## Ketubot Daf 95a

###### Ketubot 95a:1
[Ketubot 95a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:1)

טִירְפָא מֵאִיָּיר וְאֵילָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָכְלִי לְמֵימַר לָךְ: אַתְּ בַּר חַד בְּנִיסָן אַתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
a document of **authorization to repossess** liened property of the seller from anyone who purchased property from him **from** the first of the month of **Iyyar and on.** Rav Yosef **said to him:** A purchaser **can say to you: Your** deed is from **the first of Nisan,** so that the field that you purchased is rightfully yours and it is the other man, whose deed was dated on the fifth of Nisan, who took it illegally. Therefore, you should take possession of that field rather than repossessing other property.


###### Ketubot 95a:2
[Ketubot 95a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:2)

מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? נִכְתְּבוּ הַרְשָׁאָה לַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **what is his remedy?** The Gemara answers: **Let** the deed holders **write** a document of **authorization to each other.** If the individual whose deed was written on the fifth of Nisan authorizes the other individual to repossess property on his behalf, then he will be able to repossess property sold after the end of Nisan, because regardless of when his deed was written and whose deed was written first, he now has the right to repossess liened property.


###### Ketubot 95a:3
[Ketubot 95a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּמָכַר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ, וְכָתְבָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמָּךְ״ — הַשְּׁנִיָּה מוֹצִיאָה מֵהַלּוֹקֵחַ, וְרִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְחוֹזְרוֹת חֲלִילָה, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ פְּשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶם. וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב, וְכֵן אִשָּׁה בַּעֲלַת חוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who was married** to **two women and sold his field, and the** wife whom he married **first wrote to the purchaser: I do not have** any **legal** dealings **or involvement with you,** then **the second** wife, who did not relinquish her claim to repossess this property, **may appropriate** the field **from the purchaser** as payment of her marriage contract. This is because the property was liened for the payment of her marriage contract before it was sold to this purchaser. Then, **the first** wife can appropriate the field **from the second** as payment for her marriage contract, since her marriage contract predates that of the second wife. **The purchaser** can then appropriate the field **from the first** wife, due to the fact that she relinquished her rights vis-à-vis the purchaser. They **continue** to do so according to this **cycle [*ḥalila*] until they** agree on a **compromise between them. And so too,** with regard to **a creditor, and so too,** with regard to **a female creditor.**


###### Ketubot 95a:4
[Ketubot 95a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** וְכִי כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, וְ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, וְ״יָדַי מְסוּלָּקֹת הֵימֶנָּה״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **And if** the first wife **wrote** this **to him, what of it? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **One who says to another,** e.g., if a field is jointly owned and one partner says to the other: **I have no legal** dealings **or involvement with regard to this field, or: I have no connection to it, or: I have withdrawn from it, has said nothing,** as such declarations have no legal validity. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where he acquired** it **from her possession** by performing an act of acquisition in order to validate her relinquishing the field, in which case her statement is legally valid.


###### Ketubot 95a:5
[Ketubot 95a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:5)

וְכִי קָנוּ מִיָּדָהּ מַאי הָוֵי? תֵּימָא: נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי. מִי לָא תְּנַן: לָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה — מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל. אַלְמָא: יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if they acquired it from her, what of it? Let** the woman **say** afterward: **I** did it only to **please my husband,** as I saw that he wished to sell the field and I did not want to quarrel with him, but I did not mean it seriously. **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Gittin* 55b): If one **purchased** property **from a man,** even if he later **went back and purchased** rights to that property **from the** man’s **wife, the transaction is nullified? Apparently,** the wife **can say: I** did it only to **please my husband** but did not mean it, and that claim is accepted.


###### Ketubot 95a:6
[Ketubot 95a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said** that **Rav Ḥisda said:** This is **not difficult: This** mishna here **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and that** mishna in tractate *Gittin* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Ketubot 95a:7
[Ketubot 95a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:7)

דְּתַנְיָא: כָּתַב לָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא חָתְמָה לוֹ, לַשֵּׁנִי וְחָתְמָה לוֹ — אִיבְּדָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where a husband **wrote** a bill of sale **to one** purchaser, **but** his wife **did not sign** it **for him** because she did not agree to the sale, and later he sold a different property **to a second** purchaser, **and** this time his wife **signed** the bill of sale **for him,** the *halakha* is that **she has lost** the settlement promised to her in **her marriage contract** in the event that the husband is left without property from which she can collect; **this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.** According to Rabbi Meir, not only is the wife unable to sue the second purchaser after she signed his deed, but she cannot sue the first buyer either since he can say to her: When I purchased the field, I left you a field from which you could have collected, and you brought this loss upon yourself.


###### Ketubot 95a:8
[Ketubot 95a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי, אַתֶּם מַה לָּכֶם עָלַי״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says** that **she can say: I** did it only to **please my husband** but did not mean to ratify the second sale either; **and you, what** claim **do you have against me?**


###### Ketubot 95a:9
[Ketubot 95a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:9)

וְרַבִּי, סָתֵם לַהּ הָכָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסָתֵם לַהּ הָתָם כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is it possible that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna, presented the **unattributed** mishna **here in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir and** presented the **unattributed** mishna **there in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?** Such a dichotomy is unlikely.


