Rif Ketubot 53a {Ketubot 93b - 94a}

53a

{Ketubot 93b}

במאי מיפלגי
אמר שמואל כגון שנמצאת שדה אחת מהן שאינה שלו ובבעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה קא מיפלגי
ת"ק סבר מה שגבה לא גבה ובן ננס סבר מה שגבה גבה

ורב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דכולי עלמא מה שגבה לא גבה [והכא בחיישינן שמא תכסיף קא מיפלגי]
וקי"ל הכי דמה שגבה לא גבה

In what do they argue? Shmuel said {Ketubot 94a}: Such that it is discovered that one of the fields {one of the wives took in payment for the ketuba} does not belong to him, and they are arguing about the issue of about creditor of a later date who preempted {one of an earlier date} and collected. The Tanna Kamma held that who she collected is not a valid collection. And Ben Nanas held that what she collected was a valid collection.

And Rav Nachman cited Rabba bar Avuah: That all agree that what she collected was not a valid collection [and here they are arguing about where we worry lest she let {the ground} deteriorate].
And we establish as follows, that what she collected is not a valid collection.

והא דגרסינן בערכין פרק אין בערכין בענין אמר ערכי עלי וחזר ואמר ערכי עלי ולא היה בידו אלא חמש סלעים בע"ח מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה
קא חזינא לרב שרירא גאון ז"ל דכתב הכי איכא למימר ה"מ בהקדש דאין הקדש מוציא מיד הקדש אבל הדיוט מוציא מיד הדיוט
ולפיכך מה שגבה לא גבה
והני מילי במקרקעי אבל במטלטלי מה שגבה גבה דלית בהון דין קדימה משום דלית להו קלא
דאמר רבא עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו בע"ח גובה ממנו שורו וחמורו אפותיקי ומכרו אין בעל חוב גובה ממנו
מ"ט האי אית ליה קלא והאי לית ליה קלא

And this which we learn in Arachin, in perek ain baArachin, in the matter of where he said "My value upon me," and then turns around and says again "My value upon me," and he only has 5 sela in his hand, a later creditor who preempts and collects, that which he collects is valid -- we have seen to Rav Sherira Gaon, z"l, that he wrote as follows: There is to say that these words are by hekdesh {things consecrated to the Temple}, for hekdesh cannot take out of the hands of hekdesh, but a regular person can take out of the hands of another regular person, and therefore what is collected is not a valid collection.
And these words are by land, but by movable objects, what was collected was a valid collection, for there is no rule of precedence in them, for they do not have a "voice" to them {in terms of lien}. For Rava said: If someone made his servant an apoteki {designating that the person should collect specifically from here, in this case specifically the servant}, and then sold him {=sold the servant}, the creditor may collect from him {=he may collect the servant from the purchaser}. His ox or his donkey an apoteki, and then he sold it, the creditor may not collect from him. What is the reason: This has a "voice" and these do not have a "voice."

{Ketubt 94a resumes}

אמר רב הונא הני תרי אחי או תרי שותפי דאית להו דינא בהדי חד
ואזל חד מינייהו בהדיה לדינא לא מצי אידך למימר ליה את לאו בעל דברים דידי את אלא שליחותו עבד
איקלע אמימר לסורא שיילוהו כי האי גוונא מאי
א"ל

Rav Huna said: If there were two brothers or two partners who had a lawsuit against a third person, and one of them {=the partners or brothers} went with him to judgment, the other one {=the other partner} may not say to him, "you are not my litigant" {because I did not go to court with you, and thus we should have a separate trial for me}, but rather he {=the partner/brother} is made his agent.

Amemar {our gemara: Rav Nachman} visited Sura, and they asked him, "in such a situation, what?"
He said to them: