MISHNAH: ¹ 13:1, explained there in Notes 50–52. If somebody die and is survived by sons and daughters. If the estate is large, the sons inherit and the daughters will be sustained. If the estate is small, the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go begging. Admon said, because I am a male, shall I lose? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.

footnotes: ¹ Mishnah Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody die and is survived by sons and daughters,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go (begging) [peddling]² (13:4, Notes 74–76). In contrast to the Ketubot text, here the alternate reading is endorsed. According to the Mishnah and the L text, the sons are sent begging irrespective of their age. According to the revised version, small children covered by the decree of Usha (Ketubot 4:8, Notes 187–193), who cannot earn money, must be supported with the daughters..

footnotes: ² The text in parenthesis is from L, the one in brackets from E. Since the L text is identical with the Mishnah, it is clear that the critical remark “so is the Mishnah” refers to the E text or a similar reading as reported in Ketubot

³ 13:3, Notes 53–58. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: That there should be twelve months of sustenance for all of them. Samuel said, this is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi, but the words of the Sages are, until they reach adulthood or are married. That is both a leniency and a restriction. Sometimes they are close to adulthood, sometimes far from adulthood. They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, what did you hear from Rebbi Joḥanan? He said to them, I did not hear anything from him concerning this matter except what Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: what if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since they started with permission, they started.

footnotes: ³ This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Ketubot

⁴ 13:3, Notes 59–71. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, only if at the end there be sustenance for twelve months. But the other said, even from the start⁵: What is the definition of a large estate? In the first opinion the estate is large if after 12 months there still is left enough money to sustain the entire family, sons and daughters, for 12 months. In the other opinion it is enough that there be sufficient funds for the first 12 months.. If there was not sustenance for all of them for twelve months but they increased it so that how there is sustenance for all of them for twelve months⁶? Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, let us hear from the following: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property⁷ 13:3, Note 63: If the male heirs sold real estate from a small estate, their sale is valid since they are the heirs in biblical law; the rights of the daughters are purely contractual. While the widow can take the real estate away from the buyer for her ketubah as prior mortgage holder, the daughters cannot since their claim was created only at their father’s death, when the sons already were legal owners of the property.. So much more, if they increased it, they should be able to divide it⁸. If there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months?⁹ the question is: If there was more than enough to sustain only the daughters but not enough for both daughters and sons, according to the second definition of a large estate may the sons distribute among themselves the monies exceeding the daughters’ claims for 12 months? Rebbi Eudaimon said, let us hear from the following: ¹⁰“If the orphans said, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar, one does not listen to them.” Rav Ḥisda asked¹¹ Rav Ḥisda asked the first question, Note 6.: if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months?⁹ the question is: If there was more than enough to sustain only the daughters but not enough for both daughters and sons, according to the second definition of a large estate may the sons distribute among themselves the monies exceeding the daughters’ claims for 12 months? But this means, only if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months, except for ketubah of the wife, except for the sustenance of the widow, except for the dowries of the daughters, except for loans by document, except for loans by witnesses, except for her burial¹². The widow and the daughters are of equal rank¹³43a, the widow’s position is privileged. If there is not enough money to sustain both widow and daughters, the daughters are sent begging.. The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow does not push the daughters aside and the daughters do not push the widow aside. Sometimes the widow pushes the daughters out by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should the widow not push out the sons¹⁴? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance¹⁵.

footnotes: ⁴ Compare Ketubot ⁵ The question which is answered here is only stated in Ketubot ⁶ The sons could not be supported during the first 12 months. May they be supported now that the estate is large according to the first definition? ⁷ Cf. Ketubot ⁸ The court-appointed guardian will have to include the sons for sustenance. ⁹ This question is difficult to understand since, as mentioned later, the widow’s claim is paramount and the value of the estate is computed only after all claims of the widow are satisfied. Therefore, the mention of the widow here has to be deleted. In Ketubot, ¹⁰ A truncated version of Mishnah 10:2. The Mishnah prohibits sons to manipulate the valuation of an estate in order to gain an advantage over their half-brothers. It is implied here that they cannot manipulate the estate to the detriment of their sisters. ¹¹ In Ketubot, ⁹ This question is difficult to understand since, as mentioned later, the widow’s claim is paramount and the value of the estate is computed only after all claims of the widow are satisfied. Therefore, the mention of the widow here has to be deleted. In Ketubot, ¹² The value of an estate can only be determined after all actual and contractual liabilities were deducted. ¹³ In the Babli, 140b and Ketubot ¹⁴ It seems that in the last two sentences, the places of “sons” and “daughters” should be switched. The question is whether the widow’s sustenance is privileged over the daughters’ claims to sustenance. ¹⁵ Her claim to sustenance is conditional; it cannot override the claim of the daughters which is absolute. The Babli disagrees.

