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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 18, 2022 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืชืฉืจื™ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • 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 104

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jessica Shklar in honor of her sister, Hadran stalwart Ruth Leah Kahan. “In appreciation for hosting my boys and their miscellaneous friends who have been visiting Israel over the last few months. Thank you for giving them a home.”

As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was about to die, the rabbis decreed a fast, prayed for his recovery, and declared that anyone who says Rebbi died will be stabbed by a sword. His maidservant realized at a certain point that Rebbi was suffering terribly so she threw a jug from the roof to distract them from the prayers and as soon as they stopped praying for a moment Rebbi died. How did they declare his death if they had forbidden people from saying he was dead? What were Rebbi’s final words and how was he accepted in the heavens? How are the righteous greeted by the angels in heaven and what about evil people? The Mishna discusses a widow’s ability to receive the money of her ketuba after twenty-five years. Can she still demand it? According to Rabbi Meir, if she was living the whole time in her husband’s house then after twenty-five years she can no longer get her ketuba. According to the rabbis, it is an issue only if she is living in her father’s house. What is the logic of each position? Difficulties are raised against each position and are resolved. Rav and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the rabbi’s position – is it that she has a ketuba in hand or only if she does not have a ketuba? Two difficulties are raised against Rav’s position (that she does not have a ketuba) but are resolved. A braita is brought to support Rav’s position. Another question is raised about the debate in the Mishna – is it referring to the whole ketuba or only to the main part of the ketuba? A story is told of a woman whose brother-in-law no longer wanted to pay for her food or ketuba as twenty-five years had passed. She succeeds in getting a court ruling to collect her ketuba but as he refuses to fulfill the court order, the story drags on and she tries to claim proceeds from the land from the time of the ruling in her favor to now and although she tries to bring good halachic arguments, the court brings counter-arguments and awards her only the ketuba, but not the proceeds.

ื“ืžื“ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืกื™ื ืื•ื™ืจื

which is situated at a high altitude and whose air is scented.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ื“ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ื–ืจื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืขื ื™ืชื ื•ื‘ืขื• ืจื—ืžื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ื›ืœ ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื“ืงืจ ื‘ื—ืจื‘

ยง It is related that on the day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the Sages decreed a fast, and begged for divine mercy so that he would not die. And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has died will be stabbed with a sword.

ืกืœื™ืงื ืืžืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืœืื™ื’ืจื ืืžืจื” ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืคื• ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ืื™ ื›ืžื” ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ื“ืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืกื ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื ื— ืœื”ื• ื•ืงืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืืžืจื” ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืคื• ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื

The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds.

ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืฉืชืงื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืœืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ืžื™ ืฉืงืœื” ื›ื•ื–ื ืฉื“ื™ื™ื ืžืื™ื’ืจื [ืœืืจืขื] ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื• ืžืจื—ืžื™ ื•ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™

And the Sages, meanwhile, would not be silent, i.e., they would not refrain, from begging for mercy so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not die. So she took a jug [kuza] and threw it from the roof to the ground. Due to the sudden noise, the Sages were momentarily silent and refrained from begging for mercy, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ื–ื™ืœ ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืื–ืœ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื“ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืงืจืขื™ื” ืœืœื‘ื•ืฉื™ื” ื•ืื”ื“ืจื™ื” ืœืงืจืขื™ื” ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ื” ืคืชื— ื•ืืžืจ ืืจืืœื™ื ื•ืžืฆื•ืงื™ื ืื—ื–ื• ื‘ืืจื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื ืฆื—ื• ืืจืืœื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฆื•ืงื™ื ื•ื ืฉื‘ื” ืืจื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืชื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจื™ืชื• ื•ืื ื ืœื ืงืืžื™ื ื

The Sages said to bar Kappara: Go and ascertain the condition of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He went and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died. He tore his clothing and reversed them so that the tear would be behind him and not be noticed. When he returned to the Sages he opened his remarks and said: The angels [erelim] and righteous mortals [metzukim] both clutched the sacred ark. The angels triumphed over the righteous, and the sacred ark was captured. They said to him: Has he died? He said to them: You have said it and I did not say it, as it had been decided that no one should say that he died.

ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคื˜ื™ืจืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืงืฃ ืขืฉืจ ืืฆื‘ืขื•ืชื™ื• ื›ืœืคื™ ืžืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ื’ืœื•ื™ ื•ื™ื“ื•ืข ืœืคื ื™ืš ืฉื™ื’ืขืชื™ ื‘ืขืฉืจ ืืฆื‘ืขื•ืชื™ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ื ื”ื ื™ืชื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืืฆื‘ืข ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืžืœืคื ื™ืš ืฉื™ื”ื ืฉืœื•ื ื‘ืžื ื•ื—ืชื™ ื™ืฆืชื” ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ื™ื‘ื ืฉืœื•ื ื™ื ื•ื—ื• ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื•ืชื

It is further related: At the time of the death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he raised his ten fingers toward Heaven and said in prayer: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that I toiled with my ten fingers in the Torah, and I have not derived any benefit from the world even with my small finger. May it be Your will that there be peace in my repose. A Divine Voice emerged and said: โ€œHe enters in peace, they rest in their bedsโ€ (Isaiah 57:2).

ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ืžื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ืžื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ืฆื“ื™ืง ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื• ืœืงืจืืชื• ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ื™ื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื™ื ื•ื—ื• ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื•ืชื

The Gemara asks: Why does it say: โ€œThey rest in their beds,โ€ in the plural? It should have said: In your bed, in the singular, as the beginning of the verse is phrased in the singular. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Gamda. As Rabbi แธคiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, the ministering angels say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the righteous individual so-and-so is coming. The Holy One, Blessed be He, then says to them: The righteous should come forth and they should go out toward him. And the righteous say to the newly deceased individual: He enters in peace, and subsequently, the righteous rest in their beds.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื™ืชื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ืœืงืจืืชื• ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ื”ื•ืœืš ื ื›ื—ื• ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ื™ื‘ื ืฉืœื•ื ื™ื ื•ื—ื• ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื•ืชื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืจืฉืข ื ืื‘ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื™ืชื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืœืื›ื™ ื—ื‘ืœื” ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ืœืงืจืืชื• ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืœืจืฉืขื™ื ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ืœืžืขืฆื‘ื” ื™ืฉื›ื‘ ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ืจื“ื” ื•ื”ืฉื›ื‘ื” ืืช ืขืจืœื™ื

Rabbi Elazar said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, three contingents of ministering angels go out toward him. One says to him: Enter in peace; and one says to him: Each one that walks in his uprightness; and one says to him: He enters in peace, they rest in their beds. At the time when a wicked person perishes from the world, three contingents of angels of destruction go out toward him. One says to him: โ€œThere is no peace, says the Lord concerning the wickedโ€ (Isaiah 48:22); and one says to him: โ€œYou shall lie down in sorrowโ€ (Isaiah 50:11); and one says to him: โ€œGo down, and be laid with the uncircumcisedโ€ (Ezekiel 32:19).

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ

MISHNA: As long as a widow is living in the house of her father and is being supported by her husbandโ€™s heirs, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, even after many years. As long as she is living in the house of her husband, she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, at which point she may no longer collect the payment. This is because there is enough time in twenty-five years for her to do favors and give to others, thereby spending the resources of the orphans, until what she has spent equals the value of her marriage contract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

And the Rabbis say the opposite: As long as she is residing in the house of her husband she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, since during this time the heirs are caring for her and she is therefore embarrassed to sue them for payment of her marriage contract. However, as long as she is in the house of her father she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, and if by then she has not sued for it, it is assumed that she has waived her rights to it.

ืžืชื” ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ื” ืžื–ื›ื™ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

If she died, her heirs mention her marriage contract up until twenty-five years later.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืขื ื™ื™ื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืžืจืชื ื‘ืช ื‘ื™ื™ืชื•ืก ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

GEMARA: The mishna stated that according to Rabbi Meir, over a period of twenty-five years a woman will spend a sum equal to her marriage contract from the resources of the orphans. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it true that the poorest woman among the Jewish people, whose marriage contract is of minimal value, will not spend this amount until twenty-five years have passed, and Marta bat Baitos, who was very wealthy and whose marriage contract was worth a huge sum, will also spend a sum equal to her marriage contract within twenty-five years?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืคื•ื ื’ืžืœื ืฉื™ื—ื ื

He said to him: According to the camel is the load, i.e., a wealthy woman, whose marriage contract is of greater value, will spend more money over a particular period of time than a poor woman, whose marriage contract is of lesser value.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืฉืœืฉ ืชื™ืงื•

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Meir, the amount of benefit she gains is determined by the years that have passed. If so, what is the halakha with regard to whether she divides the value of her marriage contract in accordance with the number of years that have gone by, such that if some of the twenty-five years passed, she forfeits the proportionate value of her marriage contract? No answer was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืชืื™ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ืœื ื’ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืคื•ืจืชื ืื—ื™ืœืชื

ยง We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: As long as she is in her husbandโ€™s house she may collect payment of her marriage contract at any time, but while she is in her fatherโ€™s house she may collect it only within twenty-five years. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If she came before the setting of the sun at the end of the twenty-five-year period, she collects payment of her marriage contract, but if she came after the setting of the sun she may not collect it? In that slight period of time did she waive her rights to the payment of her marriage contract?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžื“ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื˜ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื—ืกืจ ืงื•ืจื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ

He said to him: Yes. All the measures of the Sages that prescribe specific parameters or sizes are such that if one oversteps the fixed limits, he has not accomplished anything as far as the halakha is considered. Consequently, in a ritual bath containing forty seโ€™a of water, one may immerse and become ritually pure. However, in a ritual bath containing forty seโ€™a less one kortov, a small amount, he is unable to immerse therein and become ritually pure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื™ื ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืœื ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said in the name of his father, Rabbi Yosei: They taught all of the above only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, such as in a locale where the custom is not to write a marriage contract, but in a situation where she does have a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And Rabbi Elazar said: Even if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she still collects payment of her marriage contract only within twenty-five years after the death of her husband.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื”ื–ื›ืจื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ื ืงื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ื‘ืžืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืืœื ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืื—ื•ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืืœืžื ื” ืื—ื™ืœืชื

Rav Sheshet raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, based upon the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): A creditor may collect the money he is owed even after a long time has passed without his having mentioned the debt. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If he does not hold the document that records the debt, with what is he collecting the debt? Rather, it must be that he does hold the document. It can be inferred that even so, it is specifically a creditor, who it could be assumed is not one to have forgiven his debt, who may continue to collect the debt after a long period of time. But a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to the payment of her marriage contract even if she has the marriage contract in her possession. This conclusion contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.

ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืคืจืง ืœื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืœื ื ืงื™ื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื•ื“ื”

The Gemara states that Rav Sheshet raised the objection and he resolved it: Actually, the case in the Tosefta is where the creditor does not hold a document that records the debt, and the reason he may collect the debt is because here we are dealing with a case where the debtor admits that he owes the creditor money. Consequently, it cannot be proven from this case that a widow who has a marriage contract in her possession is unable to collect its payment.

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืฉื•ื ื™ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืžืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืช ืื—ื•ืœื™ ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืืœืžื ื” ืื—ื™ืœืชื

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t Rabbi Ela say: The Sages teach in a baraita: A divorcรฉe is like a creditor and may collect her marriage contract after a long period of time even if she has not made mention of it during the course of that time? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If she does not hold a marriage contract in her possession, with what is she collecting payment? Rather, is it not that she holds a marriage contract in her possession, and it is a divorcรฉe who may collect under these circumstances, as she is not one who could be assumed to have waived the rights to the payment owed to her, as she does not maintain a relationship with the family that would prompt her to waive the rights to her claims? But a widow is likely to waive the rights to her claim, even though she is in possession of a contract.

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื•ื“ื”

The Gemara answers: Here too, the case is one where the debtor, i.e., the husband, admits to owing the divorcรฉe payment for her marriage contract, although she does not have the marriage contract in her possession.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ืงื–ื ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืงื–ื ืชื‘ืขื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Rav Yehuda bar Kaza teaches in a baraita of the school of bar Kaza: If the widow demanded payment of her marriage contract,

ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื

it is as though she is at the beginning of her period of widowhood, and she has another twenty-five years from that point during which she may demand payment of her marriage contract. And if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever.

ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื›ืฉืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืื• ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืžื™

The Gemara relates that Rav Naแธฅman, son of Rav แธคisda, sent the following message to Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov: Our teacher, instruct us. Does the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis apply in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, or does it apply only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession? And in accordance with the statement of whom is the halakha decided?

ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov sent back this answer to him: When she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, there is a dispute, but in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, all agree that she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And in a case where there is a dispute, the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืชื•ืกืคืช ื™ืฉ ืœื”

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited a dispute: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: They taught that a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract after twenty-five years only with regard to one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, which constitute the principal payment of the marriage contract. However, she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื•ืกืคืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื™ื‘ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ืžื™

And Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: She does not have the right to demand payment even of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract, as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The stipulation of an additional sum in the marriage contract is like the principal sum of the marriage contract. Consequently, if she waived her rights to the principal sum of the marriage contract, she has waived her rights to the additional sum as well.

ืืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืชื•ืกืคืช ื™ืฉ ืœื”

It was also stated that other amoraโ€™im debated this matter: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that she is considered as having waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract only with regard to the principal payment of one hundred or two hundred dinars, but she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงืŸ ืงืืžืจืช ืื• ืืฉืงื™ื™ืŸ ืงืืžืจืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงืŸ ืงืืžื™ื ื

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Did Rav really say so? Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: Did you say that in order to silence me, because you disagree with this ruling? Or did you say that because you are so satisfied with this ruling that you would like to give me wine to drink? Rabbi Abba said to him: I said that in order to silence you. This indicates that Rabbi Abba disagrees with Rav and accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan on this issue.

ื—ืžืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืจื™ื›ื ืื™ื ืชืช ืื—ื•ื” ื”ื•ืื™ ื•ืืœืžื ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ ื•ื–ื ื” ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื

ยง The Gemara relates that the mother-in-law of Rav แธคiyya Arikha, so named because of his height, as the word arikha literally means long, was also the wife of his brother, and she was a widow who resided in the house of her father, and Rav แธคiyya sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, from his brotherโ€™s estate.

ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื™ืช ืœืš ื•ืœื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืื™ืช ืœืš

At the end of the twenty-five years, she said to him: Give me my sustenance. He said to her: You do not have the right to continue to demand sustenance. She said to him: In that case, give me the payment of my marriage contract. He said to her: After twenty-five years, you have no right to demand sustenance and you have no right to demand payment of your marriage contract.

ืชื‘ืขืชื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื™ ื’ื•ืคื ื“ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื ื™ืชื” ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื“ืžืจ ื“ื‘ื›ืชืคืื™ ืืžื˜ืื™ ืœื”

She summoned him for judgment before Rabba bar Sheila. He said to Rav แธคiyya Arikha: Tell me, then, what was the essence of the case? Rav แธคiyya Arikha said to him: I sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, and I swear by the life of the Master, i.e., by your life, that I delivered her sustenance to her regularly on my own shoulders.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืชื‘ืขื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืชื‘ืขื” ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื‘ ืœื”

Rabba bar Sheila said to him: What is the reason that the Sages said that as long as the widow is in the house of her husband, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract? It is because we say that it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, because she is in her husbandโ€™s house and his heirs are treating her well. Here too, in this case, it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, as you treated her with great respect despite the fact that she was living in her fatherโ€™s house. Therefore, go and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

ืœื ืืฉื’ื— ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืื ื™ื›ืกื™ื” ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ื™ ืžืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ื ืš

Rav แธคiyya Arikha did not heed the ruling of Rabba bar Sheila and did not give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabba bar Sheila wrote an authorization for her to seize his property in payment of the debt. Rav แธคiyya Arikha came before Rava, and he said to him: Let the Master see how Rabba bar Sheila has judged me. Rava said to him: He has judged you well.

ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืœื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ ืคื™ืจื™ ื“ืžืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ืขื“ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื—ื•ื™ ืœื™ ืื“ืจื›ืชื™ืš ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืฉืชืžื•ื“ืขื ื ื“ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืœื• ื“ืžื™ืชื ื ืื™ื ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืœืื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื

The woman said to Rava: If so, he should go and return to me the produce that has grown on the property that I have a right to receive as payment, from that day that I received authorization to seize his property until today. He said to her: Show me your document of authorization. He saw that it was not written in it: And it is known to us that these properties are from the estate of the deceased. Rava said to her: The authorization is not written well. Consequently, the property is not considered as though it were yours from the time that the authorization was written, and you do not have a right to the produce.

ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžื™ื•ืžื ื“ืฉืœื™ืžื™ ื™ื•ืžื ืื›ืจื–ืชื ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ืขื•ืชื ื‘ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ืขื•ืชื ื‘ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

She said to him: Let the authorization go, i.e., even if I have no right to the produce that grew from the time the authorization was written, I should have the right to take the produce that grew from the time when the days of announcement were completed, after the court assessed the value of the property, until now. He said to her: This applies only in a case where there was no error written into the authorization, but where there was an error written into the authorization, we have no right to collect the debt with it. You therefore have no rights to any of the produce.

ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื˜ืขื•ืช ืกื•ืคืจ ื”ื•ื

She said to him: But wasnโ€™t it you, Master, who said that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error, and it is considered as though the guarantee were written in the document? Here too, say that the omission of the above clause is regarded as a scribal error and is considered as though it were written in the authorization.

ืืžืจ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืกื•ืคืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ื‘ื”ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ื˜ืขื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื ืกื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื”ื ื™ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื”ื ื™

Rava said to her: In this case, it cannot be said that the clause was meant to be included in the document and it was left out due to a scribal error, because in this case even Rabba bar Sheila erred and thought that the clause should not be included. Initially, Rabba bar Sheila thought as follows: Since these properties that always belonged to Rav แธคiyya Arikha and those properties that had belonged to his deceased brother are all his, i.e., Rav แธคiyya Arikhaโ€™s, as he inherited his brotherโ€™s property, what difference does it make to me if she collects from these properties, and what difference does it make to me if she collects from those properties? Although only the property of her deceased husband is liened for the payment of her marriage contract, it should not really matter whether she collects from this property or from other property belonging to the heir.

ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืื–ืœื” ื•ืžืฉื‘ื—ื” ืœื”ื• ื•ื“ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื›ืกืคื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ืฉืงื™ืœ ื“ื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืืชื™ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืœืขื– ืขืœ ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื

Rava continues: But that is not so. Sometimes the widow will go and improve the property of the heir, thinking that she will receive her payment from it, and the property of her deceased husband will depreciate due to neglect on the part of the heir, who knows that it is this property that is liened to ensure payment of the widowโ€™s marriage contract. And eventually, the heir will say to her: Take your property, i.e., the property that belonged to your husband, and give me my property. And people will come to cast aspersion on the court as not being concerned for the welfare of the woman, who will be left with the depreciated property. Consequently, the document of authorization to seize property must specify exactly which property belonged to the widowโ€™s deceased husband, which she is entitled to collect. Since Rabba bar Sheila erred and did not write this specification, the document of authorization he wrote was useless.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื ื•ืฉื

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ืฉืœื•ื ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืžื™ ืฉื”ืœืš ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื•ืืฉืชื• ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ

MISHNA: There were two prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem, Admon and แธคanan ben Avishalom. แธคanan states two matters about which the Sages disagreed; Admon states seven. The mishna elaborates: With regard to the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, claiming that her husband left her without funds and she is seeking a ruling that would provide for her from her husbandโ€™s property, แธคanan says:

  • 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 104: Praying for an End to Suffering

More on R. Yehudah HaNasi, his illness, the prayers on his behalf, and his death. Also, the final mishnah of...
rebbe bet shearim sarcophagus

Beyond the Grave

Towards the end of Masechet Ketubot (pages 103-104) we have the long and magnificent deathbed story of Rebbe, Rabbi Judah...

Ketubot 104

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 104

ื“ืžื“ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืกื™ื ืื•ื™ืจื

which is situated at a high altitude and whose air is scented.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ื“ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ื–ืจื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืขื ื™ืชื ื•ื‘ืขื• ืจื—ืžื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ื›ืœ ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื“ืงืจ ื‘ื—ืจื‘

ยง It is related that on the day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the Sages decreed a fast, and begged for divine mercy so that he would not die. And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has died will be stabbed with a sword.

ืกืœื™ืงื ืืžืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืœืื™ื’ืจื ืืžืจื” ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืคื• ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ืื™ ื›ืžื” ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ื“ืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืกื ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื ื— ืœื”ื• ื•ืงืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืืžืจื” ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืคื• ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื

The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds.

ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืฉืชืงื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืœืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ืžื™ ืฉืงืœื” ื›ื•ื–ื ืฉื“ื™ื™ื ืžืื™ื’ืจื [ืœืืจืขื] ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื• ืžืจื—ืžื™ ื•ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™

And the Sages, meanwhile, would not be silent, i.e., they would not refrain, from begging for mercy so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not die. So she took a jug [kuza] and threw it from the roof to the ground. Due to the sudden noise, the Sages were momentarily silent and refrained from begging for mercy, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ื–ื™ืœ ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืื–ืœ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื“ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืงืจืขื™ื” ืœืœื‘ื•ืฉื™ื” ื•ืื”ื“ืจื™ื” ืœืงืจืขื™ื” ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ื” ืคืชื— ื•ืืžืจ ืืจืืœื™ื ื•ืžืฆื•ืงื™ื ืื—ื–ื• ื‘ืืจื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื ืฆื—ื• ืืจืืœื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฆื•ืงื™ื ื•ื ืฉื‘ื” ืืจื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืชื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจื™ืชื• ื•ืื ื ืœื ืงืืžื™ื ื

The Sages said to bar Kappara: Go and ascertain the condition of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He went and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died. He tore his clothing and reversed them so that the tear would be behind him and not be noticed. When he returned to the Sages he opened his remarks and said: The angels [erelim] and righteous mortals [metzukim] both clutched the sacred ark. The angels triumphed over the righteous, and the sacred ark was captured. They said to him: Has he died? He said to them: You have said it and I did not say it, as it had been decided that no one should say that he died.

ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคื˜ื™ืจืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืงืฃ ืขืฉืจ ืืฆื‘ืขื•ืชื™ื• ื›ืœืคื™ ืžืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ื’ืœื•ื™ ื•ื™ื“ื•ืข ืœืคื ื™ืš ืฉื™ื’ืขืชื™ ื‘ืขืฉืจ ืืฆื‘ืขื•ืชื™ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ื ื”ื ื™ืชื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืืฆื‘ืข ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืžืœืคื ื™ืš ืฉื™ื”ื ืฉืœื•ื ื‘ืžื ื•ื—ืชื™ ื™ืฆืชื” ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ื™ื‘ื ืฉืœื•ื ื™ื ื•ื—ื• ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื•ืชื

It is further related: At the time of the death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he raised his ten fingers toward Heaven and said in prayer: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that I toiled with my ten fingers in the Torah, and I have not derived any benefit from the world even with my small finger. May it be Your will that there be peace in my repose. A Divine Voice emerged and said: โ€œHe enters in peace, they rest in their bedsโ€ (Isaiah 57:2).

ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ืžื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ืžื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ืฆื“ื™ืง ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื• ืœืงืจืืชื• ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ื™ื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื™ื ื•ื—ื• ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื•ืชื

The Gemara asks: Why does it say: โ€œThey rest in their beds,โ€ in the plural? It should have said: In your bed, in the singular, as the beginning of the verse is phrased in the singular. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Gamda. As Rabbi แธคiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, the ministering angels say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the righteous individual so-and-so is coming. The Holy One, Blessed be He, then says to them: The righteous should come forth and they should go out toward him. And the righteous say to the newly deceased individual: He enters in peace, and subsequently, the righteous rest in their beds.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื™ืชื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ืœืงืจืืชื• ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ื”ื•ืœืš ื ื›ื—ื• ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ื™ื‘ื ืฉืœื•ื ื™ื ื•ื—ื• ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื•ืชื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืจืฉืข ื ืื‘ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื™ืชื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืœืื›ื™ ื—ื‘ืœื” ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ืœืงืจืืชื• ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืœืจืฉืขื™ื ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ืœืžืขืฆื‘ื” ื™ืฉื›ื‘ ื•ืื—ืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื• ืจื“ื” ื•ื”ืฉื›ื‘ื” ืืช ืขืจืœื™ื

Rabbi Elazar said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, three contingents of ministering angels go out toward him. One says to him: Enter in peace; and one says to him: Each one that walks in his uprightness; and one says to him: He enters in peace, they rest in their beds. At the time when a wicked person perishes from the world, three contingents of angels of destruction go out toward him. One says to him: โ€œThere is no peace, says the Lord concerning the wickedโ€ (Isaiah 48:22); and one says to him: โ€œYou shall lie down in sorrowโ€ (Isaiah 50:11); and one says to him: โ€œGo down, and be laid with the uncircumcisedโ€ (Ezekiel 32:19).

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ

MISHNA: As long as a widow is living in the house of her father and is being supported by her husbandโ€™s heirs, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, even after many years. As long as she is living in the house of her husband, she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, at which point she may no longer collect the payment. This is because there is enough time in twenty-five years for her to do favors and give to others, thereby spending the resources of the orphans, until what she has spent equals the value of her marriage contract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

And the Rabbis say the opposite: As long as she is residing in the house of her husband she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, since during this time the heirs are caring for her and she is therefore embarrassed to sue them for payment of her marriage contract. However, as long as she is in the house of her father she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, and if by then she has not sued for it, it is assumed that she has waived her rights to it.

ืžืชื” ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ื” ืžื–ื›ื™ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

If she died, her heirs mention her marriage contract up until twenty-five years later.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืขื ื™ื™ื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืžืจืชื ื‘ืช ื‘ื™ื™ืชื•ืก ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

GEMARA: The mishna stated that according to Rabbi Meir, over a period of twenty-five years a woman will spend a sum equal to her marriage contract from the resources of the orphans. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it true that the poorest woman among the Jewish people, whose marriage contract is of minimal value, will not spend this amount until twenty-five years have passed, and Marta bat Baitos, who was very wealthy and whose marriage contract was worth a huge sum, will also spend a sum equal to her marriage contract within twenty-five years?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืคื•ื ื’ืžืœื ืฉื™ื—ื ื

He said to him: According to the camel is the load, i.e., a wealthy woman, whose marriage contract is of greater value, will spend more money over a particular period of time than a poor woman, whose marriage contract is of lesser value.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืฉืœืฉ ืชื™ืงื•

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Meir, the amount of benefit she gains is determined by the years that have passed. If so, what is the halakha with regard to whether she divides the value of her marriage contract in accordance with the number of years that have gone by, such that if some of the twenty-five years passed, she forfeits the proportionate value of her marriage contract? No answer was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืชืื™ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ืœื ื’ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืคื•ืจืชื ืื—ื™ืœืชื

ยง We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: As long as she is in her husbandโ€™s house she may collect payment of her marriage contract at any time, but while she is in her fatherโ€™s house she may collect it only within twenty-five years. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If she came before the setting of the sun at the end of the twenty-five-year period, she collects payment of her marriage contract, but if she came after the setting of the sun she may not collect it? In that slight period of time did she waive her rights to the payment of her marriage contract?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžื“ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื˜ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื—ืกืจ ืงื•ืจื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ

He said to him: Yes. All the measures of the Sages that prescribe specific parameters or sizes are such that if one oversteps the fixed limits, he has not accomplished anything as far as the halakha is considered. Consequently, in a ritual bath containing forty seโ€™a of water, one may immerse and become ritually pure. However, in a ritual bath containing forty seโ€™a less one kortov, a small amount, he is unable to immerse therein and become ritually pure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื™ื ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืœื ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said in the name of his father, Rabbi Yosei: They taught all of the above only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, such as in a locale where the custom is not to write a marriage contract, but in a situation where she does have a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And Rabbi Elazar said: Even if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she still collects payment of her marriage contract only within twenty-five years after the death of her husband.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื”ื–ื›ืจื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ื ืงื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ื‘ืžืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืืœื ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืื—ื•ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืืœืžื ื” ืื—ื™ืœืชื

Rav Sheshet raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, based upon the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): A creditor may collect the money he is owed even after a long time has passed without his having mentioned the debt. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If he does not hold the document that records the debt, with what is he collecting the debt? Rather, it must be that he does hold the document. It can be inferred that even so, it is specifically a creditor, who it could be assumed is not one to have forgiven his debt, who may continue to collect the debt after a long period of time. But a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to the payment of her marriage contract even if she has the marriage contract in her possession. This conclusion contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.

ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืคืจืง ืœื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืœื ื ืงื™ื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื•ื“ื”

The Gemara states that Rav Sheshet raised the objection and he resolved it: Actually, the case in the Tosefta is where the creditor does not hold a document that records the debt, and the reason he may collect the debt is because here we are dealing with a case where the debtor admits that he owes the creditor money. Consequently, it cannot be proven from this case that a widow who has a marriage contract in her possession is unable to collect its payment.

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืฉื•ื ื™ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืžืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืช ืื—ื•ืœื™ ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืืœืžื ื” ืื—ื™ืœืชื

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t Rabbi Ela say: The Sages teach in a baraita: A divorcรฉe is like a creditor and may collect her marriage contract after a long period of time even if she has not made mention of it during the course of that time? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If she does not hold a marriage contract in her possession, with what is she collecting payment? Rather, is it not that she holds a marriage contract in her possession, and it is a divorcรฉe who may collect under these circumstances, as she is not one who could be assumed to have waived the rights to the payment owed to her, as she does not maintain a relationship with the family that would prompt her to waive the rights to her claims? But a widow is likely to waive the rights to her claim, even though she is in possession of a contract.

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื•ื“ื”

The Gemara answers: Here too, the case is one where the debtor, i.e., the husband, admits to owing the divorcรฉe payment for her marriage contract, although she does not have the marriage contract in her possession.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ืงื–ื ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืงื–ื ืชื‘ืขื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Rav Yehuda bar Kaza teaches in a baraita of the school of bar Kaza: If the widow demanded payment of her marriage contract,

ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื

it is as though she is at the beginning of her period of widowhood, and she has another twenty-five years from that point during which she may demand payment of her marriage contract. And if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever.

ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื›ืฉืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืื• ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืžื™

The Gemara relates that Rav Naแธฅman, son of Rav แธคisda, sent the following message to Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov: Our teacher, instruct us. Does the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis apply in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, or does it apply only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession? And in accordance with the statement of whom is the halakha decided?

ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov sent back this answer to him: When she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, there is a dispute, but in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, all agree that she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And in a case where there is a dispute, the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืชื•ืกืคืช ื™ืฉ ืœื”

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited a dispute: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: They taught that a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract after twenty-five years only with regard to one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, which constitute the principal payment of the marriage contract. However, she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื•ืกืคืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื™ื‘ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ืžื™

And Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: She does not have the right to demand payment even of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract, as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The stipulation of an additional sum in the marriage contract is like the principal sum of the marriage contract. Consequently, if she waived her rights to the principal sum of the marriage contract, she has waived her rights to the additional sum as well.

ืืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืžืืชื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืชื•ืกืคืช ื™ืฉ ืœื”

It was also stated that other amoraโ€™im debated this matter: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that she is considered as having waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract only with regard to the principal payment of one hundred or two hundred dinars, but she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงืŸ ืงืืžืจืช ืื• ืืฉืงื™ื™ืŸ ืงืืžืจืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงืŸ ืงืืžื™ื ื

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Did Rav really say so? Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: Did you say that in order to silence me, because you disagree with this ruling? Or did you say that because you are so satisfied with this ruling that you would like to give me wine to drink? Rabbi Abba said to him: I said that in order to silence you. This indicates that Rabbi Abba disagrees with Rav and accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan on this issue.

ื—ืžืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืจื™ื›ื ืื™ื ืชืช ืื—ื•ื” ื”ื•ืื™ ื•ืืœืžื ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ ื•ื–ื ื” ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื

ยง The Gemara relates that the mother-in-law of Rav แธคiyya Arikha, so named because of his height, as the word arikha literally means long, was also the wife of his brother, and she was a widow who resided in the house of her father, and Rav แธคiyya sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, from his brotherโ€™s estate.

ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื™ืช ืœืš ื•ืœื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืื™ืช ืœืš

At the end of the twenty-five years, she said to him: Give me my sustenance. He said to her: You do not have the right to continue to demand sustenance. She said to him: In that case, give me the payment of my marriage contract. He said to her: After twenty-five years, you have no right to demand sustenance and you have no right to demand payment of your marriage contract.

