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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 29, 2022 | ื‘ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • 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?

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืžื” ื“ืขื‘ื“ื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชื™ืงื•

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 motherโ€™s 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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืช ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืื™ืช ืœื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขื“ ืฉืขืช ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืช ืื ื•ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ื“ืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื”

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 fatherโ€™s 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 husbandโ€™s estate.

ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื™ืฆื ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ืกื” ื‘ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืื™

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?

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืชื™ืงื•

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 fatherโ€™s 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: โ€œHe may not send her away all his daysโ€ (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.

ืืช ืชื”ื ื™ืชื‘ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืงืชื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื™ืช ืœื” ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื•ืœื™ืช ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™

ยง 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 husbandโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืชื‘ืขื•ื” ืœื”ื ืฉื ื•ื ืชืคื™ื™ืกื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื ืœื ื ืชืคื™ื™ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขื ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจื” ืžื—ืžืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืžื—ืžืช ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื”ื•ื’ื ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

ยง Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื™ื—ืœื” ื•ืคื™ืจื›ืกื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rav แธคisda 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 husbandโ€™s estate.

ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื™ื ืชื” ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ื™ื—ืœื” ื•ืคื™ืจื›ืกื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื™ื—ืœื” ื•ืคื™ืจื›ืกื” ืื‘ืœ ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืื™ืช ืœื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื™ืฆืจ ืื ืกื”

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 husbandโ€™s 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.

ื•ืœื™ืช ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

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.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื›ืจื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื•ืžืฉื›ื ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขืฉืชื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืคื•ืชื™ืงื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ืœื

The Gemara asks: And does she not receive sustenance? But isnโ€™t 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 husbandโ€™s 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.

ื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื

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.

ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื• ืื ืฉื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื ืฉื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื ืฉื™ ื’ืœื™ืœ

ยง 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 husbandโ€™s 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 amoraโ€™im 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.

ื‘ื‘ืœ ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืจื‘ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ืช ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื“ื”ื•ืช ื ืกื™ื‘ื ืœื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฉืžืขื” ืœืงืœื” ื“ื‘ืช ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara comments: Babylonia and all of its surrounding towns [parvadaha] act in accordance with the opinion of Rav; Nehardeโ€™a and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman of Meแธฅoza who was married to a man from Nehardeโ€™a. They came before Rav Naแธฅman to discuss her marriage contract. He heard from her voice that she was from Meแธฅoza, whose residents had a distinctive accent.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ื‘ืœ ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืจื‘ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื ืกื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ื ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืกื’ื™ ืงื‘ื ื“ื ื”ืจื“ืขื

Rav Naแธฅman 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 Nehardeโ€™a. He said to them: If so, Nehardeโ€™a and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara asks: And until where is the boundary of Nehardeโ€™a? Up to any place where the kav measurement of Nehardeโ€™a is used. The entire area that utilizes the system of Nehardeโ€™a measurements is considered part of its surroundings for the purposes of this halakha.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ืืœืžื ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืขืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื” ื‘ืœืงื™ื˜

ยง It was stated that the amoraโ€™im 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 แธคiyya 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 workerโ€™s salary when he leaves his employerโ€™s service. However, in this case Rav claims that his clothes are not appraised, whereas Shmuel maintains that they are appraised.

ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื ื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ืœืงื™ื˜ ื•ืžื ื— ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžื ื ื™ืชืžื ื•ืืจืžืœืชื ืฉืœื— ื•ืคื•ืง

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 Ravโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืขืจื™ืš ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืœื ื‘ื›ืกื•ืช ืืฉืชื• ื•ืœื ื‘ื›ืกื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ืข ืฉืฆื‘ืข ืœืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื ื“ืœื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืœืงื— ืœืฉืžืŸ

Rav Naแธฅman 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 wifeโ€™s clothing, nor his childrenโ€™s 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 womanโ€™s garments are not considered her husbandโ€™s property.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืžืื—ืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ืื•ืจื” ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืจื”ื™ื˜ื ื›ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ื ืช ื‘ื” ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘

Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: 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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ ืืงื ื™ ืœื” ืื“ืขืชื ืœืžื™ืงื ืงืžื™ื” ืื“ืขืชื ืœืžืฉืงืœ ื•ืœืžื™ืคืง ืœื ืืงื ื™ ืœื”

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 mishnaโ€™s 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.

ื›ืœืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืืœื™ืฉื™ื‘ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืชื‘ืขื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžื™ืชืžื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืžื˜ื™ ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืืžืจื™ ื–ื™ืœื ืœืŸ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืชื™ื–ืœื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื–ืœื ืœื‘ื™ืฉืชื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืื™ื›ืกืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœืžื ื” ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืขืœื™ื”

ยง 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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื ื“ื•ื ื™ื ืœื‘ืจืช ื–ืœ ื ื“ื•ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืคื•ืจื ื ืœื™ืชืžื™

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•

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

ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžืŸ ื—ืžืจื ืœื‘ืจืช ืื™ื™ืงืจ ื—ืžืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืœื™ืชืžื™

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.

ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืœื”ื• ืื™ืชืช ืื‘ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืžืคืกื“ื” ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ื–ื™ืœื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื•ื›ื•ืŸ ื“ื ื™ื™ื—ื“ ืœื” ืืจืขื ืœืžื–ื•ื ื”

The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan had a wife of their father who would diminish his resources by spending wastefully on her sustenance. They came before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉืจื™ื‘ื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ื”ื‘ื• ืœื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืžืคื™ืงื ื ืœื›ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื•ื ื™ื™ื›ื• ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ืฉื›ื ื’ื“ื™ ื—ืœื•ืง ืขืœื™

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 fatherโ€™s 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 Yoแธฅanan did not say so. He said to them: Go and give her all she requires, and if not, I will remove for you Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from your ears, i.e., I will treat you so harshly that you will forget Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s ruling. They approached Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืจื™ื‘ื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืงืฆืฅ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rabbi Abbahu said: This matter was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoแธฅanan. All depends on the husbandโ€™s 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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื ืขืจื”

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื” ืžื ื” ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ื ืชืืจืžืœื” ืื• ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื” ืฉืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœื›ื•ื ืกื”

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืจืฆื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ืœื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืฉื˜ืจ ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืžืžืš ืžื ื” ื•ืœืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืžืžืš ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืคื•ื—ืช ืœื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืžืืชื™ื ื•ืœืืœืžื ื” ืžืžื ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ื‘ืขื™ืœืช ื–ื ื•ืช

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืงื™ืฆื•ืชื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืœื ืœื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืืช ืžื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna states that if he wishes to add to the obligation in the marriage contract, he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t 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.

ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ื›ื•ืณ ืจืฆื” ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื” ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื‘ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื‘ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ืžื™

ยง 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.

ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ืœืžื•ื—ืœืช ืœืžื•ืจื“ืช

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.

ื•ืœืคื•ื’ืžืช ืœืชื•ื‘ืขืช ื•ืœืขื•ื‘ืจืช ืขืœ ื“ืช

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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • 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

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืžื” ื“ืขื‘ื“ื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชื™ืงื•

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 motherโ€™s 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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืช ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืื™ืช ืœื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขื“ ืฉืขืช ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืช ืื ื•ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ื“ืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื”

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 fatherโ€™s 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 husbandโ€™s estate.

ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื™ืฆื ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ืกื” ื‘ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžืื™

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?

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืชื™ืงื•

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 fatherโ€™s 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: โ€œHe may not send her away all his daysโ€ (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.

ืืช ืชื”ื ื™ืชื‘ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืงืชื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืื™ืช ืœื” ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื•ืœื™ืช ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™

ยง 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 husbandโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืชื‘ืขื•ื” ืœื”ื ืฉื ื•ื ืชืคื™ื™ืกื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื ืœื ื ืชืคื™ื™ืกื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขื ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจื” ืžื—ืžืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืžื—ืžืช ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื”ื•ื’ื ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

ยง Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื™ื—ืœื” ื•ืคื™ืจื›ืกื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rav แธคisda 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 husbandโ€™s estate.

ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื™ื ืชื” ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ื™ื—ืœื” ื•ืคื™ืจื›ืกื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื™ื—ืœื” ื•ืคื™ืจื›ืกื” ืื‘ืœ ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืื™ืช ืœื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื™ืฆืจ ืื ืกื”

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 husbandโ€™s 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.

ื•ืœื™ืช ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

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.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื›ืจื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ื•ืžืฉื›ื ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืขืฉืชื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืคื•ืชื™ืงื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ืœื

The Gemara asks: And does she not receive sustenance? But isnโ€™t 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 husbandโ€™s 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.

ื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ื‘ืขืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื

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.

ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื• ืื ืฉื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื ืฉื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื ืฉื™ ื’ืœื™ืœ

ยง 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 husbandโ€™s 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 amoraโ€™im 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.

