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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 24, 2022 | 讻状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讘

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

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

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 80

A husband has rights to the proceeds of his wife鈥檚 usufruct property (nichsei melog). However, once the marriage ends, he has no rights at all. He can get back the money invested only if he was not able to benefit at all from the proceeds. How much does he need to benefit to have it considered that he did not benefit? In the event that he does get back his investment, he needs to swear about how much he spent. Rav Asi says only if the investment is equal to the gain. What did he mean by this? Abaye and Rava each have different explanations. If a husband brought in sharecroppers and then the marriage is dissolved, do they have the exact same rights as the husband or not? On what does it depend? Can a husband sell his rights to the proceeds? If land is inherited or gifted to a woman while she is waiting for yibum, both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree that she can sell it. What happens to her possessions if she dies? On what does it depend? A yabam or husband cannot designate items for the woman for her ketuba collection to free up their land. Who is responsible to bury a woman waiting for yibum?

专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讙专讗 讚转诪专讬 讘注讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讞讜讘爪讗 讚转诪专讬 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

by Rabbi Abba that in the school of Rav they say: It is even a cluster of dates stuck together. Rav Beivai asks: If one ate dough made of dates, what is the halakha? Is this considered dignified consumption? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻讗讬住专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: If he did not eat it in a dignified manner, what is the halakha? How much must he eat to be deemed a proper act of consumption? Ulla said: Two amora鈥檌m in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this matter. One said: He ate the amount of an issar, and one said: He ate the measure of a dinar.

讗诪专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 注讘讚 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讻诇讛 注专诇讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

The judges of Pumbedita say: Rav Yehuda took action in a case of a bundle of branches. A husband took them from his wife鈥檚 property and fed them to his animals, and Rav Yehuda ruled that this was treated as consumption of her property. The Gemara comments: Rav Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Yehuda said: If one took possession of a plot of land and consumed some of the produce of its trees that was forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] or produce of the seventh year, or a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, this is considered taking possession of the land, as he was allowed to benefit from the permitted branches.

讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 拽讟谞讛 讻诪讜爪讬讗 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讞专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讬驻住讚讬谞讛讜

Rav Yaakov said that Rav 岣sda said: With regard to one who outlays expenditures for the property of his wife who is a minor girl and was married off by her mother or brothers, he is considered like one who outlays expenditures for the property of someone else. Therefore, if she performed refusal upon reaching maturity, thereby annulling the marriage, he takes the value of the improvement. What is the reason for this? The Sages enacted this ordinance in order that he should not let her property depreciate. If he is not guaranteed reimbursement for his expenses if she refuses him as her husband, he will not attend to the upkeep of her property, causing its value to decline.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗讝讬诇 讙讘专讗 讗驻讬拽 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讗讬讬转讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 讜砖拽诇 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讗讻诇 讗讻诇

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who had four hundred dinars bequeathed to her in Bei 岣zai, a remote location in Babylonia. The man, her husband, went and took with him six hundred of his own dinars for travel expenses and brought back with him four hundred. While he was coming back he required one dinar, which he took from the money he had collected. He came before Rabbi Ami for a ruling. Rabbi Ami said to him: That which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. He has benefited from one dinar of her money and spent six hundred of his own, and neither amount can be claimed.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讗 讛讗 拽专谞讗 拽讗讻讬诇 讜讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Ami: This applies only where he consumes the produce of his wife鈥檚 property, but this one ate from the principal, and it is merely expenditures. He replied: If so, this is a case of one who pays expenditures and did not eat, and the halakha is that in such a case he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes that amount.

讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 砖讘讞 讻谞讙讚 讛讜爪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讜爪讗讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讛讜爪讗讛 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛

搂 The mishna states: He takes an oath with regard to how much he spent and takes this sum. Rabbi Asi said: And this applies only if there is enhancement to the property corresponding to his expense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Is this a stringency for the husband that if the value of enhancement is less he may not reclaim all his expenses, or is it a leniency that if the value is greater he need not take an oath? Abaye said: It means that if the value of enhancement was greater than the expense, he takes the expense without an oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 讛讜爪讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讛讜爪讗讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞 讜讘砖讘讜注讛

Rava said to him: If so, he will come to deceive, as he can always say that he spent slightly less than the value of the enhancement and thereby receive this amount without having to take an oath. Rather, Rava said: It means that if the expense was greater than the enhancement, he has rights to reclaim the expense only up to the amount of the enhancement, but no more, and even this amount he can claim only by an oath.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 砖讛讜专讬讚 讗专讬住讬谉 转讞转讬讜 诪讛讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讘注诇 谞讞讬转 讗讬住转诇讬拽 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗讬住转诇讬拽讜 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讗专注讗 谞讞讬转 讜讗专注讗 讻讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗专讬住讬 拽讬讬诪讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who engaged sharecroppers to work his wife鈥檚 property in his stead, what is the halakha? Does a sharecropper begin work on the land with the intention to work for the husband, so that if the husband departs the property, e.g., if he divorces his wife, they too depart as sharecroppers and do not receive their share of the profits from the land? Or perhaps a sharecropper begins work with the intention to work the land, and the land, as it stands, stands to be worked by sharecroppers? Since their involvement is directly with the land, it makes no difference who hired them, and they would stay on the land.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讟注讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

Rava bar Rav 岣nan objects to this line of inquiry: In what way is this case different from that of one who entered the field of another and planted it without permission? In such a situation one evaluates his expenses for him and the value of his enhancement of the field, and he is at a disadvantage. Therefore, he always receives the smaller sum, whether it is equal to his expenses or the enhancement of the property. In this case too, even if the sharecroppers are viewed as unauthorized occupiers of the land, why shouldn鈥檛 they be treated like one who entered another鈥檚 field without permission and receive at least the smaller sum?

讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讟专讞 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讘注诇 讚讟专讞

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable: There, when one enters another鈥檚 land, there is no one else that will exert himself for it, and therefore it is reasonable that the one who invested in this property should at least be compensated for the lesser value. However, here, there is a husband who exerts himself for the land. Since the sharecroppers act in his stead, they are entitled to remain on the land only as long as he is present.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讘注诇 讗专讬住 讛讜讗 讗讬住转诇拽 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗住转诇拽讜 诇讛讜 讗讬 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讗专讬住 讛讜讗 讗专注讗 诇讗专讬住讬 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it, i.e., the original question? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We examine the matter: If this husband is a sharecropper himself and possesses sufficient knowledge of working the land to perform the task himself, then when the husband departs from the property they too depart, as they are taking his place. If the husband is not a sharecropper, the land is ready for sharecroppers, as the husband would not have performed the work himself. Since the wife was in need of sharecroppers, they are not considered to have acted on behalf of the husband and do not forfeit their share.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 砖诪讻专 拽专拽注 诇驻讬专讜转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚拽谞讬 (诇讛) 讗拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讘注诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who sold his wife鈥檚 land for produce, i.e., rights to the produce were sold to one who agrees to work the land in exchange, what is the halakha? Do we say: That which belongs to the husband he has transferred to others, and therefore the sale of the produce is valid, or perhaps the principle is that when the Sages instituted that the produce goes to the husband,

诪砖讜诐 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 讗讘诇 诇讝讘讜谞讬 诇讗 讬讛讜讚讛 诪专 讘专 诪专讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

they did so for the gain of the house, as more food is available when he brings produce home, but in order for him to sell it they did not institute their decree? Two opinions were stated with regard to this issue: Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar said in the name of Rava: What he did is done, i.e., takes effect. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He did not do anything.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚讬讛讜讚讛 诪专 讘专 诪专讬诪专 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗转诪专 讚讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诇讙讘专讗 转专转讬 讗诪讛转讗 讗讝诇 讙讘专讗 谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 注讬讬诇 诇讛 讞讚讗 诪谞讬讬讛讜

Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava鈥檚 name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two maidservants as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the maidservants to attend to her needs.

讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 爪讜讜讞讛 诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讛 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讗 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 专讜讜讞

The first wife came before Rava and cried about the injustice done to her, but Rava took no notice of her, claiming she had no right to complain. He who observed this incident thought that Rava ruled this way because he holds that what he did is done, i.e., takes effect, and a husband may sell his wife鈥檚 usufruct property and use its produce as he sees fit. But that is not so, as the Sages instituted the ordinance that a husband owns the rights to the produce of his wife鈥檚 property for the gain of the house, and here the house does gain from his action, as the maidservant also performs work for the house.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘注诇 砖诪讻专 拽专拽注 诇驻讬专讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a husband who sold land for produce did not do anything. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for this ruling? Abaye said: We are concerned that perhaps the land itself will deteriorate over time, as the purchaser has acquired only its produce and has no incentive to take proper care of the land. Rava said: This is because there is no gain of the house here.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗专注讗 讚诪拽专讘 诇诪转讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘注诇 讗专讬住 讛讜讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讜讝讬 讜拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 注讬住拽讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them is, e.g., land that is close to the town, as one can check at any time whether the land is being cared for properly. Alternatively, the difference involves a husband who is a sharecropper and works the land himself but sold the rights of the produce to someone else. As a sharecropper, the husband retains part of the produce and will also ensure that the land does not deteriorate. Alternatively, the difference concerns a husband who receives money for the produce and does business with it, which provides gain for the house.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讛 谞讻住讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诪讜讻专转 讜谞讜转谞转 讜拽讬讬诐

MISHNA: When a married man dies childless, his brother, the yavam, is obligated to perform levirate marriage or release the widow, the yevama, through a ceremony known as 岣litza. With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam who had property bequeathed to her, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give this property away, and the transaction is valid.

诪转讛 诪讛 讬注砖讜 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜讘谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诪讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇拽讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉 讜讻转讜讘讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 注诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘

If this woman died, what should they do with her marriage contract and with the property that comes and goes with her, i.e., her usufruct property? Beit Shammai say: Since she was not yet remarried, the husband鈥檚 heirs, such as his brothers or father, divide the property with her father鈥檚 heirs. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status, and therefore the marriage contract is in the possession of the husband鈥檚 heirs, as they are responsible for its payment. As for the property that comes and goes with her, it is in the possession of the heirs of the woman鈥檚 father, as it belongs to the woman.

讛谞讬讞 讗讞讬讜 诪注讜转 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 驻讬专讜转 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

If his deceased brother left money as part of his estate, land to be used as a lien on her marriage contract is acquired with it, and the yavam consumes the produce. Similarly, if the deceased brother left produce that is detached from the ground, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

讛诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻诪讛 讛谉 讬驻讬谉 讘驻讬专讜转 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讬驻讬谉 讘诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜讛诪讜转专 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

If he left behind produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates the properties to determine how much they are worth with the produce, and how much they are worth without the produce. And as for the surplus, which is the value of the produce, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讘拽专拽注 砖诇讜 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讝讻讛 讘讛谉 拽讚诐 讛讜讗 讝讻讛 拽讚诪讛 讛讬讗 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. Therefore, it is not used in the purchase of land, but the yavam may eat it. As for the produce that is detached from the ground, which is not mortgaged to her marriage contract, whoever takes possession first has acquired it. If the yavam takes possession of the property first, he has acquired it and may use it as he wishes, but if she is first, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

讻谞住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

After the yavam has married her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, except that the responsibility for payment of her marriage contract is carried out through mortgaging the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam.

诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诪讜谞讞转 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讜讻谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诪讜谞讞转 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛

Therefore, the yavam may not say to her: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. He may not set aside a designated sum of money for this payment. Rather, all of the first husband鈥檚 property is mortgaged for her marriage contract as long as he has not divorced her. And similarly, in general a man may not say to his wife: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract.

讙讬专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讛讞讝讬专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讘诇讘讚

If the yavam divorced her after performing levirate marriage, she has only her marriage contract, as she does not retain any rights to the rest of her first husband鈥檚 property. If he subsequently remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing but her marriage contract. In this case, the property of her first husband is no longer pledged for the payment of her marriage contract.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 诪讬 拽讜讘专讛 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 拽讘专讬 诇讛 讚拽讗 讬专转讬 讻转讜讘讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 拽讘专讬 诇讛 讚拽讗 讬专转讬 谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a widow awaiting her yavam who dies, who buries her? Who is obligated to bear the expenses of her burial? Must the husband鈥檚 heirs bury her, as they inherit the marriage contract, or perhaps her father鈥檚 heirs are obligated to bury her, as they inherit the property that comes and goes with her? Rav Amram said: Come and hear a solution. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who dies,

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

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

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 77-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that the Sages can force a man to divorce his wife if he develops a...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 80: A Deep-Dive into Eating

How much food counts as "eating"? In terms of getting benefit from the property. What if one's animals eat? Also,...

