Study Ketubot folio 84A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
וסבר רב תנאו קיים? והא איתמר: האומר לחבירו על מנת שאין לך עלי אונאה, רב אמר: יש לו עליו אונאה. ושמואל אמר: אין לו עליו אונאה.
The Talmud asks: And does Rav actually hold that if one stipulates counter to Torah law, his condition is valid? But it was stated: One who says to another: I am selling this to you on the condition that you have no claim of fraud against me, i.e., though there is a prohibition against fraud by Torah law, the purchaser agrees to forgo his right to register a complaint on this basis. Rav said: He does have the right to a claim of fraud against him, and therefore the seller must reimburse the purchaser, as he cannot abrogate the Torah prohibition “And you should not wrong one another” (Leviticus 25:17). And Shmuel said: He does not have the right to a claim of fraud against him. It is evident from here that according to Rav, one cannot make a stipulation that contradicts Torah law.
אלא: הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר: המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה — תנאו בטל, ולאו מטעמיה, דאילו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבר: מתה — יירשנה, ורב סבר: מתה — לא יירשנה.
Rather, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: One who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void, but not because of his line of reasoning. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if the wife died, he inherits from her, and Rav holds that if she died he does not inherit from her.
האי מטעמיה ולא כהילכתיה הוא!
The Talmud asks: If this is what Rav meant, he should have said the opposite of what he said. This statement would be because of his line of reasoning but not in accordance with his halakha, whereas Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel but not because of his line of reasoning.