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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 28, 2022 | ืืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 53

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in memory of Rikki’s father, Mickey Carlin, Shevach ben Avraham v’ Mita, whose 14th yahrzeit was on Thursday. “Daddy, we miss you every day.”
Rav Papa was marrying his son off to Abba Sura’ah’s daughter when Yehuda bar Meriemar came to greet Rav Papa. Yehuda was hesitant to come in, as he was concerned Abba Sura’ah would raise the dowry on his account. After much insisting on the part of Rav Papa, Yehuda enters but remains silent. However, Abaa Sura’ah misunderstands the silence and in fact raises the dowry because of Yehuda’s presence and gives all of his money to the dowry. When Yehuda finally speaks and explains himself, Abba Sura’ah wants to change his pledge, but Yehuda criticized him for turning back on his word. Rav Yeimar and Rava discuss the law in different cases where a woman sells her ketuba or rights to part of her ketuba to her husband. Would this mean that she forfeits the rights of her male children inheriting her ketuba in the event that she predeceases her husband? A woman who forgoes her rights to her ketuba to her husband, does she also lose her right to receive continuous sustenance upon his death? If a woman is betrothed, is her fiance obligated to bury her (one of her rights of the ketuba)? Another right of the ketuba is that the estate of the husband will sustain the woman’s daughters upon his death. Rav and Levi disagree about whether this ends at the time of their marriage or when they become a bogeret. Does the daughter give up her rights to sustenance at her betrothal or only at her marriage? Rav Yosef and Rav Chisda disagree and each prove their point with a logical argument. Two different versions are brought about who holds which position. A woman who “refuses” a marriage (mi’un), does she return to get sustained from the father’s estate? Does the daughter of the yevama receive sustenance from the father’s estate?

ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ื ื ื ืœื ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ืจื™ ืื—ืกื ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื‘ืจื ื‘ื™ืฉื ืœื‘ืจื ื˜ื‘ื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืขื ืžืื™ ื–ืจืขื ื ืคื™ืง ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžื‘ืจื ืœื‘ืจืชื

Rav Pappa saw that Yehuda bar Mareimar was not amenable to the idea of entering the house. He said to him: What is on your mind? Do you not wish to enter due to that which Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be a partner in the transfer of an inheritance even from a bad son to a good son, as it is not known what seed will come from him? Perhaps the bad son will father worthy children. And all the more so, one should not be a partner in the transfer of an inheritance from a son to a daughter.

ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืžื“ืขืชื™ื” ืœืขืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื˜ื• ืžื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ื“ืขื•ืœ ื•ืขืฉื™ื™ื” ืขื•ืœ ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื™ื” ืงืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืขืœืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืขืฉื™ื™ื”

Rav Pappa continued: Are you worried that your arrival will pressure Abba of Sura to give his daughter a more substantial dowry? But this too is an ordinance of the Sages, that a father must provide a dowry for his daughter. This is as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, as quoted above, that the Sages enacted this matter so that a man should 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. Yehuda bar Mareimar said to him: This applies only if the man gives of his own free will, but should one force him as well? Rav Pappa said to him: Did I say to you that you should enter and force him? I merely said that you should enter, but do not force him. He said to him: My very entrance is an act that will effectively force him, as he will increase her dowry in my honor.

ืื›ืคื™ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืœ ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ืจืชื— ืจืชื— ื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ืœื›ืœ ืžืื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื™ืฉืชืขื™ ืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืงื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœื ืคืฉืื™

Eventually, Rav Pappa forced Yehuda bar Mareimar and he entered. He was silent, and sat without uttering a word. Abba of Sura thought that Yehuda bar Mareimar was angry with him for his failure to grant his daughter a suitable dowry. He therefore wrote down in the marriage contract all that he had as her dowry, to appease him. Ultimately, when he observed that Yehuda was still silent, Abba of Sura said to him: Even now the Master will not talk? By the Masterโ€™s life, I have left nothing for myself.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ืช ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ืื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื ืคืฉืš ื”ื“ืจื ื ืœื ืงืืžื™ื ื

Yehuda bar Mareimar said to him: If you are acting for my sake, that which you wrote is also not amenable to me. Finally understanding his wishes, Abba of Sura said to Yehuda bar Mareimar: Now too, I will retract, as I acted in error. Yehuda bar Mareimar said to him: I did not speak so that you should turn yourself into the kind of person who retracts once he gives his word. You should uphold your agreement, but the agreement was not to my liking.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืกื‘ื ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžื›ืจื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืžื•ื—ืœืช

