Dappim TB Ketubot 84-85 shares a lot of case law. When a man loans money he expects his borrower will pay them back. When the borrower does pay him back, the creditor gives him the loan document and the borrower will tear it up. The Gemara discusses what happens when there’s more than one creditor besides the widow and when the borrower dies before the loan is repaid. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon have completely different opinions in the Mishna. “With regard to one who died and left behind a wife, and a creditor to whom he owed money, and heirs, all of whom claim payment from his property, and he had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others, Rabbi Tarfon says: The deposit or the loan will be given to the weakest one of them, … Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. If the halakha is that it belongs to one party, one follows the halakha and leaves aside considerations of mercy. Rather, the halakha is that the money will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath. They therefore have a more absolute right than the others to their father’s property.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Gemara goes on to define who the
weakest one according to Rabbi Tarfon is. “The Gemara asks: What is the
meaning of: To the weakest? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says:
It means that the money is given to the one whose proof is the weakest,
i.e., the one with the latest date on the document attesting to the debt. His
document is the weakest, as one can collect from property that was sold by the
deceased only if it was sold subsequent to his incurring the debt. Therefore,
the others can collect from property that has been sold before the date listed
on his document. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is referring to
the wife’s marriage contract. The Sages instituted halakhot in
marriage contracts that were to the advantage of women and to make them feel
more secure in their marriages, due to the fact that they wanted men to
find favor in the eyes of women.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
The amoraim Rav
Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan continue the disagreement
started by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon with Rav Naḥman on Rabbi Akiva’s team
and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Tarfon’s side. Rav and Shmuel add a further
complication within Rabbi’s Tarfon’s position. A creditor may seize goods in
the public domain from the borrower for the outstanding loan as long as the
original loaner is alive. Once the original creditor dies, everything reverts
back to the estate of the deceased. The halakha
follows Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.
The first case I am sharing puts all
these moving pieces together and for little more excitement the original rabbis
offering their halakhic decision have
a vested interest in the outcome because they too are creditors.
“A man called Yeimar bar Ḥashu
was owed money by a certain man who died and left behind a boat.
Yeimar bar Ḥashu said to his agent: Go and seize the boat for
me. The agent went and seized it. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of
Rav Yehoshua, encountered him. They said to him: You are seizing assets for
a creditor in a situation where your action will cause a disadvantage
for others, as the debtor owed money to other people as well. And Rabbi
Yoḥanan said that one who seizes assets for a creditor in a
situation that will result in a disadvantage for others has not
acquired it. He cannot act to the detriment of others without their
consent, and his acquisition harms the other creditors. Those Sages were also
owed money by that same man, so they both seized the boat for
himself. Rav Pappa steered it with an oar, while Rav Huna, son
of Rav Yehoshua, pulled it with a rope. This Sage said: I acquired all
of it; and that Sage said: I acquired all of it.
“Rav Pineḥas bar Ami encountered them and said to them: What of the
opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: And this, that whoever first
takes possession has acquired them, is the halakha provided that
the items are arranged in a pile and placed in the public domain, which
is not the case with this boat? They said to him: We too seized it from the
current of the river, i.e., the middle of the river, which has the status
of a public domain.
“They came before Rava to ask him who had acquired the boat. He said to
them: You are white geese [kakei ḥivvarei], in reference to
their white beards, who remove people’s cloaks, i.e., your actions were
unlawful from the start. This is what Rav Naḥman said: And this, that
whoever takes possession has acquired them, is the halakha provided
that one seized them from the debtor while he was alive.
In this case, however, the boat was seized after the debtor’s death, when the
heirs had already taken possession of it.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
In the second case I like
to share the case study when Rava relied upon his wife who is only known our daf as Rav
Ḥisda’s daughter. What is significant is that two witnesses are needed for
valid testimony and neither can be a woman. Perhaps Rava was a man ahead of his
time trusting in the testimony of his wife. “There was a certain woman who
was obligated to take an oath in order to avoid payment in Rava’s
court. The daughter of Rav Ḥisda said to Rava, her husband: I know that
she is suspect with regard to taking a false oath. Rava reversed the
obligation of the oath so that it fell onto the other party, who
now had the option of taking an oath that the woman owes him money and
collecting his debt. This is how to act when the court does not trust the one
who is obligated to take an oath.
“The Gemara continues: On another
occasion, Rav Pappa and Rav Adda bar Mattana were sitting before Rava. A
certain document was brought before Rava to be examined in court. Rav
Pappa said to Rava: I know about this document, that it records a
debt that has already been paid. Rava said to him: Is there another
person who can testify with the Master about the document? He
said to him: No, I am the only one who knows. Rava said to him: Although
there is the Master here who attests that the document has been
paid, one witness is nothing.
“Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: And should Rav Pappa not be
trusted like Rav Ḥisda’s daughter, who as a woman is disqualified from
testimony? Rava replied: I relied on Rav Ḥisda’s daughter because I
know with certainty about her that she is always truthful. However, I
cannot rely on the Master because I do not know with the same
degree of certainty about him that he is always truthful, and I cannot
rule on the basis of one witness unless I have complete certainty.” (Sefaria.org
translation)
The last case I would like
to share teaches that the judges need to use their common sense when deciding a
case. “The
Gemara examines cases involving disputes concerning the property of the
deceased. There was a certain man who deposited seven pearls [marganita]
tied up in a sheet in the house of Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Meyasha passed away without instructing the
members of his household on his deathbed, and without explaining to whom the
gems belonged. Rabbi Meyasha’s family and the depositor came before Rabbi
Ami to discuss the ownership of the gems. He said to them: They
belong to the claimant, first of all, since I know about Rabbi
Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that he is not wealthy
enough to be able to afford such gems. And furthermore, the depositor has
provided a distinguishing mark that proves that he is the owner.
“The Gemara comments: And we said
that a distinguishing mark is effective only if the claimant does not
usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and
exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited
the object, and he merely saw it there and was able to provide
distinguishing marks.” (Sefaria.org translation)
If you’re interested the Gemara
brings a case study asking the question is there a difference between an agent
of the creditor or the creditor himself when seizing property in lieu of the
loan. Another interesting case study discusses whether the judges may write any
document, excluding the bill of divorce, before the event has happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment