Ketubot

LET [HIS DAUGHTER] REMAIN [SINGLE]  UNTIL HER HAIR GROWS GREY.  ADMON RULED: SHE MAY SAY,  'HAD I MYSELF PROMISED THE SUM ON MY BEHALF I WOULD REMAIN [SINGLE]  UNTIL MY HAIR GREW GREY, BUT NOW THAT MY FATHER HAS PROMISED IT, WHAT CAN I DO? EITHER MARRY ME OR SET ME FREE'. R. GAMALIEL SAID: ADMON'S WORDS HAVE MY APPROVAL. GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not [uphold the same view] as that of the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah stated, There was no difference of opinion between Admon and the Sages that, where a man promised a sum of money to his [prospective] son-in-law and then defaulted, his daughter may say  My father has promised on my behalf, what can I do?' They only  differ where she herself promised a sum of money on her own behalf, in which case the Sages ruled: Let her remain [single]  until her hair grows grey, while Admon maintained that she could say, 'I thought that my father would pay for me [the promised amount], but now that my father does not pay for me, what can I do? Either marry me or set me free'. Said R. Gamaliel: Admon's words have my approval. A Tanna taught: This  applies only to a woman who is of age but in the case of a minor compulsion may be used. Who is to be compelled? If the father [be suggested], should [not the ruling. it may be retorted,] be reversed?  — But, said Raba, compulsion is exercised against the [prospective] husband that he may give her a letter of divorce. R. Isaac b. Eleazar laid down on the authority of Hezekiah: Wherever R. Gamaliel stated, 'Admon's words have my approval', the halachah agrees with him. Said Raba to R. Nahman, Even in the Baraitha?  — The other replied, Did we say 'In the Mishnah?' What we said was, 'Wherever R. Gamaliel stated'. Said R. Zera in the name of Rabbah b. Jeremiah: As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the halachah is in agreement with him who followed his view,  but in respect of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, the halachah is not in agreement with him who followed his view.  What does he  mean? If it be suggested that he means this: As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the halachah is in agreement with himself and with him who followed his view, and that in respect of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, the halachah is neither in agreement with himself nor with him who followed his view,  [it may be objected:] Did not R. Isaac b. Eleazar lay down on the authority of Hezekiah that 'wherever R. Gamaliel stated, "Admon's words have my approval", the halachah agrees with him'? — What he  meant, however, must have been this: As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the halachah is in agreement with himself and with him who followed his view,  but in respect of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, the halachah does not agree with him who followed his view  but agrees with himself in all his rulings. But, surely, R. Isaac b. Eleazar laid down on the authority of Hezekiah that 'wherever R. Gamaliel stated, "Admon's words have my approval" the halachah agrees with him'. [Does not this imply:] Only  where he stated;  but not where he did not state? — The fact, however, is that he  meant this; As to the two rulings which Hanan has laid down, the halachah is in agreement with himself and with him who followed him,  but of the seven rulings that were laid down by Admon, there are some concerning which the halachah is in agreement with himself and with him who followed his view  while there are others concerning which the halachah does not agree with him  but with him who followed his view,  [the rule being that] wherever R. Gamaliel stated, 'Admon's words have my approval' is the halachah in agreement with him, but not elsewhere. MISHNAH. IF A MAN CONTESTS [THE OWNERSHIP OF] A FIELD ON [THE DEED OF SALE OF] WHICH HE IS SIGNED AS A WITNESS,  ADMON RULED; [HIS CLAIM IS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE] HE CAN SAY,  '[LITIGATION WITH] THE SECOND  IS EASIER FOR ME, SINCE THE FIRST  IS A MORE DIFFICULT PERSON THAN HE'.  THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE HAS LOST HIS RIGHT.  IF [THE SELLER]  MADE IT  A [BOUNDARY] MARK FOR ANOTHER PERSON  [THE CONTESTANT]  HAS LOST HIS RIGHT. GEMARA. Abaye said: This  was taught only [in respect of] A WITNESS, but a judge  does not lose his title;  for R. Hiyya taught Witnesses may not sign a deed unless they have read it