ื‘ื‘ืœ ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืจื‘ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ืช ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื“ื”ื•ืช ื ืกื™ื‘ื ืœื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฉืžืขื” ืœืงืœื” ื“ื‘ืช ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara comments: Babylonia and all of its surrounding towns [parvadaha] act in accordance with the opinion of Rav; Nehardeโ€™a and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman of Meแธฅoza who was married to a man from Nehardeโ€™a. They came before Rav Naแธฅman to discuss her marriage contract. He heard from her voice that she was from Meแธฅoza, whose residents had a distinctive accent.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ื‘ืœ ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืจื‘ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื ืกื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ื›ืœ ืคืจื•ื•ื“ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ื ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืกื’ื™ ืงื‘ื ื“ื ื”ืจื“ืขื

Rav Naแธฅman 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 Nehardeโ€™a. He said to them: If so, Nehardeโ€™a and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara asks: And until where is the boundary of Nehardeโ€™a? Up to any place where the kav measurement of Nehardeโ€™a is used. The entire area that utilizes the system of Nehardeโ€™a measurements is considered part of its surroundings for the purposes of this halakha.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ืืœืžื ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืขืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื” ื‘ืœืงื™ื˜

ยง It was stated that the amoraโ€™im 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 แธคiyya 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 workerโ€™s salary when he leaves his employerโ€™s service. However, in this case Rav claims that his clothes are not appraised, whereas Shmuel maintains that they are appraised.

ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื ื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ืœืงื™ื˜ ื•ืžื ื— ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžื ื ื™ืชืžื ื•ืืจืžืœืชื ืฉืœื— ื•ืคื•ืง

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 Ravโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืขืจื™ืš ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืœื ื‘ื›ืกื•ืช ืืฉืชื• ื•ืœื ื‘ื›ืกื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ืข ืฉืฆื‘ืข ืœืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื ื“ืœื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืœืงื— ืœืฉืžืŸ

Rav Naแธฅman 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 wifeโ€™s clothing, nor his childrenโ€™s 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 womanโ€™s garments are not considered her husbandโ€™s property.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืžืื—ืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ืื•ืจื” ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืจื”ื™ื˜ื ื›ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ื ืช ื‘ื” ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘

Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: 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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ ืืงื ื™ ืœื” ืื“ืขืชื ืœืžื™ืงื ืงืžื™ื” ืื“ืขืชื ืœืžืฉืงืœ ื•ืœืžื™ืคืง ืœื ืืงื ื™ ืœื”

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 mishnaโ€™s 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.

ื›ืœืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืืœื™ืฉื™ื‘ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืชื‘ืขื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžื™ืชืžื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืžื˜ื™ ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืืžืจื™ ื–ื™ืœื ืœืŸ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืชื™ื–ืœื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื–ืœื ืœื‘ื™ืฉืชื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืื™ื›ืกืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœืžื ื” ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืขืœื™ื”

ยง 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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื ื“ื•ื ื™ื ืœื‘ืจืช ื–ืœ ื ื“ื•ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืคื•ืจื ื ืœื™ืชืžื™

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•

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

ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžืŸ ื—ืžืจื ืœื‘ืจืช ืื™ื™ืงืจ ื—ืžืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืœื™ืชืžื™

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.

ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืœื”ื• ืื™ืชืช ืื‘ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืžืคืกื“ื” ืžื–ื•ื ื™ ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ื–ื™ืœื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื•ื›ื•ืŸ ื“ื ื™ื™ื—ื“ ืœื” ืืจืขื ืœืžื–ื•ื ื”

The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan had a wife of their father who would diminish his resources by spending wastefully on her sustenance. They came before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉืจื™ื‘ื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ื”ื‘ื• ืœื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืžืคื™ืงื ื ืœื›ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื•ื ื™ื™ื›ื• ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ืฉื›ื ื’ื“ื™ ื—ืœื•ืง ืขืœื™

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 fatherโ€™s 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 Yoแธฅanan did not say so. He said to them: Go and give her all she requires, and if not, I will remove for you Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from your ears, i.e., I will treat you so harshly that you will forget Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s ruling. They approached Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืจื™ื‘ื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืงืฆืฅ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Rabbi Abbahu said: This matter was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoแธฅanan. All depends on the husbandโ€™s 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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื ืขืจื”

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื” ืžื ื” ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ื ืชืืจืžืœื” ืื• ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื” ืฉืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœื›ื•ื ืกื”

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืจืฆื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ืœื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืฉื˜ืจ ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืžืžืš ืžื ื” ื•ืœืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืžืžืš ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืคื•ื—ืช ืœื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืžืืชื™ื ื•ืœืืœืžื ื” ืžืžื ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ื‘ืขื™ืœืช ื–ื ื•ืช

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืงื™ืฆื•ืชื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืœื ืœื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืืช ืžื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna states that if he wishes to add to the obligation in the marriage contract, he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t 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.

ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ื›ื•ืณ ืจืฆื” ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื” ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื‘ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื‘ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ืžื™

ยง 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.

ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ืœืžื•ื—ืœืช ืœืžื•ืจื“ืช

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.

ื•ืœืคื•ื’ืžืช ืœืชื•ื‘ืขืช ื•ืœืขื•ื‘ืจืช ืขืœ ื“ืช

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