Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 14, 2022 | 讬状讟 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 100

If the widow sells items of the orphans for a loss, the sale is invalid, but if the judges do it, they have a margin of error of up to a sixth. Rashbag holds even higher than that we do not invalidate the sale of the judges, as the courts have more power than individuals – in the words of the Mishna, “If not, what is the power of the courts?” What is the law regarding a messenger who sells an orphan’s property- is it like a widow or a court? They quoted that Rav Nachman ruled like the rabbis regarding the court’s sale. But didn’t Rav Nachman say regarding court-appointed stewards (apotropos) who divided up the land of the orphans that the children cannot change the distribution when they get older because “If not, what is the power of the courts?” How is this resolved? A story is brought with Rebbi who ruled like the rabbis but Parta convinced him to change his mind and hold like Rashbag. A different version has Rebbi only considering holding like the rabbis and then Parta convinces him to rule like Rashbag. Do the two versions disagree with each other on halachic grounds (do we hold that one who makes a mistake on a ruling in the Mishna has to undo the ruling or not) or is it just a disagreement about what actually happened? When one sells an orphan’s property, whether or not it was the widow or the courts, the orphans automatically assume the guarantee for the sale. Even though Rashbag said that even if the courts err, the sale is valid, Rav Sheshet limits this to an error of half the price or double the price. Ameimar ruled that the courts who sell an orphan’s property need to announce it, in order to ensure a good price. A question is raised against Ameimar from our Mishna. Three different ukimtot are brought to explain the case in our Mishna so it would not contradict Ameimar. If the orphans have moveable items, do we sell them immediately or wait for an opportunity to get the best price? On what does it depend? There are certain women who don’t receive a ketuba – one who refused a marriage (mi’un – when she was married off by her mother/brother), one who married someone who was forbidden to her by rabbinic law and an aylonit. These women also have no rights to the produce, food, or worn out clothing.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇讬讞 讻讚讬讬谞讬谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讗诇诪谞讛

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha pertaining to the judges. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha with regard to a widow.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇讬讞 讻讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪讛 讚讬讬谞讬谉 诇讗讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讗祝 砖诇讬讞 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讚诇讚讬讚讛

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha with regard to the judges. Just as the judges have an advantage because they do not assess the value of property for their own benefit, so too, the agent also does not act for his own benefit; this is to the exclusion of a widow who sells for her own benefit.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讬讞讬讚讛 讗祝 砖诇讬讞 讬讞讬讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚专讘讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 砖诇讬讞 讻讗诇诪谞讛

Rav Shmuel, son of Bisna, said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha with regard to a widow. Just as a widow is an individual, so too the agent is an individual. This is to the exclusion of the court, which is composed of many people. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to this matter, an agent is like a widow.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜转专讜诐 转讜专诐 讻讚注转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转讜专诐 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讬诐 驻讬讞转 注砖专讛 讗讜 讛讜住讬祝 注砖专讛 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: And in what way is that case different from this case? As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:4): In the case of one who says to his agent: Go out and separate teruma, the agent separates teruma in accordance with the mind-set of the homeowner. And if he does not know the mind-set of homeowner, he separates an intermediate measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce. If he subtracted ten from the denominator and separated one-fortieth or added ten to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth of the produce, his teruma is considered teruma. If the agent is comparable to a widow, then why isn鈥檛 the halakha that the teruma that he has separated is nullified, since he did not act in accordance with the wishes of the homeowner?