ยง Rav Yeimar the Elder raised a dilemma before Rav Naแธฅman: If a wife sold her marriage contract to her husband, i.e., she sold him the right not to have to pay her the marriage contract if they divorce or if she is widowed, does she have the marriage document concerning male children, or does she not have the marriage document concerning male children? Rava said to him: And you can raise the same dilemma with regard to a wife who forgoes her right to her marriage contract. Does she retain the marriage document concerning male children in this case?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ืžื•ื›ืจืช ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื ืกื•ื” ื“ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื—ื• ืœื” ืžืื” ืขื•ื›ืœื™ ื‘ืขื•ื›ืœื ืžื•ื—ืœืช ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

Rav Yeimar said to him: Now, the halakha of one who sells her marriage contract is a dilemma for me. As, although there is room to say that the money forced her, and that I say that she is like one who is struck with a hundred strikes [ukelei] of a hammer [ukela], i.e., she needed liquid assets at the time and therefore she sold her marriage contract unwillingly, even so, I am still willing to entertain the possibility that she has sold the marriage document concerning male children. Then, with regard to one who forgoes her marriage contract, is it necessary to raise the dilemma?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื ืกื•ื” ืžื•ื—ืœืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื—ื•ืœื™ ืื—ื™ืœืชื

Rava said: It is obvious to me that if a wife sells her marriage contract to others, not to her husband but to someone else who is willing to pay at the present time for the chance to collect the money stated in her marriage contract if she is later divorced or widowed, she still has the marriage document concerning male children. What is the reason? The money forced her to sell, and she did not mean to renounce all her rights. It is likewise clear to me that one who forgoes the right to collect her marriage contract from her husband does not have the marriage document concerning male children. What is the reason? She has forgiven it all and has no intention of claiming anything from her husband.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื›ืžื•ื›ืจืช ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ ืื• ื›ืžื•ื—ืœืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ืคืฉื˜ื ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื›ืžื•ื›ืจืช ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™

However, Rava raised a dilemma about the following case: With regard to one who sells her marriage contract to her husband, is she considered like one who sells to others, i.e., she has not relinquished the marriage document concerning male children, or is she considered like one who forgoes her right to collect her marriage contract from her husband, i.e., she has forfeited everything? After he raised the dilemma he subsequently resolved it: One who sells her marriage contract to her husband is considered like one who sells to others, as she is assumed to have done so due to financial constraints.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื” ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื”

Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection: We learned in a mishna (Yevamot 87b) that if a womanโ€™s husband went overseas, and after hearing the testimony of one witness that he was dead the woman married again, and then her first husband returned, both husbands must divorce her, and she does not receive payment of her marriage contract from either man. That mishna proceeds to state that if she died, neither the heirs of this one, the first husband, nor the heirs of that one, the second husband, inherit the sum stipulated in her marriage contract. And we discussed the following question: With regard to a marriage contract, what is its purpose? In other words, the mishna just said that she is not entitled to a marriage contract, so how can it even be suggested that the heirs might inherit it?

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืžื ื™ืฆืจ ืื ืกื”

And Rav Pappa said: This is referring to the marriage document concerning male children. Not only does she forfeit her marriage contract, but she also loses the right to the marriage document concerning male children, as her sons do not inherit from her at all. Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection. But if, according to the above statement, a wife who sells her marriage contract has not relinquished the marriage document concerning male children, why does the mishna in Yevamot state that none of the womanโ€™s heirs inherit the proceeds of her marriage contract? Here too, in that mishna, let us say that her desire to marry another man forced her to marry her second husband. Why should she forfeit the marriage document concerning male children?

ื”ืชื ืงื ืกื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara answers: There it is a penalty with which the Sages penalized her. In other words, the reason is not that she automatically forfeits the marriage document concerning male children, along with the marriage contract itself. Rather, her loss of the marriage document concerning male children is one of several penalties the Sages imposed upon her for remarrying on the basis of the testimony of a single witness without conducting her own thorough investigation into her husbandโ€™s fate. Therefore, one cannot learn from that halakha with regard to the issue at hand.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžื•ื—ืœืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืงืืžืจืช ืœื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืจืขื” ืชื—ืช ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืžื•ืฉ ืจืขื” ืžื‘ื™ืชื•

