Ketubot 17

כלה כמות שהיא ובית הלל אומרים כלה נאה וחסודה אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל הרי שהיתה חיגרת או סומא אומרים לה כלה נאה וחסודה והתורה אמרה מדבר שקר תרחק אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי לדבריכם מי שלקח מקח רע מן השוק ישבחנו בעיניו או יגננו בעיניו הוי אומר ישבחנו בעיניו מכאן אמרו חכמים לעולם תהא דעתו של אדם מעורבת עם הבריות

One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר הכי משרו קמי כלתא במערבא לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן כי סמכו רבנן לרבי זירא שרו ליה הכי לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is what they sing before brides in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. The Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Zeira, this is what they metaphorically sang with regard to him in his praise: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex.

כי סמכו רבנן לרבי אמי ולרבי אסי שרו להו הכי כל מן דין וכל מן דין סמוכו לנא לא תסמכו לנא לא מן סרמיסין ולא מן סרמיטין ואמרי לה לא מן חמיסין ולא מן טורמיסין

On a related note, the Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, this is what they sang to them: Anyone from people of this kind and anyone from people of that kind, ordain them for us. Do not ordain for us others, neither from those who corrupt [sarmisin] halakhot, nor from those who are worthless [sarmitin]. And some say: Not from those who provide only one-fifth [ḥamisin] of the reason for a halakha, and not from those whose knowledge is incomplete [turmisin].

רבי אבהו כי הוה אתי ממתיבתא לבי קיסר נפקן אמהתא דבי קיסר לאפיה ומשרין ליה הכי רבא דעמיה ומדברנא דאומתיה בוצינא דנהורא בריך מתייך לשלם

The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor’s house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace.

אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה בר אילעאי שהיה נוטל בד של הדס ומרקד לפני הכלה ואומר כלה נאה וחסודה רב שמואל בר רב יצחק מרקד אתלת אמר רבי זירא קא מכסיף לן סבא כי נח נפשיה איפסיק עמודא דנורא בין דידיה לכולי עלמא וגמירי דלא אפסיק עמודא דנורא אלא אי לחד בדרא אי לתרי בדרא

With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle. Rabbi Zeira said: The old man is humiliating us, as through his conduct he is demeaning the Torah and the Torah scholars. It is further related: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak died, a pillar of fire demarcated between him and everyone else, and we learn through tradition that a pillar of fire demarcates only for either one person in a generation or for two people in a generation.

אמר רבי זירא אהנייה ליה שוטיתיה לסבא ואמרי לה שטותיה לסבא ואמרי לה שיטתיה לסבא

Rabbi Zeira said: His branch [shotitei] was effective for the old man, as it is due to this mitzva that he fulfilled so enthusiastically that he was privileged to receive this great reward. And some say that Rabbi Zeira said: His nonsense [shetutei] was effective for the old man. And some say that he said: His method [shittatei] was effective for the old man.

רב אחא מרכיב לה אכתפיה ומרקד אמרי ליה רבנן אנן מהו למיעבד הכי אמר להו אי דמיין עלייכו ככשורא לחיי ואי לא לא

Rav Aḥa would place the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Sages said to him: What is the ruling? Is it permitted for us to do so as well? He said to them: If brides are comparable for you to a beam, fine, but if not, no, you may not.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן מותר להסתכל בפני כלה כל שבעה כדי לחבבה על בעלה ולית הלכתא כוותיה

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: It is permitted to look at the face of a bride throughout all seven days of the wedding celebration, in order to endear her to her husband, whose appreciation of her beauty will be thereby enhanced. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as it is prohibited to look at any married woman, even a bride.

תנו רבנן מעבירין את המת מלפני כלה וזה וזה מלפני מלך ישראל אמרו עליו על אגריפס המלך שעבר מלפני כלה ושבחוהו חכמים

§ The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride. And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel. They said about King Agrippa [Agrippas] that although he was not required to do so, he rerouted his entourage before the wedding procession of a bride, and the Sages praised him for doing so.

שבחוהו מכלל דשפיר עבד והא אמר רב אשי אפילו למאן דאמר נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול דאמר מר שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך פרשת דרכים הואי

The Gemara asks: The Sages praised him; is that to say by inference that he did well in yielding? But didn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who said with regard to a Nasi who relinquishes the honor due him that his honor is relinquished, i.e., he may do so, with regard to a king who relinquishes the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished. As the Master said that the meaning of the verse “You shall place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) is that his awe shall be upon you. The Torah established that the subjects’ awe is an essential component of kingship and it is not the prerogative of the king to waive it. The Gemara answers: It was at a crossroads that he encountered the wedding procession, and the fact that he yielded to the bride was not obvious to onlookers. Therefore, the honor due the king was not compromised.

תנו רבנן מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי שהיה מבטל תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה במה דברים אמורים כשאין עמו כל צרכו אבל יש עמו כל צרכו אין מבטלין

The Sages taught: One suspends the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would suspend the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. In what case is this statement said? In a case where there are not enough people with him, i.e., accompanying the corpse, to satisfy all his needs, i.e., to appropriately honor him. However, if there are enough people with him to satisfy all his needs, one does not suspend Torah study.

וכמה כל צרכו אמר רב שמואל בר איני משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תליסר אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברי מאבולא ועד סיכרא רב ששת ואיתימא רבי יוחנן אמר נטילתה כנתינתה מה נתינתה בששים רבוא אף נטילתה בששים רבוא והני מילי למאן דקרי ותני

The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute all his needs? Rav Shmuel bar Eini said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and six thousand additional men each sounding a shofar to herald the approaching funeral procession. And some say: Thirteen thousand men and, among them, six thousand men sounding a shofar. Ulla said: All his needs means a crowd large enough so that the men in the funeral possession form a partition stretching from the gate of the city [abbula] until the cemetery. Rav Sheshet, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: The number of people required for taking of the Torah from the Jewish people with the death of a Torah scholar is equivalent to the number present at its giving to the Jewish people. Just as its giving took place with six hundred thousand men present at Sinai, so too, the taking of the Torah at the funeral of a Torah scholar is with six hundred thousand men. The Gemara notes: This applies only to one who read the Bible and studied mishna, i.e., one who is a student of Torah, and consequently worthy of that honor.

אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעורא:

However, for one who taught others, there is no measure for the number of people attending the funeral.

ואם יש עדים שיצתה בהינומא וכו׳: מאי הינומא סורחב בר פפא משמיה דזעירי אמר תנורא דאסא רבי יוחנן אמר קריתא דמנמנה בה כלתא:

The mishna continues: And if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: What is a hinnuma? Surḥav bar Pappa said in the name of Ze’eiri: It is a canopy of myrtle over the bride’s head. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a veil [kerita] covering the bride’s face under which the bride dozes [menamna].

רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר וכו׳: תנא ביהודה ראיה בבבל מאי אמר רב דרדוגי דמשחא ארישא דרבנן אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי משחא דחפיפותא קאמר מר אמר ליה יתמא לא עבדא לך אמך דרדוגי משחא ארישא דרבנן בשעת מעשה כי הא דההוא מרבנן דאיעסק ליה לבריה בי רבה בר עולא ואמרי לה רבה בר עולא איעסק ליה לבריה בי ההוא מרבנן ודרדיג משחא ארישא דרבנן בשעת מעשה

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain constitutes proof that she is a virgin. It was taught with regard to the mishna: In Judea, that is proof; however, what are the customs at the weddings of virgins in Babylonia? Rav said: Smearing fragrant oil on the heads of the Sages was customary. Rav Pappa, who was unfamiliar with that practice, said to Abaye: Is the Master saying oil for shampooing the hair? Calling him an orphan because he was ignorant of the custom, he said to him: Orphan, didn’t your mother perform for you smearing of oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of your wedding ceremony? As this was the case when one of the Sages who arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rabba bar Ulla attended the wedding, and some say that it was Rabba bar Ulla who arranged for his son to marry into the family of one of the Sages; and he smeared oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of the wedding ceremony.

ארמלתא מאי תאני רב יוסף ארמלתא לית לה כיסני:

The Gemara asks: What is the custom at the wedding of a widow? Rav Yosef taught: A widow does not have roasted grain [kisanei] distributed at her wedding.

ומודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו כו׳: וליתני מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו שדה זו שלך היתה ולקחתיה ממך

The mishna continues: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let the mishna teach: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to you, and I purchased it from you.

משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא אם יש עדים שהיא שלו והוא אומר לקחתיה ממנו אינו נאמן היכי דמי

The Gemara answers: Although Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that his claim is accepted even in that latter case, he addressed the case where the field originally belonged to the father due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause that if there are witnesses that it was the father’s field, and he says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible. That is the halakha only with regard to a field that belonged to the father, and not to the claimant himself. Were it referring to a field that he purchased from the claimant, what are the circumstances?