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚转讜专诐 讘注讬谉 专注讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转讜专诐 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讗诪讚转讬讱 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讟注讜转讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬讟注讬

The Gemara answers: There, since there are those who separate in a miserly fashion one-sixtieth, and there are those who separate generously one-fortieth, the agent can say to his employer: I estimated you to be generous or miserly. However, here there is no logical reason for the mistake made by the agent. It is simply an error on the part of the agent, and so the owner can say to him: You ought not to have erred.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜讘讜专专讬谉 诇讛诐 讞诇拽 讬驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛

Rav Huna bar 岣nina said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna. The Gemara asks: Does Rav Na岣an not agree with the argument: What advantage is there to the power of the court? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel said: In a case of orphans who came to divide their father鈥檚 property, the court appoints a steward [apotropos] for them and selects for the orphans appropriate portions and divides the property accordingly. Afterward, once the orphans have matured, they are able to protest this division of the property. And Rav Na岣an said his own statement: Once the orphans have matured, they are not able to protest, as if they were able to do so, what advantage would there be to the power of the court? This proves that Rav Na岣an agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讟注讜 讛讗 讚诇讗 讟注讜

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The case of the mishna was one where the judges erred in their assessment, and therefore Rav Na岣an said that the sale is void in accordance with the Rabbis. However, the case of the division of property among the orphans is one where they did not err, and so he ruled in accordance with the principle of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that the court is given an advantage and the orphans are not able to protest the division.

讗讬 讚诇讗 讟注讜 讘诪讗讬 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讘专讜讞讜转

The Gemara asks: If the case is one where the judges did not err, with regard to what could the orphans protest? After all, the judges acted correctly. The Gemara answers: They can protest with regard to the locations; one of the orphans can contend that he prefers property in a different location than he was given.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 驻专讟讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻专讟讗 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 驻专讟讗 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讛讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讗转 讛诪注砖讛

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: A similar incident occurred and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis of the mishna. Perata, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If that is the case, what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reversed his ruling about the incident.

专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 诪注砖讛 讜讘讬拽砖 专讘讬 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 驻专讟讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻专讟讗 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 驻专讟讗 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 诇讗 注砖讛 专讘讬 讗转 讛诪注砖讛

Rav Dimi would teach the incident in this way, as described above. Rav Safra would teach it in this slightly altered way: There was an incident, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wished to act in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis of the mishna. Perata, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If that is the case, what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? Consequently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not take action according to the statement of the Rabbis.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: One Sage, Rav Dimi, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. And one Sage, Rav Safra, holds that if one erred in this manner the decision is not revoked. This is why, in Rav Safra鈥檚 version, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi changed his mind before issuing his ruling.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. There is no fundamental dispute between them, only a disagreement as to the details of the case. One Sage holds that the incident occurred in this way, and one Sage holds that the incident occurred in this way.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 讚讝讘讬谞讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讝讘讬谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬

Rav Yosef said: In the case of a widow who sold property to support herself or as payment of her marriage contract, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. Therefore, if she sold liened property that was then seized from the purchasers in payment of a previous debt, the buyers are entitled to be reimbursed from the property of the orphans. And so too, if the court sold property for the same purpose, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans.

驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The widow does not sell her own property, but rather she sells property from her husband鈥檚 estate to pay off his debts to her, and so clearly the guarantee rests on his properties that now belong to the orphans.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

The Gemara answers: In truth, it was not necessary for Rav Yosef to mention this with regard to the widow, as it is clear that the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. Where it was necessary for him to mention this halakha was with regard to the court. Lest you say:

讻诇 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讚注转讗 诇诪讬驻拽 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讝讘讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Everyone who buys from the court buys with the implicit understanding that the sale generates publicity, as a court sale is conducted in public with notices. The buyer could therefore think to himself that if no claimants came forward until the time of the actual purchase, then it is certain that there can be no problem with his purchase and he forgoes his property guarantee. Lest you say this, Rav Yosef teaches us that there is nevertheless a guarantee on the property, and it rests upon the orphans and not on the court.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 注讚 驻诇讙讗

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even if the judges err, the transaction is not void because of the prerogative of the court. The Gemara asks: And to what extent can they err without causing the deal to be reversed? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: Until half of the value.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诪讻专讜 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 讗讜 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

That is also taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: A court that sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid. Since he doesn鈥檛 give as an example a larger gap between the market value and the sale price, this must be the most extreme case in which the transaction is not reversed.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诪讻专讜 讘诇讗 讛讻专讝讛 谞注砖讜 讻诪讬 砖讟注讜 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讞讜讝专讬谉

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Yosef: With regard to a court that sold without an announcement, it is considered as if they erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna and their decision is reversed.

