|  |  | Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth ### Folio 108a the latter may nevertheless pay for him his shekel,1 repay his debt2 and restore to him any object he may have lost; but where a reward is taken,3 the benefit is to be given4 to the sacred funds.5 Now, one can well be satisfied [with the ruling that] he may 'pay for him his shekel' [because by this payment] he merely performs a religious act,6 for it was taught:7 It is lawful to withdraw8 [from the funds of the Temple treasury] on the account of that which was lost,9 collected10 or about to be collected;11 and [the ruling that he may] restore to him any object he may have lost' [is also intelligible since thereby] also he is performing a religious duty;12 but [how could he be permitted to] 'repay his debt' [when thereby] he undoubtedly benefits13 him? — R. Oshaia replied: 'This ruling14 is that of15 Hanan who said: HE LOSES HIS MONEY.16 Raba, however, replied: The ruling14 may be said [to agree even with the view of] the Rabbis,17 for here18 we are dealing [with the case of a man] who borrowed money on the condition that he does not repay it [except when he is inclined to do so].19 It is well that Raba does not give the same reply as R. Oshaia, since [he wishes] the ruling to agree even with the opinion of the Rabbis. On what ground, however, does not R. Oshaia [wish to] give the same reply as Raba? — R. Oshaia can answer you: Granted that he20 has no actual benefit;21 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files His annual contribution to the fund for congregational sacrifices. According to Tosaf. (s.v. [H]) provided it was lost on its way to the Temple treasury, v. infra n. 10. Which he may be owing to a third party. For the return of a lost object; and this man either refuses to take it or where he, too, is forbidden by vow to derive any benefit from the other man, v. Ned. 33a. Lit., 'shall fall'. Ned. 33a. The other may not retain the amount of the reward since it is legally due to the man from whom he is forbidden to derive any benefit. And confers no benefit upon the other. Cf. marginal note and Tosaf. B.M. 58a s.v. [H]. Cur. edd. 'we learned'. [H], (rt. [H], 'to lift', 'separate'). Such withdrawals were made three times a year (cf. Shek. III, i). Sc. the man whose shekel was lost has a share in the sacrifices purchased out of the funds as if his contribution had actually reached the treasury. According to Tosaf. (loc. cit.); provided it had been handed by him to the Temple treasurer, and it was lost after the withdrawal in the Temple had taken place. By an agent who lost it on the way. According to Tosaf., after the withdrawal in the Temple had taken place. Cf. supra note 10). B.M. 58a. From the first two mentioned cases it thus follows that the man whose shekel was lost (cf. notes 10 and 11) gains no benefit from the generosity of the man who paid his shekel in the circumstances mentioned (cf. supra note 2). And the question of conferring a benefit upon the other does not arise. His object is not the benefit of the man but the religious act. [H], (rt. [H], Hithpa.) 'to take root'. That he may 'repay his debt'. Lit.,'who is it?' Similarly anyone who repays a stranger's debt cannot reclaim it from him. Such a debtor, it follows, is not regarded as the recipient of the amount repaid. For the same reason he cannot be regarded as the recipient of a benefit. Who hold a man liable for any expenses any. body may have incurred on his behalf. Lit., 'here in what?' V. Ned. Sonc. ed. p. 102, n. 5. Since the creditor in such circumstances can never exact payment from the debtor, any man who repays it confers no real benefit upon him. In the circumstances mentioned (cf. supra n. 7). From the repayment of the debt. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Kethuboth 108b has he not [some benefit in being spared] shame?1 Another reading:2 There also he has benefit, the benefit that he [need not] feel embarrassed in the other's presence.3 MISHNAH. ADMON LAID DOWN SEVEN RULINGS: — 4 IF A MAN DIES AND LEAVES SONS AND DAUGHTERS, IF THE ESTATE IS LARGE,5 THE SONS INHERIT IT AND THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED [FROM IT]6 AND IF THE ESTATE IS SMALL,5 THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED FROM IT, AND THE SONS CAN GO BEGGING.7 ADMON SAID, 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE!'8 R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.9 GEMARA. What does he10 mean?11 — Abaye replied: He means this; 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE and capable of engaging in the study of the Torah?' Said Raba to him: Would, then, he who is engaged in the study of the Torah be entitled to heirship, while he who is not engaged in the study of the Torah not be entitled to be heir?12 — But, said Raba, it is this that he10 meant: AM I BECAUSE I AM A MALE, and entitled to be heir in the case of a large estate, TO BE THE LOSER [of my rights] in the case of a small estate?' MISHNAH. IF A MAN CLAIMED FROM ANOTHER JARS OF OIL AND [THE LATTER] ADMITTED HIS CLAIM TO [EMPTY] JARS, ADMON RULED: SINCE HE ADMITTED A PORTION OF THE CLAIM HE MUST TAKE AN OATH,13 BUT THE SAGES SAID: THE ADMISSION OF THE PORTION [OF THE CLAIM] IS NOT OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM.14 R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.12 