ืชื‘ืขืชื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื™ ื’ื•ืคื ื“ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื ื™ืชื” ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื“ืžืจ ื“ื‘ื›ืชืคืื™ ืืžื˜ืื™ ืœื”

She summoned him for judgment before Rabba bar Sheila. He said to Rav แธคiyya Arikha: Tell me, then, what was the essence of the case? Rav แธคiyya Arikha said to him: I sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, and I swear by the life of the Master, i.e., by your life, that I delivered her sustenance to her regularly on my own shoulders.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืชื‘ืขื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืชื‘ืขื” ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื‘ ืœื”

Rabba bar Sheila said to him: What is the reason that the Sages said that as long as the widow is in the house of her husband, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract? It is because we say that it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, because she is in her husbandโ€™s house and his heirs are treating her well. Here too, in this case, it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, as you treated her with great respect despite the fact that she was living in her fatherโ€™s house. Therefore, go and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

ืœื ืืฉื’ื— ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืื ื™ื›ืกื™ื” ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ื™ ืžืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ื ืš

Rav แธคiyya Arikha did not heed the ruling of Rabba bar Sheila and did not give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabba bar Sheila wrote an authorization for her to seize his property in payment of the debt. Rav แธคiyya Arikha came before Rava, and he said to him: Let the Master see how Rabba bar Sheila has judged me. Rava said to him: He has judged you well.

ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืœื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ ืคื™ืจื™ ื“ืžืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ืขื“ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื—ื•ื™ ืœื™ ืื“ืจื›ืชื™ืš ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืฉืชืžื•ื“ืขื ื ื“ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืœื• ื“ืžื™ืชื ื ืื™ื ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืœืื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื

The woman said to Rava: If so, he should go and return to me the produce that has grown on the property that I have a right to receive as payment, from that day that I received authorization to seize his property until today. He said to her: Show me your document of authorization. He saw that it was not written in it: And it is known to us that these properties are from the estate of the deceased. Rava said to her: The authorization is not written well. Consequently, the property is not considered as though it were yours from the time that the authorization was written, and you do not have a right to the produce.

ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžื™ื•ืžื ื“ืฉืœื™ืžื™ ื™ื•ืžื ืื›ืจื–ืชื ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ืขื•ืชื ื‘ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ืขื•ืชื ื‘ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

She said to him: Let the authorization go, i.e., even if I have no right to the produce that grew from the time the authorization was written, I should have the right to take the produce that grew from the time when the days of announcement were completed, after the court assessed the value of the property, until now. He said to her: This applies only in a case where there was no error written into the authorization, but where there was an error written into the authorization, we have no right to collect the debt with it. You therefore have no rights to any of the produce.

ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื˜ืขื•ืช ืกื•ืคืจ ื”ื•ื

She said to him: But wasnโ€™t it you, Master, who said that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error, and it is considered as though the guarantee were written in the document? Here too, say that the omission of the above clause is regarded as a scribal error and is considered as though it were written in the authorization.

ืืžืจ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืกื•ืคืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ื‘ื”ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ื˜ืขื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื ืกื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื”ื ื™ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื”ื ื™

Rava said to her: In this case, it cannot be said that the clause was meant to be included in the document and it was left out due to a scribal error, because in this case even Rabba bar Sheila erred and thought that the clause should not be included. Initially, Rabba bar Sheila thought as follows: Since these properties that always belonged to Rav แธคiyya Arikha and those properties that had belonged to his deceased brother are all his, i.e., Rav แธคiyya Arikhaโ€™s, as he inherited his brotherโ€™s property, what difference does it make to me if she collects from these properties, and what difference does it make to me if she collects from those properties? Although only the property of her deceased husband is liened for the payment of her marriage contract, it should not really matter whether she collects from this property or from other property belonging to the heir.

ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืื–ืœื” ื•ืžืฉื‘ื—ื” ืœื”ื• ื•ื“ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื›ืกืคื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ืฉืงื™ืœ ื“ื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืืชื™ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืœืขื– ืขืœ ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื

Rava continues: But that is not so. Sometimes the widow will go and improve the property of the heir, thinking that she will receive her payment from it, and the property of her deceased husband will depreciate due to neglect on the part of the heir, who knows that it is this property that is liened to ensure payment of the widowโ€™s marriage contract. And eventually, the heir will say to her: Take your property, i.e., the property that belonged to your husband, and give me my property. And people will come to cast aspersion on the court as not being concerned for the welfare of the woman, who will be left with the depreciated property. Consequently, the document of authorization to seize property must specify exactly which property belonged to the widowโ€™s deceased husband, which she is entitled to collect. Since Rabba bar Sheila erred and did not write this specification, the document of authorization he wrote was useless.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื ื•ืฉื

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ืฉืœื•ื ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืžื™ ืฉื”ืœืš ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื•ืืฉืชื• ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ

MISHNA: There were two prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem, Admon and แธคanan ben Avishalom. แธคanan states two matters about which the Sages disagreed; Admon states seven. The mishna elaborates: With regard to the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, claiming that her husband left her without funds and she is seeking a ruling that would provide for her from her husbandโ€™s property, แธคanan says:

Scroll To Top