Ketubot

Rah inserted  [the following enquiry] between the lines  [of a communication  he sent] to Rabbi: What [is the law] where the brothers have encumbered [the estate they inherited from their father]?  [When the enquiry reached him] R. Hiyya [who] was sitting before him asked, '[does he mean:] They sold it or pledged it?' — 'What difference call this make?'  the other retorted. Whether they sold it [he continued] or pledged it, [the estate] may he seized [to meet the obligation] of marriage outfit but may not be seized for that of maintenance As to Rab, however, if his enquiry [related to brothers] who sold [the estate], he should have written to him, 'sold'; and if his enquiry [related to brothers] who pledged it, he should have written to him, 'pledged'! — Rab wished to ascertain the law concerning both cases and he thought: If I write to him 'sold' [I shall get] satisfaction If he were to send [in reply] that 'the estate may be seized', since the same ruling would apply with even greater force to the case where they pledged [the estate]. If, however, he were to send me in reply that 'it may not be seized', the question [in respect of brothers] who pledged [the estate] would still remain. If, [again]. I were to write to him, 'pledged' then if he sent in reply that 'the estate may not be seized' this ruling would apply with even greater force [to the case where] they sold it. Should he, however, send a reply that 'it may be seized', the question [in respect of brothers] who sold It would still remain. I will, therefore, write to him, 'encumbered' which might mean the one  as well as the other R. Johanan, however, ruled: [An estate]  may not be seized either [to meet the obligation of the] one or of the other. The question was raised: Did not R. Johanan hear the ruling of Rabbi, but if he had heard it he would have accepted it? Or is it possible that he heard it and did not accept it? — Come and hear what has been stated: If a man died and left two daughters and one son, and the first forestalled [the others] and took a tenth of the estate while the other did not manage to collect [her share] before the son died,  R. Johanan ruled: The second  has surrendered her right.  Said R. Hanina: Something that is even more striking than this has been said, [viz.. that an estate] may be seized  [to meet the obligation] of a marriage outfit though it may not be seized for that of maintenance, and you nevertheless state, 'The second has surrendered her right'?  Now, if that were the case,  he  should have asked him 'who said it?' — But is it not possible that he in fact did not hear it [at first]  and when he [finally] heard he accepted it, but there  [the circumstances are] different, since the house [of the second daughter] has now ample provisions?  Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: Now then,  if she  found anything at all, so that her house is amply provided for, would we in such a case also not give her a tenth of the estate? — The other replied: I said, A house amply provided for from the same estate. Amemar ruled: A daughter  has [the legal status of] an heiress. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Should it be desired to settle her claim  by means of a money payment such a settlement cannot be effected for the same reason?  — 'Yes', the other replied. 'Should it be desired [the first asked] to settle her claim by [giving her] one plot of land, such a settlement cannot be effected for the same reason?'  — 'Yes', the other replied.  R. Ashi, however, ruled: A daughter  has [the legal status of] a creditor.  And Amemar also withdrew his former opinion. For R. Minyomi son of R. Nihumi stated: I was once standing before Amemar and a woman who claimed a tenth of [her deceased father's] estate appeared before him, and I observed [that it was his] opinion that if [her brothers] desired to settle with her by means of a money payment he would have agreed to the settlement.  For he heard the brothers say to her, 'If we had the money we would settle with you  by a cash payment', and he remained silent and told them nothing to the contrary. Now that it has been said that [a daughter in her claim to her tenth]  has the legal status of a creditor [the question arises whether she is the creditor] of the father or of the brothers. In what respect can this matter? — In respect [of allowing her] to collect [her tenth] either from their medium  land and without an oath,  or of their worst land with an oath.  Now what [is the law]? — Come and hear [of the decision] of Rabina: He allowed the daughter of R. Ashi to collect [her tenth] from Mar  the son of R. Ashi out Of his medium land, without an oath, but from the son of R. Sama  the son of R. Ashi out of his worst land with an oath. R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph sent the following message to Rabbah the son of R. Huna Zuta  of Nehardea:  When this woman  presents herself to you, authorize her to collect a tenth part of [her deceased father's] estate even from the casing of handmills. R. Ashi stated: When we were at the college of R. Kahana we authorized the collection [of a daughter's tenth] from the rent  of houses also. R. Anan sent [this communication] to R. Huna, '[To] our colleague Huna, greetings.  When this woman  presents herself before you, authorize her to collect a tenth part of [her father's] estate'. [When the communication arrived,] R. Shesheth was sitting before him. 'Go', [R. Huna] said to him,  'and convey  to him  [the following message]-and he  who does not deliver the message  to him shall fall under the ban — "Anan, Anan, [is the collection to be made] from landed, or from movable property? And who presides at the meal in a house of mourning?"'  R. Shesheth went to R. Anan and said to him: The Master  is a teacher,  and R. Huna is a teacher of the teacher,  and he pronounced the ban against anyone who would not convey  [his message] to you;  and had he not pronounced the ban I would not have said, 'Anan, Anan, [is the collection to be made] from landed, or movable property, and who presides at the meal in a house of mourning?'  Thereupon, R. Anan went to Mar 'Ukba and said to him: See, Master, how R. Huna addressed  me as 'Anan, Anan';  and, furthermore, I do not know what he meant by the message he sent me on marziha.  The other said to him: Tell me now