Jerusalem Ketubot

Mishnah

1 A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday, because in smaller towns the court meets twice a week, on Monday and Thursday, so if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court.

Halakhah

“A virgin is married on Wednesday,” etc. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. But a blessing is only written on the Fifth and the Sixth days! On the Fifth for birds and fish, on the Sixth for Adam and Eve. Rabbi Yose said, Bar Qappara’s reason concerns the Fourth Day, the evening of the Fifth, and the Fifth Day, the evening of the Sixth. Isn’t a blessing also written for the Sabbath? No blessing is written for creatures, only for the day.

Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she marry on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But wasn’t it taught: “A man should not first have sexual relations on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” This must follow “others,” for “others permit it.” But “others” permit only when he is already married, for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns, or to annul her vows. After he marries her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, or to annul her vows. If so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime on Friday, so that he is not like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

Rabbi Eleazar explains the reason given in the Mishnah, that if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court. A baraita supports Rabbi Eleazar: Since the time of danger they used to marry on Tuesdays and the Sages did not object. A request to marry on Monday is not accepted, but if it was because of a danger it is permitted. What does “because of a danger” mean? Because of sorcery. What is the difference between Monday and Tuesday? One who waits one day cannot be compared to one who waits two days. Why not let him wait two days? So that his acquisition does not become pleasing to him. Why should his acquisition not be pleasing to him? That cannot be accepted, since Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. Could we not suspect that she was raped? A rape is public knowledge. And even if you suspect that she was raped, there is no other doubt. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was willingly opened. Under the Torah one must be stringent. Rabbi Yose said, if you suspect that she was raped, there are two doubts. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was willingly opened. There is a doubt whether it happened after she was preliminarily married or before. Under the Torah, with two doubts one must be lenient.

If he performed the preliminary marriage in the bridal chamber, these restrictions do not apply. They said that Rabbi Mattaniah did this for his daughter. In the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, could she be married any day at a place where courts are in session every day? And at a place where there are no courts every day could she never be married? One does not want to abolish Wednesday as the appointed day. Why does one not want to abolish Wednesday as the appointed day? Because he also accepts what Bar Qappara stated. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. Could she not be married on Sunday, so that he could quickly go to court on Monday? Some say, not to abolish Wednesday as the appointed day. Others say, because of what Bar Qappara stated, for Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there.

It is agreed that she should not be married either Friday or Saturday night. Not on Friday, out of respect for the Sabbath. Not Saturday night: The colleagues say, because of the exertion. Rabbi Yose says, out of respect for the Sabbath. A baraita supports the colleagues: Why did they say, a virgin is married on Wednesday? So that a man can prepare what he needs three consecutive days.

Rabbi Abba bar Cohen said in Rabbi Yose’s presence: Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not preliminarily marry on a Friday. That means holding an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Av a preliminary marriage is permitted, so that someone else does not get ahead of him. Samuel’s argument seems inconsistent. There, he says, “God puts singles in a house, etc.,” “When weighed on scales, they are all lighter than vapor!” And there, he says so? That means preventing someone else from getting ahead of him through prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge financial cases on Friday. Doesn’t a Mishnah contradict this: “Therefore, one does not judge criminal matters on Friday or any day before a holiday”? Therefore, one judges financial cases! Also, Rabbi Ḥiyya taught this: One judges financial cases on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for Torah study.

Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Crispus: An adult woman is like an open amphora. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what Rabbi Ḥanina said, since Rabbi Ḥanina said: It happened that a woman was found without virginity and the case came before Rabbi. He said to her, where is it? She said, the stairs in my father’s house were steep and it was rubbed off. Rabbi believed her. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we taught elsewhere: “The ketubah sum of a virgin who is a widow, or a divorcee, or one who had undergone ḥalîṣah, after a preliminary marriage is 200 zuz, and they are subject to complaints about virginity.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 zuz. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we taught elsewhere: “Someone who eats without a chaperone at his father-in-law’s in Judea cannot go to court about virginity since he was alone with her.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 zuz. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we taught: “If somebody married a woman and found her not to be a virgin. She says, I was raped after the preliminary marriage and your field was flooded, but he says, no, it was before the preliminary marriage and my acquisition was in error,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 zuz. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we taught: “She says, I was injured by a piece of wood, but he says no, you were trampled on by a man,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 zuz. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. All these cases are based on what Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful.

When is an adult married according to Rabbi Eleazar? When is a virgin after marriage married? When is a woman injured by a piece of wood married according to Rabbi Meir? We can learn from the following: “If there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma.” Wednesday was not mentioned. This means that Wednesday has no significance here.

“A widow is married on Thursday.” Because if you let him marry any other day of the year, he would go to work the next morning. Since you tell him to marry on Thursday, he enjoys himself with her on Thursday, Friday, and Sabbath.

Moses instituted seven days of a marriage feast and seven days of mourning, but he instituted nothing for the widow. Even though you say that he instituted nothing for the widow, she needs a blessing. From Boaz, as it is written: “And Boaz took ten men of the city elders and said, sit here, and they sat down.” Rabbi Alexander said, from here one learns that a person of lower standing is not permitted to sit down until the more important person tells him to sit down. Rabbi Phineas said, from here one learns that this family appoints elders for their marriage feasts. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said, from here one learns that the wedding blessing needs ten people present. Rabbi Judah bar Pazy said, not only a bachelor marrying a virgin, but also a widower marrying a widow, since Boaz was a widower and Ruth a widow, as it is written “The entire city was in an uproar because of them.” Is it possible that the entire town was alarmed by Naomi’s wretched condition? But Boaz’s wife had died that very day and when all the people went to the burial, Ruth and Naomi entered. It turned out that when one left, the other entered.

It was stated: The marriage blessings are said all seven days. Rabbi Jeremiah suggested that one reenacts the marriage all seven days. Rabbi Yose said to him, but didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: The blessings of mourners are said all seven days. Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How does this work? Just as here he shares his mourning, there he shares his joy. Just as here one recalls the occasion, there one recalls it.

It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times they allowed the fiancé to be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he could become familiar with her. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men examined the places of the groom and bride. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men slept in the room with the groom and bride. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anyone who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.

Elsewhere we taught: “Every vine gives wine. If there is no wine it is dried up.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Does that mean that Rabbi Judah does not admit claims of missing virginity? Rabbi Yose said, in fact it means that Rabbi Judah admits claims of missing virginity, as it was stated: Rabbi Judah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the groom and one for the bride, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee... they slept in the room with the groom and bride. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. How is this? She has to bring proof that she comes from a family of dryness.

Rabbi Jeremiah proposed following the standard of Judea in Galilee. Rabbi Yose said to him, is the standard of Judea in Galilee a testimony under biblical standards? No, one follows the standard of Judea in Judea and the standard of Galilee in Galilee. If you say, it is not testimony under biblical standards, why appoint them? So that the daughters of Israel do not become sexually promiscuous. If the concern is that the daughters of Israel might become sexually promiscuous, even if one appoints, they should not be trustworthy! Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: A man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation. If it is that a man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation, even if one does not appoint, he should be believed. Rabbi Hila said, because of one suspicion, because of one immoral person. What situation are we discussing? If he investigated and found, he found! If he did not find but investigated, did he not investigate? But we are discussing the case that he did not investigate and found. She says, it is blood of virginity. He says no, it is a bird’s blood. His case is damaged since he did not follow the procedures. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. It follows what we taught elsewhere: “A virgin and a widow, etc.” All these cases are based on what Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful.

It was stated: The claim of virginity is based on any amount of blood. It happened that for a certain woman nothing was found except for a stain the size of a mustard seed. She came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, who said to her, may there be many like you in Israel. Rabbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rabbi Levi: He cursed her, like people who, when they see a blind man, call him “much light.” The colleagues said, he was taunting her, any woman with little blood has few children. Rabbi Yose said, he praised her, any woman with little blood will not cause impurity to food prepared in purity.

Mishnah

2 The ketubah of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina. The ketubah of virgins who after a preliminary marriage become widows, divorcees, or who have undergone ḥalîṣah, is 200 and they are subject to a claim of non-virginity. The ketubah of a convert, a prisoner, and a slave who were redeemed, freed, or converted at less than three years and one day of age, is 200 and they are subject to a claim of non-virginity.

Halakhah

“The ketubah of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina,” etc. Huna in the name of Samuel: In the Temple šeqel. Rabbi Abba bar Bina said, circulating coin. A Mishnah supports Rabbi Abba bar Bina: “The five tetradrachmas of the firstborn are in Tyrian coinage, the 30 of the slave, the 50 of the rapist and the seducer, the 100 of the slanderer, are all computed in Temple šeqels in Tyrian coinage.” A woman’s ketubah is not listed with them. Rabbi Abin said, didn’t they derive the ketubah of a woman from the rapist and the seducer? Since the rapist and the seducer are mentioned, it is as if women’s ketubah were listed with them.

