Ketubot

of a false statement  is a matter which need not be taken into consideration. A certain man once deposited seven pearls, wrapped in a sheet, with R. Miasha the son of the son of R. Joshua h. Levi. As R. Miasha died intestate  they came to R. Ammi.  'In the first instance', he said to them, 'I know that R. Miasha the son of the son of R. Joshua b. Levi was not a wealthy man,  and secondly. does not the man  indicate the marks?'  This ruling, however, applies only to a man who was not a frequent visitor at the bailee's house,  but if he was a frequent visitor there [the marks he indicates are no evidence of ownership since] it might well be assumed that another person has made the deposit and he happened to see it. A certain man once deposited a silver cup with Nasa; and Hasa died intestate.  R. Nahman before whom [the heirs] appeared said to them, 'I know that Hasa was not a wealthy man? and, furthermore, does he  not indicate the mark?'  This, however, applies only to a man who was not an habitual visitor at the bailee's house,  but if he was a frequent visitor there [the mark he indicates is no valid proof since] it might be said that another person had deposited [the cup] and he happened to see it. A certain man once deposited a silk cloth  with R. Dimi the brother of R. Safra, and R. Dimi died intestate.  R. Abba, to whom [the depositor] came [to submit his claim.] said to them,  'In the first place I know that R. Dimi was not a wealthy man  and, secondly, the man is here indicating the distinguishing mark.' This, however, applies only to a man who was not a frequent visitor  at the bailee's house, but if he was a frequent visitor there [the indication of the mark is no valid proof since] it might well be suggested that another man deposited the object and he happened to see it. A man once said  to those around him,  'Let my estate be given to Tobiah', and then he died. [A man named] Tobiah came [to claim the estate]. 'Behold', said R. Johanan. 'Tobiah has come'.  Now if he said, 'Tobiah'  and 'R. Tobiah'  came, [the latter is not entitled to the estate, since] he said 'To Tobiah' but not 'To R. Tobiah'. If he,  however, was on familiar terms with him  [the estate must be given to him, since the omission of title might have been due to] the fact that he was on intimate terms with him. If two Tobiahs appeared,  one of whom was a neighbour  and the other a scholar, the scholar is to be given precedence.  If one [of the Tobiahs] is a relative and the other a scholar, the scholar is given precedence.  The question was asked: What is the position where one is a neighbour  and the other a relative? — Come and hear; Better is a neighbour that is near than a brother far off  if both  are relatives, or both are neighbours. or both are scholars the decision is left to the discretion  of the judges. Come, said Raba to the son of R. Hiyya b. Abin, I will tell you a fine saying of your father's:  Although  Samuel said, 'If a man sold a bond of indebtedness to another person and then he  released the debtor, the latter is legally released;  and, moreover, even [a creditor's] heir may  release [the debtor]' Samuel, nevertheless, admits that, where a wife brought in to her husband  a bond of indebtedness and then remitted it, the debt is not to be considered remitted, because her husband's rights are equal to hers. A relative of R. Nahman once sold her kethubah for the goodwill.  She was divorced and then died. Thereupon [the buyers] came to claim [the amount of the kethubah] from her daughter.  'Is there no one', said R. Nahman to those around him,  'who can tender her advice?