Talmud zu Sanhedrin 8:10

“If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” etc. ¹⁸⁷The Halakhah is repeated in Giṭṭin 5:3, Šebuot 7:9. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due¹⁸⁸To preserve the orphan’s property. In the Babli, ‘Arakhin 22a, this opinion is ascribed to Rav Assi., and some say¹⁸⁹In the almost parallel text in Šebuot 7:9, this is attributed to R. Nathan [who is called “some say” in the Babli (Horaiot 13b)]; in the Babli (loc. cit.) it, together with R. Yannai’s explanation, appears in R. Joḥanan’s name., also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection¹⁹⁰Mishnah 11:2 states that a married woman, for whose upkeep the husband is responsible, and whose husband does not fulfill his support duty, may sell from the estate without court supervision. The same holds for the estate after the husband’s death as long as the ketubah was not paid. R. Simeon grants this right only to the definitively married woman and the wife who becomes a widow after definitive marriage, but not to the preliminarily married who cannot claim support but only ketubah if widowed or divorced. Mishnah 11:1 gives the estate the right to the widow’s earnings in exchange for the support; it is held that R. Simeon thinks that, in general, the amount needed for her support is greater than her prospective earnings (Babli loc. cit.).. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her¹⁹¹Since in those times a single woman had few possibilities of earning a living, if the heirs were not her children she needed the ketubah as dowry to attract a new husband.. Some say, also for robbery and torts¹⁹²If the father had been found guilty of robbery or causing damage but died before he paid the sums assessed by the court.. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.¹⁹³Mishnah Baba Qama 10:1: “If somebody robbed and used the proceeds to feed his children, [if the father died] they do not have to pay. But if it was mortgageable [real estate], they have to pay.”” For torts from the following¹⁹⁴Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:2.: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.¹⁹⁵An estate’s real estate holdings are classified by their values per unit of area. It is assumed that the higher the unit value, the easier it is to sell the property. The debtor in general will try to satisfy his obligations with real estate of the lowest quality. The property which per unit area is valued highest is called עידִית “elite”, the average בֵּינוֹנִית “medium”, and the lowest זִיבּוֹרִית “stony field”. These categories are not absolute; they refer to the holdings of an individual.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable¹⁹⁶This statement was not discussed by J. N. Epstein in his treatment of כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא (cf. Note 199). The statement should not be considered as emendation. A simple reading of the text will require that the statement apply to all cases in which an orphan’s real estate is to be alienated. In the opinion of both Talmudim (Giṭṭin 5:1, Babli 48b–50a; Baba meṣi‘a 9:14, 12b 1. 11) rabbinic practice demands that tort judgments have to be satisfied by best quality, financial debts by medium quality, and ketubah by lowest quality. In the opinion of most authorities, biblical law requires only minimal quality for the settlement of financial obligations. The rabbinic upgrading was a necessity to make it easier for people to get a loan. Since this argument is irrelevant for orphans, one does not need the Mishnah to know that mortgage debts paid by an estate are settled by low quality real estate. Where the Mishnah is really needed is payment for torts for which (Ex. 22:4) “the best of his fields or the best of his vineyards” are required. The statement therefore should be read: One pays even for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable; cf. Tosaphot 84a, s. v.לכתובת אשה.. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable¹⁹⁷The rules for the adult heir are the same as they would have been for the bequeather.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here¹⁹⁷The rules for the adult heir are the same as they would have been for the bequeather. about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.