Kiddushin, Daf Mem Bet, Part 3

 

Introduction

Having mentioned the topic of orphans that divide their father s property, the Talmud now dives deeper into the subject.

 

א"ר נחמן אמר שמואל יתומים שבאו לחלוק בנכסי אביהם בית דין מעמידים להם אפוטרופוס ובוררים להם חלק יפה ואם הגדילו יכולים למחות ורב נחמן דידיה אמר אם הגדילו אינם יכולים למחות דא"כ מה כח בית דין יפה

 

R. Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: When orphans come to divide their father s estate, the court appoints a guardian for them, and they select a fair portion for each [orphan]. And when they grow up, they can protest against [the division].

R. Nahman himself said: When they grow up they cannot protest, for if so, how strong is the court s authority.

 

All rabbis agree that the guardian can choose which part of the inheritance the orphan receives. The argument is over whether the orphan can protest against the choice once the child reaches majority age. Shmuel says that he may, while R. Nahman says that he may not.

 

ומי אית ליה לרב נחמן אם כן מה כח בית דין יפה והתנן שום הדיינים שפיחתו שתות או הותירו שתות מכרן בטל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מכרן קיים (ואמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל) א"כ מה כח ב"ד יפה ואמר רב הונא בר חיננא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כדברי חכמים

 

Now, does then R. Nahman agree [with this principle,] if so, how strong is the court s authority.

But have we not learned: If the judges evaluation was one sixth too little or one sixth too much, their sale is null. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: Their sale is valid, [for] otherwise, how strong is the court s authority? And R. Huna b. Hinena said in the name of R. Nahman: The halachah is in accordance with the Sages!

 

In another source, R. Nahman does not seem to worry about the authority of the court in making evaluations. This source deals with a court that evaluates property to be sold. According to R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, even if the court s assessment deviates by 1/6, which is the standard level of accepted deviation, the sale is valid. In other words, the court s authority is greater than that of an individual. However, R. Nahman rules with the sages, who say the court has the same authority as an individual. This seems to contradict his view in our case.

 

לא קשיא הא דטעו הא דלא טעו

 

There is no difficulty: In the one case, they [the judges] erred; in the other, they did not err.

 

In the case of the orphans, the judges did not err. Therefore, the guardian s allotment of the property cannot be undone. But in the case of the court, the court made a mistake.

 

אי דלא טעו מאי יכולים למחות יכולים למחות ברוחות

 

If they did not err, what does it mean [the orphans] may protest ? They may protest against the directions.

 

If there was no error in the case of the guardians, then what are the orphans protesting against, such that their protest is not accepted. The answer is they received the right amount of property but just do not like the location.

Thus R. Nahman says that when the court makes a real error in assessment, their decision can be undone. But if there is no error, and the person simply does not like their decision, the decision cannot be undone.