Gittin 101

או דלמא קצובין ואע"פ שאינן כתובים

or is it sufficient that it should be definite even without being written down? — Come and hear: It has been stated: If a man dies and leaves two daughters and a son, and if the first [daughter] took her tenth of the property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule was that an orphan daughter was entitled to a tenth of her father's property on becoming of age or marrying, apart from her maintenance up to that time. ');">¹</span>

ת"ש דאיתמר מי שמת והניח שתי בנות ובן וקדמה הראשונה ונטלה עישור נכסים ולא הספיקה שניה לגבות עד שמת הבן

before the son died but the second had not time to take her tenth before the son died, R. Johanan says that the second has forfeited [her tenth].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she now becomes joint heiress to the whole property. ');">²</span>

א"ר יוחנן שניה ויתרה וא"ל ר' חנינא גדולה מזו אמרו מוציאין לפרנסה ואין מוציאין למזונות ואת אמרת שניה ויתרה

R. Hanina remarked to him: The [Rabbis] went even further than this by laying down that payment may be enforced for [marriage] provision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. from anyone who should have bought property from the brother. ');">³</span>

והא פרנסה דמיקץ קייצא מיכתב לא כתיבא וקא מוציאה

though not for maintenance, and how can you say then that the second forfeits her tenth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she can recover from others, how can we ask her to give up what is already in her hands? ');">⁴</span>

שאני פרנסה כיון דאית לה קלא כמאן דכתיבא דמי

Now [marriage] provision is a definite sum but it is not written down, and we see [that R. Hanina says that] it is enforceable? — There is a special reason in the case of [marriage] provision; it gets talked about and therefore it is as good as written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we may still maintain that R. Hanina requires both written and definite. ');">⁵</span>

מתיב רב הונא בר מנוח מתו בנותיהן נזונות מנכסים בני חורין

R. Huna b. Manoah raised an objection [from the following]: 'If [both husbands] died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case is one in which a woman with a daughter marries a man with the stipulation that he will maintain her daughter for a definite period, and within the period he divorces her and she marries another man with the same stipulation. Each husband has then to give the full allowance for the daughter's maintenance according to stipulation, v. Keth. 101b. ');">⁶</span>

והיא נזונת מנכסים משועבדים מפני שהיא כבעלת חוב

the daughters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which this woman bore to them. ');">⁷</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בשקנו מידו

are maintained from free assets, but she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman's daughter. ');">⁸</span>

אי הכי בנות נמי בשקנו לזו ולא קנו לזו

is maintained [also] from mortgaged property, because she is in the position of a creditor'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the term of years was definite, although there was no written contract. This contradicts 'Ulla. ');">⁹</span>

מאי פסקא בת אשתו דהואי בשעת קנין מהני לה קנין בתו דלא הואי בשעת קנין לא מהני לה קנין

— We presume that in this case there was a formal transfer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Kinyan, v. Glos. Which would naturally he recorded in writing. ');">¹⁰</span>

מי לא עסקינן דהוו תרוייהו בשעת קנין והיכי דמי דגרשה ואהדרה

If that is the case, then the daughters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which this woman bore to them. ');">⁷</span>

אלא בתו דבתנאי בית דין קאכלה לא מהני לה קנין בת אשתו דלאו בתנאי בית דין קאכלה מהני לה קנין

also should draw on mortgaged property]? — We presume that the transfer was made on behalf of the one but not of the others. On what ground do you decide thus? — Because the daughter of his wife who was already born at the time of the transfer can benefit from the transfer, but his own daughter who was not yet born at the time of the transfer cannot benefit from it. But are we not to assume that both had already been born at the time of the transfer, [and if you ask how can this be, I answer,] supposing he had divorced her and then taken her back?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And afterwards made the agreement along with the transfer. Hence the transfer cannot be the reason. ');">¹¹</span>

וכי מיגרע גרעה אלא בתו כיון דבתנאי בית דין קאכלה אימר צררי אתפסה

— No; what we must say is that his own daughter who is entitled to maintenance on the strength of the stipulation of the <i>Beth din</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule that an unmarried orphan daughter is entitled to maintenance, v. Keth. 52b. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש א"ר נתן אימתי בזמן שקדם מקחו של שני לשבחו של ראשון

derives no benefit from the transfer, whereas his wife's daughter who is not entitled to maintenance on the strength of the stipulation of the <i>Beth din</i> does derive benefit from the transfer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An thus the transfer is after all the reason. ');">¹³</span>

אבל קדם שבחו של ראשון למקחו של שני גובה מנכסים משועבדים אלמא משום דלא קדים הוא

Is then his own daughter to be in an inferior position? — No; since his daughter is entitled to maintenance on the strength of the stipulation of the <i>Beth din</i>, we presume that [at his death] he gave her a purse of money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In settlement of her maintenance dues, and this is why the transfer does not apply to her. ');">¹⁴</span>

תנאי היא דתניא אין מוציאין לאכילת פירות ולשבח קרקעות ולמזון אשה והבנות מנכסים משועבדים מפני תיקון העולם לפי שאין כתובין

Come and hear: R. Nathan says: When [does this rule about consumable produce etc. apply]? When the purchase of the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one who bought a second field from the robber on which the first purchaser wishes to distrain. ');">¹⁵</span>

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>

והמוצא מציאה לא ישבע: אמר ר' יצחק שני כיסין קשורין מצאת לי והלה אומר לא מצאתי אלא אחד נשבע שני שוורים קשורין מצאת לי והלה אומר לא היה אלא אחד אינו נשבע

R. Jose said: What prevention of abuses is there here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why introduce here this consideration? ');">¹⁷</span>

מ"ט שוורין מנתחי מהדדי כיסין לא מנתחי מהדדי

seeing that they are not definite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This alone is sufficient to debar enforcement from mortgaged property, which shows that R. Jose holds that even if they were written they would not be enforceable. ');">¹⁸</span>

שני שוורין קשורין מצאת והלה אומר מצאתי והחזרתי לך אחד מהן הרי זה נשבע

THE FINDER OF A LOST ARTICLE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH. R. Isaac said: [If a man says to another], 'You found two purses tied together,' and the other says, 'I found only one,' he can be forced to swear, [If he says,] 'You found two oxen tied together,' and the other says. 'There was only one,' he cannot be forced to swear. Why this difference? Because oxen can get loose from one another, but purses cannot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in the case of the purses the claimant could be positive, but not in the case of the oxen, and the oath is administered only if the claimant is positive. ');">¹⁹</span>

ור' יצחק לית ליה המוצא מציאה לא ישבע מפני תיקון העולם

[If he says.] 'You found two oxen tied together,' and the other says. 'I did find, and I restored to you one of them,' he has to take an oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he has restored one of them, since he has admitted part of the charge, which was that he found two. There is another reading (preferred by Tosaf.) 'It has also been taught to the same effect, (If a man says,) 'You found two oxen together' and the other says, 'I only found one,' he does not take an oath. If the first says, 'You found two purses tied together' and the other says. 'I did, and I gave you back one of them,' he has to take an oath.' V. p. 281, n. 4. ');">²⁰</span> Does then R. Isaac not accept the rule that A FINDER OF A LOST ARTICLE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH, TO PREVENT ABUSES?