Ravin bar แธคanina sat before Rav แธคisda, and he sat and said the following halakha in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One who forgoes her right to collect her marriage contract from her husband does not receive her sustenance from him. Rav แธคisda said to him: Had you not said this halakha to me in the name of a great man, I would have said to you that this is an injustice, in accordance with the verse โ€œwho rewards evil for good, evil shall not depart from his houseโ€ (Proverbs 17:13). After she relinquishes to her husband her right to her marriage contract, which was a favor to her husband, she loses her sustenance as well.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื ื•ืื‘ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื‘ื ืืจื•ืกืชื• ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืงื‘ืจ ืื• ื”ื‘ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืชื ื™ื ื ืืฉืชื• ืืจื•ืกื” ืœื ืื•ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื™ื˜ืžื ืœื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืœื ืื•ื ื ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื˜ืžืื” ืœื• ืžืชื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืจืฉื” ืžืช ื”ื•ื ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื”

The Gemara relates: Rav Naแธฅman was sitting, and Ulla and Avimei bar Rav Pappi were sitting as well, and Rav แธคiyya bar Ami was sitting with them, when a certain man came before them whose betrothed wife had died. They said to him: Go and bury her, or give her heirs the sum stipulated in her marriage contract. Rav แธคiyya said to them, in surprise at their response: But we learned that with regard to oneโ€™s betrothed wife he neither assumes the status of an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for her if he is a priest, and similarly, she neither assumes the status of an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for him. If she died he does not inherit from her, and if he died she collects payment of her marriage contract.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžืช ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืžืชื” ื”ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ืœื›ืฉืชื ืฉืื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืชื˜ืœื™ ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื™ื›ื™

Rav แธคiyya infers the following from this statement: The reason for this halakha is that he died, from which it may be inferred that if she died she does not have a marriage contract, nor any of the stipulations of a marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that her marriage contract is canceled upon her death? Rav Hoshaya said: The reason is that I do not read with regard to her the condition stated in the marriage contract: When you marry another he may take what is written for you, as she cannot marry another.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืจื•ืกื” ืฉืžืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื‘ื™ื™ ื–ื™ืœื• ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara relates another incident: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Reish Lakish said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a marriage contract. Abaye said to the scholars who recited this halakha in Ravinโ€™s name: Go, and say to Ravin:

ืฉืงื™ืœื ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืชืš ืฉื“ื™ื ืื—ื™ื–ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื‘ืœ

Your good is taken and cast on thorns, i.e., we do not owe you a debt of gratitude for informing us of this statement, as Rav Hoshaya himself already interpreted and ruled this halakha of yours in Babylonia.

ื‘ื ืŸ ื ื•ืงื‘ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื›ื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ ืขื“ ื“ืชืœืงื—ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื•ื™ ืชื ื™ ืขื“ ื“ืชื‘ื’ืจืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ื’ืจ ื•ืœื•ื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘

ยง The mishna taught that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract is the clause: Any female children you will have from me will be sustained from my property. The Gemara notes that Rav would teach that the daughters are entitled to sustenance until they are taken as wives by men, and Levi would teach that they are entitled to sustenance until they become grown women. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav, are daughters entitled to sustenance even though they have become grown women, if they are still unmarried? Yet how can this be correct? After all, adult daughters are no longer under their fatherโ€™s jurisdiction even in his lifetime. And can Levi possibly maintain that even though they are married they still receive sustenance from their fatherโ€™s estate until they become grown women?

ืืœื ื‘ื’ืจ ื•ืœื ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ ื•ืœื ื‘ื’ืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื’ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ื” ืขื“ ื“ืชื‘ื’ืจืŸ ื•ื™ืžื˜ื™ ื–ืžื ื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื ืกื‘ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ืืœื ืื• ืชื‘ื’ืจืŸ ืื• ื™ืžื˜ื™ ื–ืžื ื™ื”ื•ืŸ ืœืื™ืชื ืกื‘ื

