Rah inserted1 [the following enquiry] between the lines2 [of a communication3 he sent] to Rabbi: What [is the law] where the brothers have encumbered [the estate they inherited from their father]?4 [When the enquiry reached him] R. Hiyya [who] was sitting before him asked, '[does he mean:] They sold it or pledged it?' — 'What difference call this make?'5 the other retorted. Whether they sold it [he continued] or pledged it, [the estate] may he seized [to meet the obligation] of marriage outfit but may not be seized for that of maintenance
As to Rab, however, if his enquiry [related to brothers] who sold [the estate], he should have written to him, 'sold'; and if his enquiry [related to brothers] who pledged it, he should have written to him, 'pledged'! — Rab wished to ascertain the law concerning both cases and he thought: If I write to him 'sold' [I shall get] satisfaction If he were to send [in reply] that 'the estate may be seized', since the same ruling would apply with even greater force to the case where they pledged [the estate]. If, however, he were to send me in reply that 'it may not be seized', the question [in respect of brothers] who pledged [the estate] would still remain. If, [again]. I were to write to him, 'pledged' then if he sent in reply that 'the estate may not be seized' this ruling would apply with even greater force [to the case where] they sold it. Should he, however, send a reply that 'it may be seized', the question [in respect of brothers] who sold It would still remain. I will, therefore, write to him, 'encumbered' which might mean the one6 as well as the other7
The question was raised: Did not R. Johanan hear the ruling of Rabbi, but if he had heard it he would have accepted it? Or is it possible that he heard it and did not accept it? — Come and hear what has been stated: If a man died and left two daughters and one son, and the first forestalled [the others] and took a tenth of the estate while the other did not manage to collect [her share] before the son died,10 R. Johanan ruled: The second11 has surrendered her right.12 Said R. Hanina: Something that is even more striking than this has been said, [viz.. that an estate] may be seized13 [to meet the obligation] of a marriage outfit though it may not be seized for that of maintenance, and you nevertheless state, 'The second has surrendered her right'?14 Now, if that were the case,15 he16 should have asked him 'who said it?'17
— But is it not possible that he in fact did not hear it [at first]18 and when he [finally] heard he accepted it, but there19 [the circumstances are] different, since the house [of the second daughter] has now ample provisions?20 Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: Now then,21 if she22 found anything at all, so that her house is amply provided for, would we in such a case also not give her a tenth of the estate? — The other replied: I said, A house amply provided for from the same estate.23
Amemar ruled: A daughter24 has [the legal status of] an heiress. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Should it be desired to settle her claim25 by means of a money payment such a settlement cannot be effected for the same reason?26 — 'Yes', the other replied. 'Should it be desired [the first asked] to settle her claim by [giving her] one plot of land, such a settlement cannot be effected for the same reason?'26 — 'Yes', the other replied.27 R. Ashi, however, ruled: A daughter28 has [the legal status of] a creditor.29 And Amemar also withdrew his former opinion. For R. Minyomi son of R. Nihumi stated: I was once standing before Amemar and a woman who claimed a tenth of [her deceased father's] estate appeared before him, and I observed [that it was his] opinion that if [her brothers] desired to settle with her by means of a money payment he would have agreed to the settlement.30 For he heard the brothers say to her, 'If we had the money we would settle with you31 by a cash payment', and he remained silent and told them nothing to the contrary.
Now that it has been said that [a daughter in her claim to her tenth]28 has the legal status of a creditor [the question arises whether she is the creditor] of the father or of the brothers. In what respect can this matter? — In respect [of allowing her] to collect [her tenth] either from their medium32 land and without an oath,33 or of their worst land with an oath.34 Now what [is the law]? — Come and hear [of the decision] of Rabina: He allowed the daughter of R. Ashi to collect [her tenth] from Mar35 the son of R. Ashi out Of his medium land, without an oath, but from the son of R. Sama36 the son of R. Ashi out of his worst land with an oath.37
R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph sent the following message to Rabbah the son of R. Huna Zuta38 of Nehardea:39 When this woman40 presents herself to you, authorize her to collect a tenth part of [her deceased father's] estate even from the casing of handmills.41
R. Ashi stated: When we were at the college of R. Kahana we authorized the collection [of a daughter's tenth] from the rent42 of houses also.
