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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 29, 2022 | 讘壮 讘讗诇讜诇 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 54

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Brick in loving memory of her great-niece, Nava Tova, who was named after her mother, daughter of Liora and Josh Cherney.” Bet Elul would have been her first birthday. May her memory be a comfort to her parents.”

Do the following women receive sustenance from their father’s estate: the daughter born to a couple who is forbidden by rabbinic law to be married (shniyot l’arayot), the daughter born to a couple who was betrothed, and the daughter born to a woman who was married to the man who raped her? A stipulation of the ketuba is that the woman be able to reside in the house of the husband even after his death. Since the language used is a “house,” they derive that if the heirs live in a hut, they are not required to have her live with them. Does this also mean that they are not required to sustain her in that case? There are various opinions brought regarding how it is determined when the orphans no longer need to give the widow money for sustenance. Is it from when she accepts a marriage proposal from someone else, when someone proposed but she doesn’t accept it as she doesn’t specifically like him, but she is interested in remarrying, when she engages in prostitution, when she puts on makeup, or when she claims her ketuba in court. In the Mishna it had stated varying customs between Jerusalem and the Galilee and Judea about whether or not the orphans could decide they no longer wanted to pay the widow’s sustenance. In Babylonia different places ruled differently. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding a widow or a hired worker about whether or not their clothing is deducted from their ketuba/salary. Rabbi Yochanan’s relatives’ father had a wife who ate a lot of food. They were worried that if she became widowed, it would be a drain on their inheritance so he suggested the father designate a specific piece of land for her to be used for her sustenance in the event that he die. Reish Lakish vehemently disagreed and wouldn’t allow them to implement this solution as he didn’t think it was effective halachically. In the end, Rabbi Yochanan modified his position. The Mishna states that one who wants to, can add money to the 200 or 100 zuz promised to the woman in the ketuba. It was necessary to state this as one may think this was limited so as not to embarrass one who is unable to add. There is a debate about whether a woman gets her ketuba money if she was widowed or divorce from a betrothal. Can the woman forgo part of the amount of her ketuba by writing that she received part of the money already, even if she really hadn’t? Any additional sums committed to the wife in the ketuba or stipulations have the same status as the ketuba. What is the relevance of this?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪讛 讚注讘讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗讬讛讬 讚诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 转讬拽讜

Once again the Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Since the Sages penalized the mother and declared that she does not have a marriage contract, the daughter does not have sustenance either, as her sustenance is guaranteed by her mother鈥檚 marriage contract. Or perhaps, with regard to her mother, who violated a prohibition, the Sages penalized her by depriving her of her marriage contract, whereas in the case of the daughter, who did not violate a prohibition, the Sages did not penalize her. Once again the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讘转 讗专讜住讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬转 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 注讚 砖注转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诇讬转 诇讛 转讬拽讜

Rava raises a dilemma: In the case of the daughter of a betrothed woman, i.e., a man betrothed a woman, fathered a daughter with her, and then died, does the daughter have the right to receive sustenance from his estate, or does she not have the right to receive sustenance? Since the mother has a marriage contract, as in this case the man wrote her a marriage contract after betrothing her, it may be argued that the daughter has the right to receive sustenance. Or perhaps, since the Sages did not enact any requirement for a man to provide his wife with a marriage contract until the time of marriage, the stipulations of the marriage contract do not apply until then, and therefore the daughter of this woman does not have the right to receive sustenance. Again, the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘转 讗谞讜住讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: With regard to the daughter of a raped woman, i.e., a man raped a young woman, married her, had a child, and died, does she have the right to receive sustenance from her father鈥檚 estate or does she not have the right to receive sustenance from his estate? The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do not raise this dilemma, as he said that a raped woman has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, and therefore she is entitled to the stipulations of a marriage contract, one of which is that if she has a daughter with her husband, the daughter receives sustenance from the husband鈥檚 estate.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬爪讗 讻住祝 拽谞住讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讬

Rather, let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the money of her fine fulfilled his obligation to provide her with a marriage contract, i.e., since she has already received the fine in compensation for the rape, she is not entitled to further payment in the form of a marriage contract. According to this opinion, what is the halakha?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻转讜讘讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara elaborates: It may be argued that since the mother does not have a marriage contract, the daughter does not have the right to receive sustenance from her father鈥檚 estate. Or perhaps one should consider the following: What is the reason that the marriage contract was enacted? So that his wife will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her. And this one, his rape victim, he cannot divorce her by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). It was therefore unnecessary for the Sages to require that he provide the woman with a marriage contract. However, the reasons for the stipulations included in a marriage contract, e.g., that his daughter receives sustenance from his estate, still apply in this case. Consequently, the Sages stipulated that these provisions still be granted. Yet again the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗转 转讛讗 讬转讘讗 讘讘讬转讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讘讬转讬 讜诇讗 讘讘讬拽转讬 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讬转 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬

搂 The mishna taught that one of the stipulations of a marriage contract is: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all your days as a widow. Rav Yosef taught: In my house, and not in my hovel [bikati]. If there is no room for her in his house, the heirs are not obligated to allow her to stay there. However, even in this case, she has the right to receive her sustenance from the heirs. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: She does not even have the right to receive her sustenance, as she is entitled to sustenance only when she lives in her husband鈥檚 house. If she resides elsewhere, for whatever reason, she does not receive this payment. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘注讜讛 诇讛谞砖讗 讜谞转驻讬讬住讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讗 诇讗 谞转驻讬讬住讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讛 诪讞诪转 驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讞诪转 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讛讜讙谞讬谉 诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If a man proposed to marry a widow and she agreed, even if she has not yet married him, she no longer has the right to receive sustenance from the heirs of her previous husband. The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from here that if she had not agreed, even if the man had proposed marriage, she still has the right to receive sustenance. Rav Anan said: It was explained to me personally by Mar Shmuel that the halakha varies in different cases. If she said: I will not marry you due to so-and-so, my deceased husband, i.e., she still feels connected to him, she still has the right to receive sustenance from his estate. However, if she refused the offer because the men who approached her are people who are unsuitable for her, she does not have the right to continue to receive sustenance, as she has shown that in principle she is willing to remarry.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讬谞转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讬讞诇讛 讜驻讬专讻住讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rav 岣sda said: If she engaged in licentious sexual relations she does not have the right to continue receiving sustenance from his estate, as she is not acting in a manner befitting a widow. Rav Yosef said: If she painted her eyes and dyed her hair she has clearly done so to attract men for the purposes of marriage, and therefore she does not have the right to receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 estate.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讬谞转讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讬讞诇讛 讜驻讬专讻住讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讞诇讛 讜驻讬专讻住讛 讗讘诇 讝讬谞转讛 讗讬转 诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬爪专 讗谞住讛

The Gemara comments: According to the one who says that a widow who engaged in licentious sexual relations loses her sustenance, all the more so if she painted her eyes and dyed her hair she loses her sustenance, as her intention to marry is evident. However, according to the one who says that if a widow painted her eyes and dyed her hair she forfeits her right to receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 estate, this ruling applies only to that particular situation. However, if she engaged in licentious sexual relations she still has the right to receive sustenance from his estate. What is the reason? Her evil inclination forced her, i.e., she did not make a decision to remarry but merely succumbed to temptation.

讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with all of these statements. Rather, the halakha is, in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who claims the payment specified in her marriage contract in court does not have the right to continue receiving sustenance, as she has thereby demonstrated her desire to sever her ties with her late husband.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讻专讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注砖转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 转讜讘注转 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And does she not receive sustenance? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sold her marriage contract, or used her marriage contract as collateral, or established her marriage contract as designated repayment [apoteiki] for a debt owed to another individual, she does not have the right to receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 estate? The Gemara infers from this baraita: In these cases, yes, she forfeits her right to continue to receive sustenance. However, in the case of a widow who claims her marriage contract, no, she does not lose the right to continue to receive sustenance.

讛谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 转讜讘注转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara answers that this argument is incorrect, and one should make the following inference instead: In these cases listed in the baraita, she forfeits her marriage contract whether she took the action in court or whether she did not do so in court. However, with regard to one who claims her marriage contract, if she issues this claim in court, yes, she loses the right to continue to receive her sustenance, but if her claim was not issued in court, no, she has not forfeited this right.

讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讗谞砖讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇

搂 The mishna taught: And the residents of Jerusalem and of the Galilee would write the marriage contract in this manner, i.e., that if the woman is widowed, she may remain in her husband鈥檚 house and receive her sustenance from his property throughout her widowhood. Conversely, the residents of Judea would write that she may live in his house and be sustained from his estate until the heirs decide to give her the marriage contract. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m argued over this issue. Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of Judea, and Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of the Galilee and Jerusalem.

讘讘诇 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻专讘 谞讛专讚注讗 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讛讛讬讗 讘转 诪讞讜讝讗 讚讛讜转 谞住讬讘讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诪注讛 诇拽诇讛 讚讘转 诪讞讜讝讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: Babylonia and all of its surrounding towns [parvadaha] act in accordance with the opinion of Rav; Neharde鈥檃 and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman of Me岣za who was married to a man from Neharde鈥檃. They came before Rav Na岣an to discuss her marriage contract. He heard from her voice that she was from Me岣za, whose residents had a distinctive accent.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讘诇 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻专讘 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 谞住讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讛专讚注讗 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜注讚 讛讬讻讗 谞讛专讚注讗 注讚 讛讬讻讗 讚住讙讬 拽讘讗 讚谞讛专讚注讗

Rav Na岣an said to them: Babylonia and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Rav. They said to him: But she is marrying a resident of Neharde鈥檃. He said to them: If so, Neharde鈥檃 and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara asks: And until where is the boundary of Neharde鈥檃? Up to any place where the kav measurement of Neharde鈥檃 is used. The entire area that utilizes the system of Neharde鈥檃 measurements is considered part of its surroundings for the purposes of this halakha.

