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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 27, 2022 | 诇壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 52- Shabbat August 27

This is Shabbat鈥檚 daf. For Friday鈥檚 daf please click here.

诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讬 诇讗谞转讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘讬讬讛 讙讜专诐 诇讛 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙讜专诐 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛

In the case of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, who are entitled to a marriage contract despite the fact that the relationship is forbidden and they must get divorced, he is not obligated to redeem her, as I do not apply to her the clause: And I will restore you to me as a wife, as she is forbidden to him. Rava said: In any case where the prohibition of her captivity, i.e., the fact that she was taken captive, causes her to be forbidden to her husband, as in the case of a priest鈥檚 wife who was taken captive, he is obligated to redeem her. However, if another prohibition causes her to be forbidden to her husband, e.g., the case of a widow who is married to a High Priest, he is not obligated to redeem her.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞砖讘讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 驻讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from him, in which case he must divorce her, and she is then taken captive, Rabbi Eliezer says: He redeems her and gives her the payment for her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He gives her the payment for her marriage contract but he does not have to redeem her, as he may not take her back as his wife, due to his vow.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 住讜诪讻讜住 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 讻砖讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 讘谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛

Rabbi Natan said: I asked Sumakhos: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that he gives her the payment for her marriage contract but he does not have to redeem her, was he referring to a case where he vowed that she may not derive benefit from him and she was subsequently taken captive, or was he speaking of one who was taken captive and he subsequently vowed that she may not derive benefit from him?

讜讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛 讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜诪讬

And he said to me: I have not heard a tradition on this matter, but it would appear that Rabbi Yehoshua does not obligate the husband to redeem her in a situation where he vowed that she may not derive benefit from him and she was subsequently taken captive. As, if you say that the same halakha applies in a case where she was taken captive and he subsequently vowed that she may not derive benefit from him, the husband might come to engage in trickery. If he wants to release himself from the duty to ransom his wife after she is captured, he can simply vow that she may not derive benefit from him, in which case he would be obligated to pay her only the marriage contract.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘诪讚讬专 讗砖转 讻讛谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara now analyzes the suggested comparison between the opinions cited in this baraita and the dispute between Abaye and Rava. What, is it not the case that the tanna鈥檌m disagree about a priest who vows that his wife, i.e., the wife of a priest, may not derive benefit from him? And Abaye spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer when he said that the husband must redeem his wife even if she is forbidden to him due to something other than the fact that she was taken captive, and Rava spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讛 讗讬讛讬 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讛 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No; with what are we dealing here? With a case where she vowed not to derive benefit from him, and her husband upheld it for her by neglecting to nullify her vow when he heard it. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that he is putting his finger between her teeth, i.e., he causes the vow to be in effect, and therefore he must redeem her and return her to her native province. And Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that she put her finger between her own teeth, i.e., she is responsible for the vow, because she is the one who initially pronounced it.

讗讬 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that she put her finger between her own teeth, what is the payment of the marriage contract doing here? Why must he pay her marriage contract if it is her fault that they cannot remain married?

讜转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 住讜诪讻讜住 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 讻砖讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 讘砖谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛 讜讗诪专 诇讗 砖诪注转讬

And furthermore, it was stated above that Rabbi Natan said: I asked Sumakhos: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that he gives her the payment for her marriage contract but he does not have to redeem her, was he referring to a case where he vowed that she may not derive benefit from him and she was subsequently taken captive, or was he speaking of one who was taken captive and he subsequently vowed that she may not derive benefit from him? And he said to me: I have not heard a tradition on this matter, but it is reasonable to assume that the case is where he took the vow and she was subsequently taken captive, as otherwise there is a concern that the husband will engage in trickery.

讜讗讬 讚谞讚专讛 讗讬讛讬 诪讛 诇讬 讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 诪讛 诇讬 谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛

But if this is referring to a case where she was the one who vowed not to derive benefit from him, what is the difference to me whether he upheld her vow and she was subsequently taken captive, and what is the difference to me whether she was taken captive and he subsequently upheld her vow? Either way there is no reason to be concerned that he might engage in trickery, since she was the one who took the vow.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讚专讛 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讘讬讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 诪讚讬专 讗砖转 讻讛谉 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗诇诪谞讛 [诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 ]

