Commentary for Gittin 101:17

אמר ר' יוסי וכי מה תיקון העולם יש בזו והלא אין קצובין:

preceded the betterment of the first. But if the betterment of the first preceded the purchase of the second, [the former] can recover from property on which there is a lien. We see therefore that the reason is because he did not improve the field first [and not because the produce is not mentioned in the deed or is not a definite sum]? — This is a point on which Tannaim also differed, as it has been taught: Indemnification for produce consumed and for betterment of land and [outlay] for maintenance of widow and daughters cannot be enforced from property on which there is a lien, to prevent abuses, since they are not written in any deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no-one would buy land if he was afraid it might be claimed on account of obligations not recorded in writing. ');">¹⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Gittin 101:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.