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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 10, 2015 | 讻状讗 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Ketubot 97

讗诐 讘诪转谞讛 谞讜讟诇谉 诇讗 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讜

If he takes it as a gift, his power as a creditor is not enhanced in this manner. He is not served well because he would not be able to seize property sold to a third party in order to receive his gift. So too, the widow can sell property and then decide later for what purpose she sold it.

讻讬爪讚 诪讜讻专转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讜讻专转 讗讞转 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪讜讻专转 诇砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

搂 The Gemara asks: How does a widow sell property to earn money for her support? Rabbi Daniel bar Rav Ketina said that Rav Huna said: She sells her late husband鈥檚 property once every twelve months and the buyer who purchased the property from her provides her with money once every thirty days. And Rav Yehuda said: She sells once every six months and the buyer provides her with money once every thirty days.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讜讻专转 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讻专转 诇砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna: She sells once every twelve months, and the buyer provides her with support once every thirty days. So too, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: She sells once every six months, and the buyer provides her with money once every thirty days.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诪讜讻专转 诇砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬

Ameimar said: The halakha is that she sells once every six months and the buyer provides her with money once every thirty days, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What do you have to say about the opinion of Rav Huna? He said to him: I did not hear about this statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讜讻专转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讛讜 砖转讞讝讜专 讜转讟专讜祝 诇讻转讜讘讛

搂 The students raised a dilemma to Rav Sheshet: If a woman sells property for her sustenance, what is the halakha? Can she return and seize those very properties that she had sold, as payment for her marriage contract?

拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 讜讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara explains: They raised this dilemma in reference to a halakha established by Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: In the case of a widow who sold liened property to a third party, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. If the property was seized from the purchasers in payment of a previous debt, then the purchasers are reimbursed by the orphans. And so too, in the case of a court that sold property belonging to the deceased, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. It is in light of this halakha that the dilemma was raised to Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha in this case?

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 讟专驻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讞专讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇转 注讬诇讜讱 讗讞专讬讜转 讚谞驻砖讱 诪讬 诇讗 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘讬诇转

Is the halakha that since the property guarantee rests on the orphans, she is able to seize the property? Or perhaps the buyers are able to say to her: Granted, you did not accept upon yourself a property guarantee for everyone, and it is the heirs and not you who have to reimburse us if our property is seized; however, did you not accept a guarantee about your own actions, that you as the seller will not return and seize the property from us?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 诪讜讻专转 讜讛讜诇讻转 注讚 讻讚讬 讻转讜讘转讛 讜住诪讱 诇讛 砖转讙讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛砖讗专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讬专讗 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讬讬专讗 诇讗

Rav Sheshet said to the one who raised the dilemma: You learned in a baraita: A widow sells the deceased鈥檚 property for her sustenance, and she continues to do so until there is nothing left except the value of her marriage contract, and she relies upon the fact that she will collect payment of her marriage contract from the remainder of the property. Learn from this that if she left property equal in value to her marriage contract, then yes, she can sell it as payment of her marriage contract; but if she did not leave property, then no, she cannot collect her marriage contract. If she could simply seize the land from the buyers, she would not need to set aside part of her husband鈥檚 property to use as payment for her marriage contract. She could sell all the land for sustenance and afterward return and seize the property from the purchasers.

讜讚诇诪讗 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 诇讬拽专讜 诇讛 讛讚专讬谞转讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛砖讗专 诪讗讬 住诪讱 诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讬专讗 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讬讬专讗 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps the baraita teaches us good advice, so that they will not call her a retractor and say that she is an untrustworthy individual who goes back on agreements into which she entered. However, legally, she is able to seize the property from the buyers. The Gemara answers: If that is so, and the baraita intended only to give advice, let it simply teach: She collects payment of her marriage contract from the remainder. What is the purpose of the added emphasis of: She relies? Learn from this that the baraita is worded in a precise manner and teaches that if she left property, yes, she can collect payment of her marriage contract. If she did not leave over, no, she cannot collect payment of her marriage contract.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讝讘讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讜 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If someone sold properties because he needed money for a certain purpose and in the end he did not need the money for that purpose, is this considered a sale conducted in error, so that the seller can renege on the deal and the sale is reversed? Or, is the sale not reversed and what is done is done?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诪讬讝讘谉 转讜专讬 诇住讜祝 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗专注讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: There was a certain man who sold land to Rav Pappa because he needed money to buy oxen. In the end, he did not need the money and regretted having sold the land, and Rav Pappa returned his land to him. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, as Rav Pappa acted in a manner that was beyond the letter of the law.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讘爪讜专转讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗驻讚谞讬讬讛讜 诇住讜祝 讗转讜 讞讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讗驻讚谞讬 诇诪专讬讬讛讜

