Ketubot

a tirpa  [authorizing distraint on property sold]  after the first of Iyar?'  'They',  he replied, 'might tell you: You [are holding a deed] that was written on the first of Nisan'.  What means of redress [can he  have recourse to]?  — They  write out authorizations  to one another. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES SOLD HIS FIELD,  AND THE FIRST WIFE  HAD GIVEN A WRITTEN DECLARATION TO THE BUYER, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOU', THE SECOND WIFE  MAY  DISTRAIN ON THE BUYER, AND THE FIRST WIFE  ON THE SECOND, AND THE BUYER ON THE FIRST WIFE,  AND SO THEY GO ON IN TURN UNTIL THEY ARRANGE SOME COMPROMISE BETWEEN THEM, THE SAME LAW APPLIES ALSO TO  A CREDITOR  AND TO  A WOMAN CREDITOR, GEMARA. What matters it even if she HAD GIVEN him A WRITTEN DECLARATION? Has it not been a man says to another, 'I have no claim whatsoever on this field, I have no concern in it and I entirely dissociate myself from it', his statement is of no effect?  — Here we are dealing with a case where a kinyan was executed.  But even if kinyan had been executed, what is the use? Could she not say, 'I merely wished to oblige my husband'?  Have we not, in fact, learned: If a man bought [a married woman's property]  from her husband and then bought it also from the wife, his purchase is legally invalid.  Does not this  show clearly that the woman can plead, 'I merely wished to oblige my husband'?  R. Zera replied in the name of R. Hisda: This is no difficulty. One ruling  is that of R. Meir and the other  is that of R. Judah. For it was taught: [If a husband] drew up a deed  for the buyer  [of a field of his wife],  and she did not endorse it, [and then he drew up a deed] for another buyer [of a field of hers]  and that she did endorse, she loses thereby [her claim to] her kethubah,'  so R. Meir.  R. Judah, however, said: She may plead, 'I  merely meant to oblige my husband;  what [claim] can you have against me?' As to Rabbi,  however, would he allow the anonymous Mishnah here to represent the view of R. Meir and the anonymous Mishnah there  to represent the view of R. Judah?  R. Papa replied: [Our Mishnah deals] with the case of a divorced woman,  and it represents the opinion of all. R. Ashi replied: Both Mishnahs  represent the views of R. Meir,  for R. Meir maintains his view  only there where two buyers are concerned,  since in such a case she may well be told, 'If you wished to oblige. you should have done so in the case of the first buyer',  but where Only one buyer [is concerned]. even R. Meir admits [that the sale is invalid].  while our Mishnah  [refers to a case] where [the husband had first] written out a deed for another buyer. Elsewhere we learned: Payment cannot be recovered from mortgaged property where free assets are available, even if they are only of the poorest quality.  The question was raised: If the free assets were blasted  may the mortgaged property be distrained on? — Come and hear: [If a husband] drew up a deed for the buyer [of a field of his wife] and she did not endorse it [and then he drew up a deed] for another buyer [of a field of hers] and that she did endorse, she loses thereby [her claim to] her kethubah,' so R. Meir.  Now, if it could be imagined that where the free assets were blasted the mortgaged property may be distrained on [the difficulty would arise:] Granted that she lost [her right to recover] her kethubah from the second buyer,  why  should she not be entitled  to recover it, at any rate, from the first buyer?  — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac:  The meaning of 'she loses' is that she loses [her right to recover her due] from the second buyer.  Said Raba: Two objections may be raised against this explanation:  In the first place [it may be pointed out] that [the expression of] 'she loses' implies total loss. And, furthermore, it was taught: If a man borrowed from one person and sold his property to two others, and the creditor gave a written declaration to the second buyer, 'I have no claim whatever upon you', [this creditor] has no claim whatever upon the first buyer, since the latter can tell him, 'I have left you  a source  from which to recover your debt'!  — There,  [it may be argued  that] it was he  who had deliberately caused the loss to himself. Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: