(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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.

(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).

2) 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 Reuven.


(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 field.

(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 claim'!




(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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,