讗讬转诪专 讗诇诪谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 砖诪讬谉 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讞讬诇讜驻讛 讘诇拽讬讟

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m also argued about the halakha of a widow. Rav said: When she receives the payment of her marriage contract, the court appraises the clothes that are upon her and deducts their value from the payment she receives. And Shmuel said that the court does not appraise the clothes that are upon her. Rav 岣yya bar Avin said: And the reverse is the case with regard to a hired worker. With regard to a hired laborer who lived with his employer and the latter bought clothes for him, Rav and Shmuel disagreed as to whether these garments are appraised and their value deducted from the worker鈥檚 salary when he leaves his employer鈥檚 service. However, in this case Rav claims that his clothes are not appraised, whereas Shmuel maintains that they are appraised.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘诇拽讬讟 讜诪谞讞 讘讛 住讬诪谞讗 讬转诪讗 讜讗专诪诇转讗 砖诇讞 讜驻讜拽

Conversely, Rav Kahana would teach: And likewise with regard to a hired worker, their respective opinions are the same in this case as well. Rav rules that one appraises the garments, while Shmuel claims that one does not. And he would apply a mnemonic device for Rav鈥檚 opinion: An orphan and a widow, disrobe and remove them. In other words, Rav maintains that both a widow and a hired worker, dubbed an orphan due to his typical poverty, should disrobe, as it were, when the court evaluates the payment to which they are entitled.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚转谞谉 讗讞讚 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗讞讚 讛诪注专讬讱 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讘讻住讜转 讗砖转讜 讜诇讗 讘讻住讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讘爪讘注 砖爪讘注 诇砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讘住谞讚诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇拽讞 诇砖诪谉

Rav Na岣an said: Even though we learned in a mishna in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 24a): With regard to both one who consecrates his property and one who valuates himself by donating his fixed value to the Temple, the Temple treasurer has the right to take neither his wife鈥檚 clothing, nor his children鈥檚 clothing, nor new dyed clothing that he dyed specially for them, even if they have yet to wear them, nor new sandals that he bought for them. This mishna is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that a woman鈥檚 garments are not considered her husband鈥檚 property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讗讜专讛 讻砖诪讜讗诇 专讛讬讟讗 讻讬 诪注讬讬谞转 讘讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Once we have learned a mishna in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, why is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav? He said to him: It would seem [likhora] that this mishna agrees with the opinion of Shmuel when it is skimmed through and read superficially. However, when you examine it you will see that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讚注转讗 诇诪讬拽诐 拽诪讬讛 讗讚注转讗 诇诪砖拽诇 讜诇诪讬驻拽 诇讗 讗拽谞讬 诇讛

What is the reason for this? When he bought her these clothes he did so with the intention that she should stand before him and wear them when she is with him. He did not buy them for her with the intention that she should take them and leave him. The reason for the mishna鈥檚 ruling is in fact that the husband acquires the clothes on behalf of his wife, but this applies only if she is living with him. Consequently, if she is living with him, the treasurer has no right to them. However, if she leaves him, she has no right to them, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讻诇转讗 讚讘讬 讘专 讗诇讬砖讬讘 讛讜讛 拽讗 转讘注讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讬转诪讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 讝讬诇讗 诇谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚转讬讝诇讬 讛讻讬 讗讝诇讗 诇讘讬砖转讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬讻住转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讗诇诪谞讛 砖诪讬谉 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: The daughter-in-law of the house of the son of Elyashiv was claiming payment of her marriage contract from the orphans, and she was in the process of bringing them to the court. The orphans said to her: It is demeaning for us that you should go dressed in this manner, in house clothes. We would rather you come in more suitable attire. She went and dressed and covered herself with all of her clothes. They came before Ravina, who said to them: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that with regard to a widow, the court appraises the clothes that are upon her. Therefore, the court takes everything she is wearing into account in the calculation of her marriage contract payment.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讚讜谞讬讗 诇讘专转 讝诇 谞讚讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 驻讜专谞讗 诇讬转诪讬

The Gemara relates another incident: A certain person said to his heirs, in his will: Give a dowry to my daughter. There was an established custom for the amount of money spent on a dowry, including clothing and jewelry. In the meantime, the cost of a dowry depreciated, i.e., all these items could be acquired with less money. The question arose concerning the difference between the amount the father wished to give her when he wrote the will and the sum they paid in practice. Rav Idi bar Avin said: The profit [purna], i.e., this difference in price, goes to the male orphans, not to the daughter.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜

The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain person said to his heirs, in his will:

讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诪谉 讞诪专讗 诇讘专转 讗讬讬拽专 讞诪专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讜讜讞讗 诇讬转诪讬

Four hundred dinars of this wine you should give to my daughter, and the wine subsequently appreciated in value, so that some money remained. Rav Yosef said: The gain goes to the male orphans, i.e., they are entitled to the leftover sum.

