Today’s daf is sponsored by Tzivia Ross Korn for the refuah shleimah of her father, Shlomo Yeshaya Ben Sarah Tzipporah. “My father has always inspired me to learn and has himself finished three cycles of daf Yomi. May he go from strength to strength!”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ellen Cherrick in loving memory of her mother, Udy Katz Cherrick, z”l, on her 13th yahrzeit.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ellen Cherrick in loving memory of her mother, Udy Katz Cherrick, z”l, on her 13th yahrzeit.
Ketubot 51
סוֹף סוֹף, כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִגְזוֹז כְּגָזוּז דָּמֵי! דִּצְרִיכָא לְדִיקְלָא קָאָמֵינָא.
Abaye asked him: Ultimately, anything that is about to be sheared is considered sheared, and therefore these dates should already be classified as movable property, from which her sustenance cannot be collected. Rav Yosef replied: I spoke of a case when the fruit is nearly fully ripe, but is still in need of the palm tree. Since they are attached to the ground, they may be used for the daughter’s sustenance.
הָהוּא יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: הַעֲלוּ לַיָּתוֹם בִּשְׁבִיל יְתוֹמָה. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי, בֵּין לִמְזוֹנֵי בֵּין לִכְתוּבָּה וּבֵין לְפַרְנָסָה!
The Gemara relates: There were a certain minor orphan boy and orphan girl who came before Rava. Rava said to the trustees of the father’s estate: Increase the amount you give to the orphan boy, so that there should be enough for the orphan girl as well. The Sages said to Rava: But it was the Master who said that one may collect from land but not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for the daughters’ livelihood. In this case only movable property was available.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִילּוּ רָצָה שִׁפְחָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ, מִי לָא יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ? כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי.
Rava said to them: If this orphan wanted a maidservant to serve him, would we not give him one? The court would use his father’s property to fund this acquisition. All the more so here, where there are two factors, as she is his sister and she will serve him as well. It is therefore appropriate to act in this manner, which is to the benefit of both the boy and the girl.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת, וְאֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת — מוֹצִיאִין לִמְזוֹן אִשָּׁה וּלְבָנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת — מוֹצִיאִין לַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנִים, וְלַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנוֹת, וְלַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנִים.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to both property that has a guarantee, i.e., real estate, and property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable objects, the court removes them from the orphan heirs for the sustenance of the wife and for the daughters. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to property that has a guarantee, the court removes it from the possession of the sons, who are the heirs, for the sake of the sustenance of the daughters. If the deceased had only daughters, and the adult daughters have taken possession of the estate, the court takes some of the property from the adult daughters in order to give an equal share to the young daughters. And likewise, one takes some of the property from the adult sons in order to give an equal share to the younger sons.
וְלַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת בִּנְכָסִים מְרוּבִּין, אֲבָל לֹא לַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין.
And in a case where the estate has a large amount of property, so that there is more than enough to provide sustenance for the daughters, the court takes from the daughters the property that is not needed to provide for their sustenance and gives it to the sons, who are the true heirs. However, in a case where the estate has a small amount of property, one does not take it from the daughters in order to give it to the sons.
נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת מוֹצִיאִין לַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנִים, וְלַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנוֹת, וְלַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת. אֲבָל לֹא לַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנִים.
By contrast, with regard to property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable property, the court removes some of it from the possession of the adult sons, if they have taken it, in order to give a fair share to the young sons, and similarly, some property is taken from the adult daughters in order to give a fair share to the young daughters. And if there are both sons and daughters and the daughters have seized the movable property, it is taken from the daughters, who are not entitled to sustenance from movable property, and given to the sons, who are the heirs. However, they do not take any property from the sons in order to give it to the daughters.
אַף עַל גַּב דְּקַיְימָא לַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, הָכָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמְּטַלְטְלִי, בֵּין לִכְתוּבָּה, בֵּין לִמְזוֹנֵי, בֵּין לְפַרְנָסָה.
The Gemara comments: Even though we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague, and therefore the halakha should follow his ruling rather than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As Rava said: The halakha is that a woman can collect her claim from land but not from movable property, whether for the marriage contract, for sustenance, or for her livelihood.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה — בְּתוּלָה גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. כָּתַב לָהּ שָׂדֶה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה תַּחַת מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְלֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״כֹּל נְכָסִים דְּאִית לִי אַחְרָאִין לִכְתוּבְּתִיךְ״ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.