R. Anan sent [this communication] to R. Huna, '[To] our colleague Huna, greetings.43 When this woman40 presents herself before you, authorize her to collect a tenth part of [her father's] estate'. [When the communication arrived,] R. Shesheth was sitting before him. 'Go', [R. Huna] said to him,44 'and convey45 to him46 [the following message]-and he47 who does not deliver the message48 to him shall fall under the ban — "Anan, Anan, [is the collection to be made] from landed, or from movable property? And who presides at the meal in a house of mourning?"'49 R. Shesheth went to R. Anan and said to him: The Master50 is a teacher,51 and R. Huna is a teacher of the teacher,52 and he pronounced the ban against anyone who would not convey53 [his message] to you;54 and had he not pronounced the ban I would not have said, 'Anan, Anan, [is the collection to be made] from landed, or movable property, and who presides at the meal in a house of mourning?'55 Thereupon, R. Anan went to Mar 'Ukba and said to him: See, Master, how R. Huna addressed56 me as 'Anan, Anan';57 and, furthermore, I do not know what he meant by the message he sent me on marziha.58 The other said to him: Tell me now
how the incident actually occurred. 'The incident', the first replied, 'happened in such and such a way'. 'A man', the other exclaimed, 'who does not know the meaning of marziha should [scarcely] presume to address1 R. Huna as, "our colleague Huna".'
R. Abbahu stated: Whence is it deduced that a mourner sits at the head [of the table]?4 [From Scripture] wherein it is said, I chose out their way, and sat at the head,5 and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth6 the mourners.7 But does not yenahem8 mean [one who comforts] others?9 R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: The written form is YNHM.10 Mar Zutra said: [The deduction11 is made] from here: We-sar marzeah seruhim,12 he who is in bitterness and distracted13 becomes the chief14 of those that stretched themselves.15
Raba stated: The law [is that payment may be exacted] from landed property, but not from movable property, whether in respect of maintenance, kethubah or marriage outfit.16
MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITED17 A SUM OF MONEY FOR HIS [UNMARRIED] DAUGHTER WITH A TRUSTEE,18 AND [AFTER SHE WAS BETROTHED]19 SHE SAYS, 'I TRUST MY HUSBAND',20 THE TRUSTEE MUST ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITION OF HIS TRUST;21 SO R. MEIR. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAID: WERE [THE TRUST] ACTUALLY22 A FIELD23 AND SHE WISHED TO SELL IT, WOULD IT NOT BE DEEMED24 SOLD FORTHWITH!25 THIS APPLIES TO ONE WHO IS OF AGE.26 IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man deposited for his son-in-law with a trustee a sum of money wherewith to buy a field for his daughter, and she says, 'Let it be given to my husband', she is entitled [to have her wish fulfilled, if it was expressed] after her marriage27 but if only after her betrothal the trustee must act according to the conditions of his trust;28 so R. Meir. R. Jose, however, said: A woman who is of age has a right [to obtain her desire] whether [it was expressed] after her marriage or only after betrothal, but [in the case of] a minor [whether her wish was expressed] after marriage or after betrothal, the trustee must act in accordance with the conditions of his trust.29 What is the practical difference between them?30 If it be suggested that the practical difference between them is the case of a minor after her marriage, R. Meir holding the opinion that [even] she is entitled [to have her wish] and R. Jose comes to state that even after marriage [It is only] a woman who is of age that is entitled to have her wish31 but not a minor, [in that case] what of32 the final clause,33 IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR. Who [it might be asked] could have taught this? If it be suggested [that the author was] R. Jose, [it could be objected:] This, surely, could be inferred from the first clause; for, since R. Jose said, WERE [THE TRUST] ACTUALLY A FIELD AND SHE WISHED TO SELL IT, WOULD IT NOT BE DEEMED SOLD FORTHWITH! [it follows34 that only] one that is of age, who is eligible to effect a sale, was meant,35 but not a minor who is ineligible to effect a sale.36 Consequently it must be R. Meir [who was the author of] it, and a clause is in fact missing [from our Mishnah], the proper reading being as follows:37 'THE TRUSTEE MUST ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF HIS TRUST. This applies only [to a woman whose desire was expressed] after her betrothal, but if after her marriage she is entitled [to have her wish]. THIS [furthermore] APPLIES TO ONE WHO IS OF AGE. IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR.'38 — [The fact]. however, is that the practical difference between them is the case of one who is of age [whose wish was expressed] after her betrothal.39
It was stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel. The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose. Raba ion the name of R. Nahman said, The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir. Ilfa40 reclined41 upon a sail mast42 and43 said: 'Should any one come and submit to me any statement [in the Baraithoth] of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia44 which I cannot make clear to him [with the aid] of our Mishnah I will drop from the mast45 and drown myself'. An aged man came and recited to him [the following Baraitha:]46 If a man47 said, 'Give my children48 a shekel a week',49 and they require a sela',50 a sela' is to he given to them.51 But if he said, 'Give them no more than a shekel', only a shekel is to he given to them.52 If, however, he gave Instructions that if these died others53 shall be his heirs in their stead, only one shekel [a week] is to be given to them, irrespective of whether he used the expression of 'give' or 'give no [more]',54 [Ilfa] said to him: [Do you wish to know] whose ruling this55 is?
- To Next Folio -