אי דאכלה שני חזקה אמאי לא מהימן ואי דלא אכלה שני חזקה פשיטא דלא מהימן

If it is a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? After three years of unchallenged possession, the purchaser’s claim is sufficient to establish ownership without documentation. And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. Since the distinction between a case where witnesses are present and a case where there are no witnesses present does not apply when the field in question was the property of the claimant, the tanna cited a case where the field belonged to the father.

אי הכי גבי אביו נמי אי דאכלה שני חזקה אמאי לא מהימן ואי דלא אכלה שני חזקה פשיטא דלא מהימן

The Gemara asks: If so, the same difficulty may be raised with regard to a field belonging to the claimant’s father as well: If the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. The latter clause is no more applicable to the father’s field than it is to the claimant’s field. Why did the tanna prefer to cite a case where the field belonged to the claimant’s father?

בשלמא גבי אביו משכחת לה כגון שאכלה שתים בחיי האב ואחת בחיי בנו וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן אפילו הגדיל

The Gemara answers: Granted, with regard to the case where the field belonged to his father, a circumstance can be found where there is uncertainty with regard to the presumptive ownership of the field, where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership during the lifetime of the father and one year during the lifetime of the son after the death of his father. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: One cannot establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. This is because the minor is unaware of the property owned by his father; the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing. Therefore, only two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership have passed.

ורב הונא מתניתין אתא לאשמועינן איבעית אימא רב הונא דיוקא דמתניתין קאמר ואיבעית אימא אפילו הגדיל קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And since the mishna can be explained only in the case delineated by Rav Huna, did Rav Huna come to teach us a mishna? There is no need for an amora to teach matters that appear in a mishna, as the content of mishnayot is known by all. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav Huna is stating the inference from the mishna, as the circumstances are not written explicitly in the mishna. And if you wish, say instead that he is teaching us that even if during the year after the father died his son was no longer a minor, one may not establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. From the mishna, one could learn only a case where during the third year the son was still a minor.

וליתנייה בדידיה ולוקמה כגון שאכלה שתים בפניו ואחת שלא בפניו וכגון שברח

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach the halakha in a case where the one in possession of the field says that he purchased the field from the claimant himself. And let him establish the mishna in a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce in the presence of the claimant, who was the original owner of the field, for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, and consumed its produce not in his presence for one year. And that scenario is in a case where the claimant fled and therefore, the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing.

ברח מחמת מאי אי דברח מחמת נפשות פשיטא דלא מהימן דלא מצי מחי ואי דברח מחמת ממון איבעי ליה למחויי דקיימא לן מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה

The Gemara asks: That scenario is referring to one who fled due to what reason? If it is that he fled due to the fact that his life was in jeopardy, it is obvious that the one claiming presumptive ownership is not deemed credible, since the owner of the field is unable to protest, as he fears for his life. And if he fled due to money that he owes, and that is why he does not return to protest the possessor’s occupation of the field, he ought to protest from afar, as we maintain that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest. He could have lodged in a court in his place of exile his protest against the illegal occupation of his field.

דתנן שלש ארצות לחזקה יהודה ועבר הירדן והגליל היה ביהודה והחזיק בגליל בגליל והחזיק ביהודה אינה חזקה עד שיהא עמו במדינה

This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 38a): There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the original owner of the field was in Judea and another occupied his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another occupied his field in Judea, that does not establish presumptive ownership, until the one occupying the field will be with the original owner in the same country.

והוינן בה מאי קסבר אי קסבר מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה אפילו ביהודה וגליל נמי ואי קסבר מחאה שלא בפניו לא הויא מחאה אפילו יהודה ויהודה נמי לא

And we discussed that mishna: What does this tanna hold? If he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee the protest should also be legitimate. And if he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is not a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea as well, the protest should also not be legitimate.

אמר רבי אבא בר ממל לעולם קסבר מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה ומתניתין בשעת חירום שנו

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: Actually the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, and the Sages taught this mishna with regard to a crisis period, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted from Judea to the Galilee. Therefore, although no protest was received from the original owner, the occupier does not establish presumptive ownership of the field, because the lack of protest can be attributed to the perilous situation.

ומאי שנא יהודה וגליל דנקט

The Gemara asked: And if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that the protest is ineffective, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited specifically these two lands? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted, the same halakha would apply.