MISHNA: If a husband did not write a marriage contract for his wife, a virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars upon divorce or the husband’s death, because it is a stipulation of the court that a wife is entitled to these amounts. If he wrote in her marriage contract that she is entitled to a field worth one hundred dinars instead of the two hundred dinars to which she is actually entitled, and he did not additionally write for her: All property I have shall serve as a guarantee for the payment of your marriage contract, he is nevertheless obligated to pay the full two hundred dinars; and he cannot say that she should take only a mortgaged field for payment of her marriage contract, as it is a stipulation of the court that all his property is held as surety for the entire sum.
לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ: ״אִם תִּשְׁתְּבַאי, אֶפְרְקִינִּךְ וְאוֹתְבִינִּךְ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״, וּבְכֹהֶנֶת: ״אַהְדְּרִינִּךְ לִמְדִינְתִּךָ״ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.
Similarly, if he did not write for her in the marriage contract: If you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife, and in the case of a priestess, i.e., the wife of a priest, who is prohibited to return to her husband if she has intercourse with another man even if she is raped, if he did not write: I will return you to your native province, he is nevertheless obligated to do so, as it is a stipulation of the court.
נִשְׁבֵּית — חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. וְאִם אָמַר: הֲרֵי גִּיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְתִפְדֶּה אֶת עַצְמָהּ — אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. לָקְתָה — חַיָּיב לְרַפְּאוֹתָהּ. אָמַר: ״הֲרֵי גִּיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, תְּרַפֵּא אֶת עַצְמָהּ״ — רַשַּׁאי.
If a woman was taken captive, her husband is obligated to redeem her. And if he said: I hereby give my wife her bill of divorce and the payment of her marriage contract, and let her redeem herself, he is not permitted to do so, as he already obligated himself to redeem her when he wrote the marriage contract. If his wife was struck with illness, he is obligated to heal her, i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. In this case, however, if he said: I hereby give my wife her bill of divorce and the payment of her marriage contract, and let her heal herself, he is permitted to do so.
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הַפּוֹחֵת לִבְתוּלָה מִמָּאתַיִם וּלְאַלְמָנָה מִמָּנֶה — הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the author of the mishna? It is Rabbi Meir, who said: Anyone who decreases the sum guaranteed to a virgin in her marriage contract to less than two hundred dinars, or the sum guaranteed to a widow to less than one hundred dinars, and proceeds to live with his wife, this is licentious sexual intercourse. These sums are fixed by the Sages, and a husband is not permitted to pledge less than the established sum.
דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: רָצָה, כּוֹתֵב לִבְתוּלָה שְׁטָר שֶׁל מָאתַיִם, וְהִיא כּוֹתֶבֶת ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ מָנֶה״. וּלְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה, וְהִיא כּוֹתֶבֶת: ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז״.
For if you say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that if the husband wants, he may write a document as a marriage contract for a virgin in which he pledges two hundred dinars, and she may immediately write: I have received from you one hundred dinars, thereby waiving her rights to half the sum, so that in practice she gets only one hundred dinars? And similarly, he may pledge one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a widow, and she may write: I have received from you fifty dinars. This is not in accordance with the mishna, which indicates that he cannot give her less than the minimum amount even with her consent.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כָּתַב לָהּ שָׂדֶה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה תַּחַת מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְלֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״כֹּל נְכָסִים דְּאִית לִי אַחְרָאִין לִכְתוּבְּתִיךְ״ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But now say the latter clause of the mishna: If he wrote in her marriage contract that she is entitled to a field worth one hundred dinars instead of the two hundred dinars to which she is actually entitled, and he did not additionally write for her: All property I have shall serve as a guarantee for the payment of your marriage contract, he is nevertheless obligated to pay the full two hundred dinars, as it is a stipulation of the court that all his property is held as surety for the entire sum. In this clause, we come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that omission of the guarantee from a document is presumed to be a scribal error, unless the document explicitly states that the property of the individual who wrote the document is not liened to guarantee the transaction.
דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָאָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת — לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא. דִּתְנַן: מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב — אִם
For if this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t he say that omission of the guarantee from a document is not a scribal error, i.e., a lien can be placed on the property to guarantee the transaction only if the document explicitly states this to be the case. The Gemara cites the source of this dispute. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 12b): With regard to one who found promissory notes, if
יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים — לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן.
they include a property guarantee he may not return them to the lender, as he does not know who lost them. It is possible that the debt has already been paid and the documents were returned to the borrower, and he lost them. He may not give them back to the lender even if the borrower admits that he still owes the money, as the court collects the debt from purchasers of the borrower’s property. There is a concern that the borrower has repaid the loan and he is saying that he did not yet repay it because he has conspired with the lender to convince the court to confiscate liened property that the borrower sold, and the lender and borrower will divide the proceeds.
אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים — יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן.
If, however, the documents were of the kind that do not include a property guarantee he returns them, as in this case the court does not collect from purchasers of the borrower’s property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that one, he may not return the promissory notes, as the court collects from purchasers of the borrower’s property regardless, as it is assumed that the omission of the property guarantee from a document is merely a scribal error.
רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְשָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין כְּתוּבָּה לִשְׁטָרֵי. וּמִי שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ?
If so, the first clause of the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And if you would say that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and there is a difference for Rabbi Meir between a marriage contract and other documents, i.e., the guarantee of a marriage contract applies even if it is omitted but the property guarantee in other contracts does not, is there really a difference for him between the two types of documents?
וְהָתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְחוֹרָרִין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: פֵּירוֹת, וּשְׁבַח פֵּירוֹת, וְהַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לָזוּן אֶת בֶּן אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְגֵט חוֹב שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אַחְרָיוּת.
Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Five claims may be collected only from free assets, and they are as follows: Produce, and enhancement to the produce. And likewise, in the case of one who accepts upon himself the duty to sustain his wife’s son or his wife’s daughter and then dies, they receive their support only from the estate’s free assets. And other claims that may be collected only from free assets are a document of debt that does not include the clause of property guarantee, and the marriage contract of a wife that does not include the clause of property guarantee.
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר אַחְרָיוּת לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא — רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְקָתָנֵי כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה.
The Gemara reasons: Whom have you heard say that omission of the property guarantee from a document is not a scribal error? Rabbi Meir, and yet the baraita teaches that the same applies to the marriage contract of a wife. This proves that according to Rabbi Meir, there is no difference between a marriage contract and other documents.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הָתָם כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״, הָכָא לָא כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there, in the other mishna (54b), the case is where she wrote to him: I have received it, thereby waiving her right to part of the marriage contract. In contrast, here, she did not write to him: I have received it, and therefore she collects the entire sum from him even if he did not write a marriage contract.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מַאי ״חַיָּיב״ דְּקָתָנֵי — מִן הַמְחוֹרָרִין.
Conversely, if you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. According to this interpretation, what is the meaning of the phrase: He is obligated, which is taught in the latter clause of the mishna with regard to the case where the marriage contract did not specify that the husband’s property will serve as a guarantee of his obligations toward his wife? It means that the wife’s claims may be collected only from the husband’s free assets, i.e., she does not have a lien on his property.
לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה — אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ. חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן.
§ The mishna taught that if the husband did not write for her that he would redeem her from captivity and restore her to him, he is nevertheless obligated to do so, as this is a stipulation of the court. Shmuel’s father said: The wife of an Israelite who was raped is forbidden to her husband, as we are concerned that perhaps her ordeal started as rape and ended willingly, i.e., during the act she may have acquiesced, and a married woman who willingly had relations with another man is forbidden to her husband.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב לַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: ״אִם תִּשְׁתְּבַאי, אֶפְרְקִינִּךְ וְאוֹתְבִינִּךְ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״! אִישְׁתִּיק.
Rav raised an objection to the opinion of Shmuel’s father from the mishna, which states that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract reads: If you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife. This indicates that despite the possibility that she might have been raped during captivity, she remains permitted to her husband if he is not a priest, and there is no concern that she might have ultimately agreed to the act. Shmuel’s father was silent and did not respond.
קָרֵי רַב עֲלֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: ״שָׂרִים עָצְרוּ בְמִלִּים וְכַף יָשִׂימוּ לְפִיהֶם״. מַאי אִית לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? בִּשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵילּוּ.
