## Ketubot Daf 102a

###### Ketubot 102a:1
[Ketubot 102a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:1)

לָא, בִּשְׁטָרֵי פְסִיקָתָא, וְכִדְרַב גִּידֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the mishna is referring to a case **of documents of stipulation** that record the amounts that parents agree to provide to their son or daughter, **and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Giddel.**


###### Ketubot 102a:2
[Ketubot 102a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:2)

דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: כַּמָּה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְבִנְךָ? כָּךְ וְכָךְ. וְכַמָּה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְבִתְּךָ? כָּךְ וְכָךְ. עָמְדוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּ — קָנוּ. הֵן הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּקְנִין בַּאֲמִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said:** When two families negotiate the terms of marriage for their respective children, one side says to the other: **How much do you give your son?** And the second side answers: **Such and such** amount. **How much do you give your daughter?** And the first side responds: **Such and such** amount. Then, if the son and daughter **arose and performed the betrothal,** all of these obligations are **acquired** and therefore binding. **These are** among **the things that are acquired through words** alone, without the need for an additional act of acquisition. The mishna is referring to a document that records such an agreement.


###### Ketubot 102a:3
[Ketubot 102a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע, כָּתַב לְכֹהֵן: ״שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לְךָ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים״ — חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, וּבְנוֹ אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another challenge to the opinion of Reish Lakish, based upon the following mishna (*Bekhorot* 51a): If **he wrote to a priest** with whom he wants to perform the redemption of his firstborn son: **I am obligated to** pay **you five *sela*,** then **he is obligated to give him five *sela* and his son is not redeemed** even once he pays the money. This *baraita* apparently supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Ketubot 102a:4
[Ketubot 102a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:4)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּמְשׁוּעְבַּד לֵיהּ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא: אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי כָּתַב? כְּדֵי לְבָרֵר לוֹ כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is different there, because he is obligated** to give the five *sela* **to him by Torah** law in order to fulfill his obligation of redeeming his firstborn son, even without writing a contract. The Gemara asks: **If that is so, why did he write** the contract at all? The Gemara answers: **In order to select for himself a** specific **priest** with whom to perform the redemption of his son.


###### Ketubot 102a:5
[Ketubot 102a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:5)

אִי הָכִי, בְּנוֹ אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי? כִּדְעוּלָּא. דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה — פָּדוּי לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן, וּמַאי טַעְמָא אָמְרוּ בְּנוֹ אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ פּוֹדִין בִּשְׁטָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so, why is his son not redeemed** once he pays the money? The Gemara answers: This is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Ulla. As Ulla said, by Torah law** a son **is redeemed when** the father **gives** the money. **And for what reason did** the **Sages say: His son is not redeemed?** It is a rabbinic **decree** that was enacted **lest** people **say** that **one can redeem** a firstborn son **with documents,** i.e., by giving a document allowing the priest to collect a debt from a third party. This is not effective, since the Torah requires that one redeem his son with actual money.


###### Ketubot 102a:6
[Ketubot 102a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא, כְּתַנָּאֵי: עָרֵב הַיּוֹצֵא אַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת — גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** over the same matter in the following mishna (*Bava Batra* 175b): In a case where **a guarantor appears after the signatures** in **contracts,** i.e., someone wrote that he is a guarantor for a loan after the contract was signed, the creditor **collects** only **from** the **unsold property** of the guarantor. Since the guarantee is not viewed as though it were written in the document, it is like a loan by oral agreement, which is collected only from unsold property.


###### Ketubot 102a:7
[Ketubot 102a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:7)

מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאָמַר: גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן נַנָּס: אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**An incident came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said:** The creditor **collects from unsold property. Ben Nannas said to him: He does not collect** from the guarantor at all; **not from unsold property, nor from liened property** that was sold, since what the guarantor wrote has no legal standing whatsoever.


###### Ketubot 102a:8
[Ketubot 102a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:8)

אָמַר לוֹ: לָמָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חוֹנֵק אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשּׁוּק, וּמְצָא[וֹ] חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: הַנַּח לוֹ, וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לָךְ — פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael **said to him: Why?** Ben Nannas **said to him:** If someone **was strangling another in the marketplace** and demanding money that is owed to him, **and a friend** of the victim **found** him **and said to** the strangler: **Leave him** alone **and I will give you** what you are demanding from him, the friend of the victim is **exempt** from having to make any payment. This is because the creditor **did not lend the money based on his trust** in the friend of the victim, as the friend promised to repay the loan only after the money had been loaned. The same should apply in the case of the guarantor who comes after the contracts were already signed.


###### Ketubot 102a:9
[Ketubot 102a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:9)

לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר כְּבֶן נַנָּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava concludes: **Let us say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan stated** his ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** that the obligation that one accepts upon himself is binding, **and Reish Lakish stated** his ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **ben Nannas.**


###### Ketubot 102a:10
[Ketubot 102a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/102a:10)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּבֶן נַנָּס כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **According to** the opinion **of ben Nannas, everyone agrees** that if he wrote in a contract: I owe you one hundred dinars, he is not obligated to pay.