When a woman sells her late husband’s property for food payments, how much land can she sell at a time, and in what type of installments does she receive the money? Two opinions are brought and support from braitot are brought for each position. If she sold the land for food payments and then when she wanted to receive her ketuba payment, there was no land left in the estate, could she collect the ketuba payment from the buyer, as there was a lien on the property for her ketuba? Rav Sheshet answers that she cannot as can be derived from a braita. If one sells property as one needs the money for something else, but in the end, does not need the money, can they renege on the deal, even if the reason they were selling it was not made explicitly clear during the transaction? Two sources are brought to answer the question. The first one is rejected. It is unclear whether the second one is rejected or upheld (there are different interpretations of the Gemara). The Gemara rules that one can renege on the deal. If a woman sells her husband’s land, does it have to be sold in court? Does it depend on whether she sells it for food or her ketuba payment? There is a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis. Why do the rabbis not require it for her ketuba? Ulla says it is because of hina, to enable marriage. Rabbi Yochanan says it is because a husband wouldn’t want to humiliate his wife to make her go in front of a court. Two questions are raised against Ulla, but are resolved. If a woman sells her late husband’s land to receive part of her ketuba payment or uses it as collateral for the value of her ketuba or less than the full value, does that prevent her from being able to collect food payments (as is the case when she collects her entire ketuba payment)? If she then proceeds to sell more land of her late husband’s does it have to be done in a court or not? Also regarding these issues, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon. Even though the Mishna didn’t mention Rabbi Shimon by name, the Gemara concludes that the unnamed opinion is Rabbi Shimon. The rabbis hold that if part of the marriage contract is not collected, it is as if the whole contract is not collected. Rabbi Shimon holds the opposite. If so, their opinions here appear to be the opposite of their opinions regarding the definition of a virgin for marrying a kohen gadol.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Ketubot 97
אִם בְּמַתָּנָה נוֹטְלָן לֹא כָּךְ יָפֶה כֹּחוֹ.
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.
כֵּיצַד מוֹכֶרֶת? אָמַר רַבִּי דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מוֹכֶרֶת אַחַת לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: מוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.
§ 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’s 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.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: מוֹכֶרֶת לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: מוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.
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.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר, הִלְכְתָא: מוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: דְּרַב הוּנָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר: לָא סְבִירָא לִי.
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.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּחֲזוֹר וְתִטְרוֹף לִכְתוּבָּה?
§ 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?
קָמִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ בִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַרְמַלְתָּא דְּזַבֵּין — אַחְרָיוּת אַיַּתְמֵי, וּבֵי דִינָא דְּזַבֵּין — אַחְרָיוּת אַיַּתְמֵי. מַאי?
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?
כֵּיוָן דְּאַחְרָיוּת אַיַּתְמֵי, טָרְפָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא מָצֵי אָמְרִי לַהּ: נְהִי דְּאַחְרָיוּת דְּעָלְמָא לָא קַבֵּילְתְּ עִילָּוָךְ, אַחְרָיוּת דְּנַפְשָׁךְ מִי לָא קַבּוֹלֵי קַבֵּילְתְּ?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: מוֹכֶרֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד כְּדֵי כְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְסֶמֶךְ לָהּ שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַשְּׁאָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שַׁיַּירָא — אִין, לָא שַׁיַּירָא — לָא.
Rav Sheshet said to the one who raised the dilemma: You learned in a baraita: A widow sells the deceased’s 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’s 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.
וְדִלְמָא עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלָא לִיקְרוֹ לַהּ הַדְרָנִיתָא. אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי: ״גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַשְּׁאָר״, מַאי ״סֶמֶךְ לָהּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שַׁיַּירָא — אִין, לָא שַׁיַּירָא — לָא.
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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: זַבֵּין וְלָא אִיצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, אוֹ לָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי?
§ 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?
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין אַרְעָא לְרַב פָּפָּא, דְּאִצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְמִיזְבַּן תּוֹרֵי. לְסוֹף לָא אִיצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ, וְאַהְדְּרַיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַרְעֵיהּ. רַב פָּפָּא לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין הוּא דַּעֲבַד.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא בִּצּוּרְתָּא דַּהֲוָת בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, זַבְּנִינְהוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְאַפַּדְנַיְיהוּ, לְסוֹף אֲתוֹ חִיטֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: דִּינָא הוּא דְּהָדְרִי אַפַּדְנֵי לְמָרַיְיהוּ.
Come and hear another proof: There was a certain drought in Neharde’a 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 Naḥman 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.
הָתָם נָמֵי: זְבִינֵי בְּטָעוּת הֲווֹ, דְּאִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּאַרְבָּא בְּעִקּוּלֵי הֲוָה קָיְימָא.
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.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב נַחְמָן: אִם כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָ מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ כׇּל יוֹמָא בִּצּוּרְתָּא שְׁכִיחָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, בִּצּוּרְתָּא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא מִשְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחָא.
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 Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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’a drought is a frequent occurrence.
וְהִלְכְתָא: זַבֵּין וְלָא אִיצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי — הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אַלְמָנָה, בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין.
MISHNA: A widow, whether widowed from betrothal or from marriage, sells her husband’s property when not in court.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִן הָאֵירוּסִין לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת — לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין.
