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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 25, 2015 | 讛壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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 51

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讝讜讝 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

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鈥檚 sustenance.

讛讛讜讗 讬转讜诐 讜讬转讜诪讛 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讛注诇讜 诇讬转讜诐 讘砖讘讬诇 讬转讜诪讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛

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鈥檚 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鈥 livelihood. In this case only movable property was available.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬诇讜 专爪讛 砖驻讞讛 诇砖诪砖讜 诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专转讬

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谉 讗砖讛 讜诇讘谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讜诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐

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.

讜诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉

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.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讜诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐

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.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛讻讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讘讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻转讘 诇讛 砖讚讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 转讞转 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讬讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诐 转砖转讘讗讬 讗驻专拽讬谞讱 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讜讘讻讛谞转 讗讛讚专讬谞讱 诇诪讚讬谞转讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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.

谞砖讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬 讙讬讟讛 讜讻转讜讘转讛 讜转驻讚讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讛 讗诪专 讛专讬 讙讬讟讛 讜讻转讜讘转讛 转专驻讗 讗转 注爪诪讛 专砖讗讬

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛驻讜讞转 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

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.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 专爪讛 讻讜转讘 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖讟专 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 诪谞讛 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝

For if you say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻转讘 诇讛 砖讚讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 转讞转 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讬讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗

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.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐

For if this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn鈥檛 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

讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property regardless, as it is assumed that the omission of the property guarantee from a document is merely a scribal error.

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 诇砖讟专讬 讜诪讬 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛

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?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讞讜专专讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转 讜讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讜讙讟 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞专讬讜转

Isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 son or his wife鈥檚 daughter and then dies, they receive their support only from the estate鈥檚 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.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜拽转谞讬 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 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 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛转拽讘诇转讬 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛转拽讘诇转讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讚拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛诪讞讜专专讬谉

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鈥檚 property will serve as a guarantee of his obligations toward his wife? It means that the wife鈥檚 claims may be collected only from the husband鈥檚 free assets, i.e., she does not have a lien on his property.

诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗谞住讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讞诇转讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜住讜驻讛 讘专爪讜谉

搂 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 转砖转讘讗讬 讗驻专拽讬谞讱 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav raised an objection to the opinion of Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 father was silent and did not respond.

拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬诐 注爪专讜 讘诪诇讬诐 讜讻祝 讬砖讬诪讜 诇驻讬讛诐 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜

Rav recited the following verse about Shmuel鈥檚 father: 鈥淭he princes refrained from talking and laid a hand upon their mouths鈥 (Job 29:9). The Gemara comments: The application of this verse to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜谞住 讚砖专讬讗 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 砖爪讜讜讞讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝

The Gemara further asks: According to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 砖转讞诇转讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜住讜祝 讘专爪讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 砖讗诇诪诇讗 (诇讗) 谞讝拽拽 诇讛 讛讬讗 砖讜讻专转讜 诪讜转专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬爪专 讗诇讘砖讛

The Gemara comments: And Shmuel鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讻诇 砖转讞诇转讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜住讜驻讛 讘专爪讜谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The verse states with regard to a sota: 鈥淎nd a man lies with her鈥and she was not taken鈥 (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 鈥渟he鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讗砖转 讻讛谉

A different inference from the same verse is taught in another baraita: 鈥淎nd she was not taken鈥; 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讛 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 砖拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讛 诪讜专讻讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇讛

Rav Yehuda said another exposition of this same verse that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: 鈥淎nd she was not taken鈥; 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚讙谞讘讜 讙谞讘讬 砖专讬讬谉 诇讙讜讘专讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪诪讟讬讗谉 诇讛讜 谞讛诪讗 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诇讞谉 诇讛讜 讙讬专讬 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讜讚讗讬 砖讘拽讬谞讛讜 讜讗讝诇谉 诪谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗住讬专谉

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘讜讬讬 诪诇讻讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讙谞讜讘讬 诇讬住讟讜转 讗讬谞谉 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗

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鈥檛 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?

诪诇讻讜转 讗诪诇讻讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪诇讻讜转 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 讛讗 讘诪诇讻讜转 讘谉 谞爪专

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.

诇讬住讟讜转 讗诇讬住讟讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘谉 谞爪专 讛讗 讘诇讬住讟讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 讜讘谉 谞爪专 讛转诐 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪诇讱 讜讛讻讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇住讟讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讘讬 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 诇住讟讬诐 讛讜讗 讙讘讬 诇住讟讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 诪诇讱 讛讜讗

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.

讜讘讻讛谞转 讗讛讚专讬谞讱 诇诪讚讬谞转讱 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 砖讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讜讘讻讛谞转 讗讛讚专讬谞讱 诇诪讚讬谞转讱

搂 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.

  • 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 51: Rape Is Rape (Or: Where Shmuel’s Father Goes Wrong)

Truly, a doozy of a daf (again, rape). But first, establishing the minimum standard of the ketubah (a mishnah!). Likewise,...