Ketubot 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 80

专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讙专讗 讚转诪专讬 讘注讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讞讜讘爪讗 讚转诪专讬 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

by Rabbi Abba that in the school of Rav they say: It is even a cluster of dates stuck together. Rav Beivai asks: If one ate dough made of dates, what is the halakha? Is this considered dignified consumption? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻讗讬住专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: If he did not eat it in a dignified manner, what is the halakha? How much must he eat to be deemed a proper act of consumption? Ulla said: Two amora鈥檌m in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this matter. One said: He ate the amount of an issar, and one said: He ate the measure of a dinar.

讗诪专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 注讘讚 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讻诇讛 注专诇讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

The judges of Pumbedita say: Rav Yehuda took action in a case of a bundle of branches. A husband took them from his wife鈥檚 property and fed them to his animals, and Rav Yehuda ruled that this was treated as consumption of her property. The Gemara comments: Rav Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Yehuda said: If one took possession of a plot of land and consumed some of the produce of its trees that was forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] or produce of the seventh year, or a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, this is considered taking possession of the land, as he was allowed to benefit from the permitted branches.

讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 拽讟谞讛 讻诪讜爪讬讗 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讞专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讬驻住讚讬谞讛讜

Rav Yaakov said that Rav 岣sda said: With regard to one who outlays expenditures for the property of his wife who is a minor girl and was married off by her mother or brothers, he is considered like one who outlays expenditures for the property of someone else. Therefore, if she performed refusal upon reaching maturity, thereby annulling the marriage, he takes the value of the improvement. What is the reason for this? The Sages enacted this ordinance in order that he should not let her property depreciate. If he is not guaranteed reimbursement for his expenses if she refuses him as her husband, he will not attend to the upkeep of her property, causing its value to decline.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗讝讬诇 讙讘专讗 讗驻讬拽 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讗讬讬转讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 讜砖拽诇 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讗讻诇 讗讻诇

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who had four hundred dinars bequeathed to her in Bei 岣zai, a remote location in Babylonia. The man, her husband, went and took with him six hundred of his own dinars for travel expenses and brought back with him four hundred. While he was coming back he required one dinar, which he took from the money he had collected. He came before Rabbi Ami for a ruling. Rabbi Ami said to him: That which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. He has benefited from one dinar of her money and spent six hundred of his own, and neither amount can be claimed.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讗 讛讗 拽专谞讗 拽讗讻讬诇 讜讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Ami: This applies only where he consumes the produce of his wife鈥檚 property, but this one ate from the principal, and it is merely expenditures. He replied: If so, this is a case of one who pays expenditures and did not eat, and the halakha is that in such a case he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes that amount.

讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 砖讘讞 讻谞讙讚 讛讜爪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讜爪讗讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讛讜爪讗讛 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛

搂 The mishna states: He takes an oath with regard to how much he spent and takes this sum. Rabbi Asi said: And this applies only if there is enhancement to the property corresponding to his expense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Is this a stringency for the husband that if the value of enhancement is less he may not reclaim all his expenses, or is it a leniency that if the value is greater he need not take an oath? Abaye said: It means that if the value of enhancement was greater than the expense, he takes the expense without an oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 讛讜爪讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讛讜爪讗讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞 讜讘砖讘讜注讛

Rava said to him: If so, he will come to deceive, as he can always say that he spent slightly less than the value of the enhancement and thereby receive this amount without having to take an oath. Rather, Rava said: It means that if the expense was greater than the enhancement, he has rights to reclaim the expense only up to the amount of the enhancement, but no more, and even this amount he can claim only by an oath.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 砖讛讜专讬讚 讗专讬住讬谉 转讞转讬讜 诪讛讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讘注诇 谞讞讬转 讗讬住转诇讬拽 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗讬住转诇讬拽讜 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讗专注讗 谞讞讬转 讜讗专注讗 讻讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗专讬住讬 拽讬讬诪讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who engaged sharecroppers to work his wife鈥檚 property in his stead, what is the halakha? Does a sharecropper begin work on the land with the intention to work for the husband, so that if the husband departs the property, e.g., if he divorces his wife, they too depart as sharecroppers and do not receive their share of the profits from the land? Or perhaps a sharecropper begins work with the intention to work the land, and the land, as it stands, stands to be worked by sharecroppers? Since their involvement is directly with the land, it makes no difference who hired them, and they would stay on the land.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讟注讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

Rava bar Rav 岣nan objects to this line of inquiry: In what way is this case different from that of one who entered the field of another and planted it without permission? In such a situation one evaluates his expenses for him and the value of his enhancement of the field, and he is at a disadvantage. Therefore, he always receives the smaller sum, whether it is equal to his expenses or the enhancement of the property. In this case too, even if the sharecroppers are viewed as unauthorized occupiers of the land, why shouldn鈥檛 they be treated like one who entered another鈥檚 field without permission and receive at least the smaller sum?

讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讟专讞 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讘注诇 讚讟专讞

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable: There, when one enters another鈥檚 land, there is no one else that will exert himself for it, and therefore it is reasonable that the one who invested in this property should at least be compensated for the lesser value. However, here, there is a husband who exerts himself for the land. Since the sharecroppers act in his stead, they are entitled to remain on the land only as long as he is present.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讘注诇 讗专讬住 讛讜讗 讗讬住转诇拽 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗住转诇拽讜 诇讛讜 讗讬 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讗专讬住 讛讜讗 讗专注讗 诇讗专讬住讬 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it, i.e., the original question? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We examine the matter: If this husband is a sharecropper himself and possesses sufficient knowledge of working the land to perform the task himself, then when the husband departs from the property they too depart, as they are taking his place. If the husband is not a sharecropper, the land is ready for sharecroppers, as the husband would not have performed the work himself. Since the wife was in need of sharecroppers, they are not considered to have acted on behalf of the husband and do not forfeit their share.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 砖诪讻专 拽专拽注 诇驻讬专讜转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚拽谞讬 (诇讛) 讗拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讘注诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who sold his wife鈥檚 land for produce, i.e., rights to the produce were sold to one who agrees to work the land in exchange, what is the halakha? Do we say: That which belongs to the husband he has transferred to others, and therefore the sale of the produce is valid, or perhaps the principle is that when the Sages instituted that the produce goes to the husband,

诪砖讜诐 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 讗讘诇 诇讝讘讜谞讬 诇讗 讬讛讜讚讛 诪专 讘专 诪专讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

they did so for the gain of the house, as more food is available when he brings produce home, but in order for him to sell it they did not institute their decree? Two opinions were stated with regard to this issue: Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar said in the name of Rava: What he did is done, i.e., takes effect. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He did not do anything.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚讬讛讜讚讛 诪专 讘专 诪专讬诪专 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗转诪专 讚讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诇讙讘专讗 转专转讬 讗诪讛转讗 讗讝诇 讙讘专讗 谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 注讬讬诇 诇讛 讞讚讗 诪谞讬讬讛讜

Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava鈥檚 name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two maidservants as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the maidservants to attend to her needs.

讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 爪讜讜讞讛 诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讛 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讗 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 专讜讜讞

