creditors, in our Mishnah, could not, consequently, advance even a moral claim. What, then, is their plea? "
}

txt:
<p>
said: They said [this]<a id="k157a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in [respect of] a week-day.<a id="k157a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and how much more so in the case of the Sabbath.<a id="k157a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly: One may acquire ownership on behalf of [a person who is] of age,<a id="k157a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but not on behalf of a minor;<a id="k157a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; these are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua said: [If they allowed possession to be acquired] on [behalf of] one who is of age, how much more so on behalf of a minor'. R. Judah stated,<a id="k157a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Eliezer said: On the Sabbath his [verbal] instructions are legally valid, because he is unable to write, but not on a week-day. R. Joshua said: [If] they said [this] in [respect of] the Sabbath, how much more so in [the case of] a week-day. Similarly: One may acquire ownership on behalf of a minor but not on behalf of [a person who is] of age; these are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua said: [If they allowed possession to be acquired] on behalf of a minor, how much more so on behalf of[a person who is] of age.<a id="k157a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE WHERE] A HOUSE<a id="k157a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; COLLAPSED UPON A MAN<a id="k157a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS FATHER OR UPON A MAN<a id="k157a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THOSE WHOSE HEIR HE IS,<a id="k157a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [THAT PERSON] HAD AGAINST HIM [THE CLAIM OF] A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k157a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; OR [THAT OF] A CREDITOR;<a id="k157a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND, IN THE FIRST CASE]. THE HEIRS OF THE FATHER PLEAD [THAT] THE SON DIED FIRST AND THE FATHER AFTERWARDS,<a id="k157a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE THE CREDITORS PLEAD [THAT] THE FATHER DIED FIRST AND THE SON AFTERWARDS,<a id="k157a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI HOLD<a id="k157a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [THAT THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS] TO BE DIVIDED,<a id="k157a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BETH HILLEL HOLD<a id="k157a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [THAT] THE ESTATE [IS TO REMAIN] IN ITS FORMER STATUS.<a id="k157a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. We learnt elsewhere: He who lends [money] to another on a bond<a id="k157a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [is entitled to] collect [his debt] from [the borrower's] lands [even though they were subsequently] mortgaged.<a id="k157a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [If, however, the loan was made] in the presence<a id="k157a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; of witnesses<a id="k157a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be collected from free<a id="k157a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; property [only].<a id="k157a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel inquired: What [is the law in the case where the borrower entered in the bond]. 'that I may acquire'.<a id="k157a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and he acquired?<a id="k157a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; According to R. Meir who holds [the view that] a person may transfer possession of something that has not [yet] come into existence, there can be no question; for [the lender] has undoubtedly acquired possession.<a id="k157a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; The question arises according to [the view of] the Rabbis who maintain [that] a person may not transfer possession of something that has not [yet] come into existence.<a id="k157a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said, Come and hear: And the Sages Say: This [creditor] who sold him<a id="k157a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; the land<a id="k157a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; was prudent, because thereby<a id="k157a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; he was in a position to take from him a pledge.<a id="k157a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said to him: You mean,<a id="k157a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'from him'!<a id="k157a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; From him<a id="k157a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [surely], even the cloak that is upon his shoulders [may be seized]!<a id="k157a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Our question, however, is what [is the law in the case] where [the borrower entered in the bond]. 'That I may acquire'. [and] he [subsequently] bought and sold, [or where he entered] 'That I may acquire' [and] he [subsequently] bought or transmitted [his purchase] as an inheritance?<a id="k157a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hana replied, Come and hear: [IN THE CASE WHERE] A HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON A MAN AND HIS FATHER [OR] UPON A MAN AND THOSE WHOSE HEIR HE IS, AND [THAT PERSON] HAD AGAINST HIM [THE CLAIM OF] A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I> OR [THAT OF] A CREDITOR; [AND. IN THE FIRST CASE]. THE HEIRS OF THE FATHER PLEAD [THAT] THE SON DIED FIRST AND THE FATHER AFTERWARDS, WHILE THE CREDITORS PLEAD [THAT] THE FATHER DIED FIRST etc. Now, if it were to be assumed [that where a borrower entered in the bond]. 'that I may acquire'. [and] he [subsequently] bought and sold, [or where he entered]. 'that I may acquire'. and he [subsequently] bought or transferred [his purchase] as an inheritance, [the land] does not become mortgaged [to the creditor, what claim could the creditors advance?] Even if it were granted that the father had died first [and that the son, had consequently. inherited his estate]. this [is merely another form of the case where a bond contains the entry] 'that I may acquire'!<a id="k157a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said to them: Our colleague Zera has explained this [as follows]: It is the moral duty of the orphans to repay the debt of their father.<a id="k157a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi demurred: This [surely] is a verbal loan,<a id="k157a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; and both Rab and Samuel stated [that] a verbal loan cannot be collected either from the heirs or from the buyers!<a id="k157a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k157b_1:" Lit., 'this according to whom? It is'."
,k157b_2:" While Samuel's enquiry had reference to (v. <i>supra</i> 157a) the view of the Rabbis."
,k157b_3:" [A town east of Nehardea, v. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., 270ff.]"
,k157b_4:" Since the creditor might unjustly seize the lands which the borrower sold between the date entered in the bond and the actual date of the loan. Only those sold after the actual date are legally mortgaged to the creditor."
,k157b_5:" Sheb. X, 5, B.M. 17a, 72a, Sanh, 32a. The creditor, by allowing the entry of a later date, has thereby surrendered his right to seize those lands which the borrower sold between the actual date of the loan and the later date that was entered in the bond."
,k157b_6:" Lands that the borrower bought (say in February) between the real date of the loan (say January) and the later one (say March) that was entered on the bond, though acquired after the date of the loan, and consequently not mortgaged to the creditor, could nevertheless be seized by him from purchasers who bought these (say in April) on the plea that they were bought by the borrower before the date and sold by him after the date of the loan entered on the bond. And since a post-dated bond is valid, despite this possibility, one must conclude that lands bought and sold after the date of a loan are also mortgaged to the creditor,"
,k157b_7:" V. <i>supra</i>. p. 685, n. 5."
,k157b_8:" Hence no answer may be derived from it to Samuel's question which had reference to the view of the Rabbis."
,k157b_9:" By manuring, ploughing and sowing."
,k157b_10:" In its improved condition."
,k157b_11:" Compensation for his loss."
,k157b_12:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 683, n. 11."
,k157b_13:" B.M. 14b."
,k157b_14:" The improvements, surely, took place after the loan was made."
,k157b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 685. n. 5."
,k157b_16:" Lit., 'to say'."
,k157b_17:" I.e., the debtor pledged for his loan not only the lands that he already possessed but also those that he may acquire in the future."
,k157b_18:" Bought and sold under the conditions just described, (Cf. previous note)."
,k157b_19:" And pledged his present and future possessions. V. <i>supra</i>, n. 3."
,k157b_20:" To whom he gave the same security as to the first."
,k157b_21:" Or transmitted it as an inheritance."
,k157b_22:" Since his security was obtained before the second loan was incurred, he is also entitled to the priority of his claim."
,k157b_23:" Lit., 'last'. As it might be maintained that the hold of the first creditor on the property which was non-existent at the time of the loan is not sufficiently strong to prevent the debtor from withdrawing it from him and assigning it as security to a second creditor."
,k157b_24:" Lit., 'that'."
,k157b_25:" Lit., 'thing'."
,k157b_26:" Lit., 'From there'. The statement was made in Babylonia where Palestine was often referred to as 'there'."
,k157b_27:" The two creditors."
,k157b_28:" The land having been purchased after the second loan, when both creditors had equal security on the debtor's possessions, it must be equally divided between them in proportion to their respective claims."
,k157b_29:" [Thus, Yad Ramah.]"
,k157b_30:" He is said to have lived sixty years, and to have concluded at the age of thirty the first version of his lectures, and at the age of sixty (i.e., during the second thirty years of his life), his second version. [V. Letter of Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, 93-94. The tradition connecting R. Ashi with the Editorship of the Talmud is based on this statement, v. Brill, N., Jahrbucher, II, 10. Halevy, Doroth, II, 263ff., however, disputes this.]"
,k157b_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 687, n. 4."
,k157b_32:" Lit., 'last'. Cf. p. 687, n. 14."
,k157b_33:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 687, n. 14."
,k157b_34:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 686, n. 5."
,k157b_35:" V. ibid. n. 6."
,k157b_36:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 683, n. 11."
,k157b_37:" Lit., 'and if there is', i.e., if the law is that the second creditor has equal rights with the first, owing to the fact that the land in question was purchased after the second loan."
,k157b_38:" The buyer."
,k157b_39:" The buyer, who received no less security for his purchase than the creditor for his loan, should have the same rights as the creditor, just as, in the previous case, the second creditor has the same rights as the first. The improvement of the land, which obviously took place after the sale, may be regarded as land purchased by the debtor after the second loan and sold (since the improvement is claimed from him by both, first by the creditor and ultimately by the buyer. and, in either case, it was no more in his possession than the land sold). Accordingly, the creditor and the buyer (like the two creditors <i>supra</i>) are entitled to equal shares. The creditor could thus seize only half the value of the improvement, the other half remaining with the buyer. Why then should be collect from the seller its full value?"
,k157b_40:" Lit., 'taught'. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; But [the fact is that] this [Mishnah] represents the view of<a id="k157b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir who holds [that] a person may transfer possession of something that is not [yet] in existence.<a id="k157b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod<a id="k157b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; said in the name of Rabina, Come and hear: Ante-dated bonds of indebtedness are invalid<a id="k157b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and post-dated [ones] are valid.<a id="k157b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it could be assumed [that where the bond contained the entry]. 'That I may acquire'. [and] he [subsequently] bought and sold [or where it contained the entry] 'That I may acquire' [and] he [subsequently] bought and transmitted [the purchase] as an inheritance, [the land] is not mortgaged, [to the creditor], why [are] post-dated [bonds] valid?<a id="k157b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This [is surely similar to the case of an entry] 'That I may acquire'! &mdash; [But] this [may] represent the view of<a id="k157b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir who holds [that] a person may transfer possession of something that is not [yet] in existence.<a id="k157b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mesharsheya in the name of Raba said, Come and hear! How [is one to understand the statement that] for improvement of lands [one may not seize any sold property]? If [a person] has sold a field to another who improved it,<a id="k157b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and a creditor [of the seller] came and seized it,<a id="k157b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; when [the buyer] collects [from the seller].<a id="k157b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he collects [the value of] the principal [even] from mortgaged property, but [that of the] improvement from free<a id="k157b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; property [only].<a id="k157b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it is assumed, that where [a bond of indebtedness contained the entry]. 'That I may acquire'. [and] the debtor bought [land] and sold [it, or where the bond contained the entry]. 'That I may acquire'. [and] he bought [land] and transmitted [it] as an inheritance, [that land is] not mortgaged [to the creditor], why does the creditor seize the improvement[s]?<a id="k157b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [may] represent the view of<a id="k157b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir who holds [that] a person may transfer possession of something that is not [yet] in the world.
