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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 24, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 49

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Harlene Appelman, Chaya bat Osna Rachel v鈥橲hmuel, who passed away on August 18. “A tenacious warrior who overcame all challenges, Harlene lived her life with dignity, grace and love. She was a passionate advocate for Jewish education and identity. Not only was she our mentor, she was our beloved friend. May the Torah learning we all engage in be a zechut for her and her cherished family and community. 讬讛讬 讝讻专讛 讘专讜讱

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz. 鈥淢ay our learning today be in memory of my beautiful Mom, 拽讬诇讗 讘转 讬讛讜讚讛, who passed away 9 years ago on the 24th of Av. As the time passes, I miss her more and more.鈥

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚专讗 诇讘讬 谞砖讗 讛讚专讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讛讜讗 讻讘专 驻住拽讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks another question: But say that in a case where she returns to her father鈥檚 house, she returns to the previous matter, i.e., her former status, as though she had never left her father鈥檚 authority. Rava said: That question has already been resolved by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜谞讚专 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讻诇 讗砖专 讗住专讛 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讬拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 诪讜爪讗转 诪讻诇诇 讗讘 讜诪讜爪讗转 诪讻诇诇 讘注诇

This is as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: 鈥淏ut the vow of a widow or of a divorc茅e, everything with which she has bound her soul shall stand against her鈥 (Numbers 30:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Is it not already known that if she is widowed or divorced she has already been removed from the category of one under the authority of her father and she has likewise been removed from the category of one under the authority of her husband? Who, then, could possibly nullify her vows?

讗诇讗 讛专讬 砖诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖诪住专讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讘讚专讱 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讛讬讗讱 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 讗讜 讘讬转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 诪专砖讜转 讛讗讘 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

Rather, this is referring to a case where the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers or where the father鈥檚 messengers delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, and she was widowed or divorced on her way to the wedding canopy. How do I consider her? Is she a member of her father鈥檚 house, or a member of her husband鈥檚 house? Her status is entirely unclear. Rather, this verse comes to tell you: Since she has left her father鈥檚 domain for a short time her father is no longer able to nullify her vows, as she is considered a widow or a divorc茅e in all regards. The same applies to the issue at hand: She retains the status of a married woman even if she returns to her father鈥檚 house.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 注诇 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖转讛讗 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪讗讜专住讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 讘讜讙专转 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 诪讗讜专住讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇

Rav Pappa said: We, too, learn this principle in a mishna (Sanhedrin 66b): One who has intercourse with a young woman betrothed to another is liable to stoning only if she is a virgin, a young woman, betrothed, and she is in her father鈥檚 house. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: Granted, the term young woman indicates that this punishment does not apply if she is a grown woman; similarly, this punishment applies only if she is a virgin, but not if she is a non-virgin, and only if she is betrothed, but not if she is a married woman. However, when the mishna states that she is in her father鈥檚 house, what does that phrase come to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude a case when the father delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, indicating that in such a case the punishment of stoning no longer applies?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讞谞拽 谞讻谞住讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 讘注诇诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We, too, learn this principle in another mishna (Sanhedrin 89a): With regard to one who has intercourse with a married woman, once she has entered her husband鈥檚 authority for marriage, even though she has not had intercourse with him, one who has intercourse with her is punished by strangulation, which is the punishment for adultery with a married woman. It is clear that this halakha applies if she merely entered the husband鈥檚 authority for the purpose of marriage, even if they have not yet entered the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is so.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讝讛 诪讚专砖 讚专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讛讘谞讬诐 讬讬专砖讜 讜讛讘谞讜转 讬讝讜谞讜 诪讛 讛讘谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 讗祝 讛讘谞讜转 讗讬谉 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉

MISHNA: A father is not obligated to provide his daughter鈥檚 sustenance. This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne: Since the Sages instituted that after the father鈥檚 death, the sons inherit the sum of money specified in their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and the daughters are sustained from their father鈥檚 estate, these the two halakhot are equated: Just as the sons inherit only after the father鈥檚 death, not during his lifetime, so too, the daughters are sustained from his property only after their father鈥檚 death.