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 讚讛讜讛 拽诪驻住讚讛 诪讝讜谞讬 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 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讻讜谉 讚谞讬讬讞讚 诇讛 讗专注讗 诇诪讝讜谞讛

The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yo岣nan had a wife of their father who would diminish his resources by spending wastefully on her sustenance. They came before Rabbi Yo岣nan to ask his advice. He said to them: Go and say to your father that he should set aside a certain portion of land for her sustenance. If she agrees to accept this land for her sustenance she has thereby relinquished her claim to the rest of the estate.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖专讬讘讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽谞讗 诇讻讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讜谞讬讬讻讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讻谞讙讚讬 讞诇讜拽 注诇讬

After their father died, they came before Reish Lakish for his ruling, and he said to them: All the more so, he has increased the sources of sustenance available to her. In other words, they are still obligated to support her from their father鈥檚 estate according to the lifestyle she is accustomed to living, and if they do not, she may use the field to supplement what they give her. They said to him: But Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say so. He said to them: Go and give her all she requires, and if not, I will remove for you Rabbi Yo岣nan from your ears, i.e., I will treat you so harshly that you will forget Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling. They approached Rabbi Yo岣nan to complain, but he said to them: What can I do? I cannot impose my opinion, as a man equal to me disagrees with me.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 专讬讘讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 拽爪抓 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rabbi Abbahu said: This matter was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan. All depends on the husband鈥檚 description of the land. If he said that he is giving her land for her sustenance, he has thereby increased the sources of sustenance available to her. He will continue to provide her sustenance, but if that amount is insufficient he has also set aside an area of land specifically for that purpose. However, if he said to her that he is designating the land as her sustenance, he has thereby fixed this plot of land as the only source of sustenance available to her, and she can take no more.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 谞注专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 讬讜住讬祝 谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讻讜谞住讛

MISHNA: Although they said as a principle that a virgin collects two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract and that a widow collects one hundred dinars, if the husband wishes to add even an additional ten thousand dinars, he may add it. If she is then widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or whether from marriage, she collects the entire amount, including the additional sum. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If she is widowed or divorced from marriage, she collects the total amount, but if she is widowed or divorced from betrothal, a virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars. This is because he wrote the additional amount for her in the marriage contract only in order to marry her.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜转讘 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖讟专 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 诪谞讛 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛驻讜讞转 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Rabbi Yehuda says a related halakha with regard to the marriage contract: If he wishes, he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred dinars as is fitting for her, and she may then write a receipt stating: I received one hundred dinars from you. Even though she has not actually received the money, the receipt serves as a means for her to waive half of the amount due to her for her marriage contract. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the financial commitment in the marriage contract is a right due to the wife, which she may waive if she chooses to do so. And similarly, for a widow he may write one hundred dinars in the contract and she may write a receipt stating: I received from you fifty dinars. However, Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to do this, as anyone who reduces the amount of the marriage contract to less than than two hundred dinars for a virgin or one hundred dinars for a widow, this marital relationship amounts to licentious sexual relations because it is as if he did not write any marriage contract at all.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 拽讬爪讜转讗 注讘讚讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇讗 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The mishna states that if he wishes to add to the obligation in the marriage contract, he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that if he wishes to add he may do so? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the Sages instituted a fixed ceiling on the amount one may designate in the marriage contract, in order not to embarrass one who does not have sufficient funds, the mishna therefore teaches us that the Sages were not specific about this. If he wishes to add to the amount, he may do so.

讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讻讜壮 专爪讛 诇讻转讜讘 诇讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讬讘讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬讘讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 讻讻转讜讘讛 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna states that if he wishes to add even ten thousand dinars to the marriage contract, he may do so. The Gemara comments: It does not teach: He wishes to write for her, rather: He wishes to add. This language indicates that the additional sum he wrote is added to the marriage contract itself, as opposed to being an independent obligation. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Aivu, who said what Rabbi Yannai said, as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The stipulation in the marriage contract as well as additional amounts he chooses to add to the contract are comparable to the marriage contract itself.

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讜讻专转 讜诇诪讜讞诇转 诇诪讜专讚转

This principle produces a practical difference with regard to many issues. It is relevant to one who sells her marriage contract, indicating that such a sale includes the additional sum of the marriage contract; and to one who waives her marriage contract to her husband or his heirs, teaching that the additional sum is included in this relinquishing of rights to payment of the contract; and to a rebellious woman, from whom the court deducts a specific amount from her marriage contract each week until there is nothing left. These deductions come from the additional sum as well.

讜诇驻讜讙诪转 诇转讜讘注转 讜诇注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转

And this principle also results in a practical difference to one who vitiates her marriage contract, as one who states that she received part of the payment for her marriage contract does not receive the remainder without taking an oath, and the additional sum is included in this halakha; to one who demands payment for her marriage contract, as the Sages ruled that from the time she begins to demand the payment she waives her right to further sustenance, and this applies with regard to one who demands the additional sum as well; and to one who violates the precepts of halakha or of Jewish custom, who may be divorced without receiving payment for her marriage contract, including the additional sum.

  • 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 54: Respecting Respective Rabbis’ Views: On Inheritance

Ending chapter 4: beginning with some of the geographic differences in talmudic times - and how different places had different...

Ketubot 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 54

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪讛 讚注讘讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗讬讛讬 讚诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 转讬拽讜

Once again the Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Since the Sages penalized the mother and declared that she does not have a marriage contract, the daughter does not have sustenance either, as her sustenance is guaranteed by her mother鈥檚 marriage contract. Or perhaps, with regard to her mother, who violated a prohibition, the Sages penalized her by depriving her of her marriage contract, whereas in the case of the daughter, who did not violate a prohibition, the Sages did not penalize her. Once again the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讘转 讗专讜住讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬转 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 注讚 砖注转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诇讬转 诇讛 转讬拽讜

Rava raises a dilemma: In the case of the daughter of a betrothed woman, i.e., a man betrothed a woman, fathered a daughter with her, and then died, does the daughter have the right to receive sustenance from his estate, or does she not have the right to receive sustenance? Since the mother has a marriage contract, as in this case the man wrote her a marriage contract after betrothing her, it may be argued that the daughter has the right to receive sustenance. Or perhaps, since the Sages did not enact any requirement for a man to provide his wife with a marriage contract until the time of marriage, the stipulations of the marriage contract do not apply until then, and therefore the daughter of this woman does not have the right to receive sustenance. Again, the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘转 讗谞讜住讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: With regard to the daughter of a raped woman, i.e., a man raped a young woman, married her, had a child, and died, does she have the right to receive sustenance from her father鈥檚 estate or does she not have the right to receive sustenance from his estate? The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do not raise this dilemma, as he said that a raped woman has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, and therefore she is entitled to the stipulations of a marriage contract, one of which is that if she has a daughter with her husband, the daughter receives sustenance from the husband鈥檚 estate.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬爪讗 讻住祝 拽谞住讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讬

Rather, let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the money of her fine fulfilled his obligation to provide her with a marriage contract, i.e., since she has already received the fine in compensation for the rape, she is not entitled to further payment in the form of a marriage contract. According to this opinion, what is the halakha?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻转讜讘讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara elaborates: It may be argued that since the mother does not have a marriage contract, the daughter does not have the right to receive sustenance from her father鈥檚 estate. Or perhaps one should consider the following: What is the reason that the marriage contract was enacted? So that his wife will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her. And this one, his rape victim, he cannot divorce her by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). It was therefore unnecessary for the Sages to require that he provide the woman with a marriage contract. However, the reasons for the stipulations included in a marriage contract, e.g., that his daughter receives sustenance from his estate, still apply in this case. Consequently, the Sages stipulated that these provisions still be granted. Yet again the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗转 转讛讗 讬转讘讗 讘讘讬转讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讘讬转讬 讜诇讗 讘讘讬拽转讬 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讬转 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬

搂 The mishna taught that one of the stipulations of a marriage contract is: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all your days as a widow. Rav Yosef taught: In my house, and not in my hovel [bikati]. If there is no room for her in his house, the heirs are not obligated to allow her to stay there. However, even in this case, she has the right to receive her sustenance from the heirs. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: She does not even have the right to receive her sustenance, as she is entitled to sustenance only when she lives in her husband鈥檚 house. If she resides elsewhere, for whatever reason, she does not receive this payment. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘注讜讛 诇讛谞砖讗 讜谞转驻讬讬住讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讗 诇讗 谞转驻讬讬住讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讛 诪讞诪转 驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讬砖 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讞诪转 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讛讜讙谞讬谉 诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If a man proposed to marry a widow and she agreed, even if she has not yet married him, she no longer has the right to receive sustenance from the heirs of her previous husband. The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from here that if she had not agreed, even if the man had proposed marriage, she still has the right to receive sustenance. Rav Anan said: It was explained to me personally by Mar Shmuel that the halakha varies in different cases. If she said: I will not marry you due to so-and-so, my deceased husband, i.e., she still feels connected to him, she still has the right to receive sustenance from his estate. However, if she refused the offer because the men who approached her are people who are unsuitable for her, she does not have the right to continue to receive sustenance, as she has shown that in principle she is willing to remarry.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讬谞转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讬讞诇讛 讜驻讬专讻住讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rav 岣sda said: If she engaged in licentious sexual relations she does not have the right to continue receiving sustenance from his estate, as she is not acting in a manner befitting a widow. Rav Yosef said: If she painted her eyes and dyed her hair she has clearly done so to attract men for the purposes of marriage, and therefore she does not have the right to receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 estate.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讬谞转讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讬讞诇讛 讜驻讬专讻住讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讞诇讛 讜驻讬专讻住讛 讗讘诇 讝讬谞转讛 讗讬转 诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬爪专 讗谞住讛

The Gemara comments: According to the one who says that a widow who engaged in licentious sexual relations loses her sustenance, all the more so if she painted her eyes and dyed her hair she loses her sustenance, as her intention to marry is evident. However, according to the one who says that if a widow painted her eyes and dyed her hair she forfeits her right to receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 estate, this ruling applies only to that particular situation. However, if she engaged in licentious sexual relations she still has the right to receive sustenance from his estate. What is the reason? Her evil inclination forced her, i.e., she did not make a decision to remarry but merely succumbed to temptation.

讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with all of these statements. Rather, the halakha is, in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who claims the payment specified in her marriage contract in court does not have the right to continue receiving sustenance, as she has thereby demonstrated her desire to sever her ties with her late husband.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讻专讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注砖转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 转讜讘注转 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And does she not receive sustenance? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sold her marriage contract, or used her marriage contract as collateral, or established her marriage contract as designated repayment [apoteiki] for a debt owed to another individual, she does not have the right to receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 estate? The Gemara infers from this baraita: In these cases, yes, she forfeits her right to continue to receive sustenance. However, in the case of a widow who claims her marriage contract, no, she does not lose the right to continue to receive sustenance.

讛谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 转讜讘注转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara answers that this argument is incorrect, and one should make the following inference instead: In these cases listed in the baraita, she forfeits her marriage contract whether she took the action in court or whether she did not do so in court. However, with regard to one who claims her marriage contract, if she issues this claim in court, yes, she loses the right to continue to receive her sustenance, but if her claim was not issued in court, no, she has not forfeited this right.

讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讗谞砖讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇

搂 The mishna taught: And the residents of Jerusalem and of the Galilee would write the marriage contract in this manner, i.e., that if the woman is widowed, she may remain in her husband鈥檚 house and receive her sustenance from his property throughout her widowhood. Conversely, the residents of Judea would write that she may live in his house and be sustained from his estate until the heirs decide to give her the marriage contract. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m argued over this issue. Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of Judea, and Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of the Galilee and Jerusalem.

讘讘诇 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻专讘 谞讛专讚注讗 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讛讛讬讗 讘转 诪讞讜讝讗 讚讛讜转 谞住讬讘讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诪注讛 诇拽诇讛 讚讘转 诪讞讜讝讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: Babylonia and all of its surrounding towns [parvadaha] act in accordance with the opinion of Rav; Neharde鈥檃 and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman of Me岣za who was married to a man from Neharde鈥檃. They came before Rav Na岣an to discuss her marriage contract. He heard from her voice that she was from Me岣za, whose residents had a distinctive accent.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讘诇 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻专讘 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 谞住讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讛专讚注讗 讜讻诇 驻专讜讜讚讛讗 谞讛讜讙 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜注讚 讛讬讻讗 谞讛专讚注讗 注讚 讛讬讻讗 讚住讙讬 拽讘讗 讚谞讛专讚注讗

Rav Na岣an said to them: Babylonia and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Rav. They said to him: But she is marrying a resident of Neharde鈥檃. He said to them: If so, Neharde鈥檃 and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara asks: And until where is the boundary of Neharde鈥檃? Up to any place where the kav measurement of Neharde鈥檃 is used. The entire area that utilizes the system of Neharde鈥檃 measurements is considered part of its surroundings for the purposes of this halakha.

讗讬转诪专 讗诇诪谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 砖诪讬谉 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讞讬诇讜驻讛 讘诇拽讬讟

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m also argued about the halakha of a widow. Rav said: When she receives the payment of her marriage contract, the court appraises the clothes that are upon her and deducts their value from the payment she receives. And Shmuel said that the court does not appraise the clothes that are upon her. Rav 岣yya bar Avin said: And the reverse is the case with regard to a hired worker. With regard to a hired laborer who lived with his employer and the latter bought clothes for him, Rav and Shmuel disagreed as to whether these garments are appraised and their value deducted from the worker鈥檚 salary when he leaves his employer鈥檚 service. However, in this case Rav claims that his clothes are not appraised, whereas Shmuel maintains that they are appraised.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘诇拽讬讟 讜诪谞讞 讘讛 住讬诪谞讗 讬转诪讗 讜讗专诪诇转讗 砖诇讞 讜驻讜拽

Conversely, Rav Kahana would teach: And likewise with regard to a hired worker, their respective opinions are the same in this case as well. Rav rules that one appraises the garments, while Shmuel claims that one does not. And he would apply a mnemonic device for Rav鈥檚 opinion: An orphan and a widow, disrobe and remove them. In other words, Rav maintains that both a widow and a hired worker, dubbed an orphan due to his typical poverty, should disrobe, as it were, when the court evaluates the payment to which they are entitled.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚转谞谉 讗讞讚 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗讞讚 讛诪注专讬讱 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讘讻住讜转 讗砖转讜 讜诇讗 讘讻住讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讘爪讘注 砖爪讘注 诇砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讘住谞讚诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇拽讞 诇砖诪谉

Rav Na岣an said: Even though we learned in a mishna in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 24a): With regard to both one who consecrates his property and one who valuates himself by donating his fixed value to the Temple, the Temple treasurer has the right to take neither his wife鈥檚 clothing, nor his children鈥檚 clothing, nor new dyed clothing that he dyed specially for them, even if they have yet to wear them, nor new sandals that he bought for them. This mishna is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that a woman鈥檚 garments are not considered her husband鈥檚 property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讗讜专讛 讻砖诪讜讗诇 专讛讬讟讗 讻讬 诪注讬讬谞转 讘讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Once we have learned a mishna in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, why is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav? He said to him: It would seem [likhora] that this mishna agrees with the opinion of Shmuel when it is skimmed through and read superficially. However, when you examine it you will see that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讚注转讗 诇诪讬拽诐 拽诪讬讛 讗讚注转讗 诇诪砖拽诇 讜诇诪讬驻拽 诇讗 讗拽谞讬 诇讛

What is the reason for this? When he bought her these clothes he did so with the intention that she should stand before him and wear them when she is with him. He did not buy them for her with the intention that she should take them and leave him. The reason for the mishna鈥檚 ruling is in fact that the husband acquires the clothes on behalf of his wife, but this applies only if she is living with him. Consequently, if she is living with him, the treasurer has no right to them. However, if she leaves him, she has no right to them, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讻诇转讗 讚讘讬 讘专 讗诇讬砖讬讘 讛讜讛 拽讗 转讘注讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讬转诪讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 讝讬诇讗 诇谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚转讬讝诇讬 讛讻讬 讗讝诇讗 诇讘讬砖转讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬讻住转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讗诇诪谞讛 砖诪讬谉 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: The daughter-in-law of the house of the son of Elyashiv was claiming payment of her marriage contract from the orphans, and she was in the process of bringing them to the court. The orphans said to her: It is demeaning for us that you should go dressed in this manner, in house clothes. We would rather you come in more suitable attire. She went and dressed and covered herself with all of her clothes. They came before Ravina, who said to them: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that with regard to a widow, the court appraises the clothes that are upon her. Therefore, the court takes everything she is wearing into account in the calculation of her marriage contract payment.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讚讜谞讬讗 诇讘专转 讝诇 谞讚讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 驻讜专谞讗 诇讬转诪讬

The Gemara relates another incident: A certain person said to his heirs, in his will: Give a dowry to my daughter. There was an established custom for the amount of money spent on a dowry, including clothing and jewelry. In the meantime, the cost of a dowry depreciated, i.e., all these items could be acquired with less money. The question arose concerning the difference between the amount the father wished to give her when he wrote the will and the sum they paid in practice. Rav Idi bar Avin said: The profit [purna], i.e., this difference in price, goes to the male orphans, not to the daughter.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜

The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain person said to his heirs, in his will:

讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诪谉 讞诪专讗 诇讘专转 讗讬讬拽专 讞诪专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讜讜讞讗 诇讬转诪讬

Four hundred dinars of this wine you should give to my daughter, and the wine subsequently appreciated in value, so that some money remained. Rav Yosef said: The gain goes to the male orphans, i.e., they are entitled to the leftover sum.

