Gittin 98

תניא בהדיא (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי רבי ישמעאל רע"א מיטב שדהו של מזיק ומיטב כרמו של מזיק

It has been taught expressly: From the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall make restitution:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">¹</span>

רבינא אמר לעולם מתני' ר"ע היא דאמר מדאורייתא בדמזיק שיימינן ור"ש היא דדריש טעמא דקרא ומה טעם קאמר מה טעם הניזקין שמין להן בעידית מפני תיקון העולם

this means the best of the field of the claimant and the best of the vineyard of the claimant. So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba, however, says it means, the best of the field of the defendant and the best of the vineyard of the defendant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all this section v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 21-24. ');">²</span>

דתניא אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרו הניזקין שמין להן בעידית מפני הגזלנים ומפני החמסנין כדי שיאמר אדם למה אני גוזל ולמה אני חומס למחר ב"ד יורדין לנכסי ונוטלין שדה נאה שלי וסומכים על מה שכתוב בתורה מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם לפיכך אמרו הניזקין שמין להן בעידית

Rabina said: We may maintain after all that the Mishnah follows R. Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not R. Ishmael, as we have been presuming hitherto. ');">³</span>

מפני מה אמרו בעל חוב בבינונית כדי שלא יראה אדם לחבירו שדה נאה ודירה נאה ויאמר אקפוץ ואלונו כדי שאגבנו בחובי לפיכך אמרו בע"ח בבינונית

who said that according to the Torah we assess on the land of the defendant, and it also follows here R. Simeon whose custom it was to expound the reasons of Scriptural injunctions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., that of 'he shall not multiply wives to himself,' B.M. 115a. ');">⁴</span>

אלא מעתה יהא בזיבורית א"כ אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין

and its later clause gives the reason for the earlier,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the rule laid down in the earlier derives from the Torah and not merely from the Rabbis. ');">⁵</span>

כתובת אשה בזיבורית דברי ר' יהודה ר"מ אומר בבינונית אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרו כתובת אשה בזיבורית שיותר ממה שהאיש רוצה לישא האשה רוצה לינשא

thus: Why is compensation for damage assessed on the best property? To pre vent abuses, as it has been taught: R. Simeon said: Why was it laid down that compensation for damages should be paid out of the best land? As a deterrent to those who plunder or take by violence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], i.e. who appropriate forcibly but offer payment, in contradistinction from [H], who plunder without compensating the owner; v. B.K. 62a.] ');">⁶</span>

דבר אחר אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציאה אלא לרצונו

so that a man should say to himself, Why should I plunder or take by violence, seeing that to-morrow the <i>Beth din</i> will come down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'jump', 'come forward'. ');">⁷</span>

מאי דבר אחר וכ"ת כי היכי דכי מפיק לה איהו תקינו לה רבנן כתובה מיניה כי נפקא איהי נמי ליתקני ליה רבנן כתובה מינה ת"ש אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו אפשר דמשהי לה בגיטא:

on my property and take my best field, basing themselves on what is written in the Torah, 'from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall make restitution'? For that reason they laid down that compensation for damages should be assessed on the best land.

כתובת אשה בזיבורית: אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן לא אמרן אלא מיתמי אבל מיניה דידיה בבינונית

Why did they lay down that a creditor should recover only from medium land? So that a man, on seeing his neighbour possessed of a fine field or a fine house, should not be tempted to say, I will induce him to borrow money of me so that I can get them on account of my debt. For this reason they laid down that a creditor should recover only from medium land. But if that is so, he should be allowed to recover only from the lowest grade? — This would be closing the door in the face of borrowers.

מיתמי מאי איריא כתובת אשה אפילו כל מילי נמי דהא תנן אין נפרעים מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית אלא לאו מיניה

A woman's <i>Kethubah</i> can be collected only from land of the poorest quality. So R. Judah; R. Meir, however, says, from medium land also. R. Simeon said: Why did they lay down that a woman's <i>Kethubah</i> is to be collected from poor land? Because the woman wants to be married more than the man wants to marry. Another explanation is that a woman is put away whether she will or not, but a man puts her away only if he wants to. How is this 'another explanation'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being a fresh point, not a reason why the Kethubah is to be paid out of the worst land. ');">⁸</span>

לעולם מיתמי וכתובת אשה איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא משום חינא אקילו רבנן גבה קמ"ל

— [What it means is]: Should you say that just as when the husband divorces the wife the Rabbis provided that she should obtain a <i>Kethubah</i> from him, so when she leaves him they should provide for him a <i>Kethubah</i> from her, then I would point out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'come and hear'. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא ת"ש ר"מ אומר כתובת אשה בבינונית ממאן אילימא מיתמי לית ליה לר"מ הא דתנן אין נפרעים מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית אלא לאו מיניה מכלל דרבנן סברי בזבורית

that a woman is divorced whether she wants to be or not, but a man divorces only if he wants to, since he can always keep her waiting for a Get.

