Ketubot

This,  Surely, is the regular practice  [of the courts of law]? For did not a man once pledge a vineyard to his friend for ten years  but it aged after five years,  and [when the creditor] came to the Rabbis  they wrote out a tirpa  for him?  — There  also it was they  who caused the loss to themselves. For, having been aware that it may happen that a Vineyard should age,  they should not have bought [any of the debtor's pledged land].  The law, however, is that where free assets are blasted, mortgaged property may be distrained on. Abaye ruled: [If a man said to a woman]  'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so', and then the woman  married, her husband has the Status of a vendee and her successor  has no legal claim  in face  of her husband. In agreement with whose view [was Abaye's ruling laid down]? In agreement with the following Tanna.  For it has been taught: [If one man said to another,] 'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so' and the first recipient went down [into the estate] and sold it, the second may reclaim the estate  from those who bought it; so Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: The second may receive only that which the first has left.  But could Abaye have laid down such a ruling? Did not Abaye in fact, Say, 'Who is a cunning rogue? He who counsels  to sell  an estate  in accordance with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?  — Did he Say, 'She may marry'?  All he said was, 'The woman married'. Abaye further stated: [If a man said to a woman.]  'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so' and the woman sold [the estate] and died, her husband  may seize It from the buyer, the woman's successor  [may seize it] from the husband,  and the buyer from the successor,  and all the estate is confirmed in the possession of the buyer.  But why should this case be different from the following where we learned: AND SO THEY GO ON IN TURN UNTIL THEY ARRANGE SOME COMPROMISE BETWEEN THEM? — There they are all suffering some loss  but here it is only the buyer who suffers the loss. Rafram went to R. Ashi and recited this argument to him: Could Abaye have laid down such a ruling?  Did he not, in fact, lay down: [If a man said to a woman.] 'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so', and then the woman married, her husband has the status of a vendee, and her successor has no legal claim in face of her husband?  — The other replied: There [it is a woman] to whom he  spoke while she was feme sole,  but here [we are dealing with one] to whom he  spoke when she was married.  For it is this that he meant to tell  her? 'Your successor only shall acquire Possession; your husband shall not'. THE SAME LAW APPLIES ALSO TO A CREDITOR. A Tanna taught:  The same law applies to  a creditor and two buyers  and also to a woman, who was a creditor,  and two buyers. MISHNAH. A WIDOW IS TO BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THE ESTATE OF [HER DECEASED HUSBAND'S] ORPHANS [AND] HER HANDIWORK BELONGS TO THEM. IT IS NOT THEIR DUTY, HOWEVER, TO BURY HER; IT IS THE DUTY OF HER HEIRS, EVEN THOSE WHO INHERIT HER KETHUBAH, TO BURY HER. GEMARA. The question was asked: Have we learnt,  'is to be maintained'  or 'one who is maintained'?  Have we learned, 'is to be maintained', in agreement with the men of Galilee,  so that there is no way  [by which the orphans] can avoid  maintaining her; or have we rather learned 'one who is maintained',  in agreement with the men of Judaea,  so that [the orphans,] if they wish it, need not  maintain her?