Rather, in a case where they became grown women and were not married, or were married and had not become grown women, everyone agrees that they are not entitled to sustenance. When they disagree it is with regard to a daughter who was betrothed and had not become a grown woman. Levi maintains that as she is still unmarried she remains under her fatherโ€™s jurisdiction. And Levi likewise taught the following version of this stipulation in his baraita: Until they become grown women and the time arrives for their marriage. The Gemara asks: Are these two conditions both necessary? She leaves her fatherโ€™s domain when one of these conditions is fulfilled. Rather, Levi means that they can continue to receive sustenance either until they become grown women or their time arrives for marriage.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืขื“ ืžืชื™ ื”ื‘ืช ื ื–ื•ื ื™ืช ืขื“ ืฉืชืืจืก ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจื• ืขื“ ืฉืชื‘ื’ืจ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืขื“ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื”ื•ื™ื” ื“ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ืื• ื”ื•ื™ื” ื“ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara observes: The dispute between Rav and Levi is like a dispute between tannaโ€™im. As we have learned: Until when is a daughter sustained from her fatherโ€™s property? Until she is betrothed. In the name of Rabbi Elazar they said: Until she becomes a grown woman. Rav Yosef taught the version: Until they become married. The meaning of the expression: Until they become married, is unclear, and therefore a dilemma was raised before the scholars: Does this refer to becoming betrothed or to becoming married? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื™ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ืืœื ืžืกื‘ืจื ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืจืกื” ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื™ืชื–ื™ืœ

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Yosef: Have you heard anything from Rav Yehuda with regard to whether a betrothed orphan has sustenance from the brothersโ€™ inheritance of their fatherโ€™s estate, or whether she does not have sustenance? Rav Yosef said to him: As for hearing, I have not heard anything, but by logical reasoning I can conclude that she does not have sustenance from the inheritance. The reason is that since her husband has betrothed her it is not satisfactory for him that she be demeaned by having to request her sustenance from the inheritance, when he himself can provide for her.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืกื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื” ืœื ืฉื“ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื›ื“ื™

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Yosef: If you have not heard this halakha, by logical reasoning she should have sustenance from the brothers. The reason is that since her husband is not sure that he will marry her, he will not throw away money for nothing.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ืžืกื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื” ืœื ืฉื“ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืกื‘ืจื ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืจืกื” ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื™ืชื–ื™ืœ

And some say a different version of this discussion. Rav Yosef said to Rav แธคisda: As for hearing, I have not heard anything, but by logical reasoning I would say that she does have sustenance from the brothers: Since he is not sure that he will marry her, he will not throw away money for nothing. In response, Rav แธคisda said to him: If you have not heard this halakha, by logical reasoning she should not have sustenance from the inheritance: Since he has betrothed her it is not satisfactory for him that she be demeaned by having to ask the brothers for food, and he would rather provide for her himself.

ืกื™ืžืŸ ื“ื’ื‘ืจื™ ืฉืง ื–ืจืฃ ืžืื ื” ื•ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืื ืกื”

ยง The Gemara states a mnemonic device for the men, i.e., the Sages, who appear in the following discussion: Shin, kuf, zayin, reish, peh. This refers to Rav Sheshet, Reish Lakish, Rabbi Elazar, Rava, and Rav Pappa. The dilemmas themselves are listed in the following mnemonic: She refused, and a yevama, a secondary forbidden relationship, a betrothed woman, and woman who was raped.

ื‘ืขื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืžืื ืช ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara analyzes these cases one by one: The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to one who refused, i.e., a minor orphan girl who was married off by her brothers or mother and then refused her husband, thereby nullifying the marriage, does she have sustenance from her fatherโ€™s inheritance or does she not have sustenance? Is she considered to have been married, and therefore her right to sustenance has lapsed, or does her refusal nullify the marriage to the extent that it is as though she were never married at all, and therefore she is still entitled to sustenance?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืืœืžื ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ื“ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in the following baraita: In the case of a widow in her fatherโ€™s house, or a divorcรฉe in her fatherโ€™s house, or a widow awaiting her yavam in her fatherโ€™s house, she has sustenance. Rabbi Yehuda says: If she is still in her fatherโ€™s house she has sustenance; if she is not in her fatherโ€™s house she does not have sustenance.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื ืืœื ืœืื• ืžืžืื ืช ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืช ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื”

Rav Sheshet analyzes this baraita: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is to all appearances the same as that of the first tanna. What is their dispute? Rather, is it not the case that there is a practical difference between them concerning a girl who refused her husband, as the first tanna maintains that she has sustenance, as her marriage has been annulled and it is as though it never occurred, and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that she does not have sustenance, as she permanently forfeited this right when she left her fatherโ€™s house in marriage.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื‘ืช ื™ื‘ืžื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Reish Lakish raised a dilemma: With regard to the daughter of a yevama, i.e., a woman who married her yavam in levirate marriage and gave birth to a daughter before he passed away, does she have sustenance from the property of the yavam, i.e., the girlโ€™s father, or does she not have sustenance?

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขืœ ื ื›ืกื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืžืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื ื™ ืื™ืช ืœื” ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Since the Master said that the payment of the marriage contract of a yevama is taken from the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam, her daughter should therefore not have rights to sustenance from the property of the yavam. Her sustenance is a stipulation of the marriage contract, which does not apply to the yavam. Or perhaps, since if she does not have enough to cover the amount of her marriage contract from the property of the first husband, the Sages enacted for her a marriage contract from the second one, i.e., the yavam. Therefore, her daughter should have sustenance from his property. No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the daughter of a secondary forbidden relationship, i.e., a girl born to a man and women forbidden to each other by rabbinic law, whose mother is penalized by being deprived of a marriage contract, does her daughter have sustenance or does she not have sustenance?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 53: When a Girl Becomes a Woman (financially speaking)

Pre-wedding negotiations, and how they were manifest back in the day. Plus, the economic focus of marriage. Also, the question...

Ketubot 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 53

ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ื ื ื ืœื ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ืจื™ ืื—ืกื ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื‘ืจื ื‘ื™ืฉื ืœื‘ืจื ื˜ื‘ื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืขื ืžืื™ ื–ืจืขื ื ืคื™ืง ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžื‘ืจื ืœื‘ืจืชื

Rav Pappa saw that Yehuda bar Mareimar was not amenable to the idea of entering the house. He said to him: What is on your mind? Do you not wish to enter due to that which Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be a partner in the transfer of an inheritance even from a bad son to a good son, as it is not known what seed will come from him? Perhaps the bad son will father worthy children. And all the more so, one should not be a partner in the transfer of an inheritance from a son to a daughter.

ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืžื“ืขืชื™ื” ืœืขืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื˜ื• ืžื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ื“ืขื•ืœ ื•ืขืฉื™ื™ื” ืขื•ืœ ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื™ื” ืงืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืขืœืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืขืฉื™ื™ื”

Rav Pappa continued: Are you worried that your arrival will pressure Abba of Sura to give his daughter a more substantial dowry? But this too is an ordinance of the Sages, that a father must provide a dowry for his daughter. This is as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, as quoted above, that the Sages enacted this matter so that a man should 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. Yehuda bar Mareimar said to him: This applies only if the man gives of his own free will, but should one force him as well? Rav Pappa said to him: Did I say to you that you should enter and force him? I merely said that you should enter, but do not force him. He said to him: My very entrance is an act that will effectively force him, as he will increase her dowry in my honor.

ืื›ืคื™ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืœ ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ืจืชื— ืจืชื— ื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ืœื›ืœ ืžืื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื™ืฉืชืขื™ ืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืงื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœื ืคืฉืื™

Eventually, Rav Pappa forced Yehuda bar Mareimar and he entered. He was silent, and sat without uttering a word. Abba of Sura thought that Yehuda bar Mareimar was angry with him for his failure to grant his daughter a suitable dowry. He therefore wrote down in the marriage contract all that he had as her dowry, to appease him. Ultimately, when he observed that Yehuda was still silent, Abba of Sura said to him: Even now the Master will not talk? By the Masterโ€™s life, I have left nothing for myself.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ืช ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ืื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื ืคืฉืš ื”ื“ืจื ื ืœื ืงืืžื™ื ื

Yehuda bar Mareimar said to him: If you are acting for my sake, that which you wrote is also not amenable to me. Finally understanding his wishes, Abba of Sura said to Yehuda bar Mareimar: Now too, I will retract, as I acted in error. Yehuda bar Mareimar said to him: I did not speak so that you should turn yourself into the kind of person who retracts once he gives his word. You should uphold your agreement, but the agreement was not to my liking.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืกื‘ื ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžื›ืจื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืžื•ื—ืœืช

ยง Rav Yeimar the Elder raised a dilemma before Rav Naแธฅman: If a wife sold her marriage contract to her husband, i.e., she sold him the right not to have to pay her the marriage contract if they divorce or if she is widowed, does she have the marriage document concerning male children, or does she not have the marriage document concerning male children? Rava said to him: And you can raise the same dilemma with regard to a wife who forgoes her right to her marriage contract. Does she retain the marriage document concerning male children in this case?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ืžื•ื›ืจืช ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื ืกื•ื” ื“ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื—ื• ืœื” ืžืื” ืขื•ื›ืœื™ ื‘ืขื•ื›ืœื ืžื•ื—ืœืช ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

Rav Yeimar said to him: Now, the halakha of one who sells her marriage contract is a dilemma for me. As, although there is room to say that the money forced her, and that I say that she is like one who is struck with a hundred strikes [ukelei] of a hammer [ukela], i.e., she needed liquid assets at the time and therefore she sold her marriage contract unwillingly, even so, I am still willing to entertain the possibility that she has sold the marriage document concerning male children. Then, with regard to one who forgoes her marriage contract, is it necessary to raise the dilemma?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื ืกื•ื” ืžื•ื—ืœืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื—ื•ืœื™ ืื—ื™ืœืชื

Rava said: It is obvious to me that if a wife sells her marriage contract to others, not to her husband but to someone else who is willing to pay at the present time for the chance to collect the money stated in her marriage contract if she is later divorced or widowed, she still has the marriage document concerning male children. What is the reason? The money forced her to sell, and she did not mean to renounce all her rights. It is likewise clear to me that one who forgoes the right to collect her marriage contract from her husband does not have the marriage document concerning male children. What is the reason? She has forgiven it all and has no intention of claiming anything from her husband.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื›ืžื•ื›ืจืช ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ ืื• ื›ืžื•ื—ืœืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ืคืฉื˜ื ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื›ืžื•ื›ืจืช ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™

However, Rava raised a dilemma about the following case: With regard to one who sells her marriage contract to her husband, is she considered like one who sells to others, i.e., she has not relinquished the marriage document concerning male children, or is she considered like one who forgoes her right to collect her marriage contract from her husband, i.e., she has forfeited everything? After he raised the dilemma he subsequently resolved it: One who sells her marriage contract to her husband is considered like one who sells to others, as she is assumed to have done so due to financial constraints.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื” ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื”

Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection: We learned in a mishna (Yevamot 87b) that if a womanโ€™s husband went overseas, and after hearing the testimony of one witness that he was dead the woman married again, and then her first husband returned, both husbands must divorce her, and she does not receive payment of her marriage contract from either man. That mishna proceeds to state that if she died, neither the heirs of this one, the first husband, nor the heirs of that one, the second husband, inherit the sum stipulated in her marriage contract. And we discussed the following question: With regard to a marriage contract, what is its purpose? In other words, the mishna just said that she is not entitled to a marriage contract, so how can it even be suggested that the heirs might inherit it?

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืžื ื™ืฆืจ ืื ืกื”

And Rav Pappa said: This is referring to the marriage document concerning male children. Not only does she forfeit her marriage contract, but she also loses the right to the marriage document concerning male children, as her sons do not inherit from her at all. Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection. But if, according to the above statement, a wife who sells her marriage contract has not relinquished the marriage document concerning male children, why does the mishna in Yevamot state that none of the womanโ€™s heirs inherit the proceeds of her marriage contract? Here too, in that mishna, let us say that her desire to marry another man forced her to marry her second husband. Why should she forfeit the marriage document concerning male children?

ื”ืชื ืงื ืกื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara answers: There it is a penalty with which the Sages penalized her. In other words, the reason is not that she automatically forfeits the marriage document concerning male children, along with the marriage contract itself. Rather, her loss of the marriage document concerning male children is one of several penalties the Sages imposed upon her for remarrying on the basis of the testimony of a single witness without conducting her own thorough investigation into her husbandโ€™s fate. Therefore, one cannot learn from that halakha with regard to the issue at hand.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžื•ื—ืœืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืงืืžืจืช ืœื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืจืขื” ืชื—ืช ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืžื•ืฉ ืจืขื” ืžื‘ื™ืชื•

Ravin bar แธคanina sat before Rav แธคisda, and he sat and said the following halakha in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One who forgoes her right to collect her marriage contract from her husband does not receive her sustenance from him. Rav แธคisda said to him: Had you not said this halakha to me in the name of a great man, I would have said to you that this is an injustice, in accordance with the verse โ€œwho rewards evil for good, evil shall not depart from his houseโ€ (Proverbs 17:13). After she relinquishes to her husband her right to her marriage contract, which was a favor to her husband, she loses her sustenance as well.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื ื•ืื‘ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื‘ื ืืจื•ืกืชื• ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืงื‘ืจ ืื• ื”ื‘ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืชื ื™ื ื ืืฉืชื• ืืจื•ืกื” ืœื ืื•ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื™ื˜ืžื ืœื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืœื ืื•ื ื ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื˜ืžืื” ืœื• ืžืชื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืจืฉื” ืžืช ื”ื•ื ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื”