The first wife came before Rava and cried about the injustice done to her, but Rava took no notice of her, claiming she had no right to complain. He who observed this incident thought that Rava ruled this way because he holds that what he did is done, i.e., takes effect, and a husband may sell his wife鈥檚 usufruct property and use its produce as he sees fit. But that is not so, as the Sages instituted the ordinance that a husband owns the rights to the produce of his wife鈥檚 property for the gain of the house, and here the house does gain from his action, as the maidservant also performs work for the house.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘注诇 砖诪讻专 拽专拽注 诇驻讬专讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讜讜讞 讘讬转讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a husband who sold land for produce did not do anything. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for this ruling? Abaye said: We are concerned that perhaps the land itself will deteriorate over time, as the purchaser has acquired only its produce and has no incentive to take proper care of the land. Rava said: This is because there is no gain of the house here.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗专注讗 讚诪拽专讘 诇诪转讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘注诇 讗专讬住 讛讜讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讜讝讬 讜拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 注讬住拽讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them is, e.g., land that is close to the town, as one can check at any time whether the land is being cared for properly. Alternatively, the difference involves a husband who is a sharecropper and works the land himself but sold the rights of the produce to someone else. As a sharecropper, the husband retains part of the produce and will also ensure that the land does not deteriorate. Alternatively, the difference concerns a husband who receives money for the produce and does business with it, which provides gain for the house.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讛 谞讻住讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诪讜讻专转 讜谞讜转谞转 讜拽讬讬诐

MISHNA: When a married man dies childless, his brother, the yavam, is obligated to perform levirate marriage or release the widow, the yevama, through a ceremony known as 岣litza. With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam who had property bequeathed to her, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give this property away, and the transaction is valid.

诪转讛 诪讛 讬注砖讜 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜讘谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诪讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇拽讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉 讜讻转讜讘讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 注诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘

If this woman died, what should they do with her marriage contract and with the property that comes and goes with her, i.e., her usufruct property? Beit Shammai say: Since she was not yet remarried, the husband鈥檚 heirs, such as his brothers or father, divide the property with her father鈥檚 heirs. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status, and therefore the marriage contract is in the possession of the husband鈥檚 heirs, as they are responsible for its payment. As for the property that comes and goes with her, it is in the possession of the heirs of the woman鈥檚 father, as it belongs to the woman.

讛谞讬讞 讗讞讬讜 诪注讜转 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 驻讬专讜转 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

If his deceased brother left money as part of his estate, land to be used as a lien on her marriage contract is acquired with it, and the yavam consumes the produce. Similarly, if the deceased brother left produce that is detached from the ground, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

讛诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻诪讛 讛谉 讬驻讬谉 讘驻讬专讜转 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讬驻讬谉 讘诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜讛诪讜转专 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

If he left behind produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates the properties to determine how much they are worth with the produce, and how much they are worth without the produce. And as for the surplus, which is the value of the produce, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讘拽专拽注 砖诇讜 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讝讻讛 讘讛谉 拽讚诐 讛讜讗 讝讻讛 拽讚诪讛 讛讬讗 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. Therefore, it is not used in the purchase of land, but the yavam may eat it. As for the produce that is detached from the ground, which is not mortgaged to her marriage contract, whoever takes possession first has acquired it. If the yavam takes possession of the property first, he has acquired it and may use it as he wishes, but if she is first, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

讻谞住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

After the yavam has married her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, except that the responsibility for payment of her marriage contract is carried out through mortgaging the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam.

诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诪讜谞讞转 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讜讻谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诪讜谞讞转 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛

Therefore, the yavam may not say to her: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. He may not set aside a designated sum of money for this payment. Rather, all of the first husband鈥檚 property is mortgaged for her marriage contract as long as he has not divorced her. And similarly, in general a man may not say to his wife: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract.

讙讬专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讛讞讝讬专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讘诇讘讚

If the yavam divorced her after performing levirate marriage, she has only her marriage contract, as she does not retain any rights to the rest of her first husband鈥檚 property. If he subsequently remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing but her marriage contract. In this case, the property of her first husband is no longer pledged for the payment of her marriage contract.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 诪讬 拽讜讘专讛 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 拽讘专讬 诇讛 讚拽讗 讬专转讬 讻转讜讘讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 拽讘专讬 诇讛 讚拽讗 讬专转讬 谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a widow awaiting her yavam who dies, who buries her? Who is obligated to bear the expenses of her burial? Must the husband鈥檚 heirs bury her, as they inherit the marriage contract, or perhaps her father鈥檚 heirs are obligated to bury her, as they inherit the property that comes and goes with her? Rav Amram said: Come and hear a solution. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who dies,

Scroll To Top