Yerushalmi Ketubot 11:5 ירושלמי כתובות י״א:ה׳

MISHNAH: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid⁹⁰This Mishnah is the direct continuation of the preceding one; in most Mishnah mss. it is part of Mishnah 4. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that the sale, about which the heirs claim that the widow sold too cheaply, is valid if the field which would have remained in the heirs’ hands would not have qualified as an independent piece of agricultural real estate. Mishnah Baba batra 1:10 gives minimal measures for different kinds of real estate; if these measures are not reached, the real estate cannot be subdivided. Therefore, if the parcel, which the heirs claim should not have been sold, would be one that could not be sold under the rules of Baba batra, the widow cannot be faulted if she gave it away essentially for free; it is not a case of over- or undercharging. unless there would have been left a field [for sowing] nine qab⁹¹The standard unit for agricultural land is bet se’ah, a plot of land on which in normal practice of extensive agriculture one would sow one se’ah of seed grain, which by tradition is fixed at 2500 square cubits (cf. Peah 2:1, Note 31). One se’ah equals 6 qab; the field of 9 qab then is 3750 square cubits. In the opinion of R. Jehudah, half of this area is a tradeable field., and in a garden⁹²A garden is intensively worked, irrigated property. The area for half a qab would then be 2500:12 = 208 1/3 square cubits, and a quarter qab 104 1/6. half a qab, or following the words of Rebbi Aqiba, a fourth. If her ketubah was 400 zuz⁹³This sentence refers back to Mishnah 4, and is not only Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s. If one of several connected transactions is declared invalid, the others are not affected. and she sold to one person worth 100, to a second 100, to a third 100, and to the last the value of a mina and a denar for a mina, the last transaction is invalid but all others are valid.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts⁹⁴The Halakhah deals only with the last case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the widow overstepped her authority only in part of the sale of property. If the legal and illegal contracts were executed separately, there is no reason to invalidate the earlier contracts because of the (necessarily last) invalid contract.. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed⁹⁵The same text is in Giṭṭin 1:1 (43a 1. 54) גי and Makkot 1:16 (31b 1. 26) מ; it is quoted in Alfasi Makkot 1, #1063 and discussed by his commentators R. Nissim Gerondi and Naḥmanides.: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document⁹⁶His will. and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other⁹⁷Relatives are not admitted as witnesses even in civil proceedings.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other⁹⁸He holds that testimony, even if in writing, is one whole; either it is valid or invalid. If it is invalid in one case, it must be invalid in general.; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other⁹⁹The testimony has to be separated from its application. If the witnesses are known not to be felons, their testimony is valid. In the case of a relative, it is not applicable.. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah¹⁰⁰Makkot 1:12. Deut. 17:6 reads: “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses the guilty person shall be condemned to death; he cannot be condemned by the testimony of a single witness.” The question is raised, if two witnesses are sufficient, why are three mentioned? The answer given in the Mishnah is that since two witnesses are both disqualified if one of them is disqualified (in which case the remaining witness becomes a single witness), a group of three (or 100) witnesses who all testify to exactly the same effect is disqualified if one of them is disqualified. The witnesses signing a document necessarily all testify to exactly the same facts. (Alfassi #1062 notes that the Geonim restrict the Mishnah to criminal cases.) supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse¹⁰¹Deut. 17:6. says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other¹⁰²Since practice is not decided either way, the legal heirs can successfully attack the validity of the will, and the guardians of the orphans the validity of the entire sale by the widow..