</p><p>
	If [a good reason] could be found for the statement<a id="k157b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [that where there was an entry in a bond of indebtedness], 'That I may acquire'.<a id="k157b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [and the debtor subsequently] bought [land] and sold [it, or where the bond contained the entry]. 'That I may acquire',<a id="k157b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [and the debtor subsequently] bought [land] and transmitted it as an inheritance, [that land is] not mortgaged [to the creditor, the question that follows does not arise], since [the land was] not [in any way] mortgaged. If, [however. a reason] could be found for the statement<a id="k157b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [that such land]<a id="k157b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is mortgaged [to the creditor, the question arises as to] what [is the ruling in the case where the debtor] borrowed [from one person].<a id="k157b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and [then] borrowed [from another],<a id="k157b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and then purchased [some real estate which he subsequently sold].<a id="k157b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is this land] mortgaged to the first [lender],<a id="k157b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it mortgaged to the second?<a id="k157b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman replied: We [also] have raised the same<a id="k157b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; question,<a id="k157b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and [a reply] was sent from Palestine<a id="k157b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] the first acquired [the right of seizing that land]. R. Huna said: They<a id="k157b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; divide [the land among themselves].<a id="k157b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rabbah b. Abbuha also learned [that the land] is to be divided [between them].<a id="k157b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said: In the first version,<a id="k157b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi told us<a id="k157b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] the first [creditor] acquired [the right over the land];<a id="k157b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; the second<a id="k157b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; version of R. Ashi [however], told us [that the land was] to be divided.<a id="k157b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And the law is [that the land] is to be divided.<a id="k157b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: How [is one to understand the statement that] for improvement of lands [one may not seize any sold property]? If [a person] has sold a field to another who improved it, and a creditor [of the seller] came and seized it,<a id="k157b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; when [the buyer] collects [from the seller]<a id="k157b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; he collects [the value of] the principal [even] from sold property but [that of the] improvement from free<a id="k157b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; property [only]. Now, if that were so,<a id="k157b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k157b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; should [only be able to claim] half [the cost of his] improvement!<a id="k157b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The expression]. 'he collects', which was used,<a id="k157b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; also implies half [the value of his] improvement.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k158a_1:" Lit., 'upon him'."
,k158a_2:" From whom he had no children."
,k158a_3:" His sons, e.g., that were born from another wife or his father and brothers."
,k158a_4:" And her estate was consequently inherited by her husband before he died."
,k158a_5:" And, consequently, his heirs are entitled to his estate including all that he inherited From his wife."
,k158a_6:" Her relatives who are not related to her husband."
,k158a_7:" Since it is impossible to ascertain who in fact died first, the ownership of the estate is a matter of doubt, and any property the ownership of which is in doubt must be divided between the claiming parties."
,k158a_8:" I.e., property which the wife brought to her husband on marriage, and the value of which was included in her marriage contract, the husband assuming full responsibility for loss or profit."
,k158a_9:" The Gemara, <i>infra</i>, explains who these are,"
,k158a_10:" I.e., the sum of a hundred, (in the case of the marriage of a widow), or of two hundred <i>zuz</i> (in the case of the marriage of a virgin), and the 'additional sum' which a husband undertakes to pay to his wife upon divorce or upon his death, and which forms the principal element in a marriage contract."
,k158a_11:" Property, the principal of which is retained in the wife's possession while its usufruct is enjoyed by the husband. V. <i>supra</i>, p. 206, n. 7."
,k158a_12:" Of the wife. Since she obtained the property from her father's house and since the property itself remained all the time in her possession, the heirs of her father's house are entitled to inherit it. (CF. Rashb. and R. Gersh. a.l.) "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON A MAN<a id="k158a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS WIFE<a id="k158a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND] THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND<a id="k158a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; PLEAD [THAT] THE WIFE DIED FIRST<a id="k158a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [THAT] THE HUSBAND DIED AFTERWARDS,<a id="k158a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [WHILE] THE HEIRS OF THE WIFE<a id="k158a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; PLEAD [THAT] THE HUSBAND DIED FIRST [AND THAT] THE WIFE DIED AFTERWARDS, BETH SHAMMAI HOLD [THAT THE ESTATE] IS TO BE DIVIDED,<a id="k158a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BETH HILLEL HOLD [THAT] POSSESSIONS<a id="k158a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [ARE TO REMAIN WITH THOSE WHO ARE] IN THEIR ESTABLISHED RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP;<a id="k158a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; THE <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k158a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND; [AND] THE PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER<a id="k158a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE FATHER.<a id="k158a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k158b_1:" Do the possessions to which Beth Hillel referred in our Mishnah, remain?"
,k158b_2:" Since the husband is entirely responsible for loss or profit and is also entitled to sell it, it is regarded as his possession and, consequently, on his death, it passes over into that of his heirs,"
,k158b_3:" Since it was she who brought it to him from her father's house."
,k158b_4:" Between the heirs of the husband and those of the wife."
,k158b_5:" Lit., 'upon him'."
,k158b_6:" In her widowhood. Her heirs (e.g.. her brothers) plead that the son died first and that, consequently, his mother inherited his estate before she died, and they now inherit it from her, while his heirs (e.g., his paternal brothers) plead that the reverse had happened and that they, therefore, are entitled to the inheritance."
,k158b_7:" Lit., 'these and these', Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel who are in disagreement on the cases in the Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 157a and 158a."
,k158b_8:" Unlike the case of a father and son (Mishnah <i>supra</i> 157a), where one party claims possession as heirs and the other as creditors, or the case of a husband and wife (Mishnah. <i>supra</i> 158a), where certain kinds of property are in the legal ownership of the husband while others are in that of the wife, the case in our Mishnah deals with claims both of which are of equal strength, both being based on the right of inheritance, the widow being acknowledged as the undisputed possessor of the estate, the only point in doubt being whether the one party or the other is to be heir. As the equality of the claims leaves the question of ownership in equal doubt on either side, both schools are of the unanimous opinion that the estate in dispute must be divided."
,k158b_9:" I.e., even in this case, the School of Hillel maintain the view they had advanced in the previous cases. 'I agree' may be paraphrased 'I agree to differ' (cf. Rashb.)"
,k158b_10:" Which are an obstacle to the formulation of the authoritative law."
,k158b_11:" Since It was generally agreed that in the case spoken of in our Mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in agreement, why should R. Akiba introduce a note of discord by asserting that even here they are in dispute?"
,k158b_12:" Does the estate remain according to R. Akiba?"
,k158b_13:" Lit., 'stood'."
,k158b_14:" 'Rabbah adopted the principle of R. Zera', which follows in current editions is to be deleted. (V. BaH, R. Gersh. and R. Han, a.l.) &mdash; [It is, however, well to remember that R. Elai was a Palestinian and that R. Zera must have become aware of R. Elai's view only after he came to Palestine when he was led to abandon his own opinion, whereas Rabbah, who still remained behind in Babylon, retained the view of his colleague, R. Zera. Considered in this light, the reading in our current editions is quite in order.]"
,k158b_15:" That in Palestine he was able to see the wisdom of R. Elai's decision."
,k158b_16:" for R. Elai's decision that the heirs of the mother are entitled to the estate."
,k158b_17:" The possessions of the widow from the moment her husband died."
,k158b_18:" To which the mother belongs. Hence it must not be taken away from her heirs, who naturally belong to the same tribe, in favour of the son's heirs who may belong to another tribe and who would, consequently. alienate the property from the tribe the ownership of which had been established."
,k158b_19:" And not, 'that our Master comes'."
,k158b_20:" Lit., 'there'. v. <i>supra</i> p. 687, n. 12. The statement is unintelligible and is explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k158b_21:" Lit., 'laws of monies or money matters'."
,k158b_22:" In the statement no sale but a loan was mentioned! "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. In whose established right of ownership?<a id="k158b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan said: In the right of the ownership of the heirs of the husband.<a id="k158b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar said: In the right of ownership of the heirs of the wife;<a id="k158b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Simeon b. Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara said: [The estate in dispute] is to be divided.<a id="k158b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And so did Bar Kappara teach: Since these appear as heirs and those appear as heirs, [the estate] is to be divided [between them].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON A MAN<a id="k158b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS MOTHER,<a id="k158b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; BOTH<a id="k158b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AGREE THAT [THE ESTATE IN DISPUTE] IS TO BE DIVIDED.<a id="k158b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. AKIBA SAID: I AGREE IN THIS [CASE] THAT THE ESTATE [IS TO REMAIN WITH THOSE WHO ARE] IN ITS ESTABLISHED RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP.<a id="k158b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; BEN AZZAI SAID TO HIM: [IS IT NOT ENOUGH THAT] WE ARE SUFFERING FROM THE EXISTING DIVISIONS OF OPINION<a id="k158b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT YOU [MUST] COME TO CREATE DIFFERENCES FOR US WHERE UNANIMITY WAS DECLARED?<a id="k158b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. In whose established right of ownership?<a id="k158b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Elai said: In the established right of the ownership of the heirs of the mother. R. Zera said: In the established right of the ownership of the heirs of the son. When R. Zera went up [to Palestine] he adopted<a id="k158b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the principle of R. Elai.<a id="k158b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera said: From this<a id="k158b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; one may deduce that the climate of the land of Israel makes one wise. And what is the reason?<a id="k158b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: Because the inheritance<a id="k158b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; has become the established possession of that tribe.<a id="k158b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BEN AZZAI SAID TO HIM: [IS IT NOT ENOUGH THAT] WE ARE SUFFERING FROM EXISTING DIVISIONS OF OPINIONS etc. R. Simlai said: This implies [that] Ben Azzai was disciple [and] colleague of R. Akiba [seeing] that he said to him, 'That you come'.<a id="k158b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[The following statement] was sent from Palestine:<a id="k158b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; '[If] a son borrowed on [the security of] the estate of his father, during the lifetime of his father, and he died, his son may take away from the buyers; and this it is that presents a difficulty in civil law.'<a id="k158b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] he borrowed, [it may be asked.] what [is he to] take away? And, furthermore, what has he to do with buyers?<a id="k158b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, if that statement was made, thus
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k159a_1:" His share of the inheritance."
,k159a_2:" I.e., while it was still in his father's possession."
,k159a_3:" The son of the dead man who sold his share in his father's estate."
,k159a_4:" That which his father had sold them. That sale was invalid because his father's father having been alive at the time, his father was not yet in possession of the land he sold; and, since he died before his father, the land has never come into his possession. Hence the son (the grandson of the owner) inherits that land from his grandfather and is entitled therefore, to take it away from the buyers, on his grandfather's death."
,k159a_5:" V. p. 691, n. 9."
,k159a_6:" The buyers."
,k159a_7:" The son's title to the estate is solely due to the rights of his father, how then, could he lay any claim to that which his father himself had sold"
,k159a_8:" The son, the grandson of the original owner."
,k159a_9:" Lit., 'perhaps'."
,k159a_10:" And not to those of his father. As the Torah conferred upon a son the right to inherit from his father so it has also conferred upon the son's son the right to inherit from his grandfather. Hence, the inheritance has passed directly from the grandfather to the grandson who should, therefore, be entitled to seize the estate which has never come into the possession of his father who, consequently, had no right to sell it."
,k159a_11:" Ps. XLV, 17. This proves that a person's son takes the place of his father, i.e., the grandson succeeds his grandfather."
,k159a_12:" Lit., 'that (is) a difficulty'. But the message in the form given <i>supra</i>, as explained, presents no difficulty at all."
,k159a_13:" Lit., 'here'."
,k159a_14:" Lit., 'from the power'."
,k159a_15:" Were it not for the rights of his father who was a firstborn son, he should not have been entitled to the double portion!"
,k159a_16:" Lit., 'perhaps'."
,k159a_17:" As regards the right to be heir,"
,k159a_18:" I.e., he inherits from his grandfather as if he himself had been the firstborn (Rashb.). V. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 116a."
,k159a_19:" V. p. 692 n. 10."
,k159a_20:" Lit., 'knew'."
,k159a_21:" Lit., 'for him'."
,k159a_22:" Which be signed as a witness."
,k159a_23:" Who is ineligible to act as a witness. Cf. Ex, XXIII, 1."
,k159a_24:" Cf. previous note."
,k159a_25:" And the deed is valid."
,k159a_26:" Presumably because the deed may have been forged."
,k159a_27:" Granted that the signature is his, there is no proof that the deed itself is not a forgery!"
,k159a_28:" The robber's."
,k159a_29:" Before he embarked on his lawless career. At that time his word could be relied upon; and the deed is, therefore, valid if the witnesses now testify that they signed the endorsement when he was still an upright man."
,k159a_30:" V. <i>supra</i>, p. 692, n. 10."
,k159a_31:" Lit., 'knew'."
,k159a_32:" Lit., 'him'."
,k159a_33:" E.g., a loan for which a bond of indebtedness has been given."
,k159a_34:" The bond, i.e., the debt."
,k159a_35:" He is now an interested party and is, consequently. disqualified from acting as witness."
,k159a_36:" Since it has been said that he himself is not trusted, it is apparently assumed that he might have forged the document, why then should it be valid if others confirm his handwriting? Could not that very handwriting represent a record of an imaginary transaction? This then may have been the message sent from Palestine which presents a difficulty in civil law."
,k159a_37:" CF. mutatis mutandis, <i>supra</i>, n. 13."
,k159a_38:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 692, n. 10."
,k159a_39:" I.e., his signature on any document in favour of his father-in-law."
,k159a_40:" CF. <i>supra</i> p. 693, n. 20."
,k159a_41:" This, then, may have been the Palestine message and the difficulty in civil law that it presented."
,k159a_42:" A divine precept, a statute without a reason."
,k159a_43:" A relative such as a son-in-law."
,k159a_44:" Strangers, attesting his signature."
,k159a_45:" Hence, the correctness of the statements in the deed never having been doubted, the deed is valid if strangers attest the signature."
,k159a_46:" Lit., 'for if you will not say so'."
,k159a_47:" Moses and Aaron as any other relatives."
,k159a_48:" Their fathers-in-law (or other relatives)."
,k159a_49:" A son-in-law."
,k159a_50:" What, then, could have been meant by the 'difficulty' mentioned?"
,k159a_51:" The case of a son who sold his share in his father's estate during the latter's lifetime (<i>supra</i>)."
,k159a_52:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k159a_53:" From an expression used in reference to a blessing no law may be derived. "
}

txt:
<p>
it [must] have been made: [If] a son sold the estate<a id="k159a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of his father, during the lifetime of the father,<a id="k159a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and he died, his son<a id="k159a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; may take [it] away from the buyers;<a id="k159a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and this it is that presents a difficulty in civil law;<a id="k159a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for they<a id="k159a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; could say to him, 'Your father has sold and you are taking away'!<a id="k159a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What objection is this! Could he<a id="k159a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; not<a id="k159a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; reply. 'I succeed to the rights of the father of [my] father'?<a id="k159a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; You may know [that such a plea is justified] for it is written, Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons, whom thou shalt make princes in all the land.<a id="k159a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, [a message was sent to which] objection [is to be raised, it may be] the following:<a id="k159a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A firstborn son who sold the share of [his] birthright during the lifetime of his father, and he died during the lifetime of his father, his son may take [it] away from the buyers; and this it is that presents a difficulty in civil law', [for] his father sold [it] and he takes [it] away! And if it be suggested [that] in this case<a id="k159a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; also [he might plead]. 'I come as successor to the rights<a id="k159a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; of my father's father', [it may be retorted.] 'If he comes as successor to the rights of his father's father what claim has he upon the portion of the birthright?'<a id="k159a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But what difficulty [is this]? Could he not<a id="k159a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; reply, 'I succeed to the rights of [my] father's father<a id="k159a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but take [also] the place of [my] father'?<a id="k159a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, [a message was sent to which] objection [is to be raised it might be] the following.<a id="k159a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a person was in a position to tender<a id="k159a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; evidence for one<a id="k159a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect of a transaction that was recorded] in a deed,<a id="k159a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; before he turned robber, and [then] he turned robber,<a id="k159a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not [permitted] to attest his handwriting,<a id="k159a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but others may attest it.'<a id="k159a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if he [himself] is not trusted<a id="k159a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [shall] others be trusted!<a id="k159a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; This, then, [it is] which [presents] a difficulty in civil law.
</p><p>
	What difficulty [is this]? [It is] possible [that the Palestine message refers to] a case where his<a id="k159a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; handwriting was endorsed at a court of law!<a id="k159a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, [a message was sent to which] objection [is to be raised, it might be] the following.<a id="k159a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a person was in a position to tender<a id="k159a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; evidence for one<a id="k159a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect of a transaction that was recorded] in a deed,<a id="k159a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; before it<a id="k159a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; had fallen as an inheritance to him, he is not eligible to identify his handwriting<a id="k159a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; but others may identify his handwriting.'<a id="k159a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What difficulty, however, [is this]? [Is it not] possible [that] here also [the reference is to] a case where his handwriting was endorsed at a court of law?<a id="k159a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however [a message was sent to which] objection [is to be raised, it might be] the following.<a id="k159a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a person was in a position to tender evidence for one, before he became his son-in-law and he [subsequently] became his son-inlaw, he is not [permitted] to attest his handwriting,<a id="k159a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; but others may attest it. [Now. if] he is not trusted [shall] others be trusted!<a id="k159a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be suggested [that] here also [the reference is to] a case where his handwriting was endorsed at a court of law, surely, [it may be retorted], R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman, 'Even though his handwriting was not endorsed at a court of law'!<a id="k159a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What difficulty, however, [is this]? [It is] possible [that] it is a decree of the king<a id="k159a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k159a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; shall not be trusted [as a witness] while others<a id="k159a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; shall be trusted; and [the reason is] not because he might lie!<a id="k159a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; for should not [this explanation] be accepted,<a id="k159a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [could it be imagined that] Moses and Aaron [are not permitted to act as witnesses] for their fathers-in-law because they are untrustworthy! [The] only [possible explanation] then [is that] it is a decree of the king that they<a id="k159a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; shall not act as witnesses for them,<a id="k159a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; [so] here also [the explanation may be that] it is the decree of the king that he<a id="k159a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; shall not attest his handwriting in favour of his father-in-law.<a id="k159a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Hence [the message sent from Palestine was in fact just the one that was mentioned at first;<a id="k159a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; and as to your objection [from the verse]. Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons,<a id="k159a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be pointed out that] this was written in [connection with] a blessing.<a id="k159a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; But can it be said [that this verse] was written [only] in [connection with] a blessing
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k159b_1:" <i>Supra</i> 157a, q.v. for notes."
,k159b_2:" Of the son who was killed."
,k159b_3:" 'The father of their father', i.e., their grandfather. They claim that their inheritance does not come to them from their father, who was in debt, but from their grandfather; and that for this reason they (and not the creditors) are entitled to the estate."
,k159b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k159b_5:" Lit., 'when it is written'."
,k159b_6:" Lit., 'what is'."
,k159b_7:" The court."
,k159b_8:" Since their inheritance, as has been assumed, cannot come direct from their grandfather but from their father. As, however. they are allowed to advance such a plea, it follows that even in legal matters (not only in a blessing) grandchildren succeed directly to the estate of their grandfather"
,k159b_9:" The brothers of the son that was killed, who are, of course, the sons of the father that was killed whose entire estate they inherit, in the case where their brother died first and afterwards their father."
,k159b_10:" The uncles of the son that was killed. The Mishnah, in the second case, refers to an uncle and a nephew upon whom a house collapsed. If the nephew died first, the brothers of the uncle (the 'heirs of the father' who is one of the brothers of the uncle) are entitled to the entire estate. If, however, the uncle died first, the nephew is entitled as the heir of his father (one of the brothers) to share the estate with them."
,k159b_11:" I.e., who predeceased his mother."
,k159b_12:" And thus keep away her estate from, her other living heirs (e.g., her brothers)."
,k159b_13:" Who are complete strangers to his mother."
,k159b_14:" That it is a case of a father and his own son,"
,k159b_15:" Both, surely. are represented by the very same heir or heirs. If the son has no issue the heirs of the father would also inherit the sons' estate, and if he has issue, his sons would inherit the estate of their grandfather as well as that of their father."
,k159b_16:" That a son in the grave inherits the estate of his mother."
,k159b_17:" <i>Supra</i> 158b."
,k159b_18:" V. Num. XXXVI, 7. So shall no inheritance&nbsp;&hellip; remove, which refers to the inheritance of a son from his mother. Cf. <i>supra</i> 112b."
,k159b_19:" So shall no inheritance remove. Num. XXXVI, 9, which refers to a husband's inheritance from his wife. Cf. <i>supra</i> l.c."
,k159b_20:" It is his in name only, not in fact."
,k159b_21:" Lit., 'he placed it firmly in the hand of the buyer'."
,k159b_22:" Lit., 'Raba on Raba'."
,k159b_23:" Lit., 'R. Nahman on R. Nahman'."
