Kesubos - Daf 85

• Case where the shaliach pays the debt but is not given the shtar – סיטראי נינהו

Avimi brei d’Rebbe Abahu owed money to some residents of Choza’ei and he sent the money with Chama brei d’Rabbah bar Abahu. When he paid them, he said to them: הבו לי שטרא – Give me back the shtar, and they responded: סיטראי נונהו – These funds were for the payment of a side matter. Rashi explains that they claimed he owed them additional money for a מלוה על פה - an oral debt, and they were applying these monies to that debt. The shtar remains unpaid and they intended to hold onto it. Rebbe Abahu was asked what the ruling is, and when he was told that there were no witnesses that the debt was paid, he answered, מיגו דיכולין לומר לא היו דברים מעולם – since they are able to say, “It never happened at all,” that you paid, they are believed to say those funds were for the payment of a side matter. When it comes to the question of whether the shaliach must pay the debtor, Rav Ashi ruled that if the debtor told the shaliach, “Take the shtar and give the money,” then the shaliach must pay. If he said, “Give the money, and take the shtar,” he does not have to pay. The Gemara rejects this ruling and says that either way, the shaliach must pay, for the debtor can tell him: לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי – “I sent you to improve my situation, not to worsen it.”

• The case where a person deposited a silver cup in Chasa’s house, and then Chasa died

There was a certain person who deposited a silver cup with Chasa, and then Chasa died without leaving any final instructions regarding the property in his possession. The depositor and Chasa’s heirs, came before Rav Nachman, for the heir’s claimed that the cup might have belonged to their father. Rav Nachman said to them: ידענא ביה בחסא דלא אמיד – Firstly, I know that Chasa was not wealthy enough to have owned a silver cup. ועוד הא קא יהיב סימנא – And furthermore, the claimant gave an identifying mark, which proves that the cup is his. But this was only stated on the assumption that the claimant does not regularly go in and out of Chasa’s house, but if he does, then giving the siman does not prove anything, for I can say that another person deposited the cup with Chasa, and the claimant saw it when he was in the house.

• The case of a dying man saying, “All my properties are bequeathed to Toviah”

There was a certain man who said before his death: נכסיי לטוביה – “My properties are hereby bequeathed to Toviah,” but he did not indicate which Toviah he meant. He then died and a man named Toviah came to claim the property, and Rebbe Yochanan said: הרי בא טוביה – Behold! Toviah has come, and there is no reason to withhold the property from him. The mefarshim explain that it is presumed that this Toviah appeared first because he was close to the deceased and was convinced that the reference was to him. The Gemara continues, that if Rav Toviah came to claim the property, it is not given to him, because the deceased did not say Rav Toviah. But if the deceased was on casual terms with him, they are given to him. If two people named Toviah came, שכן ותלמיד חכם תלמיד חכם קודם – If one was a neighbor, and the other a talmid chochom, the talmid chochom takes precedence. Rashi explains that it is presumed that the dying man wanted to increase his merits before his death by giving his property to a talmid chochom. For all the nevi’im prophesied about the rewards of Olam Haba’ah, only regarding one who benefits a talmid chochom with his possessions.