讙诪壮 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘转讜 谞诪讬 讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讗讬讻讗 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that a father is not obligated to provide his daughter鈥檚 sustenance, the Gemara infers: It is with regard to providing his daughter鈥檚 sustenance that he is not obligated, but with regard to providing his son鈥檚 sustenance, he is obligated. Furthermore, with regard to his daughter, too, there is no obligation, and therefore the court cannot compel him to provide sustenance for his daughter, but there is a mitzva, i.e., it is proper, for him to do so. With this interpretation in mind, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Meir, nor Rabbi Yehuda, nor Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讜转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讬诐 讚注住拽讬 讘转讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讜转 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜谞讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita, it is a mitzva to sustain daughters, and the same applies by an a fortiori inference to sons, who are engaged in the study of Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to sustain sons, and the same applies by an a fortiori inference with regard to daughters, due to the dishonor they will suffer if they are forced to go around begging. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: It is an obligation to sustain the daughters after their father鈥檚 death; however, during their father鈥檚 lifetime both these and those, sons and daughters alike, are not sustained.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara restates its question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If you say it is Rabbi Meir, didn鈥檛 he say that providing sustenance even to one鈥檚 sons is merely a mitzva, not an obligation? If the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that providing sustenance to one鈥檚 sons is also a mitzva, not an obligation? If it is Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, according to his opinion there is not even a mitzva to provide sustenance for one鈥檚 daughters. Consequently, none of opinions of the tanna鈥檌m of the baraita fits the ruling of the mishna.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗

The Gemara answers that the mishna can be explained in several different ways. If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; if you wish, say that it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and if you wish, say it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘谞讜 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讘转讜 讗讬讻讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains in detail: If you wish, say it is Rabbi Meir, and this is what he said in the mishna: A father is not obligated to provide his daughter鈥檚 sustenance, and the same is true with regard to providing sustenance for his son. This indicates that there is a mitzva, though not an obligation, to provide for his daughter, and by an a fortiori inference it is a mitzva with regard to the sons. And the reason that the mishna teaches only the case of his daughter, and omitted any mention of sons, is not because a father is obligated to feed his sons. Instead, it teaches us this:

讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讗讬讻讗

That even with regard to his daughter, there is no obligation to provide her sustenance, however, there is a mitzva to do so.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讘谞讜 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讘谞讜 讗讬讻讗 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讜转 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 讞讜讘讛 诇讬讻讗

And if you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this what he said in the mishna: A father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughter, and all the more so he is not duty-bound to provide for his son. It may be inferred from here that there is at least a mitzva with regard to a son, and the same applies by a fortiori inference with regard to the daughters. And the reason that the mishna teaches the case of his daughter is because it teaches us this: That even with regard to his daughter there is no obligation, despite the mitzva to guard her from dishonor.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讞讜讘讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘

And if you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and this is what he said in the mishna: A father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughter, and the same is true with regard to providing for his son. And the same is true with regard to a mitzva; there is not even a mitzva to feed either one鈥檚 sons or daughters, but since the tanna wanted to say with regard to daughters that after their father鈥檚 death there is an obligation to sustain them from his estate, he also taught in a parallel manner that the father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughters during his lifetime. Consequently, it is incorrect to infer from here that there is a mitzva to sustain them despite the lack of obligation; rather, the tanna means that there is no obligation and not even a mitzva to do so.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讝谉 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜转讬讜 讻砖讛谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讗专讜讚 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讘谞讬 诪转讗 砖讚讬讗

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣nina: In Usha the Sages instituted that a man should sustain his sons and daughters when they are minors. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? Must a man feed his young children in practice or not? The Gemara answers: Come and hear: When they would come before Rav Yehuda to complain about a father who refused to sustain his children, he would say to them: The jackal [yarod] bears offspring and casts the obligation to feed them on the residents of the town? Even a jackal feeds its young, and it is certainly proper for a father to support his children.

讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻驻讜 诇讬讛 讗住讬转讗 讘爪讘讜专讗 讜诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬诪讗 注讜专讘讗 讘注讬 讘谞讬讛 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讘谞讬讛 讜注讜专讘讗 讘注讬 讘谞讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讘谞讬 注讜专讘 讗砖专 讬拽专讗讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讬讜专讬 讛讗 讘讗讜讻诪讬

When they would come before Rav 岣sda to register a similar complaint, he would say to them: Turn over a mortar for him in public, as a raised platform, and let that father stand up and say about himself: The raven wants to care for its sons, and yet this man does not want to support his sons. The Gemara questions this statement: And does the raven want to feed its sons? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e gives to the beast its food, to the young ravens that cry鈥 (Psalms 147:9)? This verse indicates that the parents of young ravens do not feed them. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as in this case it is referring to white ones, and in that case it is referring to black ones. There are different types of ravens, some of which feed their young while others do not.

讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讚诪讬转讝谞讬 讘谞讬讱 诪爪讚拽讛

The Gemara further relates: When an incident of this kind would come before Rava, he would say to the father: Is it satisfactory to you that your sons are sustained through charity? All these incidents prove that the halakha is not in accordance with the enactment of Usha; although these Sages stated forcefully that it is proper for a father to support his children, they did not force him to do so by the authority of the court.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讗讘诇 讗诪讬讚 讻驻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讗 讻驻讬讬讛 诇专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讜讗驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇爪讚拽讛

The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only when he is not wealthy and must toil hard to provide food for his children, but if he is wealthy we coerce him against his will to sustain them. Like this case of Rava, who coerced Rav Natan bar Ami, who was a wealthy man, to donate to charity, and collected from him four hundred dinars for charity. This shows that even in the absence of a particular obligation, the court will compel a person to give charity if he can afford it. The same reasoning certainly applies to a man鈥檚 own children.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讗砖转讜 谞讝讜谞讬诐 诪讛诐

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that Reish Lakish said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in a case of one who writes a document stating that he is giving all his property as a gift to his sons in his lifetime, he and his wife are sustained from the property until their deaths.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专讜 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讗砖转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rabbi Zeira objects to this, and some say this objection was raised by Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani: What is the significance of this ruling? After all, the Sages said a greater novelty than that: A man鈥檚 widow is sustained from his property even if his estate was inherited by his daughter and therefore belongs to her husband. Although the property is comparable to property from the estate that was sold to a third party, from which a widow is not entitled to claim her sustenance, in this case the Sages decreed that she can claim her livelihood from her late husband鈥檚 estate to prevent her from losing out entirely. With this in mind, is it necessary to state that he and his wife, during his lifetime, receive their sustenance from property he gave as a gift to his sons?

讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讘讗讬讙专转讬讛 诪讬 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讘转 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜 谞讬砖讗转 讛讘转 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜

The Gemara provides the background for this ruling: As Ravin sent in his letter to Babylonia: With regard to one who died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is sustained from his property, as this is a stipulation of the marriage contract. If the daughter, who is her father鈥檚 heir, married, the estate is considered usufruct property whose produce belongs to her husband, but even so his widow is sustained from his property.

诪转讛 讛讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讞讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讗砖转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

If the daughter died and her husband inherited from her, Rabbi Yehuda, son of the sister of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, said: I was involved in an incident of this kind when this very question came before the Sages for a ruling, and they said: Even in this case, his widow is sustained from his property. The Gemara reiterates: With all that said, is it necessary to state that he and his wife are entitled to receive their sustenance from property he gave his son?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讟专讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 谞讟专讞 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讚讬讚讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: The ordinance is necessary lest you say that it is in that case there, with regard to a widow, that they instituted this halakha, as there is no one to toil on her behalf, since she is by herself, but here, where the husband is alive, he can toil for himself and for her, i.e., his wife. The ordinance of Usha therefore teaches us that the court does not force him to do so, and they may claim their sustenance from his former property.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讜 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讙讞讬谉 讜谞砖拽讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讻专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜转讘 谞讻住讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ile鈥檃, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rabbi 岣nina and Rabbi Yonatan were standing together, and a certain man approached, bent over, and kissed Rabbi Yonatan on his foot. Rabbi 岣nina said to Rabbi Yonatan: What is this? Why does he owe you such a mark of gratitude? He said to him: He wrote a document stating that he was giving his property to his sons,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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: 49-55 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens to the estate when a father dies. Is there a difference between how...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 49: Even the Jackal Feeds Its Young

A new mishnah! On "mezonot" - sustenance - that a father turns out not to be obligated to provide for...
usha sanhedrin trail

Survival Handbook

Imagine that your house is destroyed. You manage to rebuild, perhaps not as magnificently as your original home, but enough...