,k159b_24:" Since the occupier of the inner rooms is making use of the outer ones, the enjoyment of the usufruct for three years in the latter does not establish the right of ownership."
,k159b_25:" Cf. <i>supra</i> notes 5 and 6."
,k159b_26:" The case of the land of Bar Sisin."
,k159b_27:" Hence it belongs to him."
,k159b_28:" In the dispute about the outer rooms."
,k159b_29:" The seller."
,k159b_30:" Hence, it is the buyer who has to produce the proof. On the whole passage, v. <i>supra</i> 29b, 30a. "
}

txt:
<p>
and that with respect to [a matter of] law, [it is] not [applicable]? Surely it was taught: [In the case where] a house collapsed upon a man and his father [or] upon a man and those whose heir he is, and [that man] had against him [the claim of] a woman's <i>kethubah</i> or [that of] a creditor, [and. in the first case]. the heirs of the father plead [that] the son died first and the father afterwards, while the creditor[s] plead [that] the father died first and the son afterwards;<a id="k159b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [now,] 'sons'<a id="k159b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [denote] 'the heirs of the father',<a id="k159b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; do they not? and 'brothers'<a id="k159b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'those whose heir he is'? If then it could be assumed [that] one cannot plead. 'I come by virtue of the rights of the father of [my] father', because the verse,<a id="k159b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons, [was] written in [connection with] a blessing. what avails<a id="k159b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it [for the heirs] that the son died [first] and the father died afterwards, the creditor [surely] could say to them,<a id="k159b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I collect [my debt from] the inheritance of their father'!<a id="k159b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [by] 'the heirs of the father','his brothers'<a id="k159b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [are meant; and by] 'those whose heir he is' the 'brothers of his father'<a id="k159b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [are meant].
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth was asked: May a son in the grave<a id="k159b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; be heir to his mother<a id="k159b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to transmit [her estate] to his paternal brothers?<a id="k159b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shesheth said to them, You have learnt it: If a father was taken captive [and died] and his son died in the [home] country, or if a son was carried into captivity [where he died] and his father died in the [home] country. [the estate] is to be divided between the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son. How is this to be understood? If it be suggested [that it is to be understood] as was taught,<a id="k159b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; who then are the heirs of the father and who are the heirs of the son?<a id="k159b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [Must it] not then [be concluded that it is] this that was meant: If a father was taken into captivity [where he died] and the son of his daughter died in the [home] country, or if the son of one's daughter was taken into captivity [where he died], and the father of his mother died in the [home] country; and it is not known which of them died first, [the estate] is to be divided between the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son. Now, if it were so,<a id="k159b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; granted even that the son died first, he should in his grave inherit [the estate] of the father of his mother and transmit it to his paternal brothers! [Must it] not consequently be inferred that a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers?
</p><p>
	R. Aha b. Manyumi said to Abaye. 'We also were taught [to the same effect]: IF THE HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON ON A MAN AND HIS MOTHER, BOTH AGREE THAT [THE ESTATE IN DISPUTE] IS TO BE DIVIDED.<a id="k159b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it were so,<a id="k159b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; granted even that the son had died first, he should in his grave inherit [the estate] of his mother and transmit it to his paternal brothers! [Must it] not then be concluded that a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers?' This proves it.
</p><p>
	And what is the reason? &mdash; Abaye replied: 'Remove' is mentioned in [the case of the inheritance of] a son,<a id="k159b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'remove' is [also] mentioned in [the case of the inheritance of] a husband,<a id="k159b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; as [in the case of] removal [of an estate] mentioned in [respect of] the husband, a husband in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his wife, so [also in the case of the] removal [of an estate] mentioned in [respect of] the son, a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers.
</p><p>
	A man once said to his friend, 'I am selling you the estate of Bar Sisin.' [In it] there was [a plot of] land that bore the name of Bar Sisin, [but the seller] told him, 'This does not belong to Bar Sisin, though it bears the name of Bar Sisin.'<a id="k159b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he decided in favour of the buyer.<a id="k159b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to R. Nahman: 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!'
</p><p>
	A contradiction was pointed out between two statements of Raba<a id="k159b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and between two statements of R. Nahman.<a id="k159b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; For, once a person said to another, 'What claim have you upon this house?' [The other] replied to him, 'I bought it from you and enjoyed [undisturbed] usufruct [during the three] years [required to establish the legal right] of possession.' [The first] said to him, 'I occupied [however], the inner rooms.'<a id="k159b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he said [to the buyer]. 'Go [and] bring proof of your [undisturbed] enjoyment of the usufruct.' Said Raba to R. Nahman, 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!' [Does not this present] a contradiction between the two statements of Raba and between the two statements of R. Nahman!<a id="k159b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction between Raba's statements, [because] here,<a id="k159b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the seller is in possession of his property;<a id="k159b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and there,<a id="k159b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the buyer is in the possession of his property.<a id="k159b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; There is [also] no contradiction between the statements of R. Nahman, [because] since here<a id="k159b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; he spoke to him, of the estate of Bar Sisin and [that plot] bore the name of Bar Sisin, It is incumbent upon him<a id="k159b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; to prove that it does not belong to Bar Sisin; here,<a id="k159b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [however.] [granted] that he has no [less a claim] than [one] who holds a deed, do we not [even in such a case] say [to the holder], 'Attest your deed and you will retain possession of the estate'?<a id="k159b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k171a_1:" Why it may tear up a deed and insert its date in the one given in exchange."
,k171a_2:" Lit., 'to take Out'."
,k171a_3:" A deed entitled its holder to seize any real estate which the debtor had sold to mortgaged after, but not before the date of the deed. Consequently. when a now deed is written for the balance of a debt in exchange for the original deed, the creditor should not be entitled to seize any property that was sold between the date of the original and that of the new deed. A court of law, however, having the right to confiscate any property. Is also empowered to enter in the second deed the date of the original and thus to subject to the creditor's seizure property to which he would not otherwise have been entitled."
,k171a_4:" OF writing and signing the first deed."
,k171a_5:" What authority have they for inserting the date of the original deed and to confer thereby upon the creditor privileges to which his new deed would not otherwise have entitled him?"
,k171a_6:" If the holder has lost the previous ones."
,k171a_7:" The issue by witnesses of a second, or subsequent deed bearing the date of the original one."
,k171a_8:" Such a deed does not entitle its holder to the seizure of any property, and the date is therefore, of no consequence."
,k171a_9:" Referred to <i>supra</i> 170b."
,k171a_10:" Lit., 'from the first time'."
,k171a_11:" Lit., 'the words of'."
,k171a_12:" for the five hundred <i>zuz</i> paid."
,k171a_13:" Lit., 'one' '"
,k171a_14:" Owing to the trouble he has to take in preserving the quittance."
,k171a_15:" Lit., 'one'."
,k171a_16:" What point, then, is there in R. Jose's second reason?"
,k171a_17:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k171a_18:" The first reason, that the debtor may be compelled to repay the loan."
,k171a_19:" Lit., 'the time of which is written', i.e.. a certain date is given which, on calculation is Fund to be one of the following."
,k171a_20:" Writing is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, as on the Sabbath."
,k171a_21:" Since it is obvious that it was not written on the Day of Rest or the Day of Atonement, it is assumed to have been written on a previous day, and post dated so as not to invalidate without any proof the deed (Rashb.)"
,k171a_22:" According to R. Judah, any postdated deed is valid even though the contents do not show that it was postdated; much more so in this case where it is obvious (cf. p. 748 n. 16) that it was postdated."
,k171a_23:" Cf. explanation in the Gemara, <i>infra</i>."
,k171a_24:" I.e., postdated."
,k171a_25:" When the date of the deed is a day on which writing is forbidden, from which it would be obvious to all (cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 16) that It was postdated. No one, therefore, could possibly be misled by the date, and no confusion or loss would arise. Any other postdated deed, however, the contents of which do not clearly show that it is postdated, (i.e.. where the date is an ordinary working day). and which might consequently be mistaken for one written on that very date, and thus cause confusion or loss, is regarded by R. Jose as invalid."
,k171a_26:" Why. then, was it stated that It. Jose declares it to be invalid?"
,k171a_27:" It. Judah and R. Jose."
,k171a_28:" Lit., 'its date'."
,k171a_29:" V. p. 748, n. 16, 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
[In the case of] a court of law, one can well understand,<a id="k171a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; because it has the power and authority to confiscate<a id="k171a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; money;<a id="k171a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but [as regards] witnesses, who had once performed their mission,<a id="k171a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [how could they] perform their mission again?<a id="k171a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [can they] not? Surely Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Witnesses may write even tell [successive]<a id="k171a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; deeds in respect of one field! &mdash; R. Joseph replied: [This<a id="k171a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted only] in [the case of] a deed of gift.<a id="k171a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rabbah replied: [Even] in [the case of] a deed [of sale] which does not contain [the clause] pledging [property].<a id="k171a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What [was that] Baraitha?<a id="k171a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was taught: If [a creditor] was claiming from [a debtor] a thousand <i>zuz</i> and he repaid five hundred <i>zuz</i> of these, the witnesses [may] tear up the bond and write for him another deed bearing the original date;<a id="k171a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; so<a id="k171a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah. R. Jose said: This deed must remain where it is. and a quittance is to be written.<a id="k171a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And for two reasons has it been said [that] a receipt was to be written. Firstly<a id="k171a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that he be compelled [thereby]<a id="k171a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; to repay [the debt] and secondly<a id="k171a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that [the debt] may be collected from [property sold] since the original date.
</p><p>
	But R. Judah also said, 'bearing the original date'!<a id="k171a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This<a id="k171a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; is what R. Jose said to R. Judah: If you mean, 'bearing the first date', I disagree with you for one [reason];<a id="k171a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; if you mean 'bearing the second date' 'I disagree with you for two [reasons].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A deed the date of which<a id="k171a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; is a Sabbath or the Tenth of Tishri<a id="k171a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is [regarded as] a postdated deed<a id="k171a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and is valid.<a id="k171a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; So R. Judah. R. Jose [declares it to be] invalid.<a id="k171a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Judah to him: Was not [such<a id="k171a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; a deed] actually brought before you at Sepphoris and you declared [it] to be valid? [R. Jose] replied to him: When I declared [it] to be valid, I declared [it] in that [case only].<a id="k171a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely. R. Judah also speaks of such [a deed]!<a id="k171a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Pedath replied: All<a id="k171a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that if the date of the deed was calculated and it<a id="k171a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; was found to coincide exactly with a Sabbath day or the Tenth of Tishri, it is a postdated deed and is valid.<a id="k171a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k171b_1:" The date of which is that of a working day and dies not, consequently, prove that the deed was postdated."