So far we have discussed a virgin. What about a widow? Rav Ḥinena said, it is enough for a widow for her to receive half of a virgin’s portion.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, even if “a woman’s ketubah” were listed with them, don’t all these rabbis disagree? Rabbi Ḥananiah and Rabbi Jonathan both say, circulating coin. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, circulating coin. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Immi, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Judah Neśia: Current coin. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, good Severan tetradrachmas, Jerusalem ones. These say one thing, and those say another! But he also changed his mind and adopted their view. Don’t these always say one thing and those another? Here, even he changed his mind and adopted their view.

A case came before Rabbi Ḥanina concerning a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz, and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rabbi Mana, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel? Rabbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation. Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 zuz not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel? They said in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, it was taught this way: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support or ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property. If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, understand this as a case where when he married her, she was hearing. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she became deaf-mute. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, understand this as a case where she was deaf-mute and became able to hear. He married her when she was hearing and she became deaf. So that you do not say, because initially she was deaf-mute she has no ketubah, it is necessary to say that she has. Rabbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rabbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina!

“A deaf-mute or an insane male who were taken in by a hearing woman. Even if the deaf-mute became hearing, or the insane sane, she has no ketubah. If he wants to keep her, her ketubah is one mina.” Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her after he became hearing or sane. If he did not sleep with her after he became hearing or sane, she does not even have a claim to a ketubah of one mina.

At less than three years and one day of age, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, Rabbi Jonah, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: What is this like? One makes a dimple in the flesh which straightens out by itself. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Like one who muddies a source which becomes clear again. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah teaches this: Younger than that, it is as if one puts a finger on an eye. Rabbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides for me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise her hymen does not repair itself.

Mishnah

3 If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl, or an underage boy with an adult female, or one injured by wood, their ketubot are 200 zuz, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, the ketubah of one injured by wood is a mina.

Halakhah

“If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl,” etc. What is an underage boy and what is an underage girl? They said in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Ḥagra, an underage boy is younger than nine years and one day, an underage girl is younger than three years and one day. It is understandable that if an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl, her hymen repairs itself. If an underage boy has sexual relations with an underage female, her hymen repairs itself. But if an underage boy has sexual relations with an adult female, her hymen does not repair itself! Rabbi Abin, understand this as a case where he had relations with her without penetration. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abin said, you can even say that he had normal relations with her. The relations of an underage boy are relations but he does not have the force to damage her hymen. It was taught this way: It happened that an adult became pregnant while her hymen was intact.

They objected to Rabbi Meir: There is no hymen and you say, her ketubah is 200 zuz? He answered them, is that dependent on the hymen? But the adult has no hymen and her ketubah is 200! The virgin widow has a hymen and her ketubah is a mina! What is the reason? The adult still has all her appeal. The virgin widow has lost her appeal. Where do they disagree? If she was injured by wood. Rabbi Meir says, she did not lose her grace, but the rabbis say, she lost her appeal.

Did they disagree that a virgin who had sexual relations with an underage boy or with someone who is not a man is eligible for the priesthood? Rabbi Ḥalaphta ben Saul said, she is eligible even for the High Priest.

Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Ammi asked: What is the difference between her and one who had sex with a finger? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disqualified from the priesthood? Rabbi Haggai said, understand this as a case where there was no penetration. Rabbi Haggai wanted to change his mind. Rabbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rabbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse: “But he must marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, no man had ever wanted to touch her hand, for it was said: “The staff of wickedness will not rest on the portion of the righteous.” Why did Rabbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching.” Why does Rabbi Yasa not explain it by “touching”? Rabbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rabbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching” with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rabbi Jeremiah heard Rabbi Haggai’s statement, he said, that was not Rabbi Ammi’s problem.

Mishnah

4 For virgins who after a final marriage become widows, divorcees, or who have undergone ḥalîṣah, their ketubah is a mina and they are not subject to a claim of non-virginity. For a convert, a prisoner, and a slave who were redeemed, converted, or freed at more than three years and one day of age, their ketubah is a mina and they are not subject to a claim of non-virginity.

Halakhah

“A virgin, a widow, a divorcee after final marriage,” etc. Who is a virgin after marriage? Rabbi Yoḥanan said, any who entered the bridal chamber but her witnesses testify that she had no sexual relations. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that if a man married a woman under the presumption that she was a virgin and she turned out not to be a virgin, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina. If a man married a woman under the presumption that she never had illegitimate sex and it turned out that she had illegitimate sex, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina.

Rabbi Eleazar asked, what about a male who sleeps with a freed slave girl? We can learn from the following: I could think that a male who sleeps with a Gentile slave has to pay. The verse says: “He must take her as his wife for the bride price.” If he can marry her. This excludes the gentile slave or any whom he cannot marry. Only because he cannot marry her! Therefore, if he can marry her, she receives the fine, and anyone who receives the fine has a ketubah. Rabbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina! Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Mana, explain it if she was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day. He said to him, any woman who was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day is like an Israelite.

The blind woman and the she-ram are subject to claims of missing virginity. Symmachos said in the name of Rabbi Meir that the blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity. What is Rabbi Meir’s reason? I say, he found her to be a virgin and destroyed the evidence. What is the rabbis’ reason? She can catch him. What does Rabbi Meir do with this argument? He can cleanse it with saliva.

It was stated: A claim of non-virginity may be brought within thirty days, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, immediately. What situation are we discussing? If he copulated, immediately. If he did not copulate, the claim is allowed even after a longer delay. But we must be discussing a case where it was not spelled out. Rabbi Meir said, it is credible that a man may hold himself back for thirty days. But the Sages say, a man does not hold himself back even for one day. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: According to Rabbi Meir, would a man be believed to assert that he held himself back for thirty days in order to make the child of unknown paternity? We can learn from the following: “If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥalîṣah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah with her.” And Rabbi Eleazar said, this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. And Rabbi Eleazar said, that refers only to her, but not to her co-wife. As you say there, she is not believed to harm her co-wife’s status, so here, he is not believed to harm his son’s status.

Mishnah

5 Someone who eats at his father-in-law’s in Judea without chaperones cannot claim missing virginity since he is alone with her. For both an Israelite widow and a priestly widow the ketubah is a mina. The court of priests collected 400 zuz for a virgin, to which the Sages did not object.

Halakhah

“If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s,” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their ancestors that Judah had killed Esau, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them and raped their daughters. They decided that a soldier would have sex with her first. They decreed that her husband should come to her when still in her father’s house. For when she knows that her husband’s fear is on her she is drawn to him. But is she not in the end being used for sex by a soldier? She is raped, and a rape victim is permitted to her husband. What did Cohanot do? They hid them. Why did they not also hide the daughters of Israel? That becomes talk and the government hears it. Then both groups will be taken together. What kind of a sign did they have? The talk of a cook in town: There is a wedding meal, there is a wedding meal. There is light in Beror-Ḥayil: a week of celebration for a son, a week of celebration for a son. When the persecution ended, the custom did not end. Rabbi Hoshaia’s daughter-in-law was pregnant at her final marriage.

It was stated: “And for a widow 200.” It was stated: “This order applies both to a widow of an Israelite and a widow of a priest.” Rabbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the daughter of a priest should collect, for her tribe collects. The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest should not collect. Is it not sufficient that she rose to priestly status that you say, she should collect? Rabbi Mana said, it is reasonable the other way. The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest should collect for she rose to priestly status. The daughter of a priest should not collect for she left priestly status. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, in both cases they demanded a fine so that everyone would remain within his tribe and family.

Mishnah

6 Somebody married a woman and found that she was not a virgin. She says, I was raped after you had married me preliminarily, so your field was flooded. He says not so, but it happened before I married you preliminarily. Therefore, my acquisition was made in error. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rabbi Joshua said, we do not rely on her statement but there is a presumption that she had sexual relations before she was preliminarily married unless she provides proof of her statement.

Halakhah

“Somebody married a woman and found that she was not a virgin,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that a claim of missing virginity is impossible according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, only according to Rabbi Joshua? He reconsidered and said, a claim of missing virginity is possible according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that he found her a virgin and destroyed the evidence. Why should she not be believed? That cannot be accepted, since Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. Here you say, she is believed. There, you say that she is not believed. In this case, both agree that the door was open.

Elsewhere we taught: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer? Not from Rabbi Joshua? He said to him, these are everyone’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects can develop over time. Rabbi Yose said, we used to see rabbis who compared bodily defects to defects of virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof. So here also, the husband has to provide proof.

Mishnah

7 She says, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rabbi Joshua said, we do not rely on her statement but there is a presumption that she was trampled on by a man unless she provides proof of her statement.

