Yerushalmi Ketubot 9:2 ירושלמי כתובות ט׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: If somebody died and left his wife, a creditor⁸⁸Who is secured by a mortgage lien on the deceased person’s real estate., and heirs, and he was owed a deposit or a debt by a third party⁸⁹Since a deposit is unsecured movable property, also the debt due to the deceased is presumed to be unsecured movable property., Rebbi Ṭarphon says, these should be given to the weakest among them. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But these should be given to the heirs for all others have to swear⁹⁰The widow who wants to receive her ketubah in cash (instead of being supported by the heirs for the rest of her life) has to swear that she did not receive anything during her husband’s lifetime. The creditor has to swear that his claim was not satisfied., only the heirs do not have to swear⁹¹Since as movable property the deposit or debt was not mortgaged, it becomes the heirs’ free property at the moment of death of the bequeather..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody died and left a wife,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the weakest in his claim⁹²In the Babli according to Rashi, the creditor of a lower ranked mortgage; according to Alfasi any creditor because he can collect only if he proves his claim. The claim of a person giving money before witnesses is very weak since he loses his money if both the borrower and his witnesses die.. For example, one lent before witnesses, the other lent on a mortgage document; it should be given to the one who lent before witnesses. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the weakest in his body⁹³The same statements are in the Babli, 84a. There, R. Joḥanan says explicitly that it should be given to the widow; his argument is buttressed by a baraita.. Think about it, if he is rich⁹⁴If the creditor is rich, even if he lent without a mortgage he does not need special protection., like those of the family Andreas. Rebbi Aḥa said, the weakest in his body and poor⁹⁵The woman has precedence only if she is poor.. As the following: They gave to a relative of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba as the weakest⁹⁶It is to be assumed that by the middle of the Third Century the common practice was to prefer R. Aqiba’s opinion over that of any of his colleagues. Nevertheless, there was a court which followed R. Ṭarphon in the interpretation of R. Joḥanan. [In the opinion of Rosh (cf. Note 102), the Gaonic decree that all ketubot have to be satisfied by movables changed practice in the Mishnah from R. Aqiba to R. Ṭarphon.]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince⁹⁷As head of the Patriarch’s court, he ordered the familiares of the Patriarch to seize what he considered assigned by an erring court. and took it away from her. Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, what was done with that poor woman? He said to him, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Was he justified in doing this⁹⁸R. Joḥanan holds that the Patriarch’s appeals court erred in reversing the lower court’s decision. It is also mentioned in the Babli, 84b, that R. Simeon ben Laqish considers following R. Ṭarphon a reversible error.? Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should we say that Rebbi Joḥanan follows his doctrine and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish his own? Since they disagree: Everybody agrees that if they⁹⁹A lower court whose judgment was appealed to the Patriarch’s court. If it is a matter of weighing the evidence, the ruling of the lower court has to stand. err in arguments, one does not reverse. In the words of the Torah¹⁰⁰An error that even school-children can detect., one reverses. Where do they disagree? If one errs in a Mishnah, for Rebbi Joḥanan says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in arguments, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in words of the Torah¹⁰¹R. Joḥanan’s position in this matter is not mentioned in the Babli; the opposing view is quoted as universally accepted in the name of Rav Sheshet and Rav Assi, Sanhedrin 6b.. What is said of the Mishnah is also said of words of the Elders^101aIn the Babli, loc. cit., Rav Pappa accepts as non-reversible error only a judicial argument rejected by the appeals court but which does not contradict existing precedents..

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing¹⁰²In Sefer Ha-iṭṭur I, 23b (Note 16), followed by Rosh 9:2, the reading is הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁפְטָרוּם מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה “Think of it, if he exempted them from swearing”, i. e., the debtor agreed to a clause in the mortgage contract which exempted the creditor from swearing to his heirs. In the version of the ms., there are additional cases when the creditor is by law exempted from swearing; for example, if the due date is later than the debtor’s death (then the debt certainly was not paid) or if the debtor before his death acknowledged the debt.? One is biblical¹⁰³Possession by the heirs is automatic by biblical law; all others have to prove their claims in court., the other is not biblical.