,k171b_2:" Lit., 'who said'."
,k171b_3:" Where the debtor repaid a part of the loan or the whole of It and the creditor lost the deed."
,k171b_4:" To the debtor."
,k171b_5:" Since the deed would be returned to him on his repayment of the debt, or would be exchanged for a second deed should he pay a portion only of the debt."
,k171b_6:" The creditor, after giving the debtor a quittance for his repayment of the loan, might produce the postdated deed (the date of which is later than the date of the quittance) and thereby claim his loan again. pleading that the quittance was given for an earlier loan. As the Fact that the deed is postdated could not be proved, the debtor would be the loser having to repay rise same loan twice. In the case, however, where the date coincides with a sacred day, on which no writing is permitted, the creditor's fraud would be detected. (Cf. p. 748. n. 16 and <i>supra</i> n. 4)."
,k171b_7:" Lit., 'these words'."
,k171b_8:" I.e., where the debtor repaid a part of the debt only and desires to have evidence of payment."
,k171b_9:" It is the creditor's own fault if he lost the bond. He must either produce the bond or forfeit the loan."
,k171b_10:" Cf. Bail, a.l."
,k171b_11:" Lit., 'on all of it'."
,k171b_12:" Lit., 'he came'."
,k171b_13:" R. Isaac."
,k171b_14:" R. Abba."
,k171b_15:" Out of respect and reverence for their memory."
,k171b_16:" Despite the greatness of the departed Masters, the law is in accordance with the ruling of R. Johanan and R. Lakish."
,k171b_17:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k171b_18:" The creditor."
,k171b_19:" Consume other people's money."
,k171b_20:" The creditor."
,k171b_21:" Since he has the benefit of the transaction."
,k171b_22:" Hence he must beat the burden of preserving the receipt."
,k171b_23:" Since a creditor, who is justly entitled to seize any real estate sold by the debtor after the date of the loan, might fraudulently lay claim to lands which the borrower had sold between the date entered in the bond and the actual date of the loan, by pleading that the earlier date in the deed was the actual date of the loan."
,k171b_24:" Though the creditor is thereby prevented from seizing any of the debtor's property that was sold between the actual date of the loan and the date in the deed. By allowing the entry of the later date he is assumed to have voluntarily surrendered his right upon such lands as were sold during the period intervening between the two dates, Sheb. X. 5."
,k171b_25:" Lit., 'they did not teach but'."
,k171b_26:" Without having the deed of sale returned to him, the buyer having asserted that he lost it."
,k171b_27:" The buyer."
,k171b_28:" The postdated deed."
,k171b_29:" Even the document which the buyer might have given to the seller as confirmation of his to.purchase would be of no avail, since its date is earlier than the one which appears on the postdated bill of sale, and the former could, therefore, plausibly claim that after the to purchase by the seller the land was sold to him again."
,k171b_30:" Lit., 'for him'."
,k171b_31:" Lit., 'and said to him, give me my'."
,k171b_32:" Lit., 'its time'."
,k171b_33:" The postdated deed."
,k171b_34:" R. Hamnuna."
,k171b_35:" The creditor must return the bond itself before he can receive repayment of the debt."
,k171b_36:" How, in view of what has been said above, could a postdated deed be permitted where a receipt also is allowed?"
,k171b_37:" for this reading. v. Rashb., R. Gersh. and BaH, a.l."
,k171b_38:" Lit., 'in its time'."
,k171b_39:" Lit., 'we delayed (or postponed) it and wrote it.'"
,k171b_40:" No formula such as that introduced by R. Abba is entered in a postdated deed, though the writing of a quittance is permitted!"
,k171b_41:" R. Abba's formula."
,k171b_42:" I.e., the quittance must not only contain the names of the creditor and debtor as well as the amount of the loan, but also the date of the bond in lieu of which the quittance is given. Consequently should the creditor ever attempt to make use of the cancelled bond because it was postdated the debtor would be in a position to expose him by means of the quittance in which the date of that bond is entered."
,k171b_43:" Since the receipt is undated and contains all the particulars (such as names of parties and amount) of the bond, it can be used by the borrower against the creditor whenever the latter should attempt to advance a claim by means of that bond. Whether the date of the bond is earlier, or later than that on which the quittance was written matters little, since the quittance, being undated, can always be presented as a document written after the date of the bond. The issue of such an undated quittance, however, would naturally preclude the creditor from ever lending the debtor a sum equal to that in the bond in question. "
}

txt:
<p>
They are in disagreement only in [the case of] an ordinary Postdated deed,<a id="k171b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [in] which [case] R. Judah follows his own view, according to which<a id="k171b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; no quittance is written,<a id="k171b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and consequently no loss<a id="k171b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; would ensue,<a id="k171b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Jose follows his view according to which a quittance may be written and loss might consequently ensue.<a id="k171b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: Even according to him who said [that] a quittance may be written, this may be done only<a id="k171b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for a half,<a id="k171b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but not for the whole [of the debt].<a id="k171b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And [the law is] not so, but<a id="k171b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; even for the full amount of a debt<a id="k171b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [a quittance] may be written; as in the case of R. Isaac b. Joseph. He claimed [a sum of] money from R. Abba whom he sued<a id="k171b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; before R. Hanina b. Papi. [When] he<a id="k171b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said to him,<a id="k171b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Give me my money', [the other] replied to him, 'Return to me my deed and you will receive your money'. 'I lost your deed', said [R. Isaac] to him, '[but] I will write for you a quittance'. 'Surely', the other replied to him, 'It was both Rab and Samuel who said [that] no quittance was to be written'.'[Were] one [to] give us of the dust of Rab and Samuel', he<a id="k171b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; exclaimed, 'we should put it into our eyes;<a id="k171b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but it was both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish who stated [that] a quittance is to be written'.<a id="k171b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Similarly, when Rabin came<a id="k171b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of R. Elai [that] a quittance may be written. And it stands to reason that a quittance may be written; for should it be assumed [that] a quittance must not be written, [is it conceivable that where] the bond of this one<a id="k171b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; was lost, the other should eat<a id="k171b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and enjoy himself!
</p><p>
	Abaye demurred: What then; is a quittance to be written? Should this one,<a id="k171b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] the quittance of the other was lost, eat and enjoy himself? 'Yes', replied Raba to him, 'the debtor<a id="k171b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is the slave of the creditor'.<a id="k171b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Elsewhere We learnt: Antedated bonds of indebtedness are invalid<a id="k171b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and postdated [ones] are valid.<a id="k171b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hamnuna: This law applies only to<a id="k171b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; bonds of indebtedness but [in the case of] deeds of purchase and sale even [those which are] postdated are invalid. What is the reason? [A person] might sometimes sell [a plot of] land to another in Nisan and write [the deed] for him in Tishri; and in the meantime he might obtain some money and repurchase it from him.<a id="k171b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; But when Tishri arrived he<a id="k171b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; would produce it<a id="k171b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and say, 'I have [subsequently] bought it from you again'.<a id="k171b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, [in the case of] bonds of indebtedness also, one might sometimes borrow [money] in Nisan and write the bond for the creditor<a id="k171b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; in Tishri, and in the meantime he would obtain some money and repay him. When [however the debtor] requested the return of his<a id="k171b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; bond, he would reply to him, 'I lost it', and would [instead] write out for him a quittance. When [later] the date of payment<a id="k171b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; arrived he would produce it<a id="k171b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and plead 'You have borrowed from me just now!' &mdash; He<a id="k171b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the opinion that no receipt is to be written.<a id="k171b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Yemar to R. Kahana, and others say [that] R. Jeremiah of Difti said to R. Kahana: But [what of] the present time, when postdated deeds are written though quittances also are written?<a id="k171b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied to him:<a id="k171b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [This is permissible] since the time when R. Abba said to his scribes: 'When you write a postdated deed, write as follows: This deed was not written on the date indicated<a id="k171b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; but was postdated.'<a id="k171b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: And [what of] the present time when this is not done!<a id="k171b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This<a id="k171b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; is not necessary] since R. Safra instructed his scribes: When you write out quittances, enter the date of the deed<a id="k171b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; if you know it; if not, leave the quittance undated so that whenever [the deed] is produced [the receipt] will render it invalid.<a id="k171b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabina to R. Ashi, and others say [that] R. Ashi [said] to R. Kahana:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k172a_1:" The omission of the date it, a receipt."
,k172a_2:" When deeds are written without R. Abba's formula, and dated quittances are issued."
,k172a_3:" Lit., 'he who does, does'."
,k172a_4:" The provision was made by the Rabbis for the benefit of debtors who may wish to benefit by it. No man, however, is <I>compelled</I> to carry out a provision which was enacted solely in his own interests."
,k172a_5:" [H] deeds of gifts, or deeds of sale in which land security is entered. (Cf. Rashb.). Jastrow's definition is. 'An agreement by which one's landed estate is mortgaged in the form of a sale from date, independent of the loan to be consummated afterwards.' [Since agreement was accompanied by a <i>kinyan</i> from which the deed subsequently drawn up obtains its name. V. Rappaport. <I>J., Das Darlehen</I>, p. 70 ff.]"
,k172a_6:" Lit., 'write'."
,k172a_7:" V. previous note. [In order to preclude the donor from presenting the gift to some one else.] In the case of a deed of sale, the buyer must be enabled, in addition, to seize such lands as wore sold during the period subsequent to the date of transfer. (Rashb.)"
,k172a_8:" Lit., 'on which you stand'."
,k172a_9:" The entry of a date of which they were not certain."
,k172a_10:" The locale of a deed is the place where the deed is written, not where the transaction (gift, sale, or loan) which it records took place. The former, therefore, must be entered in the deed. According to Rashb. both places arc entered, thus: 'We wrote at&nbsp;&hellip; what we saw at&nbsp;&hellip;' [Hini and Shili were two places South of Sura and close to each other. The point in R. Huna's instructions to the scribes according to Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. 320, is that they were not to regard the two localities as one and write 'Hini-Shili'.]"
,k172a_11:" So that in case the debtor repays him half the debt he can return one of the two bonds."
,k172a_12:" Lit., 'we do not make them'."
,k172a_13:" Lit., 'thing'."
,k172a_14:" Having repaid half of the debt and received in return a quittance, the debtor is anxious to repay the other half at the earliest possible moment, so that he might secure the destruction of the bond and thus be liberated from the necessity of guarding his receipt 'from the mice'."
,k172a_15:" By the repayment of half of the amount mentioned in the bond."
,k172a_16:" The creditor will not be able to recover with it the balance, except on oath (cf. Keth. 87a. Shebu. 41a)."
,k172a_17:" V. p. 753, n. 8."
,k172a_18:" V. p. 753. n. 9."
