## Ketubot Daf 94a

###### Ketubot 94a:1
[Ketubot 94a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:1)

כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וּבְבַעַל חוֹב מְאוּחָר שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The case is **where it is discovered that one of the** fields in the estate **is not his** field, e.g., the husband had stolen it from someone else. Consequently, it is likely that the field will be repossessed, and if it is used to pay the marriage contract of one of the first three wives, that wife stands to lose out. **And they disagree with regard to a creditor** whose promissory note was dated **later** than that of another creditor, and yet **he collected** his debt **before** the other creditor, leaving nothing for the other creditor to collect. This is parallel to the case of the wives if the fourth wife collects her marriage contract and then one of the earlier wives loses the field she has been paid.


###### Ketubot 94a:2
[Ketubot 94a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:2)

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה לֹא גָּבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The first *tanna* holds** that **what** the creditor **has collected, he has not** fully **collected,** i.e., he will have to give up the property he collected so that the creditor with the earlier promissory note can collect his debt. Similarly, if the property given to one of the first three wives is repossessed and there is nothing left for her to collect, the fourth wife will have to relinquish the property that she had been paid to accommodate the wife who preceded her.


###### Ketubot 94a:3
[Ketubot 94a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:3)

וּבֶן נַנָּס סָבַר: מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה גָּבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And ben Nanas holds that what** the creditor **has collected, he has collected,** i.e., it is not taken from him in order to pay the earlier creditor. Consequently, according to the first *tanna*, there is no need for the fourth wife to take an oath before she collects the property, because whatever she collects can be taken from her in order to pay the other wives. According to ben Nanas, since the property the fourth wife collects cannot be taken from her, she must take an oath that she is collecting this property legally in order to ensure that none of the other wives will lose out because of what she collects.


###### Ketubot 94a:4
[Ketubot 94a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:4)

(אָמַר) רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — מַה שֶּׁגָּבָה לֹא גָּבָה. וְהָכָא בְּחָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף קָמִיפַּלְגִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: Everyone agrees** that **what** the later creditor **has collected, he has not collected,** i.e., it may be repossessed by the earlier creditor. Rather, **they disagree here** as to whether **we are concerned** that **perhaps she will deplete** the field and cause its value to depreciate.


###### Ketubot 94a:5
[Ketubot 94a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:5)

מָר סָבַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף. וּמַר סָבַר: לָא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** ben Nanas, **holds** that **we are concerned** that **perhaps she will deplete** the field. If she is not required to take the oath, she will understand that her hold on the land is uncertain, as it is possible that one of the other wives will repossess it. Consequently, she will try to reap the maximum benefit from the field in the short term without investing in the field for the long term, and thereby depleting the field. The Sages therefore imposed an oath upon the fourth wife. **And** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds that we are not concerned** that **perhaps she will deplete** the field and we can assume that it will retain its original value. Therefore, there is no reason to impose an oath upon the fourth wife.


###### Ketubot 94a:6
[Ketubot 94a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:6)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: דְּאַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. דְּתָנֵי אַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא: יְתוֹמִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ — גְּדוֹלִים. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר קְטַנִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: There is** a practical difference **between them,** the first *tanna* and ben Nanas, with regard to the ruling **of Abaye the Elder, as Abaye the Elder taught:** The **orphans** with regard to whom the Sages **said** that one cannot collect property from them without taking an oath include **adult** orphans, **and, needless to say,** orphans who are **minors.** Even adult orphans are not necessarily aware of the business affairs of their parents, and one can easily press claims against the estate that take advantage of their ignorance. Therefore, anyone who wishes to collect money from the estate is required to take an oath.


###### Ketubot 94a:7
[Ketubot 94a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:7)

תַּנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא. וּבֶן נַנָּס אִית לֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The first *tanna* does not** accept the ruling **of Abaye the Elder** and therefore holds that the fourth wife does not have to take an oath when collecting her marriage contract. **And ben Nanas accepts** the ruling **of Abaye the Elder** and therefore holds that the fourth wife must take an oath before collecting part of the estate.


###### Ketubot 94a:8
[Ketubot 94a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:8)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָנֵי תְּרֵי אַחֵי וּתְרֵי שׁוּתָּפֵי דְּאִית לְהוּ דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵי חַד, וַאֲזַל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ לְדִינָא — לָא מָצֵי אִידַּךְ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ לָאו בַּעַל דְּבָרִים דִּידִי אַתְּ. אֶלָּא שְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ עֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna said:** In a case of **two brothers or two partners who have legal** proceedings **against** another **individual, and one of them went to** attend to the **legal** proceedings **against him** and lost, **the other** brother or partner **cannot say** to the litigant: **I am not legally answerable to you,** i.e., I am not bound by the verdict because I was not represented in the legal proceedings. **Rather,** the brother or partner who appeared in court is considered to have **acted as his agent.**


###### Ketubot 94a:9
[Ketubot 94a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:9)

אִקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא. שַׁיְילוּהִי: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Naḥman** once **happened** to come **to Sura. They asked him: What** is the *halakha* in **a case like this** one presented by Rav Huna, where only one of the two brothers or partners attends the court proceedings?


###### Ketubot 94a:10
[Ketubot 94a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:10)

אֲמַר לְהוּ, מַתְנִיתִין הִיא: הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִשְׁבַּעַת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית. וְאִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹנָה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית לָא קָתָנֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁלִיחוּתַהּ עָבְדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to them: It is** taught in **a mishna: The** woman he married **first takes an oath to the** woman he married **second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth.** But **it does not teach** that **the first** wife takes an oath **to the third** or the fourth. **What is the reason? Is it not due to** the fact that when the second wife requires the first to take an oath, **she is acting as** the third wife’s **agent** as well, since they both share the same concern regarding the first wife?


###### Ketubot 94a:11
[Ketubot 94a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:11)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם שְׁבוּעָה לְאֶחָד וּשְׁבוּעָה לְמֵאָה, הָכָא אָמַר: אִילּוּ אֲנָא הֲוַאי, טָעֵינְנָא טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Is it comparable? There,** in the case of the mishna, **an oath to one is** equal to **an oath to one hundred,** and there is no need for the first wife to take multiple oaths about the same matter. **Here,** however, in the case of the brothers or business partners, the second brother or partner can **say: Had I been** there, **I would have** presented **a more** convincing **claim.**


###### Ketubot 94a:12
[Ketubot 94a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:12)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אִיתֵיהּ בְּמָתָא, אֲבָל אִיתֵיהּ בְּמָתָא — אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵיתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **We said** that this doubt is taken into account **only** if the second brother or partner **is not in town** when the legal proceedings take place. **However,** if **he is in town, he should come** to court to participate in the legal proceedings, and if he fails to do so, it is clear that he is content to allow his brother or partner to represent him in court.


###### Ketubot 94a:13
[Ketubot 94a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:13)

אִתְּמַר: שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת הַיּוֹצְאִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, רַב אָמַר: חוֹלְקִין, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that in a case of **two deeds that are issued,** i.e., dated, **on the same day,** e.g., where an individual gave or sold the same item to two different people, **Rav said: They divide** it between them, as it is impossible to determine who it belongs to, **and Shmuel said:** The item is awarded according to **the discretion [*shuda*] of the judges.**


###### Ketubot 94a:14
[Ketubot 94a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/94a:14)

לֵימָא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that **Rav said** his ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said** that **signatory witnesses** on the document **effect** the transaction? Here, since the seller or the giver of the field did not ask the signatory witnesses to note the exact time, it implies that he wished to give it to two people, but did not want to reveal that he was giving it to both of them.