¹⁶ 3:4, Notes 143–148. The paragraph is inserted to show that the widow may be manipulated to forgo her claim of sustenance. As the following: Rebbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. His sons came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; they are stupid. When they left, they said, let us ask the scribe what to do. He told them: Behave as if you would sell of the real estate and she will demand her ketubah and will no longer have support. After some time she came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said, It should come over me if I had told them anything. What can one do, this one was hit by predatory people.

footnotes: ¹⁶ A slight reformulation of the paragraph in Soṭah

¹⁷ 13:1 (Notes 36,37), 13:4 (Note 77); Babli Ketubot109a. Rav Ḥananel in the name of [Rav]¹⁸; Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Practice follows Ḥanan in his two statements; practice does not follow Admon in his seven statements. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula: In every case in which Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement, practice follows Admon.

footnotes: ¹⁷ An almost complete copy of paragraphs in Ketubot ¹⁸ Missing in L, inserted from E; required by the parallel texts and reasons of chronology.

¹⁹ 4:1, Notes 24–40; Babli Bava batra 141b/142a. Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died²⁰ 4:4 Note 106). and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son²¹ or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took]²² 27:8.. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.²³ seems to follow Samuel. The unborn child acquired the inheritance; if he dies, the estate newly becomes ownerless and the last person to hold it acquires. Rebbi Eleazar should require that everything be returned to the first taker.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness²⁴ 2:1 Note 6. and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it²⁵? Still it is because of hopelessness.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Cf. Yebamot ²⁰ He died without Jewish children; his estate became ownerless with his death. His Jewish wife, who is not an heir, may take everything she can lay her hands on. (Halakhah 3:1, Notes 19,23; Giṭṭin ²¹ A Jewish heir. ²² The unborn baby is an heir by biblical decree, Num. ²³ This baraita ²⁴ When the court decreed that the proselyte had a legal heir and the first takers returned the property, they gave up hope of owning it and with it any claim of ownership. Cf. Bava meṣia‘ ²⁵ Since he got it under a false assumption.

MISHNAH: If he is survived by sons, daughters, and a sexless child²⁶, if the estate is large the males push him to the females; if the estate is small the females push him to the males²⁷. If somebody says, in case my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina; if she gave birth to a male he takes a mina. But if a female 200, if she gave birth to a female she takes 200. If a male a mina, if a female 200, if she gave birth to a male and a female, the male takes a mina and the female 200²⁸. If she gave birth to a sexless child, he does not take anything. If he said, any that my wife shall give birth to shall take, and if there is no heir but him, he inherits everything²⁹.

footnotes: ²⁶ A child having neither male nor female sex characteristics (neither penis nor vagina). ²⁷ Since the sexless is a claimant in an inheritance case, the burden of proof would be on him to show that he belongs to the advantaged class. ²⁸ All these examples are only a preface to the statement that the sexless child has no claim on payments promised a child of a certain sex. Females need a larger trust fund at birth to pay for a future dowry. ²⁹ In the absence of siblings the sexless inherits, whether he really is a male or a female.

HALAKHAH: “If he is survived by sons, daughters,,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody says, he who brings me the news that my wife gave birth to a male shall take 200”: if his wife gave birth to a male he takes 200. If she gave birth to a female he shall take a mina”: if his wife gave birth to a female he takes a mina. If it was a male and a female, he only takes a mina³⁰.” Rebbi Mana said, the pain about the daughter invalidates the joy about the son.

footnotes: ³⁰ Tosephta 9:5.