,k172a_19:" Instead of giving a receipt for half the amount repaid and thus impairing the force of the deed (cf. n. 1), one bond is destroyed while the other retains its full force."
,k172a_20:" Since he secures the return and destruction of one of the deeds and need not take care of any quittance."
,k172a_21:" Lit., 'make the thing'."
,k172a_22:" Even though he consents to enter on the new bond the date of the original bond."
,k172a_23:" Lit., 'and he said to him: Give me my bond'."
,k172a_24:" Lit., 'I', the creditor."
,k172a_25:" For the hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k172a_26:" Lit., 'and say to him'."
,k172a_27:" The bond being made out for a sum of fifty <i>zuz</i>, the creditor could plausibly claim that the receipt for the hundred <i>zuz</i> was given for a totally different loan which had no connection whatsoever with the fifty <i>zuz</i> bond produced. Hence no bond must be exchanged at the request of a creditor even though he request the issue of a bond for a smaller amount in lieu of one containing a larger amount."
,k172a_28:" Lit., 'one'."
,k172a_29:" Lit., 'to the middle', i.e., it is divided between the two brothers in equal proportions."
,k172a_30:" Lit., 'behold'."
,k172a_31:" None of the brothers has the right to use the bequeathed joint estate (except, of course, by mutual consent) for any purpose other than that for which their father had originally intended it (v. <i>supra</i> 13a)."
,k172a_32:" Since each can say that it was not he but the other who signed the bond."
,k172a_33:" If they desire to borrow, or buy from one another or from a third party."
,k172a_34:" They give their own names and the names of their fathers and grandfathers."
,k172a_35:" Lit., 'they shall write'."
,k172a_36:" Such as Joseph etc. the tall, the short, black, brown."
,k172a_37:" If one of these was a priest, or some similar patronymic. e.g.. Levite."
,k172a_38:" Lit., 'written'."
,k172a_39:" The name of the creditor not being entered, and the holder of the bond claiming that the pronoun referred to him. "
}

txt:
<p>
But this<a id="k172a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is not done at the present time?<a id="k172a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him: The Rabbis have made the necessary provision. Whosoever acts [accordingly] reaps the benefit;<a id="k172a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he who does not act [accordingly] has himself to blame, for any loss suffered.<a id="k172a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba son of R. Shila said to those who were writing deeds of transfer:<a id="k172a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; When you write deeds of transfer enter<a id="k172a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the date of transfer<a id="k172a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; if you know it; and if not, enter the date on which the deed is prepared,<a id="k172a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; so that it<a id="k172a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; might not have the appearance of a falsehood.
</p><p>
	Rab said to his scribes, and R. Huna, similarly, said to his scribes: When you are at Shili write [in any deed] 'at Shili', although the information was given to you at Hini;<a id="k172a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; when you are at Hini, write, 'at Hini',<a id="k172a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; although the information was given to you at Shili.<a id="k172a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: If a man [who] is in possession of a bond of a hundred <i>zuz</i>, said, 'Convert it into two bonds each of fifty zuz',<a id="k172a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; his request must not be granted.<a id="k172a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; The Rabbis instituted a law<a id="k172a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; which is acceptable to the creditor and is [also] acceptable to the borrower. It is acceptable to the creditor in that [the debtor is thereby] compelled to repay him [the entire loan];<a id="k172a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is [also] acceptable to the borrower in that [the legal force of] the bond is [thereby]<a id="k172a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; impaired.<a id="k172a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba further stated: If a man, holding two bonds each of fifty [zuz:], requests that they be converted into one [bond] of a hundred [<i>zuz</i>], his request must not be granted,<a id="k172a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [because] the Rabbis have ordained a law<a id="k172a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which is agreeable to the creditor and is also agreeable to the borrower. It is agreeable to the creditor in that [the force of] his bond is not [thereby] impaired;<a id="k172a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is [also] agreeable to the borrower in that he is not [thereby]<a id="k172a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; under pressure to repay the debt.<a id="k172a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: If a man holds a bond for a hundred <i>zuz</i> and requests that it be converted into<a id="k172a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; one of fifty [<i>zuz</i>],<a id="k172a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; his request must not be granted. What is the reason? &mdash; We assume [the debtor] had already repaid him that [loan] and [that when] he asked him for the return of his bond<a id="k172a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he was told [that] he<a id="k172a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; had lost it and [so] he wrote out for him a quittance<a id="k172a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but [that later] he would produce that [new bond] and claim,<a id="k172a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'This is [for] another [loan]'.<a id="k172a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE OF] TWO BROTHERS, THE ONE POOR AND THE OTHER<a id="k172a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; RICH, WHOM THEIR FATHER HAD LEFT A BATH-HOUSE OR AN OLIVE-PRESS, [IF] HE BUILT THESE [TO BE LET OUT] ON HIRE, THE RENT BELONGS TO THE COMMON ESTATE.<a id="k172a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF,] HOWEVER, HE BUILT THEM FOR HIS OWN [USE]<a id="k172a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; THE RICH [BROTHER] MAY<a id="k172a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; SAY TO THE POOR [BROTHER], BUY FOR YOURSELF SLAVES THAT THEY MAY BATHE IN THE BATH-HOUSE', [OR] 'BUY FOR YOURSELF OLIVES AND COME AND PREPARE [THEM] IN THE OLIVE-PRESS'.<a id="k172a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THERE WERE TWO [MEN] IN THE SAME TOWN [AND THE] NAME OF THE ONE [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON AND THE NAME OF [THE] OTHER [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON, NEITHER MAY PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE OTHER, NOR MAY ANOTHER [PERSON] PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THEM.<a id="k172a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF] A MAN FOUND AMONG HIS DEEDS [A QUITTANCE SHOWING THAT] THE BOND OF JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON [WAS] DISCHARGED, THE BONDS OF BOTH [ARE CONSIDERED TO BE] DISCHARGED. HOW SHOULD THEY PROCEED?<a id="k172a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY SHOULD INDICATE THE THIRD [GENERATION].<a id="k172a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF [THEIR NAMES] ARE [ALIKE] TO THE THIRD [GENERATION], THEY ADD<a id="k172a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [SOME PERSONAL] DESCRIPTION;<a id="k172a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF THEIR [PERSONAL] DESCRIPTIONS ARE ALIKE THEY WRITE, 'PRIEST'.<a id="k172a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. In a certain bond that was presented at the court of R. Huna there was [the following] entry:<a id="k172a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I.X, son of Y, borrowed from you<a id="k172a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; a maneh'.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k172b_1:" Since the pronoun might refer to anybody, the creditor is not in a position to establish his claim."
,k172b_2:" Lit., 'in it'."
,k172b_3:" The omission of the date renders a divorce invalid."
,k172b_4:" [So Ms.M. Cur. edd. 'hot'.]"
,k172b_5:" The fact that it is valid if only the witnesses saw it in the hand of the husband on a certain date, that date being regarded as the legal date of the divorce."
,k172b_6:" On which witnesses saw it in the husband's hand though it, the document that date is not entered."
,k172b_7:" So long as the witnesses saw it on that day in his hand."
,k172b_8:" The case of tho deed wherein the name of the creditor does not appear."
,k172b_9:" Lit., 'from under whose hand it goes out'. Since the bond is produced by a certain person in the presence of the court that person should be assumed to be the creditor."
,k172b_10:" Cur. edd., 'Eliezer'."
,k172b_11:" Of a letter of divorce to the woman."
,k172b_12:" But the signatures of the witnesses, or the date, do not affect the legality of the divorce, hence he stated that the divorce was valid, v. <i>supra</i> 170a."
,k172b_13:" Lit., 'to falling'. i.e.. the bond may have been lost by the real creditor and the present claimant may have found it."
,k172b_14:" The person who presents a bond must be assumed to be the real creditor."
,k172b_15:" Lit., 'they'."
,k172b_16:" One Joseph, the creditor, might have lost the bond and the other Joseph who presents it might have found it."
,k172b_17:" From the fact that either of them is entitled to establish a claim against a third patty by the production of his bond."
,k172b_18:" Lit., 'but not'."
,k172b_19:" How, in view of the inference from our Mishnah, could he suggest that loss of the deed should be apprehended?"
,k172b_20:" It is most unlikely that a particular person of the very same name as the one who presents the bond should have lost it."
,k172b_21:" It is not unusual for people to lose their bonds and for others to find them. Hence, as regards the bond presented at R. Huna's court, Abaye was well justified in suggesting that loss of the deed should be suspected. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Huna decided [that], 'from you' [might] even [signify] 'from the exilarch', and even 'from King Shapur'.<a id="k172b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hisda to Rabbah: Go and consider this matter,<a id="k172b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for in the evening R. Huna will question you on the subject. He went out, carefully considered [the matter], and found [the following Baraitha] wherein it was taught: [In the case of] a letter of divorce which bears [the signatures of] witnesses but no date,<a id="k172b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Abba Saul said: If there was written in it. 'I divorced you<a id="k172b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; this day,' it is valid. This<a id="k172b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; clearly proves that that day<a id="k172b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [is taken] to mean that day on which it was produced,<a id="k172b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [so] here also,<a id="k172b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'from you' must mean from that person who produced [the bond].<a id="k172b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to him: Is it not possible that Abba Saul holds the same view as R. Eleazar<a id="k172b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; who maintains that the witnesses to the delivery<a id="k172b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; affect the legal separation,<a id="k172b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but here [surely, there is reason] to apprehend that it was lost!<a id="k172b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied unto him: [That a deed] was lost is not to be apprehended.<a id="k172b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence is it deduced that the losing [of a deed] is not to be apprehended? &mdash; For we learned: IF THERE WERE TWO [MEN] IN THE SAME TOWN [AND THE] NAME OF THE ONE [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON AND THE NAME OF [THE] OTHER [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON, NEITHER MAY PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE OTHER, NOR MAY ANOTHER [PERSON] PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THEM. Either of them,<a id="k172b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; however [it follows] may [produce a bond of indebtedness] against others. But why? Why not apprehend the loss [of the deed]?<a id="k172b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; from this<a id="k172b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; then<a id="k172b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be deduced that we do not apprehend the loss. And Abaye?<a id="k172b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; We do not apprehend the loss [of a deed] by one [particular individual];<a id="k172b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but we do apprehend loss [of deeds] generally by many.<a id="k172b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k173a_1:" Because it is possible that one of them lost the bond and the other, who presents it at court, accidentally found it."
,k173a_2:" Since, as has been said, loss of the bond is not suspected."
,k173a_3:" That between the Baraitha and Our Mishnah, from the latter of which it was deduced, <i>supra</i>, that either of the Josephs may produce a bond against others, a deduction with which, since it referred to the case of a particular individual, even Abaye agreed."
,k173a_4:" A bond."
