Gittin

that the orphans spoken of are grown-ups, and the rule applies a fortiori to minors, whether in connection with an oath or [with payment out of] the worst land. PAYMENT CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY WHEN THERE ARE FREE ASSETS AVAILABLE. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked: What is the rule in the case of a gift? Are we to say that this regulation was made for the protection of purchasers  against loss and it therefore does not apply to a gift,  where there is no question of loss to purchasers, or do we say this even in the case of a gift for if the recipient did not derive some benefit from it it would not have been given to him and therefore his loss is on the same footing as the loss of the purchaser? — [In reply] Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: Come and hear 'If a dying man says, Give two hundred zuz to So-and-so, three hundred to So-and-so, and four hundred to So-and-so, we do not say that one who is mentioned earlier in the deed has a superior title to one who is mentioned later.  Consequently if a bond is produced against the donor [after his death], the claimant can collect from all of them. If, however, he said, Give two hundred zuz to So-and-so and then  to So-and-so and then to So-and-so, we do say that whoever is mentioned earlier in the deed has the better title. Consequently if a bond is produced against the donor, the claimant collects first from the last recipient; if he has not enough, he comes on to the one before him, and if he has not enough, to the one before him;'  and even though [so it would appear] the first was given medium land and the last poor land, [the claimant] has to collect from the poor before the medium.  This shows, [does it not], that the Rabbis meant their regulation to apply to a gift also?  — [Not necessarily, as] we may here be speaking of the payment of debts [and not of a gift].  But the man said 'give'? — He meant, 'Give in payment of my debt.' If so, we can see whose bond is prior? — We assume there is no bond. But [the passage quoted] says, 'Whoever is mentioned earlier in the deed'? — This means, the deed containing his instructions. Or if you like I can say the reference is also to a gift, and still there is no difficulty, since the words 'he collects from the last' mean, 'only the last [of the three] is the ultimate loser.'  Or if you like again I can say that the gifts of all were equal. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PRODUCE CONSUMED CANNOT BE ENFORCED etc. What is the reason? — 'Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: Because these  were not mentioned [in the deed of sale].  Said R. Abba to 'Ulla: But what of the maintenance of a woman and her daughters which is taken as written  and yet [the Mishnah] states that it is not enforceable? — He replied: The regulation  was so framed from the outset they are taken as written so far as concerns free assets but not so far as concerns property on which there is a lien. R. Assi also stated in the name of R. Johanan  that [the reason is] because they were not mentioned in the deed. Said R. Zera to R. Assi: But what of the maintenance of wife and daughters which also is taken as written and yet [the Mishnah] states that it is not enforceable? — He replied. The regulation was so framed from the outset: they are taken as written where free assets are concerned, but not where there is a lien on the property. R. Hanina, however, said: [The reason is] because they are not of a definite [amount].  The question was raised: In order [that a debt may be enforceable from property on which there is a lien] does R. Hanina require that it should be both definite and written down,