לא לעולם מיתמי ושאני כתובת אשה משום חינא

A WOMAN'S <i>KETHUBAH</i> ONLY FROM LAND OF THE POOREST QUALITY. Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman said: This is the rule only [where the <i>Kethubah</i> is recovered] from the orphans,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of the husband. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר אביי ת"ש הניזקין שמין להן בעידית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית ממאן אילימא מיתמי מאי איריא כתובת אשה אפילו כל הני נמי אלא לאו מיניה

but from the husband himself it can be demanded out of medium property. If [the Mishnah refers to] orphans, why does it specify a woman's <i>Kethubah</i>, seeing that the same applies to all payments, as we have learnt, 'PAYMENTS FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM LOWEST GRADE LAND.' Are we not [therefore obliged to say] that the Mishnah is referring to the husband himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case of divorce. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנעשה ערב לנזקי בנו לבעל חוב בנו ולכתובת כלתו

— In point of fact it is to the orphans, and there was a reason for specifying the woman's <i>Kethubah</i>. For I might have thought that the Rabbis granted her a concession in order that she might look more favourably on suitors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for the sake of favour.' This would more naturally mean, that she should find favour in the eyes of the men, and so indeed it is taken by R. Hananel. V. Tosaf. s.v. ');">¹²</span>

והאי כי דיניה והאי כי דיניה ניזקין ובעל חוב דמחיים גבו איהו נמי כי מגבי כמחיים מגבי כתובת אשה דלאחר מיתה גביא ולאחר מיתה ממאן גביא מיתמי איהו נמי כי מגבי כלאחר מיתה מגבי

We are therefore told [that this is not so].

ותיפוק ליה דערב דכתובה לא משתעבד בקבלן

Raba said: Come and hear: R. MEIR SAYS, A WOMAN'S <i>KETHUBAH</i> CAN ALSO BE COLLECTED FROM MEDIUM QUALITY LAND. From whom? Shall I say from the orphans? Does R. Meir then not accept [the rule] which we have learnt: PAYMENT FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM THE LOWEST GRADE? We must say therefore that he means, from the husband himself; from which we can infer that in the opinion of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With whom he joins issue on this point. ');">¹³</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר קבלן אף על גב דלית ליה נכסי ללוה משתעבד שפיר אלא למאן דאמר אי אית ליה משתעבד אי לית ליה לא משתעבד מאי איכא למימר

[payment can be claimed even from the husband] only in poor land. — No; [R. Meir] indeed [also referred] to orphans, and there is a special reason why [in his opinion] a woman's <i>Kethubah</i> [should be collected even from their medium land], namely, to make her favourably disposed to suitors. Abaye said: Come and hear: COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE IS PAID OUT OF [PROPERTY OF] THE BEST QUALITY, A CREDITOR OUT OF LAND OF MEDIUM QUALITY, AND A WOMAN'S <i>KETHUBAH</i> OUT OF LAND OF THE POOREST QUALITY. [Collected] from whom? Shall we say, from orphans? If so, why only the woman's <i>Kethubah</i> [from the poorest land]? Why not [all the claims of] others as well? — R. Aha b. Jacob said: We are dealing here with a case where a man became surety for compensation for damage due from his son, for his son's debt, and for his daughter-in-law's <i>Kethubah</i>. Each item then follows its own rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., compensation for damage from the best property and debts from the second best, as they would have been by the son himself had he been alive. ');">¹⁴</span>

איבעית אימא בדהוו ליה ואישתדוף

Compensation and debts which are usually paid in the lifetime [of the person responsible] are paid in this case also as though in the lifetime of the person responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., by the father if the son dies without having paid. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואיבעית אימא כל לגבי בריה שעבודי משעבד נפשיה

The woman's <i>Kethubah</i> which is usually paid after the death of the person responsible — and by whom? by the orphans — is paid in this case as after the death of the person responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., from the lowest grade property, as it would be by orphans. In ordinary cases, however, a husband, according to R. Aba b. Jacob, pays the Kethubah from medium property. ');">¹⁶</span>

איתמר ערב דכתובה דברי הכל לא משתעבד

But cannot this rule be derived from the fact that a surety for a <i>Kethubah</i> is not responsible [for its payment]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">¹⁷</span> — We speak of a kabbelan [go-between].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The meaning is that he entered into an agreement with his daughter-in-law that she could claim either from him or from his son at will. ');">¹⁸</span> This solves the problem for one who holds that a kabbelan is responsible even though the borrower has no property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time when the debt is contracted. ');">¹⁹</span> but what answer is to be given to one who holds that if the borrower has property he is responsible but if the borrower has no effects he is not responsible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no one would guarantee a loan where it is known that the debtor has no means wherewith to repay. A guarantee in such a case cannot therefore be taken seriously. V. B.B. 174b. And the presumption is here that the husband had no effects when the contract was made. (V. Tosaf.). ');">²⁰</span> — If you like I can say that in this case we suppose [the son to have] had property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the liability was contracted. ');">²¹</span> which was subsequently destroyed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'blighted'. ');">²²</span> or if you like I can say that in respect of his son a man would in all cases regard himself as responsible. It has been stated [elsewhere]: With regard to a surety<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Areb., v. Glos. ');">²³</span> for a <i>Kethubah</i>, all authorities are agreed that he does not become responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she has not actually parted with anything. ');">²⁴</span>