Responsa for Gittin 100:16

איבעיא להו לרבי חנינא קצובין וכתובין בעי

was so framed from the outset they are taken as written so far as concerns free assets but not so far as concerns property on which there is a lien. R. Assi also stated in the name of R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who here consequently agrees with Resh Lakish. ');">¹⁵</span> that [the reason is] because they were not mentioned in the deed. Said R. Zera to R. Assi: But what of the maintenance of wife and daughters which also is taken as written and yet [the Mishnah] states that it is not enforceable? — He replied. The regulation was so framed from the outset: they are taken as written where free assets are concerned, but not where there is a lien on the property. R. Hanina, however, said: [The reason is] because they are not of a definite [amount].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The exact quantity of the produce to be raised hereafter could not be known when the field was first appropriated, and therefore subsequent purchasers could not be expected to allow a sufficient margin for their indemnification. On this view, they would not be enforceable even if mentioned in the deed.] ');">¹⁶</span> The question was raised: In order [that a debt may be enforceable from property on which there is a lien] does R. Hanina require that it should be both definite and written down,

Explore responsa for Gittin 100:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.