If a father and a son die at around the same time and it is unclear who died first and there is not enough money to pay the ketuba and one who is owed money by the son, the creditors and the inheritors debate: the creditors claim the father died first and the son inherited the money and the inheritors claim the son died first and didn’t inherit the money to pay them back. Beit Shamai said they split it 50/50 and Beit Hillel said the money remains in the hands of the inheritors. The gemara raises a question about one who borrows money and subsequently possesses land and sells it. If the creditor had included land that will be acquired by the borrower in the future, would that work to have a lien on the land that was acquired later and then sold or bequeathed. This question is not asked according to Rabbi Meir who says one can acquire something not in existence at the time (because obviously this would work). The question is according to the rabbis who think one can’t acquire something not in existence at the time – would it be different in this case? Several sources are brought to attempt to answer the question but each is rejected as they can each be attributed to Rabbi Meir.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.