GEMARA. From this15 it may be inferred that, according to the Rabbis,16 [a man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted the claim to the barley is exempt [from oath]. Must it then be said that this presents an objection against a ruling which R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel? For R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted one of them is liable [to an oath]?17 — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab; [Our Mishnah deals with the case of one from] whom a certain quantity18 [of oil] was claimed.19 If so,20 what could Admon's reason be? — This, however, said Raba, [is the explanation]: Both21 [agree] that where [the claimant] said to the other, 'I have the contents22 of ten jars of oil in your tank',23 he claims from him the oil but not the jars, [and if he said], 'You owe me24 ten jars full of oil', he claims both the oil and the jars; they only differ where [the claimant] said to him, 'You owe me24 ten jars of oil'. Admon maintains that in this expression a claim for the jars also is implied, and the Rabbis25 contend that in this expression the jars were not implied. The reason then26 is because 'in this expression the jars were not implied', but if the jars had been implied in this expression he would apparently have been liable [to the oath]. Must it consequently be presumed that this presents an objection against a ruling of R. Hiyya b. Abba? For R. Hiyya b. Abbah27 ruled: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, is exempt [from an oath]? — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: [The making of such a claim]28 is the same as if one had claimed from another a pomegranate with its peel.29 To this Rabina demurred: A pomegranate without its peel cannot be preserved, but oil can well be preserved without jars!30 [The fact] however, is that31 we are here32 dealing [with the case of a man] who said to another, 'You owe me33 ten jars of oil', and the other replied, 'The [claim for the] oil is a pure invention,34 [and as to] the jars, too, I owe you35 five and you have no [claim to any other] five'. Admon maintains that this expression implies a claim to the jars also and, since [the defendant] must take an oath in respect of the jars,36 he must also take an oath by implication37 in respect of the oil, while the Rabbis38 are of the opinion that such an expression does not imply a claim for the jars [so that] what the one claims39 the other did not admit, and what the latter admitted40 the former did not claim. MISHNAH. IF A MAN PROMISED41 A SUM OF MONEY TO HIS [PROSPECTIVE] SON-IN-LAW AND THEN DEFAULTED,42 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Of defaulting. Of course he has. Raba's reply. therefore, is unacceptable to R. Oshaia. So BaH and Rashal. Wanting in cur. edd. [The difference between the two versions is that whereas according to the former, the sparing of a feeling of shame is not considered an actual benefit, according to the latter it is regarded as such, v. Glosses of Bezalel Ronsburg]. Lit., 'said seven'. Cf. supra p. 672 nn. 2 and 3. Lit., 'possessions are many'. The definition of 'large' and 'small' is given in B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 594. Until their majority or marriage. Lit., 'go about (people's) doors'. This is explained in the Gemara. Lit., 'I see the words of Admon. Admon. Sc. what reason is there to assume that, as regards maintenance, a male should be given any preference at all over a female? Obviously not. The Pentateuchal laws of inheritance. surely, draw no distinction between a learned, and an ignorant son. That he owes him no oil. The claim was for (a) jars and (b) oil, while the admission was in respect of the full claim of the former and of no part of the latter. The statement of the Sages in our Mishnah (cf.supra n. 7). Sc. THE SAGES. Shebu. 40a. Lit., 'measure'. JARS does not refer to the actual containers but to their measure or capacity, the jars themselves forming no part of the claim. That the jars admitted formed no part of the claim. Lit., 'that all the world', Admon and the Sages. [H], lit., 'fulness'. [H], a receptacle in the oil press. Lit., 'l have with you'. Sc. THE SAGES. Why the Sages do not regard the admission of the claim to the jars as AN ADMISSION OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM. MS.M. inserts, 'in the name of R. Johanan'. 'Jars of oil'. Between the oil and the jars in which it is kept there exists a definite connection similar to that of the pomegranate and its peel; but between wheat and barley there exists no such connection. An admission of one of the two in the former cases may well be regarded as AN ADMISSION OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM though an admission of one of the two in the latter case cannot be so regarded. In the tank. How then could the one pair be compared to the other? Lit., 'in what?' In our Mishnah. Lit., 'I have with you'. Lit., 'the things never were'. Lit.,'you have'. Having clearly admitted a part of the claim. V. supra p. 549 n. 3. Sc. THE SAGES. Oil. Jars. Lit., 'fixed'. [H], lit., 'stretched out the leg towards him', as if to say, 'Take the dust of my foot', or 'hang me by the leg, I have nothing to give you' (Rashi). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |