## Gittin Daf 48b

###### Gittin 48b:1
[Gittin 48b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:1)

״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you”** (Leviticus 25:15), meaning that it is not the field itself that is sold, but rather, what is sold is the right to consume the produce for a specific number of years.


###### Gittin 48b:2
[Gittin 48b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:2)

מַתְנִיתָא – דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשָׂדֶה הַחוֹזֶרֶת לְאָבִיו בְּיוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *baraita*** supports the opinion of Reish Lakish, **as it is taught: A firstborn son takes a double** portion **in a field that returns to his father in the Jubilee** Year, i.e., a field that his father sold, and he subsequently died, and the field therefore returns to his sons in the Jubilee Year. The *halakha* is that a firstborn son receives a double portion only of property that the father possessed at the time of his death, but not of property that was due to the father. If the acquisition of the produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, then the field the father sold would not be considered to have been in his possession at the time of his death.


###### Gittin 48b:3
[Gittin 48b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נָקְטִינַן: בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ צָרִיךְ הַרְשָׁאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: We have a tradition** that **a husband requires authorization with regard to his wife’s property,** meaning that if there is a legal dispute between the husband and another person with regard to the usufruct property the husband received from his wife, he requires authorization from his wife that he may act on her behalf in order to present himself in court as a litigant. If he does not receive such authorization, the other litigant has the right to claim that he is not legally answerable to the husband, and may insist that the wife come before the court herself. This indicates that the acquisition of the produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and therefore the husband is not the owner of the property.


###### Gittin 48b:4
[Gittin 48b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:4)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא נָחֵית אַפֵּירֵי, אֲבָל נָחֵית אַפֵּירֵי, מִיגּוֹ דְּמִשְׁתַּעֵי דִּינָא אַפֵּירֵי – מִשְׁתַּעֵי דִּינָא אַגּוּפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And we said** this *halakha* **only when** the other litigant **did not go down** to court with a claim **concerning the produce,** and the case addresses only the ownership of the land itself. **But** if **he went down** to court with a claim **concerning the produce,** with regard to which the husband is definitely the interested party, then **since** the husband **speaks** in front of the court **about the law concerning the produce, he** also **speaks** in front of the court **about the law concerning the** land **itself,** and therefore he does not require authorization from his wife.


###### Gittin 48b:5
[Gittin 48b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:5)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ**


###### Gittin 48b:6
[Gittin 48b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:6)

**הַנִּיזָּקִין** שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִּית, וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיבּוּרִית. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּבֵינוֹנִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The court **appraises land of superior quality [*iddit*] for payment to injured** parties. **And a creditor** collects his debt **from** the debtor’s **intermediate-quality land. And** payment of **a woman’s marriage contract** is collected **from** her husband’s **inferior-quality land. Rabbi Meir says:** Payment of a woman’s **marriage contract** is **also** collected **from intermediate-quality land.**


###### Gittin 48b:7
[Gittin 48b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:7)

אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ הֵן זִיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Payment of a debt or other obligation **is not collected from liened property** that has been sold to a third party **when** the debtor still **has unsold property, even** when this unsold property is **inferior-quality land.** The creditor cannot collect his debt from liened property that the debtor has sold to another person as long as the debtor is still in possession of other property, even if the remaining assets are inferior to those to which the creditor would otherwise have been entitled.


###### Gittin 48b:8
[Gittin 48b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:8)

אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the father’s debt **can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land.**


###### Gittin 48b:9
[Gittin 48b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:9)

אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת, וְלִשְׁבַח קַרְקָעוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The court **does not appropriate** liened property that has been sold to a third party **for the consumption of produce or for the enhanced value of land.** If one appropriated a field and sold it, and the buyer worked the land, enhanced it, and grew produce on it, and then the initial owner from whom the field had been stolen took back the land and the produce from the buyer, compensating him only for his expenses, then the buyer may go back to the seller, i.e., the robber, and collect his losses. He can collect the purchase price of the field even from property that the robber sold to another person. By contrast, the value of the produce and the enhancement in the value of the field, which resulted from his actions, may be collected only from the robber’s unsold property.


