## Ketubot Daf 110a

###### Ketubot 110a:1
[Ketubot 110a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְהַלָּה הוֹצִיא שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּיב לְךָ — הָיָה לְךָ לְהִפָּרַע אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ כְּשֶׁמָּכַרְתָּ לִי אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הָיָה פִּקֵּחַ, שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ אֶת הַקַּרְקַע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who produces a promissory note against another, and this** borrower **produced** a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states **that** the lender **sold him a field** of his, **Admon says** that the borrower **can say: Were I** really **indebted to you, you should have collected your** loan **when you sold me the field,** and you would not have needed to sell it. **And the Rabbis say:** This is no proof, as it is possible that **this** lender **was perspicacious, as he sold** the borrower **the land** for a good reason, **because now he can take** the field as **collateral from him** in lieu of the outstanding loan.


###### Ketubot 110a:2
[Ketubot 110a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר אַדְמוֹן! בְּאַתְרָא דְּיָהֲבִי זוּזֵי וַהֲדַר כָּתְבִי שְׁטָרָא — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָיָה לְךָ לִפְרוֹעַ אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ כְּשֶׁמָּכַרְתָּ לִי אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion **of the Rabbis?** After all, **Admon is saying well.** The Gemara explains: **In a place where** people first **give money and** only **afterward they write the bill** of sale, **everyone agrees that** the borrower **can say to** the lender: **You should have collected your** debt **when you sold me the field,** i.e., when you received money from me you should have said that it is not for the field but is repayment of the debt I owed you.


###### Ketubot 110a:3
[Ketubot 110a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:3)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי, בְּאַתְרָא דְּכָתְבִי שְׁטָרָא וַהֲדַר יָהֲבִי זוּזֵי. אַדְמוֹן סָבַר: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִימְסַר מוֹדָעָא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ וְחַבְרָא דְּחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree is** with regard **to a place where** people first **write out the bill** of sale **and** only **afterward they give money. Admon holds** that the lender **should have put out a** preemptive **declaration,** i.e., he should have earlier told witnesses that he is selling the field only so it can be used as collateral, and this transaction should not be taken as an indication that the buyer is not indebted to him. **And the Rabbis hold** that the lender may argue: **Your friend has a friend and your friend’s friend has a friend,** i.e., word of my intention to use the field as collateral would have come back to the borrower and he would not have agreed to the transaction, and that is why I did not issue any declaration.


###### Ketubot 110a:4
[Ketubot 110a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּיב לְךָ — כֵּיצַד אַתָּה לֹוֶה מִמֶּנִּי?! וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה גּוֹבֶה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ, וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **two** people **who** each **produced a promissory note** of a monetary debt **against the other, Admon says:** The one holding the note with the later date can say to the first: **If I owed you** money, **how** is it that **you are borrowing from me?** You should have sued to collect your debt. This is proof that your document is a forgery. **And the Rabbis say: This one collects his promissory note, and that one collects his promissory note.**


###### Ketubot 110a:5
[Ketubot 110a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** אִתְּמַר: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: זֶה גּוֹבֶה וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: הַפּוֹכֵי מַטְרָתָא לָמָּה לִי. אֶלָּא זֶה עוֹמֵד בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עוֹמֵד בְּשֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated** that *amora’im* disputed the case of **two** people **who** each **produced a promissory note against the other** for the same value. **Rav Naḥman said: This one collects** his debt **and that one collects** his debt. **Rav Sheshet said: Why do I** need **to shift** donkey **packs [*matrata*]** from one side to the other? **Rather,** as each will retain the same sum, let **this one stand with his** money **and** let **that one stand with his** money.


###### Ketubot 110a:6
[Ketubot 110a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:6)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עִידִּית וְעִידִּית, בֵּינוֹנִית וּבֵינוֹנִית, זִיבּוּרִית וְזִיבּוּרִית — וַדַּאי הַפּוֹכֵי מַטְרָתָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyses this dispute: **Everyone** agrees that if the field of one of the parties, which served as guarantee for the promissory note, was **superior-quality land and** the other person also had **superior-quality land,** or one had **intermediate-quality land and** the other had **intermediate-quality land,** or one had **inferior-quality land and** the other had **inferior-quality land,** this **is certainly** considered like **shifting** donkey **packs,** i.e., it is an exercise in futility, as there is no reason to exchange their money.


###### Ketubot 110a:7
[Ketubot 110a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:7)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְחַד בֵּינוֹנִית וּלְחַד זִיבּוּרִית — רַב נַחְמָן סָבַר: זֶה גּוֹבֶה וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה. קָסָבַר: בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הֵן שָׁמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree** is in a case **where one has intermediate-quality land and** the other **one** has **inferior-quality land. Rav Naḥman holds** that **this one collects** his debt **and that one collects** his debt, as **he holds** that **one assesses** the quality of land **on** the basis of **his own** fields, i.e., if the borrower has different types of land, then his best land is classified as superior-quality land, the next best is considered intermediate-quality land, and his worst fields are called inferior-quality land.


###### Ketubot 110a:8
[Ketubot 110a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:8)

אָתֵי בַּעַל זִיבּוּרִית וְגָבֵי לֵיהּ לְבֵינוֹנִית, דַּהֲוָה גַּבֵּיהּ עִידִּית, וַאֲתָא הָהוּא וְשָׁקֵיל זִיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, **the owner of inferior-quality land,** Reuven, **will come and collect** his debt from the **intermediate-quality land** of his debtor, Shimon, in accordance with the *halakha* that a creditor collects payment from intermediate-quality land. Since Shimon does not have any land that is inferior, Reuven necessarily takes his debt from that land. However, at this stage the land Reuven took from Shimon **is** considered **for him superior-quality land,** as all of his other fields are of lower quality than the field he took. **And** therefore, **that** other creditor, Shimon, **comes** to collect his debt from Reuven, **and takes from inferior-quality land,** as the intermediate-quality land that Reuven took from Shimon is now, relative to Reuven’s other field, classified as superior-quality land. Consequently, each debtor will take different fields from the other, despite the fact that they owe the same sum.


###### Ketubot 110a:9
[Ketubot 110a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:9)

וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: הַפּוֹכֵי מַטְרָתָא לָמָּה לִי, קָסָבַר: בְּשֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם הֵן שָׁמִין, סוֹף סוֹף כִּי אָתֵי הָהוּא — בֵּינוֹנִית דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָשָׁקֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Sheshet,** who **said: Why do I** need **to shift** donkey **packs, holds** that the quality of the land is not assessed differently for each individual borrower. Rather, **one assesses** the quality of land **on** the basis of the lands of **all people,** i.e., there is a standard measure of land quality which applies to everyone. If so, then **ultimately, when that** second debtor, Shimon, comes to collect from Reuven he will take back his own **intermediate-quality land,** i.e., the field that Reuven took from him only a short while earlier. Consequently, no purpose is served by going through this process.


###### Ketubot 110a:10
[Ketubot 110a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:10)

וּלְרַב נַחְמָן: מַאי חָזֵית דְּאָתֵי בַּעַל זִיבּוּרִית בְּרֵישָׁא, לֵיתֵי בַּעַל בֵּינוֹנִית בְּרֵישָׁא וְלִיגְבֵּי זִיבּוּרִית, וְלֶיהְדַּר וְלִיגְבֵּי נִיהֲלֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman, what did you see that** led you to establish that **the owner of inferior-quality land** will **come** and collect his debt **first,** as described above? **Let the owner of intermediate-quality land come first and collect inferior-quality land** from the other party, as that is all he possesses. In this scenario, the intermediate-quality land in the possession of the one who collected his debt will be classified as high quality, while his inferior-quality field will be considered of intermediate quality. **And** therefore **let** the other **return and collect** the same portion of land that he took from **him.** Once again, this is an apparently unnecessary exchange.


###### Ketubot 110a:11
[Ketubot 110a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:11)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּקְדֵים תַּבְעֵיהּ. סוֹף סוֹף כִּי אֲתוֹ לְמִגְבֵּי, בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** only in a case **where** the owner of the low-quality land happened to **precede** the other **and claim** from him first. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Ultimately, when they come to collect** their respective debts, **they come together,** which means that they will pass the same portion of land back and forth.