The Gemara relates: Rav Naแธฅman was sitting, and Ulla and Avimei bar Rav Pappi were sitting as well, and Rav แธคiyya bar Ami was sitting with them, when a certain man came before them whose betrothed wife had died. They said to him: Go and bury her, or give her heirs the sum stipulated in her marriage contract. Rav แธคiyya said to them, in surprise at their response: But we learned that with regard to oneโ€™s betrothed wife he neither assumes the status of an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for her if he is a priest, and similarly, she neither assumes the status of an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for him. If she died he does not inherit from her, and if he died she collects payment of her marriage contract.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžืช ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืžืชื” ื”ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ืœื›ืฉืชื ืฉืื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืชื˜ืœื™ ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื™ื›ื™

Rav แธคiyya infers the following from this statement: The reason for this halakha is that he died, from which it may be inferred that if she died she does not have a marriage contract, nor any of the stipulations of a marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that her marriage contract is canceled upon her death? Rav Hoshaya said: The reason is that I do not read with regard to her the condition stated in the marriage contract: When you marry another he may take what is written for you, as she cannot marry another.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืจื•ืกื” ืฉืžืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื‘ื™ื™ ื–ื™ืœื• ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara relates another incident: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Reish Lakish said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a marriage contract. Abaye said to the scholars who recited this halakha in Ravinโ€™s name: Go, and say to Ravin:

ืฉืงื™ืœื ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืชืš ืฉื“ื™ื ืื—ื™ื–ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื‘ืœ

Your good is taken and cast on thorns, i.e., we do not owe you a debt of gratitude for informing us of this statement, as Rav Hoshaya himself already interpreted and ruled this halakha of yours in Babylonia.

ื‘ื ืŸ ื ื•ืงื‘ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื›ื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ ืขื“ ื“ืชืœืงื—ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื•ื™ ืชื ื™ ืขื“ ื“ืชื‘ื’ืจืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ื’ืจ ื•ืœื•ื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘

ยง The mishna taught that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract is the clause: Any female children you will have from me will be sustained from my property. The Gemara notes that Rav would teach that the daughters are entitled to sustenance until they are taken as wives by men, and Levi would teach that they are entitled to sustenance until they become grown women. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav, are daughters entitled to sustenance even though they have become grown women, if they are still unmarried? Yet how can this be correct? After all, adult daughters are no longer under their fatherโ€™s jurisdiction even in his lifetime. And can Levi possibly maintain that even though they are married they still receive sustenance from their fatherโ€™s estate until they become grown women?

ืืœื ื‘ื’ืจ ื•ืœื ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ ื•ืœื ื‘ื’ืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื’ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ื” ืขื“ ื“ืชื‘ื’ืจืŸ ื•ื™ืžื˜ื™ ื–ืžื ื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื ืกื‘ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ืืœื ืื• ืชื‘ื’ืจืŸ ืื• ื™ืžื˜ื™ ื–ืžื ื™ื”ื•ืŸ ืœืื™ืชื ืกื‘ื

Rather, in a case where they became grown women and were not married, or were married and had not become grown women, everyone agrees that they are not entitled to sustenance. When they disagree it is with regard to a daughter who was betrothed and had not become a grown woman. Levi maintains that as she is still unmarried she remains under her fatherโ€™s jurisdiction. And Levi likewise taught the following version of this stipulation in his baraita: Until they become grown women and the time arrives for their marriage. The Gemara asks: Are these two conditions both necessary? She leaves her fatherโ€™s domain when one of these conditions is fulfilled. Rather, Levi means that they can continue to receive sustenance either until they become grown women or their time arrives for marriage.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืขื“ ืžืชื™ ื”ื‘ืช ื ื–ื•ื ื™ืช ืขื“ ืฉืชืืจืก ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจื• ืขื“ ืฉืชื‘ื’ืจ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืขื“ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื”ื•ื™ื” ื“ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ืื• ื”ื•ื™ื” ื“ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara observes: The dispute between Rav and Levi is like a dispute between tannaโ€™im. As we have learned: Until when is a daughter sustained from her fatherโ€™s property? Until she is betrothed. In the name of Rabbi Elazar they said: Until she becomes a grown woman. Rav Yosef taught the version: Until they become married. The meaning of the expression: Until they become married, is unclear, and therefore a dilemma was raised before the scholars: Does this refer to becoming betrothed or to becoming married? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื™ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ืืœื ืžืกื‘ืจื ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืจืกื” ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื™ืชื–ื™ืœ