Ketubot 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 49

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚专讗 诇讘讬 谞砖讗 讛讚专讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讛讜讗 讻讘专 驻住拽讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks another question: But say that in a case where she returns to her father鈥檚 house, she returns to the previous matter, i.e., her former status, as though she had never left her father鈥檚 authority. Rava said: That question has already been resolved by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜谞讚专 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讻诇 讗砖专 讗住专讛 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讬拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 诪讜爪讗转 诪讻诇诇 讗讘 讜诪讜爪讗转 诪讻诇诇 讘注诇

This is as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: 鈥淏ut the vow of a widow or of a divorc茅e, everything with which she has bound her soul shall stand against her鈥 (Numbers 30:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Is it not already known that if she is widowed or divorced she has already been removed from the category of one under the authority of her father and she has likewise been removed from the category of one under the authority of her husband? Who, then, could possibly nullify her vows?

讗诇讗 讛专讬 砖诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖诪住专讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讘讚专讱 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讛讬讗讱 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 讗讜 讘讬转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 诪专砖讜转 讛讗讘 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

Rather, this is referring to a case where the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers or where the father鈥檚 messengers delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, and she was widowed or divorced on her way to the wedding canopy. How do I consider her? Is she a member of her father鈥檚 house, or a member of her husband鈥檚 house? Her status is entirely unclear. Rather, this verse comes to tell you: Since she has left her father鈥檚 domain for a short time her father is no longer able to nullify her vows, as she is considered a widow or a divorc茅e in all regards. The same applies to the issue at hand: She retains the status of a married woman even if she returns to her father鈥檚 house.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 注诇 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖转讛讗 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪讗讜专住讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 讘讜讙专转 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 诪讗讜专住讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇

Rav Pappa said: We, too, learn this principle in a mishna (Sanhedrin 66b): One who has intercourse with a young woman betrothed to another is liable to stoning only if she is a virgin, a young woman, betrothed, and she is in her father鈥檚 house. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: Granted, the term young woman indicates that this punishment does not apply if she is a grown woman; similarly, this punishment applies only if she is a virgin, but not if she is a non-virgin, and only if she is betrothed, but not if she is a married woman. However, when the mishna states that she is in her father鈥檚 house, what does that phrase come to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude a case when the father delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, indicating that in such a case the punishment of stoning no longer applies?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讞谞拽 谞讻谞住讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 讘注诇诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We, too, learn this principle in another mishna (Sanhedrin 89a): With regard to one who has intercourse with a married woman, once she has entered her husband鈥檚 authority for marriage, even though she has not had intercourse with him, one who has intercourse with her is punished by strangulation, which is the punishment for adultery with a married woman. It is clear that this halakha applies if she merely entered the husband鈥檚 authority for the purpose of marriage, even if they have not yet entered the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is so.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讝讛 诪讚专砖 讚专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讛讘谞讬诐 讬讬专砖讜 讜讛讘谞讜转 讬讝讜谞讜 诪讛 讛讘谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 讗祝 讛讘谞讜转 讗讬谉 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉

MISHNA: A father is not obligated to provide his daughter鈥檚 sustenance. This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne: Since the Sages instituted that after the father鈥檚 death, the sons inherit the sum of money specified in their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and the daughters are sustained from their father鈥檚 estate, these the two halakhot are equated: Just as the sons inherit only after the father鈥檚 death, not during his lifetime, so too, the daughters are sustained from his property only after their father鈥檚 death.

