Responsa for Bava Metzia 69:15

דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא באושא התקינו האשה שמכרה בנכסי מלוג בחיי בעלה ומתה הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות

— [No.] There it is different, because it was a valuation made in error, since the jewels were in existence from the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if an article is distrained because a debtor cannot repay, it may be that it is not returnable even if he subsequently acquires money. ');">¹²</span> The Nehardeans said: A valuation is returnable until twelve months. Amemar said: Though I am of Nehardea, I hold that a valuation is always returnable. None the less, the law is that a valuation is always returnable, because it is said, <i>And thou shalt do that which is right and good</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 18. ');">¹³</span> Now it is obvious,if a valuation was made on behalf of a creditor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the debtor's goods were assessed, distrained, and given to the creditor. ');">¹⁴</span> and he went and valued it for his own creditor: we say to him [the second creditor], You are no better than the man in whose power you come.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as he would have had to return the goods if the debtor could repay the loan, so must you too. ');">¹⁵</span> If he sold, bequeathed or gifted it, these [the recipients] certainly entered it [the distrained estate] originally with the intention of [possessing] the land, not the money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore it is not returnable to the debtor. The creditor himself would have had to return it on account of the verse quoted, for it is applicable to him, since in the first place he demanded money, not land. But it is inapplicable to these recipients, seeing that their thought was land, not money. ');">¹⁶</span> If it was appraised in favour of a woman [creditor], and she married:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this seized estate became either the husband's, as 'property of iron flock,' or remained the wife's, the husband enjoying its usufruct, as 'property of plucking.' ');">¹⁷</span> or if a valuation was made of a woman's [estate] and she married, and then died: the husband ranks as a purchaser in respect to a wife's property: he neither returns [the estate to the debtor], nor is it returned to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he wishes to settle his wife's debts. ');">¹⁸</span> For R. Jose b. Hanina said: In Usha it was enacted:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 558, n. 2. ');">¹⁹</span> If a woman sells of her 'property of plucking' in her husband's lifetime and then dies, her husband [as heir] can claim it from the purchasers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he ranks as a previous purchaser. ');">²⁰</span>

Explore responsa for Bava Metzia 69:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.