###### Gittin 48b:10
[Gittin 48b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:10)

וְלִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת – מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, payment **for the sustenance of** a man’s **wife and daughters** cannot be collected **from** his **liened property.** One of the stipulations included in a marriage contract is that after the husband dies, his widow and daughters are entitled to sustenance from his estate. This sustenance cannot be collected from the husband’s liened property that has been sold to another person, but only from his unsold property inherited by his heirs. All of these enactments were made **for the betterment of the world.**


###### Gittin 48b:11
[Gittin 48b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:11)

וְהַמּוֹצֵא מְצִיאָה – לֹא יִשָּׁבַע, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it was further instituted that **one who finds a lost item** and returns it to its rightful owner is **not** required to **take an oath** that he did not keep any part of the lost item for himself. This ordinance was also instituted **for the betterment of the world.**


###### Gittin 48b:12
[Gittin 48b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם?! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** When the mishna says: For the betterment of the world, it seems to be referring to all of the cases in the mishna. The Gemara therefore asks: The first clause of the mishna states that compensation for damage is collected from superior-quality land. Is this ordinance also only **for the betterment of the world?** This **is by Torah law, as it is written** with regard to one who damages another person’s property: **“Of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay”** (Exodus 22:4).


###### Gittin 48b:13
[Gittin 48b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:13)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם שָׁיְימִינַן בִּדְמַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This statement **is necessary only according to Rabbi Yishmael,** who **said** that **by Torah law we appraise** the property **of the injured** party, i.e., the injured party can collect payment only from property equal in quality to the best of his own, even if the one who caused the damage owns property of higher quality. Therefore, the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches us** that **for the betterment of the world we appraise** the property **of the one who caused the damage.**


###### Gittin 48b:14
[Gittin 48b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:14)

מַאי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַגְבּוֹת לַנִּיזָּקִין מִן הָעִידִּית, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is this statement of **Rabbi Yishmael** alluded to by Abaye? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse: **“Of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay,”** teaches that the appraisal is of **the best quality of the field of the injured** party **and** of **the best quality of the vineyard of the injured** party. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to** allow **injured** parties **to collect** compensation **from superior-quality land** belonging to the one who caused the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. **And** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference one can derive that the **Temple** treasury collects from superior-quality land.


###### Gittin 48b:15
[Gittin 48b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:15)

וּלְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָכַל שְׁמֵנָה – מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵנָה; אָכַל כְּחוּשָׁה – מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵנָה?! אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכְלָה עֲרוּגָה בֵּין הָעֲרוּגוֹת, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי כְּחוּשָׁה אָכַל אִי שְׁמֵנָה אָכַל, דִּמְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ מִמֵּיטַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** if one’s animal **ate** from **a rich** garden bed, it is understandable that he **must pay** the injured party the value of **a rich** garden bed. But if it **ate** from **a poor** garden bed, is it reasonable that he **pays** the value of **a rich** garden bed? **Rav Idi bar Avin said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the animal that caused the damage **ate** from one **garden bed among** other **garden beds, and we do not know whether it ate** from **a poor** one **or it ate** from **a rich** one. In such a case, the animal’s owner **pays** the injured party **the** value of the latter’s **best quality** property.


###### Gittin 48b:16
[Gittin 48b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48b:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִילּוּ יָדְעִינַן דִּכְחוּשָׁה אָכַל – מְשַׁלֵּם כְּחוּשָׁה; הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן – מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵנָה?! הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** raised a question and **said: If we would know that** the animal **ate** from **a poor** garden bed, its owner would have to **pay** only the value of **a poor** garden bed. **Now that we do not know** from which garden bed it ate, is it reasonable that **he** should have to **pay** the value of **a rich** garden bed? There is a principle governing monetary disputes that **the burden of proof falls on the claimant.** Therefore, so long as the injured party cannot prove that the animal ate from the rich garden bed, he should not be entitled to collect the value of such a garden bed. **Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:**