Come and hear another proof: There was a certain drought in Neharde鈥檃 during which everyone sold his mansion [appadna] in order to buy wheat. In the end, wheat arrived, driving down the price, rendering their sale unnecessary. Rav Na岣an said to them: The halakha is that the mansions are returned to their previous owners. It is evident that he holds that a sale that was prompted by the need for money is voided if it becomes clear that the seller no longer needs the money.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讜 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗专讘讗 讘注拽讜诇讬 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara answers: There too, the sale was conducted in error, as it became known that the ship with the wheat was already in the bays of the river at the time when the mansions were sold. Had they known that the ship was so close, they would not have sold their property. This is a case of an error at the time of the sale, which is different from a case where the circumstances changed after the sale.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗转 诪讻砖讬诇谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讘爪讜专转讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘爪讜专转讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 诪砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara offers proof that the error was already present at the time of the transaction: If so, this is what Rami bar Shmuel said to Rav Na岣an when he questioned his ruling: If this is so, and the mansions need to be restored to their previous owners, you find yourself obstructing them for the future. As a result of this ruling, people will not want to buy land because they will worry that the seller will change his mind. Rav Na岣an said to him: Is that to say that it is so common, that there is a drought every day? I said that the properties are returned only in these specific circumstances. He said to him: Yes, in Neharde鈥檃 drought is a frequent occurrence.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讝讘讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one sold properties for a certain purpose and in the end did not need the money for that reason, the sale is reversed.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: A widow, whether widowed from betrothal or from marriage, sells her husband鈥檚 property when not in court.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rabbi Shimon says: A widow from marriage sells when not in court, but a widow from betrothal may sell only in court, because she does not receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 property. She receives only her marriage contract, and anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讝讜谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara elaborates: Granted, a widow from marriage may sell when not in court due to the fact that her sustenance is a pressing concern, so one does not make her wait until she finds a court that will oversee her sale.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

However, what is the reason that a widow from betrothal may sell property when not in court? Ulla said: Due to desirability. The Sages enacted several ordinances on behalf of women, so that men will want to marry them. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by being involved in court proceedings.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙专讜砖讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讙专讜砖讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬讗 讞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a divorc茅e. According to the one who says that it is due to desirability, a divorc茅e also requires desirability. But according to the one who says that it is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court, a man does not care if his ex-wife is disgraced.

转谞谉 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讙专讜砖讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬讗 讞谉

We learned in the mishna (97b): And a divorc茅e may sell only in court. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that this is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court, here he does not care if his ex-wife is disgraced. However, according to the one who says that it is due to desirability, a divorc茅e also requires desirability, so why should she be required to sell in court?

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this continuation of the mishna? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna, who explains that anyone who is selling property to receive payment of her marriage contract and not for sustenance is required to sell only in court, and a divorc茅e does not receive sustenance.

讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: If this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then wasn鈥檛 it already taught in the first clause that a widow from betrothal sells only in court because she does not receive sustenance? Since the same reasoning applies to a divorc茅e, why would the mishna have to teach the halakha again in this case?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讞谉 讚讬讚讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 讚谞驻讬砖 讞谉 讚讬讚讛 讗讬诪讗 转讬讘注讬 讞谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary, lest you say: In the case of a widow from betrothal, she is not in great need of her desirability, as she has not been tarnished through sexual relations and men will not hold back from marrying her, and therefore she can go to the court to manage her affairs; however, a divorc茅e, who is in great need of her desirability and needs assistance in getting remarried, say that she requires desirability so that she will not be disgraced and she is allowed to take care of her affairs out of court. Lest you make this argument, the halakha was clearly stated in the mishna.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专讜砖讛

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we already learn this halakha, as it also says in the mishna the following generalization: And anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court? This halakha was intended to add what? Was it not meant to add the case of a divorc茅e and teach that she can sell only in court, in which case the concluding remark of the mishna about the divorc茅e is superfluous?

诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is to include a woman about whom there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: Wherever it was said: A woman that there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance until the divorce is final, and a woman in this situation may sell out of court as well.

转讗 砖诪注 讻砖诐 砖诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讱 讬讜专砖讬讛 讬讜专砖讬 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讜讻专讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转转讘讝讬 讬讜专砖讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讘讝讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 诪讗讬 讞谉 讗讬讻讗 转专讙诪讛 注讜诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬专砖转讛 讘转讛 讗讜 讗讞讜转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof: Just as the widow sells when not in court, so too, her heirs, those who inherit her marriage contract, sell when not in court. Granted, according to the one who says that the reason why she may sell out of court is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by having to appear in court, it is possible to say that just as he is not amenable to the idea that she will be disgraced, he also is not amenable to the idea that her heirs will be disgraced. However, according to the one who says that she sells out of court due to desirability, what desirability do her heirs need to have? Ulla interpreted it: This could take place, for example, when her daughter or her sister inherited from her, and they too need desirability.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讻专讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讜 诪拽爪转讛 诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讜 诪拽爪转讛 谞转谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诇讗讞专 讗讜 诪拽爪转讛 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专转 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 驻注诪讬诐 讜诪讜讻专转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻讜转讘转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讻专转讬 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: If a woman sold all or part of her marriage contract, or if she mortgaged all or part of her marriage contract, or if she gave away as a gift all or part of her marriage contract to another, then she sells the remainder only in court. And the Rabbis say: She sells even four or five times, and she is not obligated to sell everything at one time. And despite selling several times, she sells for her sustenance even when not in court, and she writes in the bill of sale: I sold this for my sustenance.And a divorc茅e, who does not receive sustenance, sells only in court.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻专讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注砖转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 诪讻专讛 讜诇讗 诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诇讗 诪讞爪讬转讛 讗讘讚讛 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: If she sold all of her marriage contract, or mortgaged her marriage contract, or if she made her marriage contract designated repayment to another, she does not receive sustenance any longer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: Although she has not sold or mortgaged her entire marriage contract, but only half of it, she has lost her right to sustenance. Therefore, she can only sell the rest of her marriage contract in court.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讻住祝 讻讻诇 讻住祝 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讻住祝 讻讻诇 讻住祝

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Shimon holds that we do not say that part of the money has a status like the entire sum of money? Since she no longer has a claim to the entire sum of her marriage contract, it is as though she no longer has a marriage contract and loses her right to sustenance, and the Rabbis hold that we do say part of the money is like the entire money.

讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讜讗 讗砖讛 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 驻专讟 诇讘讜讙专转 砖讻诇讜 讘转讜诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讜讙专转

Didn鈥檛 we hear them say the opposite? As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse that speaks about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:13): 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity,鈥 to exclude a grown woman whose sign of virginity has diminished because when a girl goes through puberty her hymen wears away; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare as fit even a grown woman for the High Priest. This implies that they are of the opinion that the absence of a part is not considered the absence of the whole, and although part of her sign of virginity has been diminished, it is still present.

讛转诐 讘拽专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讘转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讘转讜诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讘转讜诇讬诐 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讘讻讚专讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There they disagree with regard to the interpretation of the verses. Rabbi Meir holds that were it stated in the verse a virgin, this general term would have indicated that as long as she is a virgin, even if she has only part of her sign of virginity, she could marry the High Priest. However, since the verse states: 鈥淗er virginity,鈥 it means to say until there is a sign of virginity in its entirety. The addition of the prefix 鈥渋n鈥 to the phrase 鈥渋n her virginity鈥 teaches that if she engaged in sexual intercourse in the typical manner, i.e., in the place where her sign of virginity lies, then yes, it is considered that she has engaged in sexual intercourse and is no longer considered a virgin. But if she engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, then she is not considered to have engaged in sexual intercourse.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇诪讛 诪砖诪注 讘转讜诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐

By contrast, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that the word virgin implies a complete virgin, whose sign of virginity is completely intact. Therefore, when the verse says: 鈥淗er virginity,鈥 it indicates that even if she has only part of her sign of virginity, in this regard she is still considered a virgin.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 97

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 97

讗诐 讘诪转谞讛 谞讜讟诇谉 诇讗 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讜

If he takes it as a gift, his power as a creditor is not enhanced in this manner. He is not served well because he would not be able to seize property sold to a third party in order to receive his gift. So too, the widow can sell property and then decide later for what purpose she sold it.

