Ketubot

[Their dispute relates to a case,] for instance, where It was found that one of the fields  did not belong to him,  their point of difference  being the question [of the legality of the action] of a creditor of a later date who forestalled [one of an earlier date] and distrained [on the debtor's property]. The first Tanna holds that such distraint has no legal validity,  and Ben Nannus holds that whatever he distrained on is legally his,  R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: Both  agree that the distraint [of a creditor of a later date] has no legal validity,  but here they differ on the question whether provision is to be made against the possibility that [the fourth woman might] allow the ground to deteriorate. One Master  is of the opinion that provision is to be made against the possibility that she  might allow the ground  to deteriorate,  and the other Master is of the opinion that no provision need be made against such a possibility. Abaye replied: The difference between them  is the ruling of Abaye the Elder who stated: The 'orphans' spoken of  are grown-ups and there is no need to say that minors  [are included].  The first Tanna  does not hold the view of Abaye the Elder while Ben Nannus upholds it. R. Huna stated: If two brothers or two partners had a lawsuit  against a third party  and one of them went with that person to law,  the other  cannot say to him,  'You are not my party'  because  [the one who went to law] acted on his behalf also. R. Nahman once visited Sura  and was asked what the law was in such a case.  He replied: This is [a case that has been stated in] our Mishnah: THE FIRST MUST TAKE AN OATH [IN ORDER TO GIVE SATISFACTION] TO THE SECOND, THE SECOND TO THE THIRD AND THE THIRD TO THE FOURTH, but it was not stated, 'the first to the third'. Now, what could be the reason?  Obviously  because [the second] has acted on her behalf also. But are [the two cases] alike? In the latter,  an oath for one person is the same as an oath for a hundred,  but in this case  he  might well plead, 'Had I been present I would have submitted more convincing arguments'.  This,  however, applies only when he  was not In town [when the action was tried] but if he was in town [his plea is disregarded, since if he had any valid arguments] he ought to have come. It was stated: If two deeds  bearing the same date  [are presented in court,  the property in question],  Rab ruled, should be divided [between the two claimants], and Samuel ruled: [The case is to be decided at] the discretion of the judges.  Must it be assumed that Rab follows the view Of R. Meir who holds that the signatures of the witnesses make [a Get] effective,