Rav recited the following verse about Shmuel’s father: “The princes refrained from talking and laid a hand upon their mouths” (Job 29:9). The Gemara comments: The application of this verse to Shmuel’s father indicates that he refrained from responding despite the fact that an answer was available. But what is there for him to say in reply? The Gemara answers: He could have said that in the case of a captive woman they were lenient. Since it is uncertain whether she was in fact raped during her captivity, the Sages were lenient. However, it is possible that they were more stringent in the case of a woman who was definitely raped.
וְלַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אוֹנֶס דְּשַׁרְיַהּ רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים בְּצוֹוַחַת מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.
The Gemara further asks: According to Shmuel’s father, how can you find a case of rape where the Merciful One permits the victim to remain married to her husband? It is always possible that she might have ultimately acquiesced. The Gemara answers: For example, where witnesses say that she screamed continuously from beginning to end.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹף [בְּרָצוֹן, אֲפִילּוּ] הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: הַנִּיחוּ לוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא (לֹא) נִזְקַק לָהּ הִיא שׂוֹכַרְתּוֹ, מוּתֶּרֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא — יֵצֶר אַלְבְּשַׁהּ.
The Gemara comments: And Shmuel’s father disagrees with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: With regard to any case that starts as rape and ends willingly, even if she ultimately says: Leave him, and she further states that if he had not forcibly initiated intercourse with her, she would have hired him for intercourse, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband. What is the reason for this? The evil inclination took hold of her during the act, and therefore she is still considered to have engaged in intercourse against her will.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״, אֲסוּרָה. הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The verse states with regard to a sota: “And a man lies with her…and she was not taken” (Numbers 5:13). This is referring to a woman who had intercourse but was not taken forcefully, i.e., raped, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred from this that if she was taken forcefully, she is permitted to him. And the word “she” teaches that you have a case of another woman, where even though she was not taken forcefully she is permitted. And which case is this? This is any case that starts as rape and ends willingly. Although at the conclusion of the act she was not taken forcefully, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as stated by Rava.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְפָּשָׂה — אֲסוּרָה, וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן.
A different inference from the same verse is taught in another baraita: “And she was not taken”; in this case, the woman is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred that if she was taken forcefully, she is permitted to her husband. And you have another case where, even though she was taken forcefully, she is forbidden to her husband. And which case is this? This is the case of the wife of a priest, who is forbidden to her husband even if she is the victim of a rape.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לָהּ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה, מוּתֶּרֶת. וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ שֶׁקִּידּוּשֶׁיהָ קִדּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּנָהּ מוּרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ — מְמָאֶנֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לָהּ.
Rav Yehuda said another exposition of this same verse that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: “And she was not taken”; in this case she is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred that if she was taken forcefully she is permitted to her husband. And there is a case of another woman where, even though she was not taken forcefully, she nevertheless remains permitted. And which case is this? This is referring to one whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as, even if her son from this marriage is riding on her shoulders she may refuse to remain with her husband and go off as pleases her. Since she was not really married to begin with, an act of intercourse with another man does not render her forbidden to the man with whom she performed a mistaken betrothal.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי נְשֵׁי דִּגְנַבוּ גַּנָּבֵי — שַׁרְיָין לְגוּבְרַיְיהוּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יְהוּדָה: וְהָא קָא מַמְטְיָאן לְהוּ נַהֲמָא! מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה. וְהָא קָא מְשַׁלְּחָן לְהוּ גִּירֵי! מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה. וַדַּאי, שַׁבְקִינְהוּ וְאָזְלָן מִנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ — אֲסִירָן.
Rav Yehuda said: Those women stolen by kidnappers are permitted to their husbands, as, even if they had intercourse with their captors it is considered rape. The Rabbis said to Rav Yehuda: But while they are captives they bring their kidnappers bread. This indicates that they are not acting under duress. He replied: They do so due to fear. The Rabbis further inquired: But they send them arrows. Rav Yehuda again replied: This too is due to fear. However, I certainly agree that if the kidnappers leave them alone, and they go back to them of their own accord, they are forbidden to their husbands, as it is clear that they are no longer acting out of fear.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁבוּיֵי מַלְכוּת — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁבוּיִין. גְּנוּבֵי לִיסְטוּת — אֵינָן כִּשְׁבוּיִין. וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא!
