Gittin 100

יתומין שאמרו גדולים וא"צ לומר קטנים בין לשבועה בין לזיבורית:

that the orphans spoken of are grown-ups, and the rule applies <i>a fortiori</i> to minors, whether in connection with an oath or [with payment out of] the worst land.

אין נפרעין מנכסים משועבדים במקום שיש בני חורין: בעי רב אחדבוי בר אמי במתנה היאך

PAYMENT CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY WHEN THERE ARE FREE ASSETS AVAILABLE. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked: What is the rule in the case of a gift? Are we to say that this regulation was made for the protection of purchasers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who bought land from a man after he had contracted a debt to a third party. ');">¹</span>

תקנתא הוא דעבוד רבנן משום פסידא דלקוחות אבל מתנה דליכא פסידא דלקוחות לא או דלמא מתנה נמי אי לאו דאית ליה הנאה מיניה לא יהיב ליה מתנה והלכך כי פסידא דלקוחות דמי

against loss and it therefore does not apply to a gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And recovery can he made from land which has been given away, even if there are free assets available. ');">²</span>

א"ל מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי ת"ש שכיב מרע שאמר תנו מאתים זוז לפלוני וג' מאות לפלוני וד' מאות לפלוני אין אומרים כל הקודם בשטר זכה לפיכך יצא עליו שט"ח גובה מכולן

where there is no question of loss to purchasers, or do we say this even in the case of a gift for if the recipient did not derive some benefit from it it would not have been given to him and therefore his loss is on the same footing as the loss of the purchaser? — [In reply] Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: Come and hear 'If a dying man says, Give two hundred <i>zuz</i> to So-and-so, three hundred to So-and-so, and four hundred to So-and-so, we do not say that one who is mentioned earlier in the deed has a superior title to one who is mentioned later.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. points out that if the three gifts were equal we should say that he intended the earlier to take precedence, as otherwise he would have said, Give six hundred zuz to So-and-so and So-and-so and So-and-so. ');">³</span>

אבל אם אמר תנו מאתים זוז לפלוני ואחריו לפלוני ואחריו לפלוני אומרים כל הקודם בשטר זכה לפיכך יצא עליו שט"ח גובה מן האחרון אין לו גובה משלפניו אין לו גובה משלפני פניו

Consequently if a bond is produced against the donor [after his death], the claimant can collect from all of them. If, however, he said, Give two hundred <i>zuz</i> to So-and-so and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and after him.' ');">⁴</span>

ואע"ג דקמא בינונית ובתרא זיבורית מזיבורית גבי מבינונית לא גבי ש"מ במתנה נמי עבוד רבנן תקנתא

to So-and-so and then to So-and-so, we do say that whoever is mentioned earlier in the deed has the better title. Consequently if a bond is produced against the donor, the claimant collects first from the last recipient; if he has not enough, he comes on to the one before him, and if he has not enough, to the one before him;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 138a. ');">⁵</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בבעל חוב והא תנו קאמר תנו בחובי

and even though [so it would appear] the first was given medium land and the last poor land, [the claimant] has to collect from the poor before the medium.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that a creditor can collect from medium land. ');">⁶</span>

וליחזי שטרא דמאן קדים דליכא שטרא והא כל הקודם בשטר קאמר בשטר פקדתא

This shows, [does it not], that the Rabbis meant their regulation to apply to a gift also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the last gift was a 'free' asset by comparison with the first. ');">⁷</span>

ואב"א אפילו מתנה נמי ולא קשיא מאי גובה מן האחרון אין נפסד אלא אחרון

— [Not necessarily, as] we may here be speaking of the payment of debts [and not of a gift].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we do not say in the case of a gift that a creditor cannot collect from the gift when there are free assets available. ');">⁸</span>

ואב"א דשוו כולהו להדדי:

But the man said 'give'? — He meant, 'Give in payment of my debt.' If so, we can see whose bond is prior? — We assume there is no bond. But [the passage quoted] says, 'Whoever is mentioned earlier in the deed'? — This means, the deed containing his instructions. Or if you like I can say the reference is also to a gift, and still there is no difficulty, since the words 'he collects from the last' mean, 'only the last [of the three] is the ultimate loser.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The phrase, that is to say, does not mean that he collects only from the last, for where the first was the recipient of medium land and the last poor land, he would certainly be entitled to collect from the first, since the rabbinic regulation does not apply to a gift. What the phrase does mean is that only the last is the ultimate loser because the first can, after all, come on to him for what the creditor has taken from him.] ');">⁹</span>

אין מוציאין לאכילת פירות: מאי טעמא אמר עולא אמר ריש לקיש לפי שאין כתובין

Or if you like again I can say that the gifts of all were equal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And only in this case can the first recipient force the creditor to recover first of all from the last. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה רבי אבא לעולא והא מזון האשה והבנות דכמאן דכתיבי דמו וקתני אין מוציאין

INDEMNIFICATION FOR PRODUCE CONSUMED CANNOT BE ENFORCED etc. What is the reason? — 'Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: Because these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The improvements and crops. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל התם מעיקרא הכי אתקון כתובין הן אצל בני חורין ואין כתובין הן אצל משועבדין

were not mentioned [in the deed of sale].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that if they were, it would be enforceable. The deed is that given by the robber to the purchaser. V. supra p. 216, n. 3. ');">¹²</span>

וכן אמר רבי אסי אמר ר' יוחנן לפי שאין כתובין אמר ליה רבי זירא לרב אסי והא מזון האשה והבנות דכמאן דכתיבי דמו וקתני אין מוציאין א"ל מעיקרא הכי אתקון כתובין הן אצל בני חורין ואין כתובין הן אצל משועבדין

Said R. Abba to 'Ulla: But what of the maintenance of a woman and her daughters which is taken as written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah Keth. 52b. ');">¹³</span>

ר' חנינא אמר לפי שאין קצובין

and yet [the Mishnah] states that it is not enforceable? — He replied: The regulation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to the maintenance of wife and daughters. ');">¹⁴</span>

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,