Halakhah

“She says, I was injured by wood,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, that follows Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 zuz. Rabbi Yose said, we might have thought, when did Rabbi Meir disagree with those rabbis? If he took her in assuming she was injured by wood. But if he took her in assuming she was a virgin and it turned out she was injured by wood, then even Rabbi Meir agrees, since we taught: “She says, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man.” That means, there is a disagreement even if he took her in assuming she was injured by wood and she turned out to have been injured by wood. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and my ketubah is 200 zuz. He says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and you have no claim on me. What are we talking about? If he married her as a virgin and she turns out to have been injured by wood, Rabbi Meir will agree. If he married her as one injured by wood and she turns out to have been injured by wood, is there a recognizable difference in the opening of the door between wood or man? Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and so I stipulated with you, but he says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and there was no stipulation between you and me.

Mishnah

8 If she was seen speaking to a man and one asked her, what kind of man is this? He is Mr. X, a priest. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rabbi Joshua said, we do not rely on her statement but there is a presumption that she was lying with a Gibeonite and a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement.

Halakhah

“If she was seen speaking to a man,” etc. What is “speaking”? She had sexual relations. Why did we teach “speaking”? A euphemism for those who understand. Rabbi says, of purity.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Josiah: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer since two form a majority against one. Rabbi Yose asked: If it is practice, why two? And if two, why practice? Would that mean if Rabbi Yoḥanan would hold with Rabbi Joshua that practice would not follow Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer but Rabbi Joshua? What about it? It is a testimony for which a woman is authorized to give. They wanted to say, when does Rabbi Joshua disagree with these rabbis? At a place where most are disabling, but at a place where most are qualified, even Rabbi Joshua will agree. Then Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: There is disagreement even at a place where most are qualified. Does Rabbi Joshua think that sexual misconduct seeks out those who disqualify? Rabbi Zeʿira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people engage in illicit sex, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex.

Mishnah

9 If she was pregnant and one asked her, what kind of fetus is this? He is from Mr. X, a priest. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rabbi Joshua said, we do not rely on her statement but there is a presumption that she is pregnant from a Gibeonite or a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement.

Halakhah

“If she was pregnant,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity. It was taught this way: “Where was this said, to the woman’s testimony on her own behalf. But everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity.” Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him, simply of unknown paternity! We find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. How is this possible? A group of priests was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations. It turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.

Rabbi Eleazar said to him: Is not the dough widow qualified but her daughter is disqualified? He said to him, whoever declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, did he not say “whoever declares her to be qualified”? This implies that there is another who disqualifies! Who declares qualified? Rabbi Meir. Who disqualifies? The rabbis. As we taught: What is qualified dough, anyone about whom there is no suspicion of descent from a desecrated, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rabbi Meir says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with one of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rabbi Meir says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.

Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira had a different version: Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the rule about a dough widow? He said to him, she is qualified. What about her daughter? He said to him, the one who declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. They wanted to say, according to Rabbi Eleazar, a child of unknown paternity is disqualified. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, a child of unknown paternity is qualified. Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that in some cases a child of unknown paternity is disqualified. He answered Rabbi Eleazar using the latter’s reasoning: Since you reason that the child is simply of unknown paternity, we find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest! How is this possible? A group of priests was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations. It turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.

The statement of Rabbi Zeʿira implies that a child of unknown paternity is qualified, for Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yasa: Is it the same for families? He said to him, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: There, for families, but here for sanctified food in the country. The statement of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac implies that a child of unknown paternity is disqualified, for Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked: Does this mean that a child of unknown paternity does not exist according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, only according to Rabbi Joshua? He reconsidered and said, a child of unknown paternity is possible according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that she does not know.

Mishnah

10 Rabbi Yose said: It happened that, when a girl was raped while she went to draw water from the spring, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If most people of the town can marry into the priesthood, then she can marry into the priesthood.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Yose said: It happened,” etc. Rav Judah in the name of Rav: That happened at the source of Sepphoris.

Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba both say in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Rabbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Yose who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, according to Rabbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: He had sexual relations with her within Sepphoris. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he had sexual relations, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he had sexual relations there. What about a thoroughfare? Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, Rabbi Yose says: By a majority. Support for Rabbi Jeremiah’s position comes from what Rabbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew. But in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he had sexual relations, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he had sexual relations there? In the opinion of Rabbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rabbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rabbi Yose says, by a majority! Support for Rabbi Yose’s position comes from what Rabbi Zeʿira had said: Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave grain to be milled there that day, he has to worry. Otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: He had sexual relations with her within Sepphoris. And here, Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he had sexual relations, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he had sexual relations there.

