Ketubot

how the incident actually occurred. 'The incident', the first replied, 'happened in such and such a way'. 'A man', the other exclaimed, 'who does not know the meaning of marziha should [scarcely] presume to address  R. Huna as, "our colleague Huna".' What [is the meaning of] marziha. — Mourning; for it is written in Scripture, Thus saith the Lord: Enter not into the house of mourning  etc. R. Abbahu stated: Whence is it deduced that a mourner sits at the head [of the table]?  [From Scripture] wherein it is said, I chose out their way, and sat at the head,  and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth  the mourners.  But does not yenahem  mean [one who comforts] others?  R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: The written form is YNHM.  Mar Zutra said: [The deduction  is made] from here: We-sar marzeah seruhim,  he who is in bitterness and distracted  becomes the chief  of those that stretched themselves. Raba stated: The law [is that payment may be exacted] from landed property, but not from movable property, whether in respect of maintenance, kethubah or marriage outfit. MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITED  A SUM OF MONEY FOR HIS [UNMARRIED] DAUGHTER WITH A TRUSTEE,  AND [AFTER SHE WAS BETROTHED]  SHE SAYS, 'I TRUST MY HUSBAND',  THE TRUSTEE MUST ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITION OF HIS TRUST;  SO R. MEIR. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAID: WERE [THE TRUST] ACTUALLY  A FIELD  AND SHE WISHED TO SELL IT, WOULD IT NOT BE DEEMED  SOLD FORTHWITH!  THIS APPLIES TO ONE WHO IS OF AGE.  IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man deposited for his son-in-law with a trustee a sum of money wherewith to buy a field for his daughter, and she says, 'Let it be given to my husband', she is entitled [to have her wish fulfilled, if it was expressed] after her marriage  but if only after her betrothal the trustee must act according to the conditions of his trust;  so R. Meir. R. Jose, however, said: A woman who is of age has a right [to obtain her desire] whether [it was expressed] after her marriage or only after betrothal, but [in the case of] a minor [whether her wish was expressed] after marriage or after betrothal, the trustee must act in accordance with the conditions of his trust.  What is the practical difference between them?  If it be suggested that the practical difference between them is the case of a minor after her marriage, R. Meir holding the opinion that [even] she is entitled [to have her wish] and R. Jose comes to state that even after marriage [It is only] a woman who is of age that is entitled to have her wish  but not a minor, [in that case] what of  the final clause,  IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR. Who [it might be asked] could have taught this? If it be suggested [that the author was] R. Jose, [it could be objected:] This, surely, could be inferred from the first clause; for, since R. Jose said, WERE [THE TRUST] ACTUALLY A FIELD AND SHE WISHED TO SELL IT, WOULD IT NOT BE DEEMED SOLD FORTHWITH! [it follows  that only] one that is of age, who is eligible to effect a sale, was meant,  but not a minor who is ineligible to effect a sale.  Consequently it must be R. Meir [who was the author of] it, and a clause is in fact missing [from our Mishnah], the proper reading being as follows:  'THE TRUSTEE MUST ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF HIS TRUST. This applies only [to a woman whose desire was expressed] after her betrothal, but if after her marriage she is entitled [to have her wish]. THIS [furthermore] APPLIES TO ONE WHO IS OF AGE. IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR.'  — [The fact]. however, is that the practical difference between them is the case of one who is of age [whose wish was expressed] after her betrothal. It was stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel. The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose. Raba ion the name of R. Nahman said, The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir. Ilfa  reclined  upon a sail mast  and  said: 'Should any one come and submit to me any statement [in the Baraithoth] of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia  which I cannot make clear to him [with the aid] of our Mishnah I will drop from the mast  and drown myself'. An aged man came and recited to him [the following Baraitha:]  If a man  said, 'Give my children  a shekel a week',  and they require a sela',  a sela' is to he given to them.  But if he said, 'Give them no more than a shekel', only a shekel is to he given to them.  If, however, he gave Instructions that if these died others  shall be his heirs in their stead, only one shekel [a week] is to be given to them, irrespective of whether he used the expression of 'give' or 'give no [more]',  [Ilfa] said to him: [Do you wish to know] whose ruling this  is?