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’s property. She receives only her marriage contract, and anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court.
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — מִשּׁוּם מְזוֹנֵי,
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.
אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין.
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 Yoḥanan said: Because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by being involved in court proceedings.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גְּרוּשָׁה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא — גְּרוּשָׁה נָמֵי בָּעֲיָא חֵן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין — גְּרוּשָׁה לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ.
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 divorcée. According to the one who says that it is due to desirability, a divorcée 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.
תְּנַן: וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין — גְּרוּשָׁה לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא, גְּרוּשָׁה נָמֵי בָּעֲיָא חֵן!
We learned in the mishna (97b): And a divorcée 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 divorcée also requires desirability, so why should she be required to sell in court?
הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.
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 divorcée does not receive sustenance.
אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: מִן הָאֵירוּסִין לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר כּוּ׳?
The Gemara asks: If this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then wasn’t 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 divorcée, why would the mishna have to teach the halakha again in this case?
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין הוּא דְּלָא נְפִישׁ חֵן דִּידַהּ, אֲבָל גְּרוּשָׁה דִּנְפִישׁ חֵן דִּידַהּ, אֵימָא תִּיבְּעֵי חֵן.
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 divorcée, 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.
הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת״. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי גְּרוּשָׁה?
The Gemara asks: Didn’t 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 divorcée and teach that she can sell only in court, in which case the concluding remark of the mishna about the divorcée is superfluous?
לָא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי ״מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״ — כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת — בַּעַל חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, כָּךְ יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ יוֹרְשֵׁי כְתוּבָּתָהּ מוֹכְרִים שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאִיהִי לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִתְבַּזֵּי — יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ נָמֵי לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיבַּזּוּ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא, יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מַאי חֵן אִיכָּא? תַּרְגְּמַהּ עוּלָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיְּרָשַׁתָּה בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אֲחוֹתָהּ.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ מָכְרָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, מִשְׁכְּנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, נָתְנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְאַחֵר אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ — לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹכֶרֶת הִיא אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְּעָמִים. וּמוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, וְכוֹתֶבֶת ״לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי״. וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין.
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 divorcée, who does not receive sustenance, sells only in court.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מָכְרָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, מִשְׁכְּנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, עָשְׂתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאַחֵר — אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָכְרָה וְלֹא מִשְׁכְּנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלָּא מַחֲצִיתָהּ — אִבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.
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.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת כֶּסֶף כְּכׇל כֶּסֶף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת כֶּסֶף כְּכׇל כֶּסֶף?
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.
הָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ״ — פְּרָט לְבוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁכָּלוּ בְּתוּלֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּבוֹגֶרֶת.
Didn’t 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): “And he shall take a wife in her virginity,” 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.
הָתָם בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלִים. ״בְּתוּלֶיהָ״ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּתוּלִים. ״בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ״, בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ — לָא.
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: “Her virginity,” it means to say until there is a sign of virginity in its entirety. The addition of the prefix “in” to the phrase “in her virginity” 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.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — שְׁלֵמָה מַשְׁמַע, ״בְּתוּלֶיהָ״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלִים.
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: “Her virginity,” it indicates that even if she has only part of her sign of virginity, in this regard she is still considered a virgin.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
See video
Raanana, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Ketubot 97
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧ€ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΧΦΉ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
Β§ 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 husbandβs 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.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ?
Β§ 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?
Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ?
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?
ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ: Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ°?
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?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨. Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ: Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ.
Rav Sheshet said to the one who raised the dilemma: You learned in a baraita: A widow sells the deceasedβs 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 husbandβs 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Χ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄Χ‘ΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄? Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ: Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ?
Β§ 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?
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ. ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ. Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ.
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.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ²ΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ.
Come and hear another proof: There was a certain drought in Nehardeβa 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 NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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 NaαΈ₯man 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 NaαΈ₯man 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 Nehardeβa drought is a frequent occurrence.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
MISHNA: A widow, whether widowed from betrothal or from marriage, sells her husbandβs property when not in court.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
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 husbandβs property. She receives only her marriage contract, and anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ,
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
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 YoαΈ₯anan said: Because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by being involved in court proceedings.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
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 divorcΓ©e. According to the one who says that it is due to desirability, a divorcΓ©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.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ!
We learned in the mishna (97b): And a divorcΓ©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 divorcΓ©e also requires desirability, so why should she be required to sell in court?
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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 divorcΓ©e does not receive sustenance.
ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³?
The Gemara asks: If this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then wasnβt 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 divorcΓ©e, why would the mishna have to teach the halakha again in this case?
ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ.
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 divorcΓ©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.
ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ?
The Gemara asks: Didnβt 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 divorcΓ©e and teach that she can sell only in court, in which case the concluding remark of the mishna about the divorcΓ©e is superfluous?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
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.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ β ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ? ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ΄. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
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 divorcΓ©e, who does not receive sustenance, sells only in court.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£?
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.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ.
Didnβt 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): βAnd he shall take a wife in her virginity,β 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.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ΄ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ΄, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ.
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: βHer virginity,β it means to say until there is a sign of virginity in its entirety. The addition of the prefix βinβ to the phrase βin her virginityβ 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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’, Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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: βHer virginity,β it indicates that even if she has only part of her sign of virginity, in this regard she is still considered a virgin.