讻讬爪讚 诪讜讻专转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讜讻专转 讗讞转 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪讜讻专转 诇砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

搂 The Gemara asks: How does a widow sell property to earn money for her support? Rabbi Daniel bar Rav Ketina said that Rav Huna said: She sells her late husband鈥檚 property once every twelve months and the buyer who purchased the property from her provides her with money once every thirty days. And Rav Yehuda said: She sells once every six months and the buyer provides her with money once every thirty days.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讜讻专转 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讻专转 诇砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna: She sells once every twelve months, and the buyer provides her with support once every thirty days. So too, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: She sells once every six months, and the buyer provides her with money once every thirty days.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诪讜讻专转 诇砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞 诪驻专谞住 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬

Ameimar said: The halakha is that she sells once every six months and the buyer provides her with money once every thirty days, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What do you have to say about the opinion of Rav Huna? He said to him: I did not hear about this statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讜讻专转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讛讜 砖转讞讝讜专 讜转讟专讜祝 诇讻转讜讘讛

搂 The students raised a dilemma to Rav Sheshet: If a woman sells property for her sustenance, what is the halakha? Can she return and seize those very properties that she had sold, as payment for her marriage contract?

拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 讜讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara explains: They raised this dilemma in reference to a halakha established by Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: In the case of a widow who sold liened property to a third party, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. If the property was seized from the purchasers in payment of a previous debt, then the purchasers are reimbursed by the orphans. And so too, in the case of a court that sold property belonging to the deceased, the property guarantee rests upon the orphans. It is in light of this halakha that the dilemma was raised to Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha in this case?

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转诪讬 讟专驻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讞专讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇转 注讬诇讜讱 讗讞专讬讜转 讚谞驻砖讱 诪讬 诇讗 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘讬诇转

Is the halakha that since the property guarantee rests on the orphans, she is able to seize the property? Or perhaps the buyers are able to say to her: Granted, you did not accept upon yourself a property guarantee for everyone, and it is the heirs and not you who have to reimburse us if our property is seized; however, did you not accept a guarantee about your own actions, that you as the seller will not return and seize the property from us?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 诪讜讻专转 讜讛讜诇讻转 注讚 讻讚讬 讻转讜讘转讛 讜住诪讱 诇讛 砖转讙讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛砖讗专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讬专讗 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讬讬专讗 诇讗

Rav Sheshet said to the one who raised the dilemma: You learned in a baraita: A widow sells the deceased鈥檚 property for her sustenance, and she continues to do so until there is nothing left except the value of her marriage contract, and she relies upon the fact that she will collect payment of her marriage contract from the remainder of the property. Learn from this that if she left property equal in value to her marriage contract, then yes, she can sell it as payment of her marriage contract; but if she did not leave property, then no, she cannot collect her marriage contract. If she could simply seize the land from the buyers, she would not need to set aside part of her husband鈥檚 property to use as payment for her marriage contract. She could sell all the land for sustenance and afterward return and seize the property from the purchasers.

讜讚诇诪讗 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 诇讬拽专讜 诇讛 讛讚专讬谞转讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛砖讗专 诪讗讬 住诪讱 诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讬专讗 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讬讬专讗 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps the baraita teaches us good advice, so that they will not call her a retractor and say that she is an untrustworthy individual who goes back on agreements into which she entered. However, legally, she is able to seize the property from the buyers. The Gemara answers: If that is so, and the baraita intended only to give advice, let it simply teach: She collects payment of her marriage contract from the remainder. What is the purpose of the added emphasis of: She relies? Learn from this that the baraita is worded in a precise manner and teaches that if she left property, yes, she can collect payment of her marriage contract. If she did not leave over, no, she cannot collect payment of her marriage contract.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讝讘讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讜 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If someone sold properties because he needed money for a certain purpose and in the end he did not need the money for that purpose, is this considered a sale conducted in error, so that the seller can renege on the deal and the sale is reversed? Or, is the sale not reversed and what is done is done?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诪讬讝讘谉 转讜专讬 诇住讜祝 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗专注讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: There was a certain man who sold land to Rav Pappa because he needed money to buy oxen. In the end, he did not need the money and regretted having sold the land, and Rav Pappa returned his land to him. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, as Rav Pappa acted in a manner that was beyond the letter of the law.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讘爪讜专转讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗驻讚谞讬讬讛讜 诇住讜祝 讗转讜 讞讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讗驻讚谞讬 诇诪专讬讬讛讜