“And everything found is judged by a majority.” In difficult cases the rabbis compare this to crawling things, as it was stated: “Nine frogs and one crawling thing in a private domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is impure. If he transferred to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. If he returned to the private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. And for something that is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rabbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words. Do not compare this to a private domain but to the public domain! As it was stated: “Nine crawling things and one frog between them in the public domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is pure. If he transferred to a private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. If he returned to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. And for something that is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rabbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words. Is the spring of Sepphoris not public domain? Rabbi Yose said, since the two could be alone together it is treated as private domain.

It happened that a baby girl was noticed who had been thrown on a garbage heap. The case came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, who said, she should be included with the dough. Rabbi Jeremiah thought this meant, to qualified dough, would Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose disagree with his father? Rabbi Yose said, even if you say to disqualified dough, Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose would not disagree with his father. Why? Although the qualified engage in illicit sex, only the disqualified abandon their children.

Mishnah

1 If a woman became widowed or divorced and she claims to have been married as a virgin, but he says not so, I married you as a widow, if there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma or with uncovered hair, her ketubah is 200 zuz. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels is also proof.

Halakhah

“If a woman became widowed,” etc. We understand if she was divorced. If she became widowed, who disputes her claim? The heirs.

Shouldn’t one follow the majority? After all, most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in financial cases one does not apply a majority argument. Elsewhere we taught: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.” Do most cows have miscarriages? So say that the goring caused the miscarriage. Rabbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in financial cases one does not apply a majority argument. Rabbi Abun said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rabbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I would say that the one in heat bit it.

Someone claimed a mina, the defendant denied it, and the claimant produced witnesses that the defendant owes him 50 zuz. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Elder said, the defendant has to swear about the remainder. Rabbi Yoḥanan says, he does not have to swear. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Elder learned it from two people holding a toga, as we taught elsewhere: “Two people are holding a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely,” and his holding half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely,” swears that the entire toga does not belong to the other person. But he did not hear that Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, so that a man will not see someone else in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! Rabbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How does this work? He claimed a mina, the defendant denied it, and the claimant produced a document that the defendant owed him 50 zuz. He has only fifty. And Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following: “‘The amount of... tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two.” “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he admitted is not the kind of debt that was claimed.” Because it was not the kind of debt that was claimed! Therefore, if it were the kind of debt that was claimed, he would be obligated. And isn’t it the case here that the agreed sum was part of the claim? Everyone agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claims another mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

“In hinuma.” There, a veil. The rabbis here say, a phorema.

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not had sexual relations. Shouldn’t one worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Shouldn’t one worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 zuz. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels is also proof.” Shouldn’t one worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated: Abba Saul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news. Shouldn’t one worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.

Mishnah

2 Rabbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to another: “This field did belong to your father but I bought it from him,” he is believed since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that it did belong to the second man’s father and the first said, I bought it, he is not believed.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Joshua agrees,” etc. Rabbi Joshua agrees, but he does not disagree? In the earlier case.

“He is not believed” if he did not use the field for the years required to establish possession. But if he used the field for the years required to establish possession, he is believed if the second person’s father did not die in possession. But if the second person’s father died in possession, he is not trustworthy. Consider the following: Reuben used a field, claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes the field from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that Simeon’s father did not die in possession. Rabbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married. Rabbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two witnesses say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said, it was taught this way: “Two witnesses say he died, later two witnesses say, he did not die. She must not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two witnesses say she was divorced, later two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She must not remarry. If she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference. Whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rabbi Zeʿira said it without attribution, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is reasonable to rule in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the first testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rabbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Don’t the rabbis there agree if two witnesses say, his father died while in possession, and two say his father died while not in possession, that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rabbi Hoshaia said, Rabbi Yoḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everyone’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rabbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rabbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “suspended” guilt offering because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rabbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “suspended” guilt offering. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rabbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rabbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “suspended” guilt offering.

Mishnah

3 If witnesses said, this is our signature, but we were under duress, or underage, or disqualified, they are believed. But if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not believed.

Halakhah

“If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated: “And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve, if they say, we invented this before their testimony was investigated by the court, they can be believed. After their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not believed.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they treated witnesses who signed a document as though their testimony had been investigated by the court. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Their testimony does not add and does not detract. Rabbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not believed.”

They say, these are our signatures, but others say, not their signatures. Rabbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under a cloud. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court. Rabbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court. Rabbi Ila said