,k173a_5:" <i>Mesirah</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k173a_6:" Since loss of the bond is not suspected, it can only be assumed that Joseph the creditor delivered the bond to the other Joseph. As 'letters' are acquired by delivery, the holder of the bond is legally entitled to the loan."
,k173a_7:" The Tanna of the Baraitha."
,k173a_8:" The debtor can consequently refuse payment of the bond, pleading that he does not owe the money to the holder of the bond but to the other Joseph; while to the other he can refuse payment on the ground that he has no bond to prove his claim."
,k173a_9:" The authors of the Baraitha under discussion and of our Mishnah."
,k173a_10:" <i>Mesirah</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> And no deed of sale is necessary (v. <i>supra</i> 77a)."
,k173a_11:" For the holder of the bond."
,k173a_12:" That he received the bond as a gift or purchase and that he did not merely find it or receive it as a deposit."
,k173a_13:" The author of our Mishnah."
,k173a_14:" The possession of the bond is sufficient evidence that the debt is owing to its holder. Hence the inference from our Mishnah, that one of the Josephs may present a bond of indebtedness against a third person who cannot consequently refuse payment by demanding additional proof of the holder's title to ownership."
,k173a_15:" The author of the Baraitha."
,k173a_16:" Otherwise the debtor can plead that the holder has found the bond in the street or that it was only deposited with him. Hence the statement in the Baraitha that none of the Josephs may present a bond against a third person who could plead that the bond belongs to the other Joseph and that the one who presented it received it only as a deposit or found it."
,k173a_17:" The holder of the deed."
,k173a_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k173a_19:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k173a_20:" That proof is required apart from the production of the deed."
,k173a_21:" Lit., 'one of the brothers'."
,k173a_22:" Lit., 'that goes out from under his hand'."
,k173a_23:" Which bears the name of his father as creditor or which has been acquired by the father from another creditor."
,k173a_24:" If the other brothers claim that the bond was bequeathed to all of them, and that the holder has unlawfully appropriated it for himself."
,k173a_25:" That the bond lawfully belongs to him only."
,k173a_26:" Lit., 'what not? The same law'."
,k173a_27:" Strangers. who dispute his claim to the bond he holds."
,k173a_28:" In the case of a bequeathed estate. All the brothers being heirs to it, every one considers himself entitled to appropriate as much of it as he possibly can. It is for this reason only that it was ordained that the brother who claims, against the statement of the other brothers, to be the sole owner of an inherited bond, must produce proof. As this unlawful appropriation could not apply to the case of a stranger, proof in that case is not required."
,k173a_29:" That apart from the production of the bond no other proof is required."
,k173a_30:" V. <i>supra</i> notes, 11, 15."
,k173a_31:" Who could have no plausible excuse or justification for such an appropriation. Hence no proof is required in the case of a stranger."
,k173a_32:" Who requires proof in the case of a stranger also."
,k173a_33:" Though the law applies to strangers also."
,k173a_34:" In watching one another."
,k173a_35:" Apart from the presentation of the bond. The fact that one of them is actually holding it should be sufficient proof that it belongs to him."
,k173a_36:" But that brothers as well as strangers must produce proof of lawful acquisition."
,k173a_37:" Two Josephs living in the same town. Cf. our Mishnah."
,k173a_38:" This Baraitha on the one hand and the Baraitha previously cited and our Mishnah on the other."
,k173a_39:" According to this Baraitha the two Josephs may present bonds against one another while according to the previously cited Baraitha and our Mishnah, they may not."
,k173a_40:" Of our Mishnah; and so the Tanna of the previously cited Baraitha."
,k173a_41:" Of the two Josephs."
,k173a_42:" His namesake whose name would appear in the bond as the debtor."
,k173a_43:" In order to avoid such a fraud it had been instituted that, in the case of two Josephs, bonds may not be presented by one against the other."
,k173a_44:" The author of the last-mentioned Baraitha."
,k173a_45:" Consequently, the one Joseph would not be able to obtain a bond unless the other Joseph should be present. Hence there would be no possibility to practise the fraud described. The Josephs, therefore, may present bonds against one another."
,k173a_46:" Why the bonds of both are considered as discharged and no claim may be advanced against either of them."
,k173a_47:" Cf. our Mishnah. In such a case bonds may be presented against them."
,k173a_48:" Lit., 'written'. Why, then, should the bonds of both be considered discharged."
,k173a_49:" Each Joseph is consequently in a position to claim that the name of his grandfather was omitted from the discharge though it was mentioned in the bond."
,k173a_50:" Lit.,' thus he said'."
,k173a_51:" BaH inserts, 'they may present (bonds) against others'."
,k173a_52:" Not, as has been previously assumed, a creditor."
,k173a_53:" Lit., 'against me'."
,k173a_54:" Since the debtor can produce the same quittance whenever either of the two Josephs should present his bond. On the question of mutual authorisation or the simultaneous presentation of the bonds of the two, v. Rashb. a l."
,k173a_55:" And their names also were alike up to the third generation."
,k173a_56:" Until the names of ancestors are reached whose names differ."
,k173a_57:" Lying on his death-bed."
,k173a_58:" Lit., 'bond'."
,k173a_59:" Lit., 'all of them'."
,k173a_60:" It is left to the conscience of those debtors who did not yet repay their loans to admit their liabilities."
,k173a_61:" Lit., 'there'."
,k173a_62:" The one containing the bigger amount."
,k173a_63:" The debtor is given the benefit of the doubt. He must, however, repay the smaller amount since the creditor declared that one bond only was discharged."
,k173a_64:" 'Debt' implies all that the debtor owes irrespective of the number of the written bonds."
,k173a_65:" Lit., 'but from now'."
,k173a_66:" 'Field', like 'debt', in Raba's statement, being regarded as a collective noun, implying all one's fields."
,k173a_67:" The case of sale and purchase."
,k173a_68:" Lit., 'the hand of the owner of the deed is upon the lowest'. He seeks to deprive the owner of property in the possession of which he is confirmed. Hence he must produce convincing proof. In the case of a debt, however, the claimant is the creditor, while the debtor is the confirmed possessor of the sum claimed. Hence the advantage is on the side of the latter."
,k173a_69:" Lit., 'by the hands of a guarantor'."
,k173a_70:" Before the debtor was sued and, the court having ordered him to pay, was found unable to meet his obligation. "
}

txt:
<p>
	Since it was taught, however, 'As they cannot produce a bond of indebtedness against one another so they cannot produce [a bond] against others'<a id="k173a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [the question arises]<a id="k173a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; wherein [lies the principle of] their disagreement?<a id="k173a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They differ on [the question whether] 'letters'<a id="k173a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [may] be acquired by means of delivery.<a id="k173a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Tanna holds [that] 'letters' are acquired by means of delivery<a id="k173a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and the external<a id="k173a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Tanna holds [that] 'letters' are not acquired by means of delivery.<a id="k173a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And if you prefer I would say that all<a id="k173a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [agree that] 'letters' may be acquired by delivery,<a id="k173a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but they differ here on [the question whether] it is necessary<a id="k173a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; to produce proof.<a id="k173a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Tanna<a id="k173a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'holds that proof need not be produced<a id="k173a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; while the external Tanna<a id="k173a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that proof must be produced,<a id="k173a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was stated: 'Letters' are acquired by delivery; Abaye said: He<a id="k173a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; must, however, produce proof;<a id="k173a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and Raba said: He need not produce proof.<a id="k173a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Abaye: Whence do I derive this?<a id="k173a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; For it was taught: 'The brother<a id="k173a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; who presents<a id="k173a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; the bond of indebtedness<a id="k173a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; must<a id="k173a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; produce proof'.<a id="k173a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously, this applies also to the case<a id="k173a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; of others.<a id="k173a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, said: Brothers are different because they pilfer from one another.<a id="k173a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others say, Raba said: Whence do I derive this?<a id="k173a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; For it was taught: 'The brother who presents the bond of indebtedness must produce proof'.<a id="k173a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [from which it is obvious that this applies to] brothers [only] since they pilfer from one another but not [to] others.<a id="k173a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; And Abaye<a id="k173a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [explains that] it was necessary [to specify] brothers<a id="k173a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [because] it might have been assumed [that], as they pilfer from one another, they are [all] particularly alert<a id="k173a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and should not [therefore] require to produce proof;<a id="k173a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; hence [it was necessary] to teach us [that it is not so].<a id="k173a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As regards, however, the following wherein it was taught. 'As they<a id="k173a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; may present a bond of indebtedness against others so may they present [bonds] against each other', [the question arises] wherein lies [the principle of] their<a id="k173a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; disagreement?<a id="k173a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ on [the question whether] a bond [may] be written for a borrower though the creditor be not with him. Our Tanna<a id="k173a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; holds [that] a bond may be written for a borrower although the creditor be not with him. [Consequently it may] sometimes [happen] that one<a id="k173a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; would go to a scribe and witnesses and tell them, 'Write for me a bond because I intend borrowing [money] from my friend Joseph son of Simeon'; and, after they had written and signed [it] for him, he would take hold of it and demand from him,<a id="k173a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Give me the hundred [<i>zuz</i>] which you borrowed from me'.<a id="k173a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; The external Tanna,<a id="k173a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that no bond may be written for a borrower unless the creditor be with him.<a id="k173a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[IF] A MAN FOUND AMONG HIS DEEDS [A RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT] THE BOND OF JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON [WAS] DISCHARGED, THE BONDS OF BOTH [ARE CONSIDERED TO BE] DISCHARGED etc. The reason<a id="k173a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is thus because [a record] was found, but had there been found none, [a bond] could be presented [against one of them]? Surely we have learnt, NOR MAY ANOTHER [PERSON] PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THEM! &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: In [the case where the bonds record the names of] the third [generation].<a id="k173a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let us see in whose name the discharge was made out!<a id="k173a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hoshaia replied: Where the third [generation] is indicated in the bond but not in the discharge.<a id="k173a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: This is the meaning<a id="k173a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; [of our Mishnah]; [IF<a id="k173a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; a borrower]<a id="k173a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; FOUND AMONG HIS DEEDS [A QUITTANCE SHOWING] THAT THE BOND OF JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON [against him<a id="k173a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS] DISCHARGED, THE BONDS OF BOTH [ARE CONSIDERED TO BE] DISCHARGED.<a id="k173a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HOW SHOULD THEY PROCEED? THEY SHOULD INDICATE THE THIRD [GENERATION] etc. A Tanna taught: If both were priests<a id="k173a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; they enter [the names of previous] generations.<a id="k173a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF [A FATHER]<a id="k173a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID TO HIS SON,' ONE<a id="k173a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; AMONG MY BONDS IS DISCHARGED BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH', THE BONDS OF ALL HIS DEBTORS<a id="k173a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE [CONSIDERED] DISCHARGED.<a id="k173a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; IF AMONG THEM<a id="k173a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; WERE FOUND TWO [BONDS, PERTAINING] TO ONE [DEBTOR], THE LARGER<a id="k173a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; [ONE IS DEEMED] DISCHARGED AND THE SMALLER UNDISCHARGED.<a id="k173a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba said: [If a person declared], 'The bond against you, [which I have] in my possession is discharged', the larger [one is deemed] discharged and the smaller undischarged. [If, however, he declared], 'The debt you owe me is paid', all<a id="k173a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; his bonds [are deemed] discharged.<a id="k173a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabina to Raba: Consequently<a id="k173a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; [should one say to another],' My field is sold to you', his larger field [would be deemed to have been] sold to him, [but if he said,] 'The field that I have is sold to you', all his fields<a id="k173a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; [would then be deemed] sold! &mdash; There,<a id="k173a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; the holder of the deed is at a disadvantage.<a id="k173a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO ANOTHER ON A GUARANTOR'S SECURITY,<a id="k173a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST NOT EXACT PAYMENT FROM THE GUARANTOR.<a id="k173a_70"><sup>70</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k173b_1:" 'To him' is omitted in the Gemara; v. <i>infra</i>, where it is also shown that the Mishnah contains a lacuna."