Come and hear another proof: There was a certain drought in Neharde鈥檃 during which everyone sold his mansion [appadna] in order to buy wheat. In the end, wheat arrived, driving down the price, rendering their sale unnecessary. Rav Na岣an said to them: The halakha is that the mansions are returned to their previous owners. It is evident that he holds that a sale that was prompted by the need for money is voided if it becomes clear that the seller no longer needs the money.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讜 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗专讘讗 讘注拽讜诇讬 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara answers: There too, the sale was conducted in error, as it became known that the ship with the wheat was already in the bays of the river at the time when the mansions were sold. Had they known that the ship was so close, they would not have sold their property. This is a case of an error at the time of the sale, which is different from a case where the circumstances changed after the sale.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗转 诪讻砖讬诇谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讘爪讜专转讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘爪讜专转讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 诪砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara offers proof that the error was already present at the time of the transaction: If so, this is what Rami bar Shmuel said to Rav Na岣an when he questioned his ruling: If this is so, and the mansions need to be restored to their previous owners, you find yourself obstructing them for the future. As a result of this ruling, people will not want to buy land because they will worry that the seller will change his mind. Rav Na岣an said to him: Is that to say that it is so common, that there is a drought every day? I said that the properties are returned only in these specific circumstances. He said to him: Yes, in Neharde鈥檃 drought is a frequent occurrence.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讝讘讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one sold properties for a certain purpose and in the end did not need the money for that reason, the sale is reversed.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: A widow, whether widowed from betrothal or from marriage, sells her husband鈥檚 property when not in court.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rabbi Shimon says: A widow from marriage sells when not in court, but a widow from betrothal may sell only in court, because she does not receive sustenance from her husband鈥檚 property. She receives only her marriage contract, and anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讝讜谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara elaborates: Granted, a widow from marriage may sell when not in court due to the fact that her sustenance is a pressing concern, so one does not make her wait until she finds a court that will oversee her sale.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

However, what is the reason that a widow from betrothal may sell property when not in court? Ulla said: Due to desirability. The Sages enacted several ordinances on behalf of women, so that men will want to marry them. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by being involved in court proceedings.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙专讜砖讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讙专讜砖讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬讗 讞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a divorc茅e. According to the one who says that it is due to desirability, a divorc茅e also requires desirability. But according to the one who says that it is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court, a man does not care if his ex-wife is disgraced.

转谞谉 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讙专讜砖讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬讗 讞谉

We learned in the mishna (97b): And a divorc茅e may sell only in court. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that this is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court, here he does not care if his ex-wife is disgraced. However, according to the one who says that it is due to desirability, a divorc茅e also requires desirability, so why should she be required to sell in court?

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this continuation of the mishna? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna, who explains that anyone who is selling property to receive payment of her marriage contract and not for sustenance is required to sell only in court, and a divorc茅e does not receive sustenance.

讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: If this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then wasn鈥檛 it already taught in the first clause that a widow from betrothal sells only in court because she does not receive sustenance? Since the same reasoning applies to a divorc茅e, why would the mishna have to teach the halakha again in this case?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讞谉 讚讬讚讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 讚谞驻讬砖 讞谉 讚讬讚讛 讗讬诪讗 转讬讘注讬 讞谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary, lest you say: In the case of a widow from betrothal, she is not in great need of her desirability, as she has not been tarnished through sexual relations and men will not hold back from marrying her, and therefore she can go to the court to manage her affairs; however, a divorc茅e, who is in great need of her desirability and needs assistance in getting remarried, say that she requires desirability so that she will not be disgraced and she is allowed to take care of her affairs out of court. Lest you make this argument, the halakha was clearly stated in the mishna.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专讜砖讛

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we already learn this halakha, as it also says in the mishna the following generalization: And anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court? This halakha was intended to add what? Was it not meant to add the case of a divorc茅e and teach that she can sell only in court, in which case the concluding remark of the mishna about the divorc茅e is superfluous?

诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is to include a woman about whom there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: Wherever it was said: A woman that there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance until the divorce is final, and a woman in this situation may sell out of court as well.

转讗 砖诪注 讻砖诐 砖诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讱 讬讜专砖讬讛 讬讜专砖讬 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讜讻专讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转转讘讝讬 讬讜专砖讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讘讝讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 诪讗讬 讞谉 讗讬讻讗 转专讙诪讛 注讜诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬专砖转讛 讘转讛 讗讜 讗讞讜转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof: Just as the widow sells when not in court, so too, her heirs, those who inherit her marriage contract, sell when not in court. Granted, according to the one who says that the reason why she may sell out of court is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by having to appear in court, it is possible to say that just as he is not amenable to the idea that she will be disgraced, he also is not amenable to the idea that her heirs will be disgraced. However, according to the one who says that she sells out of court due to desirability, what desirability do her heirs need to have? Ulla interpreted it: This could take place, for example, when her daughter or her sister inherited from her, and they too need desirability.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讻专讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讜 诪拽爪转讛 诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讜 诪拽爪转讛 谞转谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诇讗讞专 讗讜 诪拽爪转讛 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专转 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 驻注诪讬诐 讜诪讜讻专转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻讜转讘转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讻专转讬 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: If a woman sold all or part of her marriage contract, or if she mortgaged all or part of her marriage contract, or if she gave away as a gift all or part of her marriage contract to another, then she sells the remainder only in court. And the Rabbis say: She sells even four or five times, and she is not obligated to sell everything at one time. And despite selling several times, she sells for her sustenance even when not in court, and she writes in the bill of sale: I sold this for my sustenance.And a divorc茅e, who does not receive sustenance, sells only in court.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻专讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注砖转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 诪讻专讛 讜诇讗 诪砖讻谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诇讗 诪讞爪讬转讛 讗讘讚讛 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: If she sold all of her marriage contract, or mortgaged her marriage contract, or if she made her marriage contract designated repayment to another, she does not receive sustenance any longer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: Although she has not sold or mortgaged her entire marriage contract, but only half of it, she has lost her right to sustenance. Therefore, she can only sell the rest of her marriage contract in court.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讻住祝 讻讻诇 讻住祝 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讻住祝 讻讻诇 讻住祝

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Shimon holds that we do not say that part of the money has a status like the entire sum of money? Since she no longer has a claim to the entire sum of her marriage contract, it is as though she no longer has a marriage contract and loses her right to sustenance, and the Rabbis hold that we do say part of the money is like the entire money.

讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讜讗 讗砖讛 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 驻专讟 诇讘讜讙专转 砖讻诇讜 讘转讜诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讜讙专转

Didn鈥檛 we hear them say the opposite? As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse that speaks about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:13): 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity,鈥 to exclude a grown woman whose sign of virginity has diminished because when a girl goes through puberty her hymen wears away; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare as fit even a grown woman for the High Priest. This implies that they are of the opinion that the absence of a part is not considered the absence of the whole, and although part of her sign of virginity has been diminished, it is still present.

讛转诐 讘拽专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讘转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讘转讜诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讘转讜诇讬诐 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讘讻讚专讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There they disagree with regard to the interpretation of the verses. Rabbi Meir holds that were it stated in the verse a virgin, this general term would have indicated that as long as she is a virgin, even if she has only part of her sign of virginity, she could marry the High Priest. However, since the verse states: 鈥淗er virginity,鈥 it means to say until there is a sign of virginity in its entirety. The addition of the prefix 鈥渋n鈥 to the phrase 鈥渋n her virginity鈥 teaches that if she engaged in sexual intercourse in the typical manner, i.e., in the place where her sign of virginity lies, then yes, it is considered that she has engaged in sexual intercourse and is no longer considered a virgin. But if she engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, then she is not considered to have engaged in sexual intercourse.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇诪讛 诪砖诪注 讘转讜诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐

By contrast, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that the word virgin implies a complete virgin, whose sign of virginity is completely intact. Therefore, when the verse says: 鈥淗er virginity,鈥 it indicates that even if she has only part of her sign of virginity, in this regard she is still considered a virgin.

Scroll To Top