Ketubot 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 51

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讝讜讝 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

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鈥檚 sustenance.

讛讛讜讗 讬转讜诐 讜讬转讜诪讛 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讛注诇讜 诇讬转讜诐 讘砖讘讬诇 讬转讜诪讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛

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鈥檚 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鈥 livelihood. In this case only movable property was available.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬诇讜 专爪讛 砖驻讞讛 诇砖诪砖讜 诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专转讬

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谉 讗砖讛 讜诇讘谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讜诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐

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.

讜诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉

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.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讜诇讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讘谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讜转 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐

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.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛讻讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讘讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻转讘 诇讛 砖讚讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 转讞转 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讬讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诐 转砖转讘讗讬 讗驻专拽讬谞讱 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讜讘讻讛谞转 讗讛讚专讬谞讱 诇诪讚讬谞转讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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.

谞砖讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬 讙讬讟讛 讜讻转讜讘转讛 讜转驻讚讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讛 讗诪专 讛专讬 讙讬讟讛 讜讻转讜讘转讛 转专驻讗 讗转 注爪诪讛 专砖讗讬

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛驻讜讞转 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

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.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 专爪讛 讻讜转讘 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖讟专 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 诪谞讛 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝

For if you say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻转讘 诇讛 砖讚讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 转讞转 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讬讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗

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.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐

For if this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn鈥檛 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

讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property regardless, as it is assumed that the omission of the property guarantee from a document is merely a scribal error.

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 诇砖讟专讬 讜诪讬 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛

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?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讞讜专专讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转 讜讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讜讙讟 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞专讬讜转

Isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 son or his wife鈥檚 daughter and then dies, they receive their support only from the estate鈥檚 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.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜拽转谞讬 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 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 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛转拽讘诇转讬 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛转拽讘诇转讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讚拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛诪讞讜专专讬谉

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鈥檚 property will serve as a guarantee of his obligations toward his wife? It means that the wife鈥檚 claims may be collected only from the husband鈥檚 free assets, i.e., she does not have a lien on his property.

诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗谞住讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讞诇转讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜住讜驻讛 讘专爪讜谉

搂 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 转砖转讘讗讬 讗驻专拽讬谞讱 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav raised an objection to the opinion of Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 father was silent and did not respond.

拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬诐 注爪专讜 讘诪诇讬诐 讜讻祝 讬砖讬诪讜 诇驻讬讛诐 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜

Rav recited the following verse about Shmuel鈥檚 father: 鈥淭he princes refrained from talking and laid a hand upon their mouths鈥 (Job 29:9). The Gemara comments: The application of this verse to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜谞住 讚砖专讬讗 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 砖爪讜讜讞讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝

The Gemara further asks: According to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 砖转讞诇转讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜住讜祝 讘专爪讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 砖讗诇诪诇讗 (诇讗) 谞讝拽拽 诇讛 讛讬讗 砖讜讻专转讜 诪讜转专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬爪专 讗诇讘砖讛

The Gemara comments: And Shmuel鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讻诇 砖转讞诇转讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜住讜驻讛 讘专爪讜谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The verse states with regard to a sota: 鈥淎nd a man lies with her鈥and she was not taken鈥 (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 鈥渟he鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讗砖转 讻讛谉

A different inference from the same verse is taught in another baraita: 鈥淎nd she was not taken鈥; 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讛 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 砖拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讛 诪讜专讻讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇讛

Rav Yehuda said another exposition of this same verse that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: 鈥淎nd she was not taken鈥; 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚讙谞讘讜 讙谞讘讬 砖专讬讬谉 诇讙讜讘专讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪诪讟讬讗谉 诇讛讜 谞讛诪讗 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诇讞谉 诇讛讜 讙讬专讬 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讜讚讗讬 砖讘拽讬谞讛讜 讜讗讝诇谉 诪谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗住讬专谉

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘讜讬讬 诪诇讻讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讙谞讜讘讬 诇讬住讟讜转 讗讬谞谉 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗

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鈥檛 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?

诪诇讻讜转 讗诪诇讻讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪诇讻讜转 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 讛讗 讘诪诇讻讜转 讘谉 谞爪专

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.

诇讬住讟讜转 讗诇讬住讟讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘谉 谞爪专 讛讗 讘诇讬住讟讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 讜讘谉 谞爪专 讛转诐 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪诇讱 讜讛讻讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇住讟讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讘讬 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 诇住讟讬诐 讛讜讗 讙讘讬 诇住讟讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 诪诇讱 讛讜讗

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.

讜讘讻讛谞转 讗讛讚专讬谞讱 诇诪讚讬谞转讱 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 砖讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讜讘讻讛谞转 讗讛讚专讬谞讱 诇诪讚讬谞转讱

搂 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.

Scroll To Top