,k173b_2:" Lit., 'whether so or so'."
,k173b_3:" In the first instance."
,k173b_4:" By staging a divorce, and the husband having no money, the woman would be enabled to exact the amount of her <i>kethubah</i> from the guarantor."
,k173b_5:" And divide the spoil with her."
,k173b_6:" Why payment may not be exacted from the guarantor. At present it is assumed that so long as the borrower is alive and did not abscond the guarantor cannot be called upon to pay."
,k173b_7:" The debtor; i.e., the creditor has, so to speak, put the debtor in charge of the guarantor who has undertaken to present him when payment falls due."
,k173b_8:" Since the debtor neither died nor absconded, the guarantor has carried out his obligation. As the debtor is present in person the claim is to be addressed to him and not to the guarantor."
,k173b_9:" The exemption of the guarantor from payment where the debtor himself is available."
,k173b_10:" Even where the debtor is in possession of property."
,k173b_11:" Lit., 'words'. As the decisions of a Persian court of law are arbitrary, so is the ruling which exempts a guarantor from payment where the debtor is available though destitute. Of what use is the guarantee if the guarantor cannot be called upon to pay where the debtor himself is unable to meet his obligation!"
,k173b_12:" Lit., 'what'."
,k173b_13:" In the first instance the debtor must be called upon to pay. If the obligation, however, has not been met owing to the debtor's poverty, refusal to appear in court, or death, the guarantor must discharge the debt."
,k173b_14:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k173b_15:" By his mere verbal undertaking, though it was not attended by a <i>kinyan</i>."
,k173b_16:" Gen. XLIII. 9. Thus spake Judah to Jacob in urging him to entrust Benjamin to him."
,k173b_17:" [H] 'unconditional assumption of obligation', acceptance'. V. p. 765. n. 10."
,k173b_18:" 'Into my hand' implies unconditional responsibility."
,k173b_19:" Ibid. XLII, 37. [Although this was said by Reuben, it is unlikely that Judah's guarantee involved less responsibility than that of Reuben's which Jacob had rejected (Maharsha).]"
,k173b_20:" V. <i>supra</i>, n. 3."
,k173b_21:" By mere verbal undertaking, since no legal agreement is mentioned."
,k173b_22:" Prov. XX, 16."
,k173b_23:" In money matters."
,k173b_24:" By insulting or calumniating."
,k173b_25:" Ibid. VI. 1-3."
,k173b_26:" Lit., 'in thy hand'."
,k173b_27:" Lit., 'loosen'."
,k173b_28:" I.e., pay him. [H], a play upon [H] (E.V. '<I>go humble thyself</I>')."
,k173b_29:" When the claim or grievance is not due to monetary matters."
,k173b_30:" Who may plead with him and obtain his pardon. [H] a play upon [H] (E.V. '<I>urge thy neighbour</I>')."
,k173b_31:" Lit., 'subjects himself'."
,k173b_32:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k173b_33:" <i>Supra</i> 168a."
,k173b_34:" His guarantee to repay the debt is regarded as a mere <i>asmakta</i>, it being assumed that what he meant to convey by it amounted to no more than an expression of his conviction that the debtor would meet his obligation. Had he known that the debtor would default, he would not have given his guarantee."
,k173b_35:" Lit., 'actions every day'."
,k173b_36:" In accordance with the ruling of R. Judah."
,k173b_37:" Though a similar undertaking would elsewhere be regarded as an <i>asmakta</i> which is not legally binding, the pleasure of being trusted transforms such an <i>asmakta</i> into a legal undertaking."
,k173b_38:" Lit., 'they did not teach but'."
,k173b_39:" [I.e., it is not known whether the debtor has any property from which the creditor could recover his claim, in which case, having regard to the stipulation, the guarantor can immediately be called upon to pay the debt, whereas in the absence of such a stipulation, the creditor would still have first to sue the debtor (Yad Ramah).]"
,k173b_40:" V. BaH, a l."
,k173b_41:" Lit., 'no difference thus'."
,k173b_42:" But in either case the guarantor may be called upon to pay. How, then, could Rabba b. Bar Hana assert that the first Tanna speaks only of the case where the debtor had no property?"
,k173b_43:" Lit., 'and thus it teaches'."
,k173b_44:" Lit., 'in what (are the) words said'."
,k173b_45:" [H], a guarantor who accepts unconditional responsibility, an 'acceptor'. "
}

txt:
<p>
IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID TO HIM,<a id="k173b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'ON CONDITION THAT I MAY EXACT PAYMENT FROM WHOM I WILL', PAYMENT MAY BE EXACTED FROM THE GUARANTOR. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IF THE BORROWER HAS PROPERTY, PAYMENT FROM THE GUARANTOR MAY IN NEITHER CASE<a id="k173b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BE EXACTED.<a id="k173b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SO SAID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL: WHERE [A MAN] WAS GUARANTOR FOR A WOMAN IN [RESPECT OF] HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>, AND HER HUSBAND DIVORCED HER, [THE HUSBAND] MUST VOW TO DERIVE NO [FURTHER] BENEFIT FROM HER. [SINCE IT IS] POSSIBLE THAT THEY MIGHT FORM A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE GUARANTOR<a id="k173b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEN [THE HUSBAND] WOULD TAKE HIS WIFE BACK AGAIN.<a id="k173b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason?<a id="k173b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both Rabbah and R. Joseph explain: [Because the guarantor can say,] 'You have entrusted me with a man;<a id="k173b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and a man have I handed over to you'.<a id="k173b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman demurred: [Is not] this<a id="k173b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the law of the Persians? &mdash; On the contrary; they [invariably] go after the guarantor!<a id="k173b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This,] however, [is the objection]: [Is not this ruling<a id="k173b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; like that of] a Persian court of law [the judges of] which do not give [any] reason for their decisions?<a id="k173b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Nahman, the meaning of<a id="k173b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; HE [MUST] NOT EXACT PAYMENT FROM THE GUARANTOR [is that] he [may] not demand [payment from] the guarantor first.<a id="k173b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus it was also taught [elsewhere]: If [a man] lends [money] to another on a guarantor's security, [payment] shall not be demanded [from the] guarantor [in the] first instance. If, however, [the creditor] said, 'On condition that I may exact payment from whom I will' the guarantor may be called upon first.<a id="k173b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Huna: Whence [may it be deduced] that a guarantor becomes responsible [for a debt he has guaranteed]?<a id="k173b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; For it is written, <I>I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him</I>.<a id="k173b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda demurred: [This], surely was [an unconditional] assumption [of obligation],<a id="k173b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written, <I>Deliver him into my hand,<a id="k173b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and I will bring him back to thee</I>!<a id="k173b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Isaac: [It<a id="k173b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may be deduced] from the following: <I>Take his garment that is surety,<a id="k173b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for a stranger; and hold him in pledge that is surety for an alien woman</I>.<a id="k173b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, it is said, <I>My son, if thou art become surety for thy neighbour,<a id="k173b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; if thou hast struck thy hands for a stranger,<a id="k173b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] thou art snared by the words of thy mouth,<a id="k173b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; thou art caught by the words of thy mouth, do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, seeing that thou art come into the hand of thy neighbour; go, humble thyself, and urge thy neighbour</I>.<a id="k173b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; If he has [a claim of] money upon you,<a id="k173b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; open out<a id="k173b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for him the palm of [your] hand;<a id="k173b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and if not,<a id="k173b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; get at him through many friends.<a id="k173b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Amemar said: [The question] whether a guarantor is responsible<a id="k173b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [for the payment of the debt he guaranteed, is a matter of] dispute [between] R. Judah and R. Jose. According to R. Jose. who said, 'asmakta<a id="k173b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; conveys title,'<a id="k173b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; a guarantor is responsible. According to R. Judah, [however], who said 'asmakta gives no title', the guarantor Is not responsible.<a id="k173b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Surely, it is the regular practice<a id="k173b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the courts to rule] that <i>asmakta</i> gives no title,<a id="k173b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and [yet that] a guarantor is held responsible! &mdash; But, said R. Ashi having regard to the pleasure of being trusted [by the creditor] he determines to undertake the responsibility.<a id="k173b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID, 'ON THE CONDITION THAT<a id="k173b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY EXACT PAYMENT FROM WHOM<a id="k173b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; WILL' etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: This applies only in the case<a id="k173b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; where the debtor has no property,<a id="k173b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; but where the debtor has property no payment may be exacted from the guarantor. Since, however, it is stated in the final clause: RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IF THE BORROWER HAS PROPERTY, PAYMENT FROM THE GUARANTOR MAY IN NEITHER CASE BE EXACTED,<a id="k173b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; one might infer that in the opinion of the first Tanna there is no difference whether he had or had not<a id="k173b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [any property]!<a id="k173b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a lacuna [in our Mishnah].and the proper reading is as follows:<a id="k173b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; IF [A MAN] LENDS [MONEY] TO ANOTHER ON A GUARANTOR'S SECURITY HE [MUST] NOT EXACT PAYMENT FROM THE GUARANTOR. IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID 'ON THE CONDITION THAT I MAY EXACT PAYMENT FROM WHOM I WILL', PAYMENT MAY BE EXACTED FROM THE GUARANTOR. This law applies only to the case<a id="k173b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; where the debtor has no property, but where the debtor has property, payment from the guarantor may not be exacted. And [in the case of] a kabbelan,<a id="k173b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; even though the debtor has property, payment may be exacted from the kabbelan.
</P>