The Sages taught: With regard to women captured by the monarchy for the purpose of having intercourse with the king, they are considered to be like captives, i.e., they are assumed to have been raped but not to have consented to intercourse. However, those stolen by bandits are not considered to be like captives, as there is a concern that they might have consented to their captors, thinking that they will marry them. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the reverse is the case, i.e., women taken by the monarchy are not classified as captives, whereas this status does apply to those abducted by bandits?
מַלְכוּת אַמַּלְכוּת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הָא בְּמַלְכוּת בֶּן נֶצַּר.
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling of one baraita with regard to those captured by the monarchy and the ruling of the other baraita with regard to those captured by the monarchy is not difficult: This first baraita is referring to the monarchy of Ahasuerus, i.e., a powerful king, as the woman is aware that he is merely using her to satisfy his lust and will certainly not marry her, whereas that other baraita is dealing with the monarchy of ben Netzer, a man who established for himself a minor kingdom through robbery and small-scale conquests. It is possible for a woman to suppose that a king like ben Netzer will eventually marry her.
לִיסְטוּת אַלִּיסְטוּת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּבֶן נֶצַּר, הָא בְּלִיסְטִים דְּעָלְמָא. וּבֶן נֶצַּר, הָתָם קָרֵי לֵיהּ מֶלֶךְ, וְהָכָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ לִסְטִים! אִין, גַּבֵּי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ — לִסְטִים הוּא, גַּבֵּי לִסְטִים דְּעָלְמָא — מֶלֶךְ הוּא.
Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling of one baraita with regard to those kidnapped by bandits and the ruling of the other baraita with regard to those kidnapped by bandits is not difficult: This first baraita is referring to the banditry of ben Netzer, as she might agree to his advances, hoping to become the wife of a king. Conversely, that other baraita is dealing with regular bandits [listim], as it can be assumed that the woman did not acquiesce to having intercourse, as, even if he wanted to marry her she would not agree. The Gemara asks: And this ben Netzer, how can it be that there he is called a king and here he is called a bandit? The Gemara answers: Yes, when considered alongside Ahasuerus he is merely a bandit, but when considered alongside a regular bandit he is deemed a king.
וּבְכֹהֶנֶת אַהְדְּרִינִּךְ לִמְדִינְתִּךָ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — חַיָּיב לִפְדוֹתָהּ, שֶׁאֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ ״וּבְכֹהֶנֶת אַהְדְּרִינִּךְ לִמְדִינְתִּךָ״,
§ The mishna taught: And in the case of a priestess, i.e., the wife of a priest, even if her husband did not write: If you are taken captive I will redeem you and return you to your native province, he is obligated to do so. Abaye said: In the case of a widow who was married to a High Priest, although the marriage is prohibited by Torah law, if she is taken captive he is obligated to redeem her, as I apply to her the clause: And in the case of a priestess: I will return you to your native province. Her husband can, and therefore must, fulfill this clause just as he could if he had married a woman who is permitted to him.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Ketubot 51: Rape Is Rape (Or: Where Shmuel’s Father Goes Wrong)
08.26.2022 | כ״ט באב תשפ״ב
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
Ketubot 51
Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£, ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ.
Abaye asked him: Ultimately, anything that is about to be sheared is considered sheared, and therefore these dates should already be classified as movable property, from which her sustenance cannot be collected. Rav Yosef replied: I spoke of a case when the fruit is nearly fully ripe, but is still in need of the palm tree. Since they are attached to the ground, they may be used for the daughterβs sustenance.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ§Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ!
The Gemara relates: There were a certain minor orphan boy and orphan girl who came before Rava. Rava said to the trustees of the fatherβs estate: Increase the amount you give to the orphan boy, so that there should be enough for the orphan girl as well. The Sages said to Rava: But it was the Master who said that one may collect from land but not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for the daughtersβ livelihood. In this case only movable property was available.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ.
Rava said to them: If this orphan wanted a maidservant to serve him, would we not give him one? The court would use his fatherβs property to fund this acquisition. All the more so here, where there are two factors, as she is his sister and she will serve him as well. It is therefore appropriate to act in this manner, which is to the benefit of both the boy and the girl.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ.