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Yosef: Have you heard anything from Rav Yehuda with regard to whether a betrothed orphan has sustenance from the brothersโ€™ inheritance of their fatherโ€™s estate, or whether she does not have sustenance? Rav Yosef said to him: As for hearing, I have not heard anything, but by logical reasoning I can conclude that she does not have sustenance from the inheritance. The reason is that since her husband has betrothed her it is not satisfactory for him that she be demeaned by having to request her sustenance from the inheritance, when he himself can provide for her.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืกื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื” ืœื ืฉื“ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื›ื“ื™

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Yosef: If you have not heard this halakha, by logical reasoning she should have sustenance from the brothers. The reason is that since her husband is not sure that he will marry her, he will not throw away money for nothing.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ืžืกื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื” ืœื ืฉื“ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืกื‘ืจื ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืจืกื” ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื™ืชื–ื™ืœ

And some say a different version of this discussion. Rav Yosef said to Rav แธคisda: As for hearing, I have not heard anything, but by logical reasoning I would say that she does have sustenance from the brothers: Since he is not sure that he will marry her, he will not throw away money for nothing. In response, Rav แธคisda said to him: If you have not heard this halakha, by logical reasoning she should not have sustenance from the inheritance: Since he has betrothed her it is not satisfactory for him that she be demeaned by having to ask the brothers for food, and he would rather provide for her himself.

ืกื™ืžืŸ ื“ื’ื‘ืจื™ ืฉืง ื–ืจืฃ ืžืื ื” ื•ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืื ืกื”

ยง The Gemara states a mnemonic device for the men, i.e., the Sages, who appear in the following discussion: Shin, kuf, zayin, reish, peh. This refers to Rav Sheshet, Reish Lakish, Rabbi Elazar, Rava, and Rav Pappa. The dilemmas themselves are listed in the following mnemonic: She refused, and a yevama, a secondary forbidden relationship, a betrothed woman, and woman who was raped.

ื‘ืขื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืžืื ืช ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara analyzes these cases one by one: The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to one who refused, i.e., a minor orphan girl who was married off by her brothers or mother and then refused her husband, thereby nullifying the marriage, does she have sustenance from her fatherโ€™s inheritance or does she not have sustenance? Is she considered to have been married, and therefore her right to sustenance has lapsed, or does her refusal nullify the marriage to the extent that it is as though she were never married at all, and therefore she is still entitled to sustenance?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืืœืžื ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ื“ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in the following baraita: In the case of a widow in her fatherโ€™s house, or a divorcรฉe in her fatherโ€™s house, or a widow awaiting her yavam in her fatherโ€™s house, she has sustenance. Rabbi Yehuda says: If she is still in her fatherโ€™s house she has sustenance; if she is not in her fatherโ€™s house she does not have sustenance.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื ืืœื ืœืื• ืžืžืื ืช ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืช ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื”

Rav Sheshet analyzes this baraita: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is to all appearances the same as that of the first tanna. What is their dispute? Rather, is it not the case that there is a practical difference between them concerning a girl who refused her husband, as the first tanna maintains that she has sustenance, as her marriage has been annulled and it is as though it never occurred, and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that she does not have sustenance, as she permanently forfeited this right when she left her fatherโ€™s house in marriage.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื‘ืช ื™ื‘ืžื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Reish Lakish raised a dilemma: With regard to the daughter of a yevama, i.e., a woman who married her yavam in levirate marriage and gave birth to a daughter before he passed away, does she have sustenance from the property of the yavam, i.e., the girlโ€™s father, or does she not have sustenance?

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขืœ ื ื›ืกื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืžืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื ื™ ืื™ืช ืœื” ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Since the Master said that the payment of the marriage contract of a yevama is taken from the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam, her daughter should therefore not have rights to sustenance from the property of the yavam. Her sustenance is a stipulation of the marriage contract, which does not apply to the yavam. Or perhaps, since if she does not have enough to cover the amount of her marriage contract from the property of the first husband, the Sages enacted for her a marriage contract from the second one, i.e., the yavam. Therefore, her daughter should have sustenance from his property. No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the daughter of a secondary forbidden relationship, i.e., a girl born to a man and women forbidden to each other by rabbinic law, whose mother is penalized by being deprived of a marriage contract, does her daughter have sustenance or does she not have sustenance?

Scroll To Top