Ketubot — Daf 82a

דלמא רבי נתן היא דתניא ר' נתן אומר מנין לנושה בחבירו מנה וחבירו בחבירו מנין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה ת"ל (במדבר ה, ז) ונתן לאשר אשם לו

אלא לא אשכחן תנא דמחמיר תרי חומרי בכתובה אלא אי כרבי מאיר אי כר' נתן

אמר רבא א"כ היינו דשמענא ליה לאביי דאמר זו אינה משנה ולא ידענא מאי היא:

ההוא גברא דנפלה ליה יבמה במתא מחסיא בעא אחוה למיפסלה בגיטא מיניה אמר ליה מאי דעתיך אי משום נכסי אנא בנכסי פליגנא לך אמר ליה מסתפינא דעבדת לי כדעביד פומבדיתאה רמאה אמר ליה אי בעית פלוג לך מהשתא

אמר מר בר רב אשי אע"ג דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן האומר לחבירו לך ומשוך פרה זו ולא תהיה קנויה לך אלא לאחר שלשים יום לאחר ל' יום קנה ואפי' עומדת באגם

התם בידו הכא לאו בידו

והא כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן לא קני לא קשיא הא דא"ל קני מעכשיו הא דלא אמר ליה קני מעכשיו

בעו מיניה מעולא יבם ואח"כ חילק מהו לא עשה ולא כלום חילק ואח"כ יבם מהו לא עשה ולא כלום

מתקיף לה רב ששת השתא יבם ואח"כ חילק לא עשה ולא כלום חילק ואח"כ יבם מבעיא שני מעשים הוו

כי אתא רבין אמר ר"ל בין יבם ואח"כ חילק בין חילק ואח"כ יבם לא עשה ולא כלום והלכתא לא עשה ולא כלום:

וחכ"א פירות המחוברים לקרקע שלו: אמאי והא כל נכסיו אחראין וערבאין לכתובתה אמר ריש לקיש תני שלה:

כנסה הרי היא כאשתו: למאי הלכתא אמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא לומר שמגרשה בגט ומחזירה מגרשה בגט פשיטא

מהו דתימא (דברים כה, ה) ויבמה אמר רחמנא ועדיין יבומין הראשונים עליה לא תיסגי לה בגט אלא בחליצה קא משמע לן

מחזירה פשיטא

is it not possible [it might be retorted] that the statement represents the view of R. Nathan, since it was taught: R. Nathan stated, 'Whence is it deduced that if a man claims a maneh  from another, and this one [claims a similar sum] from a third, the sum is to be collected from the last [named] and handed over to the first? From Scripture, which stated,  And give unto him against whom he hath trespassed'?  [This], however, [is the reason:]  We find nowhere a Tanna who imposes two restrictions  in the matter of a kethuboth;  we only find agreement either with R. Meir or with R. Nathan.  Raba remarked: If so, I can well understand  what Abaye meant when I heard him say, 'This is not an authentic teaching' and [at the time] I did not understand what [his reason] was. A sister-in-law at Matha Mehasia  once fell to the lot of a man  whose [younger] brother wanted to cause her to be forbidden to marry him  by [forcing upon her] a letter of divorce.  'What is it', [the eldest brother] said to him, 'that you have in your mind? If it is on account of the property  [that you are troubled]  will share the estate with you'. 'I am afraid', the other replied, 'that you will treat me as the Pumbedithan rogue [has treated his brother]'.  'If you wish', the first said to him, 'take your half at once'.  Said Mar son of R. Ashi: Although when R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan, If a man said to another, 'Go and pull  this cow, but it shall pass into your legal possession only after thirty days', he legally acquires it after thirty days,  even if it stands at the time in the meadow,  [in this case the younger brother cannot acquire possession of the promised share]; for there  it was in his power [to transfer possession at once]  but here  it is not in his power [to transfer immediate possession]. But, surely, when Rabin came  be stated in the name of R. Johanan  that 'he does not acquire possession'!  — This is no difficulty: One  refers to a case where the seller said, 'Acquire possession  from now';  the other, where he did not say, 'Acquire from now'. 'Ulla was asked: What is the ruling where levirate marriage was consummated first and the division of the property  took place afterwards?  — The act  is null and void  [he replied]. What is the ruling [he was asked] if the division  took place first and the levirate marriage afterwards? — The act  [he replied] is null and void.  R. Shesheth demurred: Now [that it has been said that where] levirate marriage took place first and the division  afterwards the act  is null and void, was it at all necessary [to ask the question where] the division took place first and the levirate marriage afterwards?  — [The respective enquiries related to] two independent incidents that occurred [at different times]. When Rabin came  he stated in the name of Resh Lakish: Whether levirate marriage was consummated first and the division took place afterwards, or whether the division took place first and the levirate marriage afterwards, the act is null and void. And [in fact] the law is that the act is null and void. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: WHAT IS STILL ATTACHED TO THE GROUND BELONGS TO HIM. But why? Is not all his  landed estate  a pledge and a guarantee for her kethubah? — Resh Lakish replied: Read, 'Belongs to her'. IF [THE LEVIR] MARRIED HER SHE IS REGARDED AS HIS WIFE. In what respect? — R. Jose the son of R. Hanina replied: By this is meant that her separation from him is effected by a letter of divorce  and that he may marry her again.  [You say,] 'Her separation from him is effected By a letter of divorce'; [but] is not this obvious? — It might have been assumed that since the All-Merciful said, And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her,  she  is still subject to the original levirate obligations  and a letter of divorce should not be enough unless [the separation had been effected] by halizah, hence we were taught [that only a letter of divorce is required]. [You say,] 'He may marry her again'; [but] is not this obvious?