Β§ The Sages taught: With regard to both property that has a guarantee, i.e., real estate, and property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable objects, the court removes them from the orphan heirs for the sustenance of the wife and for the daughters. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to property that has a guarantee, the court removes it from the possession of the sons, who are the heirs, for the sake of the sustenance of the daughters. If the deceased had only daughters, and the adult daughters have taken possession of the estate, the court takes some of the property from the adult daughters in order to give an equal share to the young daughters. And likewise, one takes some of the property from the adult sons in order to give an equal share to the younger sons.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And in a case where the estate has a large amount of property, so that there is more than enough to provide sustenance for the daughters, the court takes from the daughters the property that is not needed to provide for their sustenance and gives it to the sons, who are the true heirs. However, in a case where the estate has a small amount of property, one does not take it from the daughters in order to give it to the sons.
Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ.
By contrast, with regard to property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable property, the court removes some of it from the possession of the adult sons, if they have taken it, in order to give a fair share to the young sons, and similarly, some property is taken from the adult daughters in order to give a fair share to the young daughters. And if there are both sons and daughters and the daughters have seized the movable property, it is taken from the daughters, who are not entitled to sustenance from movable property, and given to the sons, who are the heirs. However, they do not take any property from the sons in order to give it to the daughters.
ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ§Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara comments: Even though we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague, and therefore the halakha should follow his ruling rather than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As Rava said: The halakha is that a woman can collect her claim from land but not from movable property, whether for the marriage contract, for sustenance, or for her livelihood.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ΄ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
MISHNA: If a husband did not write a marriage contract for his wife, a virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars upon divorce or the husbandβs death, because it is a stipulation of the court that a wife is entitled to these amounts. If he wrote in her marriage contract that she is entitled to a field worth one hundred dinars instead of the two hundred dinars to which she is actually entitled, and he did not additionally write for her: All property I have shall serve as a guarantee for the payment of your marriage contract, he is nevertheless obligated to pay the full two hundred dinars; and he cannot say that she should take only a mortgaged field for payment of her marriage contract, as it is a stipulation of the court that all his property is held as surety for the entire sum.
ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΈΧ΄ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
Similarly, if he did not write for her in the marriage contract: If you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife, and in the case of a priestess, i.e., the wife of a priest, who is prohibited to return to her husband if she has intercourse with another man even if she is raped, if he did not write: I will return you to your native province, he is nevertheless obligated to do so, as it is a stipulation of the court.
Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ§Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β Χ¨Φ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ.
If a woman was taken captive, her husband is obligated to redeem her. And if he said: I hereby give my wife her bill of divorce and the payment of her marriage contract, and let her redeem herself, he is not permitted to do so, as he already obligated himself to redeem her when he wrote the marriage contract. If his wife was struck with illness, he is obligated to heal her, i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. In this case, however, if he said: I hereby give my wife her bill of divorce and the payment of her marriage contract, and let her heal herself, he is permitted to do so.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧͺ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the author of the mishna? It is Rabbi Meir, who said: Anyone who decreases the sum guaranteed to a virgin in her marriage contract to less than two hundred dinars, or the sum guaranteed to a widow to less than one hundred dinars, and proceeds to live with his wife, this is licentious sexual intercourse. These sums are fixed by the Sages, and a husband is not permitted to pledge less than the established sum.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧΧ΄. ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΧ΄.
For if you say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didnβt he say that if the husband wants, he may write a document as a marriage contract for a virgin in which he pledges two hundred dinars, and she may immediately write: I have received from you one hundred dinars, thereby waiving her rights to half the sum, so that in practice she gets only one hundred dinars? And similarly, he may pledge one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a widow, and she may write: I have received from you fifty dinars. This is not in accordance with the mishna, which indicates that he cannot give her less than the minimum amount even with her consent.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ΄ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But now say the latter clause of the mishna: If he wrote in her marriage contract that she is entitled to a field worth one hundred dinars instead of the two hundred dinars to which she is actually entitled, and he did not additionally write for her: All property I have shall serve as a guarantee for the payment of your marriage contract, he is nevertheless obligated to pay the full two hundred dinars, as it is a stipulation of the court that all his property is held as surety for the entire sum. In this clause, we come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that omission of the guarantee from a document is presumed to be a scribal error, unless the document explicitly states that the property of the individual who wrote the document is not liened to guarantee the transaction.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ
For if this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didnβt he say that omission of the guarantee from a document is not a scribal error, i.e., a lien can be placed on the property to guarantee the transaction only if the document explicitly states this to be the case. The Gemara cites the source of this dispute. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 12b): With regard to one who found promissory notes, if
ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ.
they include a property guarantee he may not return them to the lender, as he does not know who lost them. It is possible that the debt has already been paid and the documents were returned to the borrower, and he lost them. He may not give them back to the lender even if the borrower admits that he still owes the money, as the court collects the debt from purchasers of the borrowerβs property. There is a concern that the borrower has repaid the loan and he is saying that he did not yet repay it because he has conspired with the lender to convince the court to confiscate liened property that the borrower sold, and the lender and borrower will divide the proceeds.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ.