讙诪壮 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘转讜 谞诪讬 讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讗讬讻讗 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that a father is not obligated to provide his daughter鈥檚 sustenance, the Gemara infers: It is with regard to providing his daughter鈥檚 sustenance that he is not obligated, but with regard to providing his son鈥檚 sustenance, he is obligated. Furthermore, with regard to his daughter, too, there is no obligation, and therefore the court cannot compel him to provide sustenance for his daughter, but there is a mitzva, i.e., it is proper, for him to do so. With this interpretation in mind, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Meir, nor Rabbi Yehuda, nor Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讜转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讬诐 讚注住拽讬 讘转讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讜转 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜谞讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita, it is a mitzva to sustain daughters, and the same applies by an a fortiori inference to sons, who are engaged in the study of Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to sustain sons, and the same applies by an a fortiori inference with regard to daughters, due to the dishonor they will suffer if they are forced to go around begging. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: It is an obligation to sustain the daughters after their father鈥檚 death; however, during their father鈥檚 lifetime both these and those, sons and daughters alike, are not sustained.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara restates its question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If you say it is Rabbi Meir, didn鈥檛 he say that providing sustenance even to one鈥檚 sons is merely a mitzva, not an obligation? If the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that providing sustenance to one鈥檚 sons is also a mitzva, not an obligation? If it is Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, according to his opinion there is not even a mitzva to provide sustenance for one鈥檚 daughters. Consequently, none of opinions of the tanna鈥檌m of the baraita fits the ruling of the mishna.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗

The Gemara answers that the mishna can be explained in several different ways. If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; if you wish, say that it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and if you wish, say it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘谞讜 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讘转讜 讗讬讻讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains in detail: If you wish, say it is Rabbi Meir, and this is what he said in the mishna: A father is not obligated to provide his daughter鈥檚 sustenance, and the same is true with regard to providing sustenance for his son. This indicates that there is a mitzva, though not an obligation, to provide for his daughter, and by an a fortiori inference it is a mitzva with regard to the sons. And the reason that the mishna teaches only the case of his daughter, and omitted any mention of sons, is not because a father is obligated to feed his sons. Instead, it teaches us this:

讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讗讬讻讗

That even with regard to his daughter, there is no obligation to provide her sustenance, however, there is a mitzva to do so.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讘谞讜 讛讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讘谞讜 讗讬讻讗 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讜转 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 讞讜讘讛 诇讬讻讗

And if you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this what he said in the mishna: A father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughter, and all the more so he is not duty-bound to provide for his son. It may be inferred from here that there is at least a mitzva with regard to a son, and the same applies by a fortiori inference with regard to the daughters. And the reason that the mishna teaches the case of his daughter is because it teaches us this: That even with regard to his daughter there is no obligation, despite the mitzva to guard her from dishonor.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘转讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讞讜讘讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘

And if you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and this is what he said in the mishna: A father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughter, and the same is true with regard to providing for his son. And the same is true with regard to a mitzva; there is not even a mitzva to feed either one鈥檚 sons or daughters, but since the tanna wanted to say with regard to daughters that after their father鈥檚 death there is an obligation to sustain them from his estate, he also taught in a parallel manner that the father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughters during his lifetime. Consequently, it is incorrect to infer from here that there is a mitzva to sustain them despite the lack of obligation; rather, the tanna means that there is no obligation and not even a mitzva to do so.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讝谉 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜转讬讜 讻砖讛谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讗专讜讚 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讘谞讬 诪转讗 砖讚讬讗

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣nina: In Usha the Sages instituted that a man should sustain his sons and daughters when they are minors. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? Must a man feed his young children in practice or not? The Gemara answers: Come and hear: When they would come before Rav Yehuda to complain about a father who refused to sustain his children, he would say to them: The jackal [yarod] bears offspring and casts the obligation to feed them on the residents of the town? Even a jackal feeds its young, and it is certainly proper for a father to support his children.

讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻驻讜 诇讬讛 讗住讬转讗 讘爪讘讜专讗 讜诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬诪讗 注讜专讘讗 讘注讬 讘谞讬讛 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讘谞讬讛 讜注讜专讘讗 讘注讬 讘谞讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讘谞讬 注讜专讘 讗砖专 讬拽专讗讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讬讜专讬 讛讗 讘讗讜讻诪讬

When they would come before Rav 岣sda to register a similar complaint, he would say to them: Turn over a mortar for him in public, as a raised platform, and let that father stand up and say about himself: The raven wants to care for its sons, and yet this man does not want to support his sons. The Gemara questions this statement: And does the raven want to feed its sons? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e gives to the beast its food, to the young ravens that cry鈥 (Psalms 147:9)? This verse indicates that the parents of young ravens do not feed them. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as in this case it is referring to white ones, and in that case it is referring to black ones. There are different types of ravens, some of which feed their young while others do not.

讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讚诪讬转讝谞讬 讘谞讬讱 诪爪讚拽讛

The Gemara further relates: When an incident of this kind would come before Rava, he would say to the father: Is it satisfactory to you that your sons are sustained through charity? All these incidents prove that the halakha is not in accordance with the enactment of Usha; although these Sages stated forcefully that it is proper for a father to support his children, they did not force him to do so by the authority of the court.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚 讗讘诇 讗诪讬讚 讻驻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讗 讻驻讬讬讛 诇专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讜讗驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇爪讚拽讛

The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only when he is not wealthy and must toil hard to provide food for his children, but if he is wealthy we coerce him against his will to sustain them. Like this case of Rava, who coerced Rav Natan bar Ami, who was a wealthy man, to donate to charity, and collected from him four hundred dinars for charity. This shows that even in the absence of a particular obligation, the court will compel a person to give charity if he can afford it. The same reasoning certainly applies to a man鈥檚 own children.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讗砖转讜 谞讝讜谞讬诐 诪讛诐

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that Reish Lakish said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in a case of one who writes a document stating that he is giving all his property as a gift to his sons in his lifetime, he and his wife are sustained from the property until their deaths.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专讜 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讗砖转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rabbi Zeira objects to this, and some say this objection was raised by Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani: What is the significance of this ruling? After all, the Sages said a greater novelty than that: A man鈥檚 widow is sustained from his property even if his estate was inherited by his daughter and therefore belongs to her husband. Although the property is comparable to property from the estate that was sold to a third party, from which a widow is not entitled to claim her sustenance, in this case the Sages decreed that she can claim her livelihood from her late husband鈥檚 estate to prevent her from losing out entirely. With this in mind, is it necessary to state that he and his wife, during his lifetime, receive their sustenance from property he gave as a gift to his sons?

讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讘讗讬讙专转讬讛 诪讬 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讘转 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜 谞讬砖讗转 讛讘转 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜

The Gemara provides the background for this ruling: As Ravin sent in his letter to Babylonia: With regard to one who died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is sustained from his property, as this is a stipulation of the marriage contract. If the daughter, who is her father鈥檚 heir, married, the estate is considered usufruct property whose produce belongs to her husband, but even so his widow is sustained from his property.

诪转讛 讛讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讞讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讗砖转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

If the daughter died and her husband inherited from her, Rabbi Yehuda, son of the sister of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, said: I was involved in an incident of this kind when this very question came before the Sages for a ruling, and they said: Even in this case, his widow is sustained from his property. The Gemara reiterates: With all that said, is it necessary to state that he and his wife are entitled to receive their sustenance from property he gave his son?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讟专讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 谞讟专讞 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讚讬讚讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: The ordinance is necessary lest you say that it is in that case there, with regard to a widow, that they instituted this halakha, as there is no one to toil on her behalf, since she is by herself, but here, where the husband is alive, he can toil for himself and for her, i.e., his wife. The ordinance of Usha therefore teaches us that the court does not force him to do so, and they may claim their sustenance from his former property.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讜 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讙讞讬谉 讜谞砖拽讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讻专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜转讘 谞讻住讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ile鈥檃, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rabbi 岣nina and Rabbi Yonatan were standing together, and a certain man approached, bent over, and kissed Rabbi Yonatan on his foot. Rabbi 岣nina said to Rabbi Yonatan: What is this? Why does he owe you such a mark of gratitude? He said to him: He wrote a document stating that he was giving his property to his sons,

Scroll To Top