###### Ketubot 95a:10
[Ketubot 95a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:10)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּגְרוּשָׁה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa** offered another answer to the question and **said:** The mishna here is referring **to a divorcée** who wrote a note to the purchaser relinquishing her rights to the field after her divorce, **and everyone agrees** that her statement is binding, as she cannot claim to have acted in order to please her husband.


###### Ketubot 95a:11
[Ketubot 95a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:11)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁנֵי לָקוֹחוֹת, דְּאָמְרִי לַהּ: אִי אִיתָא דְּנַחַת רוּחַ עֲבַדְתְּ — לְקַמָּא אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיעְבַּד. אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ אֶחָד, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה. וּמַתְנִיתִין דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ לְאַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: It is all** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir states** his opinion **there only in** a case where the husband sold property to **two** different **purchasers, as they** can **say to her: If it is** true **that you acted** only in order to **please** your husband, **you should have done so with regard to the first** purchaser and not just the second. **However,** in a case **where** there is only **one purchaser, even Rabbi Meir concedes** that she can claim to have acted only out of the desire to please her husband. **And the mishna** here is referring to a case **where** the husband previously **wrote** a bill of sale **to another** purchaser and the wife did not ratify the sale, and the second time he sold a property she did ratify the sale. Consequently, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the woman cannot claim that she acted only in order to please her husband.


###### Ketubot 95a:12
[Ketubot 95a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:12)

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ הֵן זִיבּוּרִית. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִישְׁתְּדוּף בְּנֵי חָרֵי, מַהוּ דְּלִיטְרוֹף מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Gittin* 48b): **One does not collect** a debt **from liened property** that has been sold to a third party **where there is unsold property** available, **even** if the unsold property **is** of **inferior quality. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If **the unsold** property **became blighted** and is no longer of sufficient value to pay off the debt, **what is** the *halakha*? Would the creditor be allowed **to repossess liened** property that has been sold to a third party?


###### Ketubot 95a:13
[Ketubot 95a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כָּתַב לָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא חָתְמָה לוֹ, לַשֵּׁנִי וְחָתְמָה לוֹ — אִיבְּדָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a solution to this dilemma based upon the following *baraita*: In a case where a husband **wrote** a bill of sale **to one** purchaser, **but** his wife **did not sign** it **for him,** and later he sold a different property **to a second** purchaser **and** his wife **signed** the bill of sale **for him,** the *halakha* is that **she has lost** the settlement specified in **her marriage contract** in the event that the husband is left without property from which she can collect; **this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Ketubot 95a:14
[Ketubot 95a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:14)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אִישְׁתְּדוּף בְּנֵי חָרֵי טָרֵיף מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי, נְהִי דְּאִיבְּדָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִשֵּׁנִי — מֵרִאשׁוֹן מִיהָא תִּיגְבֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Now, **if it should enter your mind** that in a case where **the unsold** property **became blighted** the creditor would be able to **repossess liened** property, then even **though she lost** her ability to collect **her marriage contract from the second** purchaser, **she should at least** be able to **collect from the first** purchaser, because she never relinquished her right to the property he purchased. Although there was unsold property left at the time that the first purchase was made, that property is inaccessible to her because she relinquished her right to it. Consequently, her inability to repossess property from the first purchaser indicates that it is not possible to repossess liened property in the event that unsold property is blighted.


###### Ketubot 95a:15
[Ketubot 95a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:15)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״אִיבְּדָה״ — אִיבְּדָה מִשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** It is possible to explain that **what** Rabbi Meir meant when he said: **She has lost** her marriage contract, is that **she has lost** her rights **from the second** purchaser alone, but not from the first.


###### Ketubot 95a:16
[Ketubot 95a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא: דְּ״אִיבְּדָה״ לִגְמָרֵי מַשְׁמַע. וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: לָוָה מִן הָאֶחָד וּמָכַר נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנַיִם, וְכָתַב בַּעַל חוֹב לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמָּךְ״ — אֵין לוֹ עַל לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת הֵימֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** There are **two responses** with which your **statement** can be rejected. **One** is that the expression: **She has lost, indicates** that she has lost her rights **entirely,** even with regard to the first purchaser. **And furthermore, it is** explicitly **taught** in a *baraita*: If an individual **borrowed from one** creditor **and sold his property to two** purchasers **and the creditor wrote** a note **to the second** purchaser saying: **I do not have** any **legal** dealings **or involvement with you, he has no** claims **toward the first purchaser** either. This is **because** the first purchaser is **able to say** to the creditor: **I left you a place from** where **to collect** your debt, since when I purchased the land, unsold property still remained in the debtor’s possession, and therefore you have no claims against me.


###### Ketubot 95a:17
[Ketubot 95a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:17)

הָתָם אִיהוּ דְּאַפְסֵיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּיָדַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the attempt to solve the dilemma with regard to collecting from liened property when the unsold property was blighted: **There,** in the case of a woman or man who wrote to the second purchaser: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement with you, it is **he who causes a loss to himself by** his own direct **action** of signing away his rights. It cannot be proven what the *halakha* would be in the case of a blighted field, where the reason he cannot make use of the field is not due to his own action.


###### Ketubot 95a:18
[Ketubot 95a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/95a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi:**