If, however, the documents were of the kind that do not include a property guarantee he returns them, as in this case the court does not collect from purchasers of the borrowerβs property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that one, he may not return the promissory notes, as the court collects from purchasers of the borrowerβs property regardless, as it is assumed that the omission of the property guarantee from a document is merely a scribal error.
Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?
If so, the first clause of the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And if you would say that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and there is a difference for Rabbi Meir between a marriage contract and other documents, i.e., the guarantee of a marriage contract applies even if it is omitted but the property guarantee in other contracts does not, is there really a difference for him between the two types of documents?
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ: Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ.
Isnβt it taught in a baraita: Five claims may be collected only from free assets, and they are as follows: Produce, and enhancement to the produce. And likewise, in the case of one who accepts upon himself the duty to sustain his wifeβs son or his wifeβs daughter and then dies, they receive their support only from the estateβs free assets. And other claims that may be collected only from free assets are a document of debt that does not include the clause of property guarantee, and the marriage contract of a wife that does not include the clause of property guarantee.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara reasons: Whom have you heard say that omission of the property guarantee from a document is not a scribal error? Rabbi Meir, and yet the baraita teaches that the same applies to the marriage contract of a wife. This proves that according to Rabbi Meir, there is no difference between a marriage contract and other documents.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there, in the other mishna (54b), the case is where she wrote to him: I have received it, thereby waiving her right to part of the marriage contract. In contrast, here, she did not write to him: I have received it, and therefore she collects the entire sum from him even if he did not write a marriage contract.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
Conversely, if you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. According to this interpretation, what is the meaning of the phrase: He is obligated, which is taught in the latter clause of the mishna with regard to the case where the marriage contract did not specify that the husbandβs property will serve as a guarantee of his obligations toward his wife? It means that the wifeβs claims may be collected only from the husbandβs free assets, i.e., she does not have a lien on his property.
ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ.
Β§ The mishna taught that if the husband did not write for her that he would redeem her from captivity and restore her to him, he is nevertheless obligated to do so, as this is a stipulation of the court. Shmuelβs father said: The wife of an Israelite who was raped is forbidden to her husband, as we are concerned that perhaps her ordeal started as rape and ended willingly, i.e., during the act she may have acquiesced, and a married woman who willingly had relations with another man is forbidden to her husband.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄! ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§.
Rav raised an objection to the opinion of Shmuelβs father from the mishna, which states that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract reads: If you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife. This indicates that despite the possibility that she might have been raped during captivity, she remains permitted to her husband if he is not a priest, and there is no concern that she might have ultimately agreed to the act. Shmuelβs father was silent and did not respond.
Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ΄Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧΧ΄. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ§Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ.
Rav recited the following verse about Shmuelβs father: βThe princes refrained from talking and laid a hand upon their mouthsβ (Job 29:9). The Gemara comments: The application of this verse to Shmuelβs father indicates that he refrained from responding despite the fact that an answer was available. But what is there for him to say in reply? The Gemara answers: He could have said that in the case of a captive woman they were lenient. Since it is uncertain whether she was in fact raped during her captivity, the Sages were lenient. However, it is possible that they were more stringent in the case of a woman who was definitely raped.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ’Φ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£.
The Gemara further asks: According to Shmuelβs father, how can you find a case of rape where the Merciful One permits the victim to remain married to her husband? It is always possible that she might have ultimately acquiesced. The Gemara answers: For example, where witnesses say that she screamed continuously from beginning to end.
ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ [ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ] ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ (ΧΦΉΧ) Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅Χ¦ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara comments: And Shmuelβs father disagrees with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: With regard to any case that starts as rape and ends willingly, even if she ultimately says: Leave him, and she further states that if he had not forcibly initiated intercourse with her, she would have hired him for intercourse, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband. What is the reason for this? The evil inclination took hold of her during the act, and therefore she is still considered to have engaged in intercourse against her will.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The verse states with regard to a sota: βAnd a man lies with herβ¦and she was not takenβ (Numbers 5:13). This is referring to a woman who had intercourse but was not taken forcefully, i.e., raped, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred from this that if she was taken forcefully, she is permitted to him. And the word βsheβ teaches that you have a case of another woman, where even though she was not taken forcefully she is permitted. And which case is this? This is any case that starts as rape and ends willingly. Although at the conclusion of the act she was not taken forcefully, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as stated by Rava.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ.
A different inference from the same verse is taught in another baraita: βAnd she was not takenβ; in this case, the woman is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred that if she was taken forcefully, she is permitted to her husband. And you have another case where, even though she was taken forcefully, she is forbidden to her husband. And which case is this? This is the case of the wife of a priest, who is forbidden to her husband even if she is the victim of a rape.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ.
Rav Yehuda said another exposition of this same verse that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: βAnd she was not takenβ; in this case she is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred that if she was taken forcefully she is permitted to her husband. And there is a case of another woman where, even though she was not taken forcefully, she nevertheless remains permitted. And which case is this? This is referring to one whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as, even if her son from this marriage is riding on her shoulders she may refuse to remain with her husband and go off as pleases her. Since she was not really married to begin with, an act of intercourse with another man does not render her forbidden to the man with whom she performed a mistaken betrothal.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ! ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Rav Yehuda said: Those women stolen by kidnappers are permitted to their husbands, as, even if they had intercourse with their captors it is considered rape. The Rabbis said to Rav Yehuda: But while they are captives they bring their kidnappers bread. This indicates that they are not acting under duress. He replied: They do so due to fear. The Rabbis further inquired: But they send them arrows. Rav Yehuda again replied: This too is due to fear. However, I certainly agree that if the kidnappers leave them alone, and they go back to them of their own accord, they are forbidden to their husbands, as it is clear that they are no longer acting out of fear.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ!
The Sages taught: With regard to women captured by the monarchy for the purpose of having intercourse with the king, they are considered to be like captives, i.e., they are assumed to have been raped but not to have consented to intercourse. However, those stolen by bandits are not considered to be like captives, as there is a concern that they might have consented to their captors, thinking that they will marry them. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isnβt it taught in a baraita that the reverse is the case, i.e., women taken by the monarchy are not classified as captives, whereas this status does apply to those abducted by bandits?
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ©Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΦΆΧ¦ΦΌΦ·Χ¨.
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling of one baraita with regard to those captured by the monarchy and the ruling of the other baraita with regard to those captured by the monarchy is not difficult: This first baraita is referring to the monarchy of Ahasuerus, i.e., a powerful king, as the woman is aware that he is merely using her to satisfy his lust and will certainly not marry her, whereas that other baraita is dealing with the monarchy of ben Netzer, a man who established for himself a minor kingdom through robbery and small-scale conquests. It is possible for a woman to suppose that a king like ben Netzer will eventually marry her.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ Χ ΦΆΧ¦ΦΌΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ ΦΆΧ¦ΦΌΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ°, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ©Χ β ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧ.
Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling of one baraita with regard to those kidnapped by bandits and the ruling of the other baraita with regard to those kidnapped by bandits is not difficult: This first baraita is referring to the banditry of ben Netzer, as she might agree to his advances, hoping to become the wife of a king. Conversely, that other baraita is dealing with regular bandits [listim], as it can be assumed that the woman did not acquiesce to having intercourse, as, even if he wanted to marry her she would not agree. The Gemara asks: And this ben Netzer, how can it be that there he is called a king and here he is called a bandit? The Gemara answers: Yes, when considered alongside Ahasuerus he is merely a bandit, but when considered alongside a regular bandit he is deemed a king.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΈΧ΄,
Β§ The mishna taught: And in the case of a priestess, i.e., the wife of a priest, even if her husband did not write: If you are taken captive I will redeem you and return you to your native province, he is obligated to do so. Abaye said: In the case of a widow who was married to a High Priest, although the marriage is prohibited by Torah law, if she is taken captive he is obligated to redeem her, as I apply to her the clause: And in the case of a priestess: I will return you to your native province. Her husband can, and therefore must, fulfill this clause just as he could if he had married a woman who is permitted to him.
Follow