###### Ketubot 110a:12
[Ketubot 110a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:12)

אֶלָּא, לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְחַד עִידִּית וּבֵינוֹנִית, וְאִית לֵיהּ לְחַד זִיבּוּרִית — מָר סָבַר: בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הֵן שָׁמִין, וּמָר סָבַר: בְּשֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם הֵן שָׁמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara provides an alternative explanation: **No,** this dispute is **necessary** in a case **where one has superior-quality land and intermediate-quality land, and** the other **one has** only **inferior-quality land. One Sage,** Rav Naḥman, **holds** that **one assesses** the quality of land **on** the basis of **his own** fields. Consequently, the owner of the low-quality land stands to gain, as he collects intermediate-quality land from the other and pays low-quality land in return, regardless of the order of the claims. **And one Sage,** Rav Sheshet, **holds** that the court **appraises** the quality of land **on** the basis of the lands of **all people,** which means that they will be trading the same plot of land back and forth.


###### Ketubot 110a:13
[Ketubot 110a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:13)

תְּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה גּוֹבֶה וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב נַחְמָן אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּוָה זֶה לְעֶשֶׂר וְזֶה לְחָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **And the Rabbis say: This one collects** his promissory note **and that one collects** his promissory note. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Sheshet. **Rav Naḥman** himself **interpreted** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet:** This is referring to a situation, **for example, where this one borrowed for** a period of **ten** years **and that one** borrowed **for five** years. In this case it makes sense to say that each collects as stated in the promissory note in his possession.


###### Ketubot 110a:14
[Ketubot 110a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:14)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא רִאשׁוֹן לְעֶשֶׂר וְשֵׁנִי לְחָמֵשׁ, בְּהָא לֵימָא אַדְמוֹן: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּיב לְךָ כֵּיצַד אַתָּה לֹוֶה מִמֶּנִּי? הָא לָא מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ. אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן לְחָמֵשׁ, וְשֵׁנִי לְעֶשֶׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If we say** that the **first** one borrowed **for ten** years **and** the **second for five,** is **this** the case in which **Admon would say: If I owed you** money, **how** is it that **you are borrowing from me?** After all, the due **date has not yet arrived** for the second person to pay his debt. Perhaps the other creditor needs money to sustain himself for the next five years. **Rather, the first** one borrowed **for five** years **and the second for ten** years.


###### Ketubot 110a:15
[Ketubot 110a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:15)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּמְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ — מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן. וְאִי דְּלָא מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ — הָא לָא מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ, וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּאַדְמוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to inquire: **What are the circumstances? If** this is referring to a case **where** the due **date** of the first promissory note **had** already **arrived** when the second loan was issued, **what is the rationale for** the ruling of **the Rabbis?** The second person should not have borrowed money from the first, as he should have instead collected payment on the debt owed to him. **And if** the due **date had not** yet **arrived,** the second person clearly cannot demand his money, as the due **date had not yet arrived,** and perhaps he simply was in need of available money. **And** if so, **what is the rationale for** the opinion of **Admon?**


###### Ketubot 110a:16
[Ketubot 110a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:16)

לָא צְרִיכָא דַּאֲתָא בְּהָהוּא יוֹמָא דְּמִשְׁלַם חָמֵשׁ. מָר סָבַר: עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּיָזֵיף לְיוֹמֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּיָזֵיף לְיוֹמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he came on** exactly **that day when the five years** of the first loan **were completed.** The dispute is as follows: **One Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that **a person will take out a loan** even **for one day, and** one **Sage,** Admon, **holds** that **a person will not take out a loan for one day,** and therefore he would have waited one day to receive payment of the debt owed to him.