Rather, this is actually referring to a case where he was the one who initially vowed that she may not derive benefit from him. And Abaye explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rava explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Abaye explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning as follows: With regard to a widow who is married to a High Priest, everyone agrees that he is obligated to redeem her. If she was a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, everyone agrees that he is not obligated to redeem her. In the case of a priest who takes a vow prohibiting his wife, i.e., the wife of a priest, from deriving benefit from him, likewise everyone agrees that he is obligated to redeem her, as this is the same as the case of a widow who is married to a High Priest, as he can fulfill the requirement to restore her to her native province.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讚讬专 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讘住讜祝

When they disagree it is in the case of an Israelite who vows that his wife, i.e., the wife of an Israelite, may not derive benefit from him. Rabbi Eliezer follows the status of the woman at the outset, i.e., when the marriage contract was written. Since at that time he could restore her to be his wife, the obligation he took upon himself to redeem her from captivity remains in effect, despite the fact that he can no longer do so due to the vow. And Rabbi Yehoshua follows the status of the woman at the end, and holds that since, in practice, the husband cannot take her back as a wife because of the vow, he is no longer obligated to ransom her.

专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讚讬专 讘讬谉 讗砖转 讻讛谉 讜讘讬谉 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇

Similarly, Rava explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: In the case of a widow married to a High Priest, and a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, everyone agrees that he is not obligated to redeem her, as the prohibition against her remaining married to him results from a cause other than her captivity. When they disagree it is with regard to one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from him, whether she is the wife of a priest or the wife of an Israelite.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讘住讜祝

Rabbi Eliezer follows her status at the outset and holds that since he obligated himself to ransom her when he wrote the marriage contract he must act accordingly. And Rabbi Yehoshua follows her status at the end, and holds that since he cannot fulfill his obligation to restore her as his wife due to a factor other than her captivity, he is entirely exempt from redeeming her.

谞砖讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讘讬转 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讘注诇讛 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛 诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛

搂 The mishna taught that if she was taken captive, her husband is obligated to redeem her. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a wife who was taken captive in her husband鈥檚 lifetime and afterward her husband died before he could redeem her, if her husband was aware of her captivity, the heirs are obligated to redeem her, but if her husband was not aware of her captivity, his heirs are not obligated to redeem her.

诇讜讬 住讘专 诇诪讬注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讘讬转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讘讬转 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讗讬谞转讜

The Gemara relates: Levi thought to act in accordance with this baraita. Rav said to him: My uncle [岣vivi], Rabbi 岣yya, said as follows: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita. Rather, it is in accordance with that which is taught in a different baraita: If she was taken captive after the death of her husband, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her. And moreover, even if she was taken captive in her husband鈥檚 lifetime and he heard about it, and afterward her husband died, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her, as I cannot apply to her the clause in the marriage contract: And I will restore you to me as a wife. Since this stipulation cannot be fulfilled, the obligation to redeem her does not apply.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 驻讜讚讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专爪讛 驻讜讚讛 专爪讛 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught: If she was taken captive and they were seeking ransom from her husband of up to ten times her value, i.e., far more than the usual ransom for a captive of this kind, on the first occasion she is taken captive he must redeem her. From this point forward, i.e., if she was taken captive a second time, if he wants to, he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her, as the Sages obligated him to redeem her only once. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 讬讜转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛诐 诪驻谞讬 转拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚驻专拽讜谞讛 讬讜转专 注诇 讻转讜讘转讛

One does not redeem captives at more than their value. This policy is for the betterment of the world, because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom in accordance with their actual value one does redeem captives, even though this includes a case where a woman鈥檚 redemption is more than her marriage contract.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 谞砖讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 驻讜讚讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专爪讛 驻讜讚讛 专爪讛 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专拽讜谞讛 讻谞讙讚 讻转讜讘转讛 驻讜讚讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita, which states: If she was taken captive and the captors were seeking from her husband a ransom of up to ten times the value of her marriage contract, on the first occasion he must redeem her. From this point forward, if he wants to he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the price of her ransom was equal to her marriage contract he redeems her. If not, i.e., the price of her ransom was greater than the sum of money guaranteed to her in her marriage contract upon divorce or the death of her husband, he does not have to redeem her. He can suffice with paying her marriage contract.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转专讬 拽讜诇讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of the opinion that there are two leniencies with regard to the halakhot of redemption. First, he maintains that one does not pay more than the general ransom given for such a captive, and second, a husband does not have to pay more than the sum of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract.

诇拽转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬谉 讜爪专讬讻讛 专驻讜讗讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪讝讜谞讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 专驻讜讗讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 拽爪讘讛 谞转专驻讗转 诪讻转讜讘转讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽爪讘讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪讝讜谞讜转

搂 The mishna taught (51a) that if a woman was struck with illness, her husband is obligated to heal her, i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a widow who is sustained from the property of the orphans and who requires medical treatment, her medical needs are like her sustenance, and the orphans must bear the costs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: With regard to treatment that has a fixed cost, she is healed from her marriage contract, i.e., the amount is subtracted from her marriage contract. If it is a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, it is considered like sustenance.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讜 讛拽讝转 讚诐 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻专驻讜讗讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽爪讘讛 拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 讗讬转转 讗讘讗 讚讛讜转 爪专讬讻讛 专驻讜讗讛 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讝讬诇讜 拽讜爪讜 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 诇专讜驻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Sages established that in Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered like a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yo岣nan had to take care of the wife of their father, who required treatment every day, and therefore her medical expenses were high. They came before Rabbi Yo岣nan to ask him what to do. He said to them: Go and fix a lump sum with the doctor for his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讬谞讜 注爪诪讬谞讜 讻注讜专讻讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 讜诪讘砖专讱 诇讗 转转注诇诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬

Later Rabbi Yo岣nan said in regret: We have made ourselves like legal advisors, who help people with their legal claims. The Gemara asks: At the outset, what did he hold and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara explains: At the outset he held that one should act in accordance with the verse 鈥渁nd that you do not hide yourself from your own flesh鈥 (Isaiah 58:7), which indicates that one must help his relatives. And ultimately he held that an important person is different. If a man of stature offers assistance to his family in a manner that causes a loss to another individual, it appears as though he were unfairly favoring his relatives.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讚讬讛讜讜 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 讗讬谞讜谉 讬专转讜谉 讻住祝 讻转讜讘转讬讱 讬转专 注诇 讞讜诇拽讛讜谉 讚注诐 讗讞讜讛讜谉 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘谞谉 谞讜拽讘谉 讚讬讛讜讬谉 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 讬讛讜讬谉 讬转讘谉 讘讘讬转讬 讜诪讬转讝谞谉 诪谞讻住讬 注讚 讚转诇拽讞讜谉 诇讙讜讘专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and therefore takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. Likewise, if he omitted from the marriage contract the sentence: Any female children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men, i.e., until they are married, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it too is a stipulation of the court.

讗转 转讛讗 讬转讘讗 讘讘讬转讬 讜诪讬转讝谞讗 诪谞讻住讬 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪讬讙专 讗诇诪谞讜转讬讱 讘讘讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讱 讛讬讜 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗谞砖讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 注讚 砖讬专爪讜 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诇讬转谉 诇讱 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讛

Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband鈥檚 house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讻讚讬 砖讬拽驻讜抓 讗讚诐 讜讬讻转讜讘 诇讘转讜 讻讘谞讜

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: For what reason did the Sages enact the marriage document concerning male children? It was enacted so that a man will be willing to take the initiative and write an agreement to give his daughter a dowry as large as the portion of his possessions that his son will receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one鈥檚 daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讘专讗 诇讬专讜转 讘专转讗 诇讗 转讬专讜转 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜诪转拽谞讬 讚转讬专讜转 讘专转讗

The Gemara asks: And is there anything that justifies a situation where the Merciful One says that the son inherits and the daughter does not inherit, and yet the Sages came and enacted that the daughter should inherit? The practical effect of their decree is that daughters receive a significant portion of their father鈥檚 estate, just like sons.

讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 拽讞讜 谞砖讬诐 讜讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讜转 讜拽讞讜 诇讘谞讬讻诐 谞砖讬诐 讜讗转 讘谞讜转讬讻诐 转谞讜 诇讗谞砖讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讘谞讬诐 讘讬讚讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诇讗 讘谞转讬讛 诪讬 拽讬讬诪谉 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara answers: This also applies by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淭ake wives for yourselves and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands鈥 (Jeremiah 29:6). This verse requires clarification. Granted, sons are in his hands, i.e., a father can select wives for them, but daughters, are they in his power that he can select husbands for them? It is not the manner of a woman or her family to court a man.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞诇讘砖讛 讜谞讬讻住讛 讜谞讬转讬讘 诇讛 诪讬讚讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚拽驻爪讬 注诇讛 讜讗转讜 谞住讘讬 诇讛 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讚 诇注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬

Rather, the verse teaches us this, that the father should dress her and cover her and give her something, i.e., property, so that men will take the initiative with her and come to marry her. When the verse instructs fathers to marry off their daughters, it means that they must make efforts to ensure this outcome, including bestowing a dowry. The Gemara asks: And up to how much must a father give his daughters? Abaye and Rava both say: Up to one-tenth of one鈥檚 property should be handed over to his daughter for her dowry.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讗讘 诇讬专讜转 讚讘注诇 诇讗 诇讬专讜转 讗诐 讻谉 讗讘 谞诪讬 诪讬诪谞注 讜诇讗 讻转讘

The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for the institution of the marriage document concerning male children, say that it is only the portion the bride鈥檚 father gave as a dowry that her sons should inherit, but the money the husband guarantees to pay his wife, they should not inherit. The Gemara answers: If so, the bride鈥檚 father will also refrain from writing a large dowry. If his daughter鈥檚 sons will not inherit the husband鈥檚 portion of the marriage contract, her father will be reluctant to give generously himself.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讗讘 诇讻转讜讘 讘注诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讘 讗讘 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 讘注诇 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉

The Gemara continues to ask: But if the concern is that the father will not give, say that in a case where the father wrote a large dowry for his daughter, let the husband also write the stipulation in the marriage document concerning male children, and when the father did not write a large dowry, let the husband not write this stipulation. The Gemara replies: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases. Although the main purpose of their enactment was to encourage fathers to provide their daughters with generous dowries, the Sages applied their decree equally to all women, even when the father failed to do so.

讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 谞诪讬 转讬专讜转 讻谞讞诇讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara poses another question: If the aim is to ensure that the money of the marriage contract will remain with the woman鈥檚 descendants, in a case when one has a daughter from one woman among his sons from another woman, the daughter should likewise inherit her mother鈥檚 dowry. Why do only male children inherit their mother鈥檚 dowry? The Gemara responds: The Sages established this enactment as similar to the halakha of inheritance: Just as a regular inheritance belongs to sons and not daughters, the same applies to the marriage document concerning male children.

讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 转讬专讜转 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉 讜转讬讙讘讬 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讻讻转讜讘讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara continues to inquire: Why shouldn鈥檛 one at least say that a daughter among daughters should inherit? If he had a daughter from this wife, and his other children are also daughters, in which case all the daughters divide the inheritance, the daughters of each wife should receive the portion her maternal grandfather gave to her mother. The Gemara again answers: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases when establishing their decree. The Gemara further asks: And let the marriage document concerning male children be collected even from movable property, if that is all the father possesses. The Gemara replies: The Sages established this enactment as similar to a regular marriage contract, which can be collected only from land.

转讟专讜祝 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讬专转讜谉 转谞谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬注拽专讗 谞讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara poses yet another question: Let it be collected even from liened property, i.e., property the father sold after he wrote the marriage contract. The Gemara answers that we learned in the mishna: Will inherit, and one鈥檚 heirs do not inherit property that he has sold. The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for this enactment, say that it should apply even though there is no more than a dinar beyond the value of the marriage contract that the father left over in his estate. The Sages stated that if no property is left for the inheritance, all the sons share the inheritance equally, in accordance with Torah law. The Gemara answers: In a case where their decree would entirely uproot the halakha of inheritance by Torah law, the Sages did not enact the marriage document concerning male children.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 讗讘讗 住讜专讗讛 讗讝讬诇 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诪注 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诪专讬诪专 谞驻拽 讗转讗 讗讬转讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪驻讟专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬注讜诇 诪专 讘讛讚讗讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, having arranged for his son to marry into the family of Abba of Sura, went to supervise the writing of the bride鈥檚 marriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heard that Rav Pappa was coming, and came out to present himself before him, in honor of his arrival. When they came to the entrance of Abba of Sura鈥檚 house, Yehuda bar Mareimar took his leave of him, as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa said to him: Let the Master enter inside with me.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 52: Captives, Bloodletting, and Tailoring a Standardized Ketubah

When is a husband obligated to redeem his wife? To be sure, it depends, and it's a machloket. Also, more...

Ketubot 52- Shabbat August 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 52- Shabbat August 27

诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讬 诇讗谞转讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘讬讬讛 讙讜专诐 诇讛 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙讜专诐 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛

In the case of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, who are entitled to a marriage contract despite the fact that the relationship is forbidden and they must get divorced, he is not obligated to redeem her, as I do not apply to her the clause: And I will restore you to me as a wife, as she is forbidden to him. Rava said: In any case where the prohibition of her captivity, i.e., the fact that she was taken captive, causes her to be forbidden to her husband, as in the case of a priest鈥檚 wife who was taken captive, he is obligated to redeem her. However, if another prohibition causes her to be forbidden to her husband, e.g., the case of a widow who is married to a High Priest, he is not obligated to redeem her.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞砖讘讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 驻讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from him, in which case he must divorce her, and she is then taken captive, Rabbi Eliezer says: He redeems her and gives her the payment for her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He gives her the payment for her marriage contract but he does not have to redeem her, as he may not take her back as his wife, due to his vow.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 住讜诪讻讜住 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 讻砖讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 讘谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛

Rabbi Natan said: I asked Sumakhos: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that he gives her the payment for her marriage contract but he does not have to redeem her, was he referring to a case where he vowed that she may not derive benefit from him and she was subsequently taken captive, or was he speaking of one who was taken captive and he subsequently vowed that she may not derive benefit from him?

讜讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛 讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜诪讬

And he said to me: I have not heard a tradition on this matter, but it would appear that Rabbi Yehoshua does not obligate the husband to redeem her in a situation where he vowed that she may not derive benefit from him and she was subsequently taken captive. As, if you say that the same halakha applies in a case where she was taken captive and he subsequently vowed that she may not derive benefit from him, the husband might come to engage in trickery. If he wants to release himself from the duty to ransom his wife after she is captured, he can simply vow that she may not derive benefit from him, in which case he would be obligated to pay her only the marriage contract.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘诪讚讬专 讗砖转 讻讛谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara now analyzes the suggested comparison between the opinions cited in this baraita and the dispute between Abaye and Rava. What, is it not the case that the tanna鈥檌m disagree about a priest who vows that his wife, i.e., the wife of a priest, may not derive benefit from him? And Abaye spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer when he said that the husband must redeem his wife even if she is forbidden to him due to something other than the fact that she was taken captive, and Rava spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讛 讗讬讛讬 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讛 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No; with what are we dealing here? With a case where she vowed not to derive benefit from him, and her husband upheld it for her by neglecting to nullify her vow when he heard it. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that he is putting his finger between her teeth, i.e., he causes the vow to be in effect, and therefore he must redeem her and return her to her native province. And Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that she put her finger between her own teeth, i.e., she is responsible for the vow, because she is the one who initially pronounced it.

讗讬 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that she put her finger between her own teeth, what is the payment of the marriage contract doing here? Why must he pay her marriage contract if it is her fault that they cannot remain married?

讜转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 住讜诪讻讜住 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 讻砖讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 讘砖谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛 讜讗诪专 诇讗 砖诪注转讬

And furthermore, it was stated above that Rabbi Natan said: I asked Sumakhos: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that he gives her the payment for her marriage contract but he does not have to redeem her, was he referring to a case where he vowed that she may not derive benefit from him and she was subsequently taken captive, or was he speaking of one who was taken captive and he subsequently vowed that she may not derive benefit from him? And he said to me: I have not heard a tradition on this matter, but it is reasonable to assume that the case is where he took the vow and she was subsequently taken captive, as otherwise there is a concern that the husband will engage in trickery.

讜讗讬 讚谞讚专讛 讗讬讛讬 诪讛 诇讬 讛讚讬专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞砖讘讬转 诪讛 诇讬 谞砖讘讬转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讬专讛

But if this is referring to a case where she was the one who vowed not to derive benefit from him, what is the difference to me whether he upheld her vow and she was subsequently taken captive, and what is the difference to me whether she was taken captive and he subsequently upheld her vow? Either way there is no reason to be concerned that he might engage in trickery, since she was the one who took the vow.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讚专讛 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讘讬讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 诪讚讬专 讗砖转 讻讛谉 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗诇诪谞讛 [诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 ]

Rather, this is actually referring to a case where he was the one who initially vowed that she may not derive benefit from him. And Abaye explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rava explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Abaye explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning as follows: With regard to a widow who is married to a High Priest, everyone agrees that he is obligated to redeem her. If she was a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, everyone agrees that he is not obligated to redeem her. In the case of a priest who takes a vow prohibiting his wife, i.e., the wife of a priest, from deriving benefit from him, likewise everyone agrees that he is obligated to redeem her, as this is the same as the case of a widow who is married to a High Priest, as he can fulfill the requirement to restore her to her native province.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讚讬专 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讘住讜祝

When they disagree it is in the case of an Israelite who vows that his wife, i.e., the wife of an Israelite, may not derive benefit from him. Rabbi Eliezer follows the status of the woman at the outset, i.e., when the marriage contract was written. Since at that time he could restore her to be his wife, the obligation he took upon himself to redeem her from captivity remains in effect, despite the fact that he can no longer do so due to the vow. And Rabbi Yehoshua follows the status of the woman at the end, and holds that since, in practice, the husband cannot take her back as a wife because of the vow, he is no longer obligated to ransom her.

专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讚讬专 讘讬谉 讗砖转 讻讛谉 讜讘讬谉 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇

Similarly, Rava explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: In the case of a widow married to a High Priest, and a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, everyone agrees that he is not obligated to redeem her, as the prohibition against her remaining married to him results from a cause other than her captivity. When they disagree it is with regard to one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from him, whether she is the wife of a priest or the wife of an Israelite.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讘住讜祝

Rabbi Eliezer follows her status at the outset and holds that since he obligated himself to ransom her when he wrote the marriage contract he must act accordingly. And Rabbi Yehoshua follows her status at the end, and holds that since he cannot fulfill his obligation to restore her as his wife due to a factor other than her captivity, he is entirely exempt from redeeming her.

谞砖讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讘讬转 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讘注诇讛 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛 诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛

搂 The mishna taught that if she was taken captive, her husband is obligated to redeem her. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a wife who was taken captive in her husband鈥檚 lifetime and afterward her husband died before he could redeem her, if her husband was aware of her captivity, the heirs are obligated to redeem her, but if her husband was not aware of her captivity, his heirs are not obligated to redeem her.

诇讜讬 住讘专 诇诪讬注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讘讬转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讘讬转 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇驻讚讜转讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讱 诇讗讬谞转讜

The Gemara relates: Levi thought to act in accordance with this baraita. Rav said to him: My uncle [岣vivi], Rabbi 岣yya, said as follows: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita. Rather, it is in accordance with that which is taught in a different baraita: If she was taken captive after the death of her husband, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her. And moreover, even if she was taken captive in her husband鈥檚 lifetime and he heard about it, and afterward her husband died, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her, as I cannot apply to her the clause in the marriage contract: And I will restore you to me as a wife. Since this stipulation cannot be fulfilled, the obligation to redeem her does not apply.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 驻讜讚讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专爪讛 驻讜讚讛 专爪讛 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught: If she was taken captive and they were seeking ransom from her husband of up to ten times her value, i.e., far more than the usual ransom for a captive of this kind, on the first occasion she is taken captive he must redeem her. From this point forward, i.e., if she was taken captive a second time, if he wants to, he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her, as the Sages obligated him to redeem her only once. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 讬讜转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛诐 诪驻谞讬 转拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚驻专拽讜谞讛 讬讜转专 注诇 讻转讜讘转讛

One does not redeem captives at more than their value. This policy is for the betterment of the world, because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom in accordance with their actual value one does redeem captives, even though this includes a case where a woman鈥檚 redemption is more than her marriage contract.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 谞砖讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 驻讜讚讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专爪讛 驻讜讚讛 专爪讛 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专拽讜谞讛 讻谞讙讚 讻转讜讘转讛 驻讜讚讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita, which states: If she was taken captive and the captors were seeking from her husband a ransom of up to ten times the value of her marriage contract, on the first occasion he must redeem her. From this point forward, if he wants to he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the price of her ransom was equal to her marriage contract he redeems her. If not, i.e., the price of her ransom was greater than the sum of money guaranteed to her in her marriage contract upon divorce or the death of her husband, he does not have to redeem her. He can suffice with paying her marriage contract.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转专讬 拽讜诇讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of the opinion that there are two leniencies with regard to the halakhot of redemption. First, he maintains that one does not pay more than the general ransom given for such a captive, and second, a husband does not have to pay more than the sum of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract.

诇拽转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬谉 讜爪专讬讻讛 专驻讜讗讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪讝讜谞讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 专驻讜讗讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 拽爪讘讛 谞转专驻讗转 诪讻转讜讘转讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽爪讘讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪讝讜谞讜转

搂 The mishna taught (51a) that if a woman was struck with illness, her husband is obligated to heal her, i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a widow who is sustained from the property of the orphans and who requires medical treatment, her medical needs are like her sustenance, and the orphans must bear the costs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: With regard to treatment that has a fixed cost, she is healed from her marriage contract, i.e., the amount is subtracted from her marriage contract. If it is a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, it is considered like sustenance.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讜 讛拽讝转 讚诐 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻专驻讜讗讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽爪讘讛 拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 讗讬转转 讗讘讗 讚讛讜转 爪专讬讻讛 专驻讜讗讛 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讝讬诇讜 拽讜爪讜 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 诇专讜驻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Sages established that in Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered like a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yo岣nan had to take care of the wife of their father, who required treatment every day, and therefore her medical expenses were high. They came before Rabbi Yo岣nan to ask him what to do. He said to them: Go and fix a lump sum with the doctor for his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讬谞讜 注爪诪讬谞讜 讻注讜专讻讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 讜诪讘砖专讱 诇讗 转转注诇诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬

Later Rabbi Yo岣nan said in regret: We have made ourselves like legal advisors, who help people with their legal claims. The Gemara asks: At the outset, what did he hold and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara explains: At the outset he held that one should act in accordance with the verse 鈥渁nd that you do not hide yourself from your own flesh鈥 (Isaiah 58:7), which indicates that one must help his relatives. And ultimately he held that an important person is different. If a man of stature offers assistance to his family in a manner that causes a loss to another individual, it appears as though he were unfairly favoring his relatives.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讚讬讛讜讜 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 讗讬谞讜谉 讬专转讜谉 讻住祝 讻转讜讘转讬讱 讬转专 注诇 讞讜诇拽讛讜谉 讚注诐 讗讞讜讛讜谉 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘谞谉 谞讜拽讘谉 讚讬讛讜讬谉 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 讬讛讜讬谉 讬转讘谉 讘讘讬转讬 讜诪讬转讝谞谉 诪谞讻住讬 注讚 讚转诇拽讞讜谉 诇讙讜讘专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and therefore takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. Likewise, if he omitted from the marriage contract the sentence: Any female children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men, i.e., until they are married, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it too is a stipulation of the court.

讗转 转讛讗 讬转讘讗 讘讘讬转讬 讜诪讬转讝谞讗 诪谞讻住讬 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪讬讙专 讗诇诪谞讜转讬讱 讘讘讬转讬 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讜讗 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讱 讛讬讜 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗谞砖讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 注讚 砖讬专爪讜 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诇讬转谉 诇讱 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讛

Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband鈥檚 house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讻讚讬 砖讬拽驻讜抓 讗讚诐 讜讬讻转讜讘 诇讘转讜 讻讘谞讜

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: For what reason did the Sages enact the marriage document concerning male children? It was enacted so that a man will be willing to take the initiative and write an agreement to give his daughter a dowry as large as the portion of his possessions that his son will receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one鈥檚 daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讘专讗 诇讬专讜转 讘专转讗 诇讗 转讬专讜转 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜诪转拽谞讬 讚转讬专讜转 讘专转讗

The Gemara asks: And is there anything that justifies a situation where the Merciful One says that the son inherits and the daughter does not inherit, and yet the Sages came and enacted that the daughter should inherit? The practical effect of their decree is that daughters receive a significant portion of their father鈥檚 estate, just like sons.

讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 拽讞讜 谞砖讬诐 讜讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讜转 讜拽讞讜 诇讘谞讬讻诐 谞砖讬诐 讜讗转 讘谞讜转讬讻诐 转谞讜 诇讗谞砖讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讘谞讬诐 讘讬讚讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诇讗 讘谞转讬讛 诪讬 拽讬讬诪谉 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara answers: This also applies by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淭ake wives for yourselves and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands鈥 (Jeremiah 29:6). This verse requires clarification. Granted, sons are in his hands, i.e., a father can select wives for them, but daughters, are they in his power that he can select husbands for them? It is not the manner of a woman or her family to court a man.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞诇讘砖讛 讜谞讬讻住讛 讜谞讬转讬讘 诇讛 诪讬讚讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚拽驻爪讬 注诇讛 讜讗转讜 谞住讘讬 诇讛 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讚 诇注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬

Rather, the verse teaches us this, that the father should dress her and cover her and give her something, i.e., property, so that men will take the initiative with her and come to marry her. When the verse instructs fathers to marry off their daughters, it means that they must make efforts to ensure this outcome, including bestowing a dowry. The Gemara asks: And up to how much must a father give his daughters? Abaye and Rava both say: Up to one-tenth of one鈥檚 property should be handed over to his daughter for her dowry.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讗讘 诇讬专讜转 讚讘注诇 诇讗 诇讬专讜转 讗诐 讻谉 讗讘 谞诪讬 诪讬诪谞注 讜诇讗 讻转讘

The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for the institution of the marriage document concerning male children, say that it is only the portion the bride鈥檚 father gave as a dowry that her sons should inherit, but the money the husband guarantees to pay his wife, they should not inherit. The Gemara answers: If so, the bride鈥檚 father will also refrain from writing a large dowry. If his daughter鈥檚 sons will not inherit the husband鈥檚 portion of the marriage contract, her father will be reluctant to give generously himself.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讗讘 诇讻转讜讘 讘注诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讘 讗讘 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 讘注诇 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉

The Gemara continues to ask: But if the concern is that the father will not give, say that in a case where the father wrote a large dowry for his daughter, let the husband also write the stipulation in the marriage document concerning male children, and when the father did not write a large dowry, let the husband not write this stipulation. The Gemara replies: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases. Although the main purpose of their enactment was to encourage fathers to provide their daughters with generous dowries, the Sages applied their decree equally to all women, even when the father failed to do so.

讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 谞诪讬 转讬专讜转 讻谞讞诇讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara poses another question: If the aim is to ensure that the money of the marriage contract will remain with the woman鈥檚 descendants, in a case when one has a daughter from one woman among his sons from another woman, the daughter should likewise inherit her mother鈥檚 dowry. Why do only male children inherit their mother鈥檚 dowry? The Gemara responds: The Sages established this enactment as similar to the halakha of inheritance: Just as a regular inheritance belongs to sons and not daughters, the same applies to the marriage document concerning male children.

讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 转讬专讜转 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉 讜转讬讙讘讬 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讻讻转讜讘讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara continues to inquire: Why shouldn鈥檛 one at least say that a daughter among daughters should inherit? If he had a daughter from this wife, and his other children are also daughters, in which case all the daughters divide the inheritance, the daughters of each wife should receive the portion her maternal grandfather gave to her mother. The Gemara again answers: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases when establishing their decree. The Gemara further asks: And let the marriage document concerning male children be collected even from movable property, if that is all the father possesses. The Gemara replies: The Sages established this enactment as similar to a regular marriage contract, which can be collected only from land.

转讟专讜祝 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讬专转讜谉 转谞谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬注拽专讗 谞讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara poses yet another question: Let it be collected even from liened property, i.e., property the father sold after he wrote the marriage contract. The Gemara answers that we learned in the mishna: Will inherit, and one鈥檚 heirs do not inherit property that he has sold. The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for this enactment, say that it should apply even though there is no more than a dinar beyond the value of the marriage contract that the father left over in his estate. The Sages stated that if no property is left for the inheritance, all the sons share the inheritance equally, in accordance with Torah law. The Gemara answers: In a case where their decree would entirely uproot the halakha of inheritance by Torah law, the Sages did not enact the marriage document concerning male children.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 讗讘讗 住讜专讗讛 讗讝讬诇 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诪注 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诪专讬诪专 谞驻拽 讗转讗 讗讬转讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪驻讟专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬注讜诇 诪专 讘讛讚讗讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, having arranged for his son to marry into the family of Abba of Sura, went to supervise the writing of the bride鈥檚 marriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heard that Rav Pappa was coming, and came out to present himself before him, in honor of his arrival. When they came to the entrance of Abba of Sura鈥檚 house, Yehuda bar Mareimar took his leave of him, as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa said to him: Let the Master enter inside with me.

Scroll To Top