Kesubos - Daf 109
- הפוסק מעות לחתנו ופשט לו הרגל
The next Mishnah states: הפוסק מעות לחתנו – If one promised money to his son-in-law as a dowry, ופשט לו הרגל – and he defaulted, תשב עד שתלבין ראשה – the chosson may make the kallah sit until her hair turns white until her father fulfills his pledge. But Admon says that she can argue and say: אילו אני פסקתי– “If I had promised you money on my own behalf, it would be understandable that I may be made to wait until my hair turns white. But now that my father was the one who promised it, what can I do? או כנוס או פטור – Either marry me or release me.” Rabban Gamliel said: רואה אני את דברי אדמון – I see the words of Admon as being correct. The Gemara brings a different version of the machlokes from a Baraisa that taught: Rebbe Yose b’Rebbe Yehudah said that they do not disagree regarding one who promised his son-in-law that the kallah can object. Rather, they disagree where she promised money on her own behalf. The Chochomim says he may let her sit until her hair turns white, but Admon says she can argue: כסבורה אני שאבא נותן עלי – “I thought my father would pay for me, but now that my father is not paying for me, what can I do? Either marry me or release me.” Rabban Gamliel said: רואה אני את דברי אדמון.
- העורר על השדה והוא חתום עליה בעד
The next Mishnah states: העורר על השדה והוא חתום עליה בעד – If one challenges the ownership of a field but he is signed as a witness on the shtar, which Rashi explains indicates that the field was sold to the current occupant from another person, Admon says that this does not disprove his point, for he can say: השני נוח לי והראשון קשה הימנו – “I participated in the sale because the second one, referring to the current occupant, is easier for me, and the first one is more difficult to deal with than he. But the Chochomim say: איבד את זכותו – He has forfeited his right to the field. Rashi explains that signing the shtar is considered an admission that he has no claim to the field. Abaye said that this ruling only applies to a witness, but if he signed it as a dayan to certify the shtar, he does not forfeit his right to the field. For Rebbe Chiya taught in a Baraisa: אין העדים חותמין על השטר אלא אם כן קראוהו – Witnesses may not sign a shtar until they have read it, אבל הדיינין חותמים אף על פי שלא קראוהו - but dayanim may sign a shtar to certify it even if they have not read it. Rashi explains that dayanim only testify that the shtar was brought before them and that the witnesses attested to their signatures.
- מי שהלך למדינת הים ואבדה דרך שדהו
The next Mishnah states: מי שהלך למדינת הים ואבדה דרך שדהו – If one went overseas and returns to find that the path to his field is lost, meaning that one of his neighbors from the surrounding properties absorbed his path and no one remembers where the path is, Admon says: ילך לו בקצרה – he may go to his field by the shortest route, but the Chochomim say: יקנה לו דרך במאה מנה או יפרח באויר – He must either buy for himself a path for one hundred maneh, or else fly through the air to get to his field. Rava said that there is no disagreement in a case of four owners who derive their rights from four previous owners, or from one previous owner. Even Admon agrees that he has no right to the path, for each one of the owners can say the path may be in the other’s property. They disagree in a case of one present owner who purchased the lands from four previous owners. Admon holds he can say: מכל מקום דרכא אית לי גבך – In any event, I have a path somewhere in your property, but the Chochomim say the owner can say, “If you keep quiet, I can sell you a path for a reasonable price, for if not, I will sell the land back to the four original owners and you will be unable to make a claim against them.