MISHNAH: If he is survived by adult and underage children and the adult ones improved the property³¹, the improvement goes to the estate. But if they said³², make an inventory of what our father left³³ and we are going to work and profit from it, they improved it for themselves. Similarly, a woman⁵³ who improved the property improved for the estate⁵⁴. But if she said³²: see what my husband left for me, I shall work it and eat from it⁵⁵ settlement.; then she improved it for herself.

footnotes: ³¹ Before the estate was distributed. ³² Before the court. ³³ To determine the underage brothers’ share under the court’s supervision. ⁵³ A widow. ⁵⁴ She acts as a guardian for the children as well as for herself. ³² Before the court. ⁵⁵ She takes the property as her ketubah

HALAKHAH: “If he is survived by adult and underage children,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if they said” in court. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, even a jug.³⁴ also irnea, -ae, “jug, pitcher” (E. G.). Rav said, even a basket, even an axe. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Even a needle, even a thread to tie down.

footnotes: ³⁴ Latin hirnea,

³⁵ 5:1 (Notes 23–26), 12:2 Note 41; Babli 144a. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if somebody definitively married off his son in a house, the latter acquired it³⁶ to apply only to a first marriage and in the Babli to the first marriage of the oldest son to a virgin, it being the first marriage of any of his children.. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, the house but not the movables³⁷ 5:1, R. Hoshaia is reported as saying “the movables but not the house”.. Rebbi La divided the dining hall³⁸. between himself and his son³⁹ as their permanent abode.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Yose: If the ceremony was in the bedroom⁴⁰ but the wedding party was in the dining room, what is the rule? He told him, one does not see him leaving⁴¹.

footnotes: ³⁵ Cf. Ketubot ³⁶ This is qualified in Ketubot ³⁷ In Ketubot ³⁸ Latin triclinium ³⁹ The newlyweds could use half the triclinium ⁴⁰ Greek κοιτών, -ῶνος, m. ⁴¹ After the wedding the groom is expected to stay in the wedding chamber with his wife; he is not needed for the festivities and acquired only the bedroom.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underaged because of the adults⁴². But if the underaged found something additional and protested⁴³? Rebbi Abbahu said, they⁴⁴ have to swear for them. Rebbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya⁴⁵ I 42b reads: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. In Gen. rabba 53(2), R. Abba. Our text is confirmed by Ravad Temim De‘im §58. says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations⁴⁶. Rebbi [Yose]⁴⁷ bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna did instruct in this sense.

footnotes: ⁴² If the adults want to divide the estate in order to work for themselves, the court is obligated to separate the underaged’s property and to transfer it to a guardian. ⁴³ The underaged claim that the adults understated the value of the estate and that their portion should be greater. ⁴⁴ The adults have to swear in court even though in general a claimant cannot make a defendant swear unless he produce proof by at least one witness. ⁴⁵ Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur ⁴⁶ Without any party objecting, an estate may stay undivided for up to three generations. After that it would need a contract of association. ⁴⁷ Missing in the mss. but understood if any “bar Abun” is mentioned last in any paragraph.

Rebbi Immi said, if a son was seen separated during his father’s lifetime, what he accumulated, he accumulated for himself⁴⁸. As the following: A person learned to be a barber⁴⁹. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person found something, his brothers share with him⁵⁰? A person became an agent. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person went into robbery⁵¹, his brothers share with him? A brother of Rebbi Horiana, brother of Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai, wanted to share with him. He told him, brother Alexander, do you not know that our father left us thousands⁵²?

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The rules of the Mishnah only apply to sons living in their father’s household, not those who are known to earn their money independently. ⁴⁹ It is possible to read סָפַר “scribe”. ⁵⁰ Even if a person still lives with his extended family, money made through his personal skill is not common property. ⁵¹ Greek λῃστεία. ⁵² He may claim only his share in the inheritance but nothing else.

“Similarly, a woman,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if she said” in court.

MISHNAH: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned⁵⁶, he was requisitioned from the estate⁵⁷. If he fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are his own. If some of the brothers together sent a wedding gift⁵⁸ during their father’s lifetime, if a corresponding gift was returned⁵⁹, it returned to them in common since wedding gifts⁵⁸ can be sued for in court. But if somebody’s friend sent him pitchers of wine or oil⁶⁰ they cannot be sued for since they represent deeds of charity.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ He was ordered by the government to fulfill certain duties at his own expense. ⁵⁷ If he was living off an undistributed estate, the estate had to bear the cost of government service. ⁵⁸ Of money or valuables. ⁵⁹ By the recipient on his wedding day. ⁵⁸ Of money or valuables. ⁶⁰ Gifts of food are genuine gifts, not subject to a law of reciprocity.

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated⁶¹: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper⁶² 144b in the name of Ravad and Rashba Novellae ad 144b: brothers. Since only rich and well-known people were ordered to pay for the city services, if the estate was renowned for its riches, the estate had to pay for the cost of services. If it was because of the personal renown of the person appointed, he had to bear the cost., he takes because of the sharecropper⁶² 144b in the name of Ravad and Rashba Novellae ad 144b: brothers. Since only rich and well-known people were ordered to pay for the city services, if the estate was renowned for its riches, the estate had to pay for the cost of services. If it was because of the personal renown of the person appointed, he had to bear the cost.. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council⁶³. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Cf. Tosephta 10:5. ⁶² This makes no sense. The correct reading is given in Šiṭṭah mequbbeṣet ad ⁶² This makes no sense. The correct reading is given in Šiṭṭah mequbbeṣet ad ⁶³ Greek βουλή, responsible not only for city services but also for the collection of taxes.

If she fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are on the estate⁶⁴ which disagrees with the Mishnah.. It was stated: ⁶⁵ 4:5, Babli Ketubot 52b. A shortened version of the paragraph is in Ketubot 4:11, Notes 231–236. It is commented on by Ran (Ketubot 4, ad Alfasi #249), and Rosh (Ketubot 4, #23).“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah; if it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate.” As the following: The eye of a female relative of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba hurt. She came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor mention a fixed fee? If [the fee] is fixed, from your ketubah, if it is not fixed, your husband will give it to you⁶⁶ indicates that it refers to an estate, not a living husband who bears unlimited responsibility for his wife’s health.. But did we not state: “Do not turn yourself into a pleader⁶⁷ 1:8. It is unethical for a judge to dispense legal advice.”, and did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is forbidden to disclose a judgment to a party? They said, Rebbi Joḥanan knew her to be an honest woman; therefore, he disclosed it to her. If her husband wants a treatment at a fixed rate, but she wants one without fixed rate, does one not listen to her husband? Rebbi Mattaniah said, only if the case not be before him. But if the case be before him, he has to tell it as it is⁶⁸.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ It seems that this is a baraita ⁶⁵ Tosephta Ketubot ⁶⁶ Ran proves that Maimonides read this to mean: “From your husband’s estate it will be given to you.” He holds that the placement of the extended story in Bava batra ⁶⁷ Mishnah Abot ⁶⁸ If the case is before him, he can disclose the judgment. He is only prohibited to talk to one party separately before and during the trial.

MISHNAH: If somebody sent bridal gifts⁶⁹ to his father-in-law’s house, if he sent there for 100 minas and ate there a marriage meal for at least a denar’s worth, they cannot be collected⁷⁰. If he did not eat there a marriage meal, they can be collected. If he sent large bridal gifts which she is expected to bring with her to her husband’s house⁷¹, they can be collected⁷². Small bridal gifts which she is supposed to use in her father’s house⁷³ cannot be collected.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ Gifts to his preliminarily married wife. ⁷⁰ If for some reason there will be a divorce before the definitive marriage, he cannot sue in court to get the gifts back. ⁷¹ Clothing and jewellery. ⁷² Even if he ate at his in-law’s house. The first part of the Mishnah deals with average gifts which cannot be characterized as either large or small. ⁷³ Perfume and cosmetics.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sent bridal gifts to his father-in-law’s house,” etc. A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife large bridal gifts. His relatives told him not to taste anything there. He went, did not listen to them, and ate. The house collapsed; they kept everything.

A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife 24 gourds filled with various kinds of agricultural produce⁷⁴ between Passover and Pentecost. It was only a problem for the rabbis: from where did he bring flax and olive seeds⁷⁵?

footnotes: ⁷⁴ The commentaries and editors read מיני חדת “new kinds”. It is difficult to emend, only to end up with an uncommon expression. It seems preferable to read the word as חרת̇ حَرْث “cultivated field”. ⁷⁵ Which are not found early in spring.

⁷⁶ 7:4, Notes 78, 81. The paragraph also is quoted in Ševi‘it6:4, Note 133. Rebbi Perira brought before Rebbi Jehudah the Prince two radishes between New Year’s Day and the Fast. It was the year after a Sabbatical, and they were a camel’s load. He said to him, rabbi, are they not forbidden? Are they no aftergrowth? He said to him, they were sown after the end of the Sabbatical year. At that moment did Rebbi permit to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ This is a slight reformulation of a paragraph in Peah

MISHNAH: If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others but reserved any real estate⁷⁷ his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not permanent⁷⁸. If [in the document] it was not written “bedridden”; he says, I was bedridden, but they are saying, he was healthy, he must prove that he was bedridden, the words of Rebbi Meїr⁷⁹ evidence that so was the prior state. If the bequeather is healthy now, proof is required that he was not healthy when the gift document was written. An alternative interpretation would be that he holds that a duly executed and witnessed document is always valid unless proven invalid. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is advantaged.”. But the Sages say, the burden of proof is on the claimants⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Since he reserves property for himself, it is a sign that he hopes to recover. The gift document written on his orders is not a death-bed will. But if in the document itself it is described as a last will and testament, it is revocable at all times. ⁷⁸ A death-bed will (which may be written as a gift document and does not have to follow the formal rules of a will) is revocable if the patient recovers. ⁷⁹ He holds that the actual situation before the court may serve as prima facie ⁸⁰ As long as the gift described in the document was not executed, the recipient is a claimant and the document is subject to the giver’s interpretation unless the claimant can prove otherwise. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is disadvantaged.”

HALAKHAH: “If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others,” etc. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he reserved any movables, he did not do anything⁸¹. But if he reserved money and bought real estate it is as if he reserved real estate. And what you say that if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not a gift, if he did (not)⁸² recuperate. But if he did [not]⁸² recuperate, that is the case about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, they treated words of a bedridden person like those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered⁸³ 11:1 Note 23; Giṭṭin 1:6, Note 201; Babli Giṭṭin 13a, 15a; Bava batra 151a,175a.; but only if he died from that sickness. If a critically ill person distributed his property⁸⁴, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath⁸⁵, what he did is valid. But if he was healthy [it is valid] only if he wrote “by money, or contract, or possession.⁸⁶ 1:5.”

footnotes: ⁸¹ The Babli disagrees, 150a, if the amount reserved is more than minimal. ⁸² Clearly, the cases where the patient recovers and has occasion to revoke his will, or when he dies, are switched in the text. ⁸² Clearly, the cases where the patient recovers and has occasion to revoke his will, or when he dies, are switched in the text. ⁸³ Ketubot ⁸⁴ By oral instruction. ⁸⁵ When acquisition is forbidden. ⁸⁶ Mishnah Qiddušin

Rebbi Joḥanan said: Somebody became possibly impure⁸⁷ 6:6 declares that a doubt which arises about impurity in a private domain is treated as if the case were about certain impurity whereas in a public domain the same case is treated as one of purity. Mishnah 6:7 then notes that an agricultural area is treated like a private domain during the rainy season (the entire time between ploughing at the time of the first rains through harvest in early summer) but as a public domain after the harvest is completed and the fields are cleared. in an agricultural area whether in summer or in winter; this refersn to the dispute between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages⁸⁸. If he comes to ask in summer, one answers him according to the rules of summer; in the winter, one answers him according to the rules of winter. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only days close to the rainy season⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Mishnah Ṭahorot ⁸⁸ Since R. Meїr holds that individual cases have to be decided according to the situation actually before the court (Note 79), for him the problem is not the state of the area when the question arose but when it is asked of the rabbinic authority. ⁸⁹ Even R. Meїr will not decide according to the situation when the question was asked if there was a long interval between the creation of the problem and its resolution.

Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged¹⁹¹. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah: “If [in the document] it was not written ‘bedridden’ but he says, I was bedridden,” etc.⁹² Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet⁹³ 46:6.,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,⁹⁴ 3:21.” etc.⁹⁵ 8:1 Note 17, Yebamot 1:1 Notes 96–103, Soṭah 2:6 Note 177, Qiddušin 3:5 Note 166. A young man was selling his properties⁹⁶ 5:8 permits underage children to buy and sell movables as soon as they are able to handle money. The inference is that for real estate transactions one has to be an adult. The Babli, 156a, restricts the right to sell inherited real estate to people who have reached the age of 20. It is clear from the case discussed here that this is a purely Babylonian restriction.. The case⁹⁷ came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the presumption is that they⁹⁸ signed for a mentally capable person⁹⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family, he has to bring proof¹⁰⁰. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the holder of documents is advantaged⁷⁹ evidence that so was the prior state. If the bequeather is healthy now, proof is required that he was not healthy when the gift document was written. An alternative interpretation would be that he holds that a duly executed and witnessed document is always valid unless proven invalid. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is advantaged.”. Rebbi Yasa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, how about Rebbi, since Rebbi said, the holder of documents is disadvantaged? He told him, everybody agrees that the holder of documents is advantaged. But how could you say that a case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph who said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. And you said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family to another family, he has to bring proof! He told him, I never said this¹⁰¹ 18b) this opinion is credited to R. Simeon ben Laqish, confirmed in his name by the Yerushalmi Ševi‘it 10:5 Note 96 and Giṭṭin 4:2 Note 46, in R. La’s name Ketubot 2:3 Note 61.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, even if Rebbi Joḥanan wants to deny it, did not Rebbi Yannai say in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah? This is the opinion of the Sages⁹¹ who follow Rebbi¹⁰².