###### Ketubot 110a:17
[Ketubot 110a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:17)

רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּיַתְמֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּיַתְמֵי מִיגְבָּא גָּבֻי, אַגְבּוֹיֵי לָא מַגְבִּינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ. וְהָא ״זֶה גּוֹבֶה וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה״ קָתָנֵי! זֶה גּוֹבֶה, וְזֶה רָאוּי לִגְבּוֹת וְאֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama stated** a different answer: **Here we are dealing with orphans,** i.e., one of the debtors died without leaving any landed properties, **as orphans collect** debts owed to their father but others **do not collect from them** the debts their father owed. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis that each collects based on the document in his possession has practical ramifications. The Gemara asks: **But** the mishna **teaches** that **this one collects** his promissory note **and that one collects** his promissory note, whereas according to this interpretation only the orphans collect the debts they are owed. The Gemara answers: The mishna means that **this one collects, and that one** has the **potential to collect but he does not have** any land from which he may legally collect his debt.


###### Ketubot 110a:18
[Ketubot 110a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא: דְּזֶה גּוֹבֶה וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה קָתָנֵי. וְעוֹד, לַגְבִּינְהוּ אַרְעָא לְיַתְמֵי וְלֶיהְדַּר וְלִיגְבִּינְהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: יְתוֹמִים שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹבַת אֲבִיהֶן — בַּעַל חוֹב חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן. קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** There are **two responses to this** explanation. **One** is **that** the mishna **teaches** that **this one collects** his promissory note **and that one collects** his promissory note, which indicates that each actually collects what is owed to him, not that one is entitled to collect it but may not do so in practice. **And furthermore, let him give land to the orphans and return and collect it from them, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman. As Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said:** With regard to **orphans who collected land in payment of their father’s debt, a creditor may come back and collect it from them.** The Gemara comments: This does pose a **difficulty** for the explanation of Rami bar Ḥama.


###### Ketubot 110a:19
[Ketubot 110a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:19)

וְלוֹקְמַהּ דְּאִית לְהוּ לְיַתְמֵי זִיבּוּרִית, וְאִית לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ עִידִּית וּבֵינוֹנִית, דְּאָזְלִי יַתְמֵי גָּבוּ בֵּינוֹנִית, וּמַגְבּוּ לֵיהּ זִיבּוּרִית. דְּאִי נָמֵי בְּשֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם הֵן שָׁמִין, הָא אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא מִזִּיבּוּרִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **And let us establish** the mishna as referring to a case where **the orphans have inferior-quality land, and he himself,** the other creditor, **has** both **superior-quality land and intermediate-quality land. In** this scenario **the orphans go** and **collect intermediate-quality land** from him, **while they give** him **inferior-quality land** in payment of the debt owed to him by their father. The reason is **that even if** the *halakha* is that **one assesses** the quality of land **on** the basis of the lands of **all people,** and therefore the other creditor should be able to collect intermediate-quality land from the orphans, there is a principle that **one collects** a debt **from the property of orphans only from inferior-quality land.**


###### Ketubot 110a:20
[Ketubot 110a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:20)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא תְּפַס, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דִּתְפַס — תְּפַס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This applies only** to a case **where** the lender **has not as yet seized** any land from the orphans in payment of his debt. **However, where he has seized** intermediate-quality land, **he has seized** that land. Since he is already in possession of a field, it is not taken from him. In these circumstances there is no significance to each party collecting from the other.


###### Ketubot 110a:21
[Ketubot 110a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/110a:21)

**מַתְנִי׳** שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לְנִשּׂוּאִין: יְהוּדָה וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְהַגָּלִיל — אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵעִיר לָעִיר וּמִכְּרַךְ לִכְרַךְ. אֲבָל בְּאוֹתָהּ הָאָרֶץ — מוֹצִיאִין מֵעִיר לְעִיר וּמִכְּרַךְ לִכְרַךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Eretz Yisrael is divided into **three** separate **lands** with regard **to marriage: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee.** If a man marries a woman in one of these lands he may **not remove** her **from** one **town to** another **town** in another of these lands or **from** one **city to** another **city,** i.e., he cannot compel her to move to another land. **However, in the same land one may remove her from** one **town to** another **town** or **from** one **city to** another **city.**