why is she asking rav about peiros? lechoira the first bais din should have gave her already wen they sold her nechasim and have the money. also whats the taina of toes sofer why dosent rava just look at what was sold if it was the yesomim or not
yehuda roth, passaic
1) Rabah bar Shilah was the judge in the dispute between the widow and Rav Chiya Aricha. He ruled that he must give her the Kesubah. Since Rav Chiya did not comply, Rabah bar Shilah wrote an Adrachta document which stated that the widow was entitled to collect from any properties of the deceased husband that she could find. The reason that she now claimed Peiros is that from the moment that the Adrachta was written, the property of the husband was considered to be in the possession of the widow, according to the value that she was entitled to receive for her Kesubah. If so, it follows that the fruit that grew from those fields, from the day that the Adrachta was written, also belonged to her since this is classified as fruit that grew from her fields.
2) The claim about Ta'us Sofer is that it transpired that there was a mistake in the words written in the Adrachta. She argued that in such a case we view the Kesubah as valid because the court commanded the scribe to write a valid Adrachta and the scribe made a mistake in the writing. Everyone knows what it should really say in the Adrachta, so we can still consider it as if the document was written correctly.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
but i thought the vort of adrachta is beis din goes and sells the fields thats why shes goveh peiros from after the hachraza like rashi is metzayin the gemara in bava metzia that she would get peiros from after hachraza which is mashma beis din already sold it just the kler is how much money she gets veim kein the kasha goes bak 1 is lechoira the 1st beis din is already holding the money and why wouldnt they give her all the money And 2 they already sold it so look if it was from the yesomim or not to see if their would be a problem of laaz on beis din
Rashi here (DH Adrachta) writes that the Beis Din does not actually go and sell the fields, but what they do is write a certificate which authorizes the creditor to collect from the fields of the debtor wherever he can find them.
Chag Matan Torah Same'ach,
Dovid Bloom
so why is she bringing up the conversation of peiros if she wasnt goveh anything yet and rashi says loit 1 man daamar she only gets after the hachraza peiros
1) Rashi (DH Lihader) writes that she argued that from the day that the Adrachta was written, the Peiros belong to her. Therefore, she claims that Rebbi Chiya must return all the Peiros that he ate from that day. She wants to collect the Peiros now and she claims that she is entitled to do so, because he had no right to be eating the fruit all this time.
2) The opinion that Rashi cites -- that she receives only after the Hachrazah -- does not fit well with her claim. Perhaps we can say that Rashi learns like the Tosfos ha'Rosh, that she said that she deserves the Peiros back from the day the Adrachta was written (which is the opinion of Rabah), even though Rava does not hold like that.
Yasher Ko'ach,
Dovid Bloom
i hear.....so youre saying beis din didnt sell any of the bailims sadahs yet and stam shes inforing rabbah that when he sells it she still needs more money?
She is informing Rabah that Rebbi Chiya has been eating the fruit illegally and must refund to her the value of the fruit that he has been eating.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom