זָכוּ בָּהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין, כָּךְ מוּעָטִין וְנִתְרַבּוּ – זָכוּ בָּהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין.

the heirs acquired rights to the mothers’ marriage contracts due to the value of the estate when their father died, so too, in a case where the properties were few and the value subsequently appreciated, the heirs have acquired rights to divide the entire estate equally, due to the value of the estate when their father died.

(סִימָן: אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה מִצְוָה בִּכְתוּבָּה יַעֲקֹב זָקַף שְׂדוֹתָיו בִּדְבָרִים עֲסִיקִין.)

§ This is a mnemonic device halakhot , which are connected in one way or another to the problem being dealt with in the mishna: One thousand, and one hundred, mitzva, in the marriage contract, Ya’akov, set up, his fields, with words, disputants.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּהָווּ מַסְּקֵי בֵּיהּ אַלְפָא זוּזֵי, הָווּ לֵיהּ תְּרֵי אַפְּדָנֵי, זַבִּינְהוּ חֲדָא בַּחֲמֵשׁ מְאָה וַחֲדָא בַּחֲמֵשׁ מֵאָה. אֲתָא בַּעַל חוֹב טָרְפָא לַחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ. הֲדַר קָטָרֵיף לְאִידָךְ.

There was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one thousand dinars against him. He had two mansions [ appedanei ]. He sold them, one for five hundred and the other one also for five hundred. The creditor came and repossessed one of them from the purchaser, as the repayment of part of his debt. He subsequently sought to repossess the other mansion as well, in payment for the remainder of his debt.

שְׁקַל אַלְפָא זוּזֵי וְקָא אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּיהּ, אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי שַׁוְיָא לָךְ אַלְפָא זוּזֵי – לְחַיֵּי, וְאִי לָא – שְׁקֵיל אַלְפָא זוּזֵי, וְאִיסְתַּלֵּק.

The purchaser took one thousand dinars and went to the creditor. He said to him: If the first mansion that you repossessed is worth one thousand dinars to you, very well, let it be yours in exchange for the entire sum that is owed to you, and if not, take these one thousand dinars and abrogate your rights to both of the mansions, leaving them both in my possession.

סָבַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ מַתְנִיתִין; אִם אָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים הֲרֵי אָנוּ מַעֲלִין עַל נִכְסֵי אָבִינוּ יָפֶה דִּינָר.

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say that this case is identical to that which is taught in the mishna: If the orphans say: We inflate the value of our father’s property by a dinar, the court does not listen to them. This appears to be the case here as well, and the value of the mansion should not be assessed at higher than its market value.

אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם – אִית לְהוּ פְּסֵידָא לְיָתְמֵי, הָכָא – מִי אִית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא? אַלְפָא יָהֵיב, וְאַלְפָא שָׁקֵיל.

Rava said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the mishna, the other orphans whose mother’s marriage contract was of lesser value will suffer a financial loss if the property is assessed at a value greater than it is actually worth. Here, in the case of the creditor, does he incur a loss? He lent one thousand dinars and took one thousand dinars; consequently, it would be cruel on his part to refuse to take the money and to insist on taking the second mansion from the purchaser.

וְטִירְפָא בְּכַמָּה כָּתְבִינַן?

The Gemara asks: If the creditor decided to hold on to the first mansion and to forgive the remainder of the debt, what amount is written in the document of authorization to repossess liened property, through which the purchaser will claim compensation from the seller? The purchaser had paid only five hundred dinars for the mansion that was repossessed, but the repossession of that mansion earned the seller one thousand dinars, as his entire debt was paid off.

רָבִינָא אֲמַר: בְּאַלְפָא. רַב עֲוִירָא אֲמַר: בַּחֲמֵשׁ מְאָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: בַּחֲמֵשׁ מֵאָה.

Ravina said: It is written for one thousand dinars. Rav Avira said: It is written for five hundred dinars; the fact that the creditor forgave the full amount of the debt in exchange for this house was his own personal decision and does not reflect an increase in the property value of the house. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that it is written for five hundred dinars.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּהָווּ מַסְּקֵי בֵּיהּ מֵאָה זוּזֵי, הָווּ לֵיהּ תְּרֵי קְטִינֵי דְּאַרְעָא. חַד זַבֵּינְהוּ בְּחַמְשִׁין, וְחַד בְּחַמְשִׁין. אֲתָא בַּעַל חוֹב טָרְפָא לְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, הֲדַר אֲתָא וְקָטָרֵיף לְאִידָךְ.

It is also related that there was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one hundred dinars against him. He had two small tracts of land. He sold one for fifty and he also sold the other one for fifty. The creditor came and repossessed one of them from the purchaser as the collection of part of his debt. He subsequently came, seeking to repossess the other tract of land as well, as payment for the rest of the debt owed to him.

שְׁקַל מֵאָה זוּזֵי, וְקָאָזֵיל לַגַּבֵּיהּ וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי שַׁוְיָא לָךְ מֵאָה זוּזֵי – לְחַיֵּי, וְאִי לָא – שְׁקוֹל מֵאָה זוּזֵי וְאִיסְתַּלֵּק.

The purchaser took one hundred dinars and went to the creditor. He said to him: If this tract is worth one hundred dinars to you, very well, and if not, take one hundred dinars and abrogate your rights to both of the tracts, leaving them both in my possession.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ מַתְנִיתִין: אִם אָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים כו׳. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם – אִית לְהוּ פְּסֵידָא לְיָתְמֵי, הָכָא – מַאי פְּסֵידָא אִית לֵיהּ? מֵאָה יָהֵיב, מֵאָה שָׁקֵיל.

Rav Yosef thought to say that this case is identical to that which is taught in the mishna, whereby if the orphans say: We inflate the value of our father’s property by a dinar, the court does not listen to them. Abaye said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the mishna, the other orphans suffer a financial loss if the property is assessed at a value greater than it is actually worth; here, what loss does the creditor incur? He lent one hundred dinars and took one hundred dinars. It would be cruel on his part to refuse to take the money and to insist on taking the land from the purchaser.

וְטִירְפָא בְּכַמָּה כָּתְבִינַן? רָבִינָא אֲמַר: בְּמֵאָה, רַב עֲוִירָא אֲמַר: בְּחַמְשִׁין. וְהִלְכְתָא: בְּחַמְשִׁין.

The Gemara asks: If the creditor decided to hold on to the first mansion and to forgive the remainder of the debt, what amount is written in the document of authorization to repossess liened property, through which the purchaser will claim compensation from the seller? Ravina said that it is written for one hundred. Rav Avira said it is written for fifty. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that it is written for fifty dinars.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּהָווּ מַסְּקֵי בֵּיהּ מֵאָה זוּזֵי. שְׁכֵיב, שְׁבַק קְטִינָא דְּאַרְעָא דַּהֲוָה שַׁוְיָא חַמְשִׁין זוּזֵי. אֲתָא בַּעַל חוֹב וְקָטָרֵיף לֵיהּ. אֲזוּל יָתְמֵי יָהֲבוּ לֵיהּ חַמְשִׁין זוּזֵי, הֲדַר קָטָרֵיף לָהּ.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who had a creditor with a claim of one hundred dinars against him. He died and left a small tract of land worth fifty dinars. The creditor came and repossessed it. The orphans came and gave him fifty dinars and redeemed the property from him. He returned and repossessed it again in order to collect the remainder of the debt.

אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבַּיֵי. אָמַר לָהֶן: מִצְוָה עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לִפְרוֹעַ חוֹב אֲבִיהֶן. הָנֵי קַמָּאֵי – מִצְוָה עָבְדִיתוּ, הָשְׁתָּא – כִּי טָרֵיף – בְּדִין קָטָרֵיף.

They came before Abaye to complain. He said to them: It is a mitzva for orphans to settle their father’s debt. Consequently, with the money you paid the creditor initially, you performed a mitzva, as you partially settled a debt your father owed. However, this payment did not cancel the lien on the property, and so now, when he repossesses the land, he is repossesses it lawfully.

וְלָא אֲמָרַן דְּלָא אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: הָנֵי חַמְשִׁין זוּזֵי דְּמֵי דְּאַרְעָא קְטִינָא, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: הָנֵי חַמְשִׁין זוּזֵי דְּמֵי אַרְעָא קְטִינָא – סַלּוּקֵי סַלְקוּהּ.

The Gemara notes: And we said this ruling only in a case where the orphans did not say to the creditor: These fifty dinars are payment for the small tract of land. However, if they said to him: These fifty dinars are payment for the small tract of land, they have successfully removed him from the land and he has no further claim to it.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבְּנָהּ לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ דְּאִימֵּיהּ בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אָתְיָא אֵם וּמְעַרְעֲרָא – לָא מְפַצֵּינָא לָךְ.

§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold the rights to his mother’s marriage contract for a certain financial advantage, i.e., he received a certain sum on the condition that if he would inherit his mother’s marriage contract, which would occur if his mother’s husband would die prior to his mother, the purchaser would obtain the right to collect the money. And he told the purchaser: If my mother comes and objects to the sale, I will not reimburse you for your purchase.

שְׁכִיבָא אִימֵּיהּ וְלָא אִיעַרְעֲרָא, וַאֲתָא אִיהוּ וְקָא מְעַרְעֵר. סָבַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא לְמֵימַר: אִיהוּ בִּמְקוֹם אִימֵּיהּ קָאֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: נְהִי דְּאַחֲרָיוּת דִּידָהּ לָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ, אַחֲרָיוּת דִּידֵיהּ – מִי לָא קַבֵּיל?

His mother died after her husband died, and had not objected to the sale. He, however, came and contested the sale. Rami bar Ḥama thought to say that he stands in his mother’s place and since he is her proxy, he has the right to object to the sale. Rava said to him: Granted that he did not take upon himself to guarantee the sale against his mother’s objections, but did he not take upon himself to guarantee it against his own objections? When he sold the right to collect the marriage contract, he most certainly guaranteed that he would not renege on the sale.

אָמַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא: רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחֲרָיוּת, וַאֲתָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לִרְאוּבֵן בְּאַחֲרָיוּת,

The Gemara relates a similar discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said: If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee, and Shimon came and sold the field back to Reuven, but he sold it with a guarantee that if the field is repossessed, he will compensate the buyer for his loss,