ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 92
KESUVOS 92 - dedicated by Rav Mordechai Rabin (London/Har Nof) for the
Yahrzeit of his mother (28 Sivan).
(a) Reuven sold a field to Shimon without taking responsibility. Shimon
subsequently sold it back to Reuven with responsibility.
In a similar case to the previous one, but when the property that Reuven
first sold to Shimon was property that he had inherited from his father
Ya'akov, and the creditor who then claimed it from him was Ya'akov's
creditor - Rava would concede that Ya'akov is not considered like his own,
but as if it was the creditor of a third person who sold it to Reuven.
Consequently, Shimon would be obligated to appease the creditor on behalf of
(b) When Reuven's creditor claimed the field from Reuven - Rami bar Chama
ruled - that Shimon was obligated to try and appease him on behalf of Reuven
(because he sold it to him with responsibility), just as he would have had
to do had he sold it to a third person with responsibility.
(c) Rava disagreed with him however - on the grounds that Shimon may have
accepted responsibility for losses caused by a third party, but he certainly
did not accept responsibility for losses that he (Reuven) himself caused
(seeing as the creditor was none other than his own).
(a) Reuven sold Shimon a field for which he accepted responsibility. As for
Shimon, he did not yet pay for the field, and Reuven converted the money
owing into a loan. In the meantime, Reuven died. When Reuven's creditor
claimed the field from Shimon - he appeased him with money.
(b) When Shimon came to claim compensation from Reuven's orphans - Rami bar
Chama permitted them to counter that since it was Metaltelin (the money for
the sale of the field) that their father had left with him (and the
Metaltelin of orphans is not Meshubad to the creditor), Shimon had no
authority to pay the creditor. For the same reason, they argued, they would
not compensate him for his loss (seeing as their father had not left them
any Karka with which to pay).
(c) Rava advised Shimon - to pay the orphans the outstanding debt with the
plot of land, and then to reclaim it from them for the responsibility that
was still owed to them.
(d) Shimon was able to claim back the land from them (despite the fact that
they did not inherit it directly from their father), due to a statement of
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah - who said that land which orphans claimed
as a debt that was owed to their father, could then be claimed by their
father's creditor (even though he would not be permitted to claim land that
the orphans obtained from other sources).
(a) If Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon one after the other, and Shimon
then sold one of them to Levi - Reuven's creditor is restricted to the last
field that Shimon purchased, because, based on the principle that the
creditor may only claim from the purchaser there where the debtor has
nothing with which to pay, the purchaser can always say to the creditor 'I
left you something from which to claim'! (unless, that is, he buys all of
the debtor's property at once).
(b) Consequently, when Rabah stated that the purchaser may claim from Levi
too, should he be so inclined - he was referring to a case where Reuven sold
all his fields to Shimon all at once (in one document).
(c) Assuming that Reuven himself had not sold any fields, and that he
possessed good, medium and poor quality fields - his creditor's claim would
be confined to the medium-quality fields.
(d) Consequently, in our case - the creditor will not be able to claim from
Levi if the field that he purchased be anything other than a medium-quality
(a) Had Levi purchased the same medium-quality field directly from Reuven -
Reuven's creditor would not have had the right to claim from him, because,
as we explained earlier, he could have said to him 'I left you something
from which to claim'!.
(b) He cannot do so in this case however - because that argument only
applies to someone who purchased directly from the owner, but not when he
purchased it from another purchaser (except for in the following case).
(c) Had Levi left medium-quality fields with Shimon - then he could refuse
to pay the creditor, using the argument 'I left you something from which to
(a) According to the first Lashon, if Reuven sold Shimon a field, Abaye
authorizes Reuven to intercede on Shimon's behalf, should his creditors
subsequently claim it from him - on the condition that he sold it with
responsibility, because then, he can argue that, should the creditor win his
case, Shimon will come back to him to be reimbursed.
(b) Reuven might be able to prevent the creditor from claiming the field on
the basis of money which he claims, the creditor owes him, or he might claim
that he has already paid, arguments which Shimon could not possibly present
(see also Tosfos DH 'Dina Hu').
(c) We would otherwise have thought that he is not permitted to do so -
because the creditor can say to him 'I have no dealings with you! It is from
Shimon that I am claiming.'
(d) According to the second Lashon, Abaye's statement extends even to a case
when he sold him the field without responsibility. Even then, this Lashon
maintains, the creditor cannot stop him from interceding on Shimon's
behalf - because Reuven can reply that he is indirectly involved, because,
should the creditor win his claim, Shimon will hold it against *him* for the
rest of his life.