footnotes: ¹ As long as the gift described in the document was not executed, the recipient is a claimant and the document is subject to the giver’s interpretation unless the claimant can prove otherwise. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is disadvantaged.” ⁹¹ In the Babli, 154b, the version is: The holder of a document of indebtedness or gift has to get judicial confirmation of its validity. ⁹² The position of the anonymous majority in the Mishnah. ⁹³ Is. ⁹⁴ Prov. ⁹⁵ Similar texts are in Kilaim ⁹⁶ Real estate. Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁹⁷ The family objected to his selling inherited real estate. They disputed the validity of the deed on the grounds that the seller was underage. ⁹⁸ The witnesses. ⁹⁹ He agrees that the seller of real estate not only has to be an adult (13+ years for a male, 12+ years for a female) but also must understand the consequences of what he is doing. ¹⁰⁰ That he was an adult understanding what he was doing. ⁷⁹ He holds that the actual situation before the court may serve as prima facie ¹⁰¹ He now holds that the person attacking the validity of a duly witnessed document, not the defendant, must prove his case. In the Babli (Ketubot ⁹¹ In the Babli, 154b, the version is: The holder of a document of indebtedness or gift has to get judicial confirmation of its validity. ¹⁰² But R. Joḥanan himself decides practice to follow R. Meїr.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meir¹⁰³. Samuel said, the Mishnah is inverted¹⁰⁴. In what is the Mishnah inverted? The senior colleagues said, “witnesses.”¹⁰⁵ 2:3, an anonymous Mishnah which therefore is held to represent R. Meїr’s opinion, witnesses may agree that they signed a deed but that nevertheless the deed is invalid since they acted under duress. Therefore, R. Meїr in the Mishnah here should not object to an investigation of the witnesses on a document of questionable validity. The junior colleagues said, no “witnesses”: did they only disagree about witnesses¹⁰⁶? Rebbi Aḥa said, since I told you to write “bedridden” and you did not write it, you are liers¹⁰⁷ Since people who write down oral dispositions of a sick person are required to state in the document that it is a death-bed will, the donor claims that the document is invalid because it did not follow his instructions and, therefore, the genuine signatures on the document convict the signatories of lying..

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Since Rav and R. Joḥanan decide in the same sense, this is the established practice in the Yerushalmi. This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. ¹⁰⁴ The opinion ascribed to R. Meїr in this Mishnah is rejected by him in another. ¹⁰⁵ In Mishnah Ketubot ¹⁰⁶ There is no discrepancy between the two Mishnaiot since the question here is about the claim of the donor, not about the witnesses. ¹⁰⁷ Even if the disagreement is about witnesses, it has nothing to do with the Mishnah in Ketubot.

MISHNAH: If somebody distributes his property orally, Rebbi Eliezer says that whether he is healthy or critical, guaranteed properties can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession. Not guaranteed properties can only be acquired by drawing close¹⁰⁸ 1:5.. They said to him, it happened that the mother of the Bene Rokhel was sick and said, give my bonnet to my daughter, it is worth twelve minas. She died and the Sages confirmed her words. He answered them, the Bene Rokhel should have been buried by their mother¹⁰⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ He holds that oral dispositions must in every case fully comply with the rules laid down in Qiddušin ¹⁰⁹ They were of ill repute; the ruling of the Sages was a form of punishment.

HALAKHAH: ¹¹⁰ 3:8 (Notes 134–147), also quoted in Qiddus̊in 1:5, Note 500. A similar quote is in the Babli, 156b. So far if real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred sheep and a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages, who upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Would the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer be like the healthy person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ This paragraph and the next are a slight reformulation of a paragraph from Peah

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba says, any real estate …” Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it¹¹¹: “ ‘Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.’ What is the use of any real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.”.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ This is simply a note to look up the text in Peah

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he looked for a pretext to curse them since they were sowing saffron in a vineyard¹¹² The Babli, 156b, clearly knows of the Yerushalmi explanation since after stating Samuel’s explanation that R. Eliezer wanted to curse them because they kept thistles in their vineyard, it asks: We understand that growing saffron is forbidden, but what is wrong with thistles?.

footnotes: ¹¹² This is forbidden as a case of kilaim.

MISHNAH: But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed¹¹³ since he cannot write, but not on weekdays. Rebbi Joshua says, they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays¹¹⁴. Similarly, one may acquire for an underage person¹¹⁵ but not for an adult. Rebbi Joshua says, they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹³ Even though on the Sabbath one is not permitted to change ownership actively or passively. ¹¹⁴ He accepts oral wills in all cases, provided that the statement was made before two unrelated witnesses in good standing and able to confirm the distribution in court. ¹¹⁵ He has no “hand” in the legal sense. A third person may accept gifts on his behalf and thereby effectuate the transfer of ownership. ¹¹⁶ Since it is a generally accepted principle that “one may act for the benefit of a person in his absence and without his knowledge, but not to his detriment.”

HALAKHAH: “But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed,” etc. Some Tannaїm state it inversely¹¹⁷. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Some Tannaїm state it inversely¹¹⁷. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ In Tosephta 10:12 and Babli 156b, R. Meїr is reported in R. Eliezer’s name to hold that one may orally dispose of one’s property on a weekday but not on the Sabbath, and that one may acquire for an adult without his knowledge but not for an underage person. The text of the Mishnah there is attributed to R. Jehudah. In either case, it is presumed that a third person be available to formally accept the distribution for the beneficiaries. R. Joshua ben Levi confirms the text of the Mishnah, rejecting the Tosephta. ¹¹⁷ In Tosephta 10:12 and Babli 156b, R. Meїr is reported in R. Eliezer’s name to hold that one may orally dispose of one’s property on a weekday but not on the Sabbath, and that one may acquire for an adult without his knowledge but not for an underage person. The text of the Mishnah there is attributed to R. Jehudah. In either case, it is presumed that a third person be available to formally accept the distribution for the beneficiaries. R. Joshua ben Levi confirms the text of the Mishnah, rejecting the Tosephta.

MISHNAH: If the house collapsed on him¹¹⁸ and his father, or on him and his heirs, or on him and one from whom he inherits, and a woman’s ketubah and documents of indebtedness were on him. The father’s heirs say that the son died first and then the father¹¹⁹; the holders of the debt say that the father died first and then the son¹²⁰. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders¹²¹. If the house collapsed on him and his wife¹²²; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband¹²³. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife¹²⁴ which is inherited by her family.. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah¹²⁵ is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her¹²⁶ 7:1. are in the hands of her father’s heirs. If the house collapsed on him and his wife¹²²; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband¹²³. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife¹²⁴ which is inherited by her family.. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah¹²⁵ is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her¹²⁶ 7:1. are in the hands of her father’s heirs.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ And he died without children. ¹¹⁹ The son did not inherit anything; the father’s estate inherits from the son. The son’s creditors can be satisfied only from his estate; they have no claim to the father’s estate. ¹²⁰ The son inherited from the father; the father’s estate is available to satisfy the son’s creditors. ¹²¹ The father’s heirs have acquired the father’s estate at the latter’s death. The son’s creditors are claimants who have to bear the burden of proof. ¹²² And they have no children which would be the automatic heirs. ¹²³ The husband inherited from his wife; all his estate now is the property of his agnates. ¹²⁴ She has a claim on her ketubah ¹²⁵ Including the dowry which was given to the husband as his property to which the wife only has a claim at the dissolution of the marriage. ¹²⁶ Paraphernalia property which never became the husband’s; cf. Mishnah Yebamot ¹²² And they have no children which would be the automatic heirs. ¹²³ The husband inherited from his wife; all his estate now is the property of his agnates. ¹²⁴ She has a claim on her ketubah ¹²⁵ Including the dowry which was given to the husband as his property to which the wife only has a claim at the dissolution of the marriage. ¹²⁶ Paraphernalia property which never became the husband’s; cf. Mishnah Yebamot

HALAKHAH: “If the house collapsed on him and his father,” etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this implies that Ben Azzai was a colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba¹³⁰.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ It is known that Ben Azzai was R. Aqiba’s student. But had he not reached the status of a colleague, he could not have publicly criticized him.