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 讚讛讜讛 拽诪驻住讚讛 诪讝讜谞讬 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 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讻讜谉 讚谞讬讬讞讚 诇讛 讗专注讗 诇诪讝讜谞讛

The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yo岣nan had a wife of their father who would diminish his resources by spending wastefully on her sustenance. They came before Rabbi Yo岣nan to ask his advice. He said to them: Go and say to your father that he should set aside a certain portion of land for her sustenance. If she agrees to accept this land for her sustenance she has thereby relinquished her claim to the rest of the estate.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖专讬讘讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽谞讗 诇讻讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讜谞讬讬讻讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讻谞讙讚讬 讞诇讜拽 注诇讬

After their father died, they came before Reish Lakish for his ruling, and he said to them: All the more so, he has increased the sources of sustenance available to her. In other words, they are still obligated to support her from their father鈥檚 estate according to the lifestyle she is accustomed to living, and if they do not, she may use the field to supplement what they give her. They said to him: But Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say so. He said to them: Go and give her all she requires, and if not, I will remove for you Rabbi Yo岣nan from your ears, i.e., I will treat you so harshly that you will forget Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling. They approached Rabbi Yo岣nan to complain, but he said to them: What can I do? I cannot impose my opinion, as a man equal to me disagrees with me.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 专讬讘讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 拽爪抓 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rabbi Abbahu said: This matter was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan. All depends on the husband鈥檚 description of the land. If he said that he is giving her land for her sustenance, he has thereby increased the sources of sustenance available to her. He will continue to provide her sustenance, but if that amount is insufficient he has also set aside an area of land specifically for that purpose. However, if he said to her that he is designating the land as her sustenance, he has thereby fixed this plot of land as the only source of sustenance available to her, and she can take no more.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 谞注专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 讬讜住讬祝 谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讻讜谞住讛

MISHNA: Although they said as a principle that a virgin collects two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract and that a widow collects one hundred dinars, if the husband wishes to add even an additional ten thousand dinars, he may add it. If she is then widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or whether from marriage, she collects the entire amount, including the additional sum. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If she is widowed or divorced from marriage, she collects the total amount, but if she is widowed or divorced from betrothal, a virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars. This is because he wrote the additional amount for her in the marriage contract only in order to marry her.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜转讘 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖讟专 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 诪谞讛 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讗 讻讜转讘转 讛转拽讘诇转讬 诪诪讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛驻讜讞转 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Rabbi Yehuda says a related halakha with regard to the marriage contract: If he wishes, he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred dinars as is fitting for her, and she may then write a receipt stating: I received one hundred dinars from you. Even though she has not actually received the money, the receipt serves as a means for her to waive half of the amount due to her for her marriage contract. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the financial commitment in the marriage contract is a right due to the wife, which she may waive if she chooses to do so. And similarly, for a widow he may write one hundred dinars in the contract and she may write a receipt stating: I received from you fifty dinars. However, Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to do this, as anyone who reduces the amount of the marriage contract to less than than two hundred dinars for a virgin or one hundred dinars for a widow, this marital relationship amounts to licentious sexual relations because it is as if he did not write any marriage contract at all.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 拽讬爪讜转讗 注讘讚讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇讗 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The mishna states that if he wishes to add to the obligation in the marriage contract, he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that if he wishes to add he may do so? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the Sages instituted a fixed ceiling on the amount one may designate in the marriage contract, in order not to embarrass one who does not have sufficient funds, the mishna therefore teaches us that the Sages were not specific about this. If he wishes to add to the amount, he may do so.

讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讻讜壮 专爪讛 诇讻转讜讘 诇讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讬讘讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬讘讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 讻讻转讜讘讛 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna states that if he wishes to add even ten thousand dinars to the marriage contract, he may do so. The Gemara comments: It does not teach: He wishes to write for her, rather: He wishes to add. This language indicates that the additional sum he wrote is added to the marriage contract itself, as opposed to being an independent obligation. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Aivu, who said what Rabbi Yannai said, as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The stipulation in the marriage contract as well as additional amounts he chooses to add to the contract are comparable to the marriage contract itself.

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讜讻专转 讜诇诪讜讞诇转 诇诪讜专讚转

This principle produces a practical difference with regard to many issues. It is relevant to one who sells her marriage contract, indicating that such a sale includes the additional sum of the marriage contract; and to one who waives her marriage contract to her husband or his heirs, teaching that the additional sum is included in this relinquishing of rights to payment of the contract; and to a rebellious woman, from whom the court deducts a specific amount from her marriage contract each week until there is nothing left. These deductions come from the additional sum as well.

讜诇驻讜讙诪转 诇转讜讘注转 讜诇注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转

And this principle also results in a practical difference to one who vitiates her marriage contract, as one who states that she received part of the payment for her marriage contract does not receive the remainder without taking an oath, and the additional sum is included in this halakha; to one who demands payment for her marriage contract, as the Sages ruled that from the time she begins to demand the payment she waives her right to further sustenance, and this applies with regard to one who demands the additional sum as well; and to one who violates the precepts of halakha or of Jewish custom, who may be divorced without receiving payment for her marriage contract, including the additional sum.

Scroll To Top