谞注砖讜 讜讚讗讬 讟注讜 讚转谞谉 砖讜诐 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜砖讜诐 讛讛拽讚砖 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讘讘拽专 讜讘注专讘

The Gemara asks: Why does Rav Yosef say that it is considered as if the court erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, when it certainly erred in this manner? As we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 21b): The assessment of the orphans is for thirty days, and the assessment for consecrated property is for sixty days, and they make announcements during the thirty and the sixty days respectively both in the morning and in the evening. The mishna states explicitly that announcements must be made. If the court did not make the announcements, it clearly erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖诇讬讞 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If all the information that I had were from that mishna, I would say that this applies to an agent but not to a court. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that even a court that sold property without making announcements has erred.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖驻讞转讜 砖转讜转 讗讜 讛讜转讬专讜 砖转讜转 诪讻专谉 讘讟诇 讛讗 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 诇讗 讘讚讗讻专讜讝

Rav Ashi raised an objection to the statement of Ameimar: The mishna teaches that the halakha with regard to the assessment of the value of a piece of property in order to sell it through the judges is as follows: In a case where they decreased the price by one-sixth of its market value or added one-sixth to its market value, their sale is void. One can see from here that if the judges sold the property for its value, their sale is valid. What, is the mishna not discussing a case where no announcement was made? Ameimar replied: No, the case under discussion is one where they did make an announcement.

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘讚讗讻专讜讝 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讘讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 注砖讜 讗讙专转 讘拽讜专转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻专讜 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讜 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: Since the last clause is referring to a case where the court made an announcement, the first clause must be referring to a case where they did not make announcements, as it teaches in the final clause: If they made a document of inspection and announced the sale publicly, then even if they sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars or property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖诪讻专讬讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rather, this should be understood differently. Actually, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where they did not make an announcement, and this is not difficult. Here, Ameimar is referring to items for which one makes an announcement, and if this was not done then the sale is void. There, the mishna is speaking of items for which one does not make announcements.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讛砖讟专讜转 注讘讚讬诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 砖诪讗 讬砖诪注讜 讜讬讘专讞讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜砖讟专讜转 砖诪讗 讬讙谞讘讜

And these are the items for which one does not make an announcement: Slaves, movable property, and contracts. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that slaves are sold without an announcement? Slaves are sold without an announcement lest they hear that they are about to be sold and escape. Why is the sale of movable property and contracts also not announced? Lest they be stolen.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘砖注讛 砖诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讻讗谉 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉

And if you wish, say instead that here Ameimar is referring to a time when one makes an announcement, while there the mishna is referring to a time when one does not make an announcement.

讚讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诇讻专讙讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇拽讘讜专讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讘诇讗 讗讻专讝转讗

When does one not make an announcement? As the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: For the purpose of paying head tax, and for payment to provide for children鈥檚 sustenance, and for burial, the court sells property inherited by orphans without an announcement because these are pressing needs. There is no time to wait for an announcement.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讗讙专转 讘拽讜专转 讘谞讛专讚注讗

And if you wish, say instead that here, Ameimar is referring to a locale where one makes an announcement, while there, the mishna is referring to a locale where one does not make an announcement, as Rav Na岣an said: They never made a document of inspection in Neharde鈥檃.

住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘拽讬讗讬 讘砖讜诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽专讜 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讗讻诇讬 谞讻住讬 讚讗讻专讝转讗

Some of the students understood from Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement that no announcements were made in Neharde鈥檃 because the Sages there were all expert in the appraisal of an article鈥檚 value. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said to them: This was explained to me personally by Rav Na岣an himself: It was because those who purchase the property are called: People who consume property that was publicly announced. This disparaging nickname was given because the purchasers were perceived as taking advantage of the distress of others by running to buy the property of someone in trouble. Since decent, honest people did not wish to buy property whose sale had been announced, they stopped making announcements.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讗诇转专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇砖讜讜拽讬诐

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Movable property that belongs to orphans is appraised and sold immediately so that it not deteriorate over time. Rav 岣sda said that Avimi said: The movable property is sold on a market day, when there are many potential buyers and the items will sell for a proper price.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚诪讬拽专讘 砖讜拽讗 讛讗 讚诪专讞拽 砖讜拽讗

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree with each other. Rather, this opinion, that the items are sold on a market day, applies when the market day is approaching, so the property is not sold immediately. That opinion, that the items are sold immediately, applies when the market day is far off.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 砖讻专讗 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专 讞讬诇拽讗讬 讬转诪讗 砖讛讬讬讛 注讚 专讬讙诇讗 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 讗讬爪爪转讗 诪讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讗 讞专讬驻讗

Rav Kahana was in possession of beer that belonged to Rav Mesharshiyya bar 岣lkai, who was an orphan. He delayed selling it until the Festival. He explained the rationale for his actions and said: Although it is possible that it may deteriorate [itzatzta] and sour a little, it nevertheless brings in money at the time of the Festival, as it will sell for a higher price and for money, not credit. Consequently, it is in the best interests of Rav Mesharshiyya bar 岣lkai to hold off and sell the beer at the next Festival.

专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 讝讜讟讬 讬转诪讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讞诪专讗 讛讜讛 拽诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇住讬讻专讗

It is also related that Ravina was in possession of wine belonging to the orphan Ravina the younger, who was his sister鈥檚 son. He also had wine of his own, which he was taking to Sikhra to sell.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讗诪讟讜讬讬 讘讛讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 注讚讬祝 诪讚讬讚讱

He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha here, am I able to bring his wine along with my wine, or must I wait for a more opportune time to sell it? He said to him: Go to Sikhra and take his wine along as well, as his is no better than yours, and if you sell your own wine in this manner, it is clear that you think this is the best way to sell, and it is permitted for you to sell his wine in this manner.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诪讗谞转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转

MISHNA: An orphan girl who was married off by her mother or brother before reaching the age of majority may refuse to continue living with her husband upon reaching the age of majority, thereby retroactively annulling their marriage. In the case of one who refuses to continue living with her husband in this manner; and in the case of a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative by rabbinic law; and in the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children, each of these women is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract; and they are not entitled to remuneration for the produce that the husband consumed; and they are not entitled to sustenance; and they are not entitled to their worn clothes that were brought in to the marriage as part of their dowry and became worn out during the marriage.

讗诐 诪转讞诇讛 谞砖讗讛 诇砖诐 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛

If, from the start, he married her with the understanding that she is an ailonit, then she is entitled to payment of a marriage contract.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 讬砖 诇讛诐 讻转讜讘讛

In the case of a widow who married a High Priest; or a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza and later married a common priest; or a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] who married an Israelite; or a Gibeonite woman who married an Israelite; or a Jewish woman who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer, although each of these unions is prohibited by Torah law, the woman is still entitled to payment of a marriage contract.

讙诪壮 专讘 转谞讬 拽讟谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪诪讗谞转

GEMARA: Rav taught that a minor girl who was married off by her mother or by her brother and who is divorced with a bill of divorce is not entitled to her marriage contract. According to Torah law, this marriage never took effect, and it was never established that in this situation she would receive a marriage contract. And all the more so, one who refuses to continue living with her husband and annuls the marriage herself is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract.

砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬 诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛

Shmuel taught that one who refuses to continue living with her husband is not entitled to her marriage contract, but one who is divorced with a bill of divorce is entitled to her marriage contract.

讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛

The Gemara notes: And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: One who refuses to continue living with her husband is not entitled to her marriage contract, but one who is divorced with a bill of divorce is entitled to her marriage contract.

诪诪讗谞转 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

Shmuel also said: One who refuses to continue living with her husband is not disqualified from marrying one of the brothers of her husband. Her refusal annuls the marriage, and it is as if it never happened. And for the same reason, unlike a divorc茅e, this girl is not disqualified from marrying a member of the priesthood. However, one who is divorced with a bill of divorce is disqualified from marrying one of the brothers and is also disqualified from marrying a member of the priesthood.

诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Another difference between a woman who refuses to continue living with her husband and a woman who was divorced normally is the following: One who refuses to continue living with her husband does not need to wait three months before remarrying, as other women who separate from their husbands must.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 99-106 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens when a court makes a mistake on the valuation of property. We will...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 100: When the Assessor Errs

The mishnah from 99 - assessments of property made by judges that may or may not be accurate. What happens...

Ketubot 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 100

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇讬讞 讻讚讬讬谞讬谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讗诇诪谞讛

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha pertaining to the judges. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha with regard to a widow.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇讬讞 讻讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪讛 讚讬讬谞讬谉 诇讗讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讗祝 砖诇讬讞 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讚诇讚讬讚讛

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha with regard to the judges. Just as the judges have an advantage because they do not assess the value of property for their own benefit, so too, the agent also does not act for his own benefit; this is to the exclusion of a widow who sells for her own benefit.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讬讞讬讚讛 讗祝 砖诇讬讞 讬讞讬讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚专讘讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 砖诇讬讞 讻讗诇诪谞讛

Rav Shmuel, son of Bisna, said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha with regard to the agent is like the halakha with regard to a widow. Just as a widow is an individual, so too the agent is an individual. This is to the exclusion of the court, which is composed of many people. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to this matter, an agent is like a widow.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜转专讜诐 转讜专诐 讻讚注转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转讜专诐 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讬诐 驻讬讞转 注砖专讛 讗讜 讛讜住讬祝 注砖专讛 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: And in what way is that case different from this case? As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:4): In the case of one who says to his agent: Go out and separate teruma, the agent separates teruma in accordance with the mind-set of the homeowner. And if he does not know the mind-set of homeowner, he separates an intermediate measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce. If he subtracted ten from the denominator and separated one-fortieth or added ten to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth of the produce, his teruma is considered teruma. If the agent is comparable to a widow, then why isn鈥檛 the halakha that the teruma that he has separated is nullified, since he did not act in accordance with the wishes of the homeowner?

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚转讜专诐 讘注讬谉 专注讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转讜专诐 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讗诪讚转讬讱 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讟注讜转讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬讟注讬

The Gemara answers: There, since there are those who separate in a miserly fashion one-sixtieth, and there are those who separate generously one-fortieth, the agent can say to his employer: I estimated you to be generous or miserly. However, here there is no logical reason for the mistake made by the agent. It is simply an error on the part of the agent, and so the owner can say to him: You ought not to have erred.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜讘讜专专讬谉 诇讛诐 讞诇拽 讬驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛

Rav Huna bar 岣nina said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna. The Gemara asks: Does Rav Na岣an not agree with the argument: What advantage is there to the power of the court? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel said: In a case of orphans who came to divide their father鈥檚 property, the court appoints a steward [apotropos] for them and selects for the orphans appropriate portions and divides the property accordingly. Afterward, once the orphans have matured, they are able to protest this division of the property. And Rav Na岣an said his own statement: Once the orphans have matured, they are not able to protest, as if they were able to do so, what advantage would there be to the power of the court? This proves that Rav Na岣an agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讟注讜 讛讗 讚诇讗 讟注讜

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The case of the mishna was one where the judges erred in their assessment, and therefore Rav Na岣an said that the sale is void in accordance with the Rabbis. However, the case of the division of property among the orphans is one where they did not err, and so he ruled in accordance with the principle of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that the court is given an advantage and the orphans are not able to protest the division.

讗讬 讚诇讗 讟注讜 讘诪讗讬 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讘专讜讞讜转

The Gemara asks: If the case is one where the judges did not err, with regard to what could the orphans protest? After all, the judges acted correctly. The Gemara answers: They can protest with regard to the locations; one of the orphans can contend that he prefers property in a different location than he was given.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 驻专讟讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻专讟讗 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 驻专讟讗 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讛讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讗转 讛诪注砖讛

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: A similar incident occurred and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis of the mishna. Perata, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If that is the case, what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reversed his ruling about the incident.

专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 诪注砖讛 讜讘讬拽砖 专讘讬 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 驻专讟讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻专讟讗 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 驻专讟讗 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 诇讗 注砖讛 专讘讬 讗转 讛诪注砖讛

Rav Dimi would teach the incident in this way, as described above. Rav Safra would teach it in this slightly altered way: There was an incident, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wished to act in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis of the mishna. Perata, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If that is the case, what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? Consequently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not take action according to the statement of the Rabbis.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: One Sage, Rav Dimi, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. And one Sage, Rav Safra, holds that if one erred in this manner the decision is not revoked. This is why, in Rav Safra鈥檚 version, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi changed his mind before issuing his ruling.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. There is no fundamental dispute between them, only a disagreement as to the details of the case. One Sage holds that the incident occurred in this way, and one Sage holds that the incident occurred in this way.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 讚讝讘讬谞讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讝讘讬谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬

Rav Yosef said: In the case of a widow who sold property to support herself or as payment of her marriage contract, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. Therefore, if she sold liened property that was then seized from the purchasers in payment of a previous debt, the buyers are entitled to be reimbursed from the property of the orphans. And so too, if the court sold property for the same purpose, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans.

驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The widow does not sell her own property, but rather she sells property from her husband鈥檚 estate to pay off his debts to her, and so clearly the guarantee rests on his properties that now belong to the orphans.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

The Gemara answers: In truth, it was not necessary for Rav Yosef to mention this with regard to the widow, as it is clear that the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. Where it was necessary for him to mention this halakha was with regard to the court. Lest you say:

讻诇 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讚注转讗 诇诪讬驻拽 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讝讘讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Everyone who buys from the court buys with the implicit understanding that the sale generates publicity, as a court sale is conducted in public with notices. The buyer could therefore think to himself that if no claimants came forward until the time of the actual purchase, then it is certain that there can be no problem with his purchase and he forgoes his property guarantee. Lest you say this, Rav Yosef teaches us that there is nevertheless a guarantee on the property, and it rests upon the orphans and not on the court.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 注讚 驻诇讙讗

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even if the judges err, the transaction is not void because of the prerogative of the court. The Gemara asks: And to what extent can they err without causing the deal to be reversed? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: Until half of the value.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诪讻专讜 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 讗讜 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

That is also taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: A court that sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid. Since he doesn鈥檛 give as an example a larger gap between the market value and the sale price, this must be the most extreme case in which the transaction is not reversed.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诪讻专讜 讘诇讗 讛讻专讝讛 谞注砖讜 讻诪讬 砖讟注讜 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讞讜讝专讬谉

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Yosef: With regard to a court that sold without an announcement, it is considered as if they erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna and their decision is reversed.

谞注砖讜 讜讚讗讬 讟注讜 讚转谞谉 砖讜诐 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜砖讜诐 讛讛拽讚砖 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讘讘拽专 讜讘注专讘

The Gemara asks: Why does Rav Yosef say that it is considered as if the court erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, when it certainly erred in this manner? As we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 21b): The assessment of the orphans is for thirty days, and the assessment for consecrated property is for sixty days, and they make announcements during the thirty and the sixty days respectively both in the morning and in the evening. The mishna states explicitly that announcements must be made. If the court did not make the announcements, it clearly erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖诇讬讞 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If all the information that I had were from that mishna, I would say that this applies to an agent but not to a court. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that even a court that sold property without making announcements has erred.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖驻讞转讜 砖转讜转 讗讜 讛讜转讬专讜 砖转讜转 诪讻专谉 讘讟诇 讛讗 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 诇讗 讘讚讗讻专讜讝

Rav Ashi raised an objection to the statement of Ameimar: The mishna teaches that the halakha with regard to the assessment of the value of a piece of property in order to sell it through the judges is as follows: In a case where they decreased the price by one-sixth of its market value or added one-sixth to its market value, their sale is void. One can see from here that if the judges sold the property for its value, their sale is valid. What, is the mishna not discussing a case where no announcement was made? Ameimar replied: No, the case under discussion is one where they did make an announcement.

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘讚讗讻专讜讝 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讘讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 注砖讜 讗讙专转 讘拽讜专转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻专讜 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讜 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: Since the last clause is referring to a case where the court made an announcement, the first clause must be referring to a case where they did not make announcements, as it teaches in the final clause: If they made a document of inspection and announced the sale publicly, then even if they sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars or property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖诪讻专讬讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rather, this should be understood differently. Actually, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where they did not make an announcement, and this is not difficult. Here, Ameimar is referring to items for which one makes an announcement, and if this was not done then the sale is void. There, the mishna is speaking of items for which one does not make announcements.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讛砖讟专讜转 注讘讚讬诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 砖诪讗 讬砖诪注讜 讜讬讘专讞讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜砖讟专讜转 砖诪讗 讬讙谞讘讜

And these are the items for which one does not make an announcement: Slaves, movable property, and contracts. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that slaves are sold without an announcement? Slaves are sold without an announcement lest they hear that they are about to be sold and escape. Why is the sale of movable property and contracts also not announced? Lest they be stolen.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘砖注讛 砖诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讻讗谉 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉

And if you wish, say instead that here Ameimar is referring to a time when one makes an announcement, while there the mishna is referring to a time when one does not make an announcement.

讚讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诇讻专讙讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇拽讘讜专讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讘诇讗 讗讻专讝转讗

When does one not make an announcement? As the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: For the purpose of paying head tax, and for payment to provide for children鈥檚 sustenance, and for burial, the court sells property inherited by orphans without an announcement because these are pressing needs. There is no time to wait for an announcement.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讗讙专转 讘拽讜专转 讘谞讛专讚注讗

And if you wish, say instead that here, Ameimar is referring to a locale where one makes an announcement, while there, the mishna is referring to a locale where one does not make an announcement, as Rav Na岣an said: They never made a document of inspection in Neharde鈥檃.

住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘拽讬讗讬 讘砖讜诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽专讜 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讗讻诇讬 谞讻住讬 讚讗讻专讝转讗

Some of the students understood from Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement that no announcements were made in Neharde鈥檃 because the Sages there were all expert in the appraisal of an article鈥檚 value. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said to them: This was explained to me personally by Rav Na岣an himself: It was because those who purchase the property are called: People who consume property that was publicly announced. This disparaging nickname was given because the purchasers were perceived as taking advantage of the distress of others by running to buy the property of someone in trouble. Since decent, honest people did not wish to buy property whose sale had been announced, they stopped making announcements.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讗诇转专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇砖讜讜拽讬诐

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Movable property that belongs to orphans is appraised and sold immediately so that it not deteriorate over time. Rav 岣sda said that Avimi said: The movable property is sold on a market day, when there are many potential buyers and the items will sell for a proper price.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚诪讬拽专讘 砖讜拽讗 讛讗 讚诪专讞拽 砖讜拽讗

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree with each other. Rather, this opinion, that the items are sold on a market day, applies when the market day is approaching, so the property is not sold immediately. That opinion, that the items are sold immediately, applies when the market day is far off.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 砖讻专讗 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专 讞讬诇拽讗讬 讬转诪讗 砖讛讬讬讛 注讚 专讬讙诇讗 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 讗讬爪爪转讗 诪讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讗 讞专讬驻讗

Rav Kahana was in possession of beer that belonged to Rav Mesharshiyya bar 岣lkai, who was an orphan. He delayed selling it until the Festival. He explained the rationale for his actions and said: Although it is possible that it may deteriorate [itzatzta] and sour a little, it nevertheless brings in money at the time of the Festival, as it will sell for a higher price and for money, not credit. Consequently, it is in the best interests of Rav Mesharshiyya bar 岣lkai to hold off and sell the beer at the next Festival.

专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 讝讜讟讬 讬转诪讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讞诪专讗 讛讜讛 拽诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇住讬讻专讗

It is also related that Ravina was in possession of wine belonging to the orphan Ravina the younger, who was his sister鈥檚 son. He also had wine of his own, which he was taking to Sikhra to sell.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讗诪讟讜讬讬 讘讛讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 注讚讬祝 诪讚讬讚讱

He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha here, am I able to bring his wine along with my wine, or must I wait for a more opportune time to sell it? He said to him: Go to Sikhra and take his wine along as well, as his is no better than yours, and if you sell your own wine in this manner, it is clear that you think this is the best way to sell, and it is permitted for you to sell his wine in this manner.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诪讗谞转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转

MISHNA: An orphan girl who was married off by her mother or brother before reaching the age of majority may refuse to continue living with her husband upon reaching the age of majority, thereby retroactively annulling their marriage. In the case of one who refuses to continue living with her husband in this manner; and in the case of a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative by rabbinic law; and in the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children, each of these women is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract; and they are not entitled to remuneration for the produce that the husband consumed; and they are not entitled to sustenance; and they are not entitled to their worn clothes that were brought in to the marriage as part of their dowry and became worn out during the marriage.

讗诐 诪转讞诇讛 谞砖讗讛 诇砖诐 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛

If, from the start, he married her with the understanding that she is an ailonit, then she is entitled to payment of a marriage contract.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 讬砖 诇讛诐 讻转讜讘讛

In the case of a widow who married a High Priest; or a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza and later married a common priest; or a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] who married an Israelite; or a Gibeonite woman who married an Israelite; or a Jewish woman who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer, although each of these unions is prohibited by Torah law, the woman is still entitled to payment of a marriage contract.

讙诪壮 专讘 转谞讬 拽讟谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪诪讗谞转

GEMARA: Rav taught that a minor girl who was married off by her mother or by her brother and who is divorced with a bill of divorce is not entitled to her marriage contract. According to Torah law, this marriage never took effect, and it was never established that in this situation she would receive a marriage contract. And all the more so, one who refuses to continue living with her husband and annuls the marriage herself is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract.

砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬 诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛

Shmuel taught that one who refuses to continue living with her husband is not entitled to her marriage contract, but one who is divorced with a bill of divorce is entitled to her marriage contract.

讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛

The Gemara notes: And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: One who refuses to continue living with her husband is not entitled to her marriage contract, but one who is divorced with a bill of divorce is entitled to her marriage contract.

诪诪讗谞转 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

Shmuel also said: One who refuses to continue living with her husband is not disqualified from marrying one of the brothers of her husband. Her refusal annuls the marriage, and it is as if it never happened. And for the same reason, unlike a divorc茅e, this girl is not disqualified from marrying a member of the priesthood. However, one who is divorced with a bill of divorce is disqualified from marrying one of the brothers and is also disqualified from marrying a member of the priesthood.

诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Another difference between a woman who refuses to continue living with her husband and a woman who was divorced normally is the following: One who refuses to continue living with her husband does not need to wait three months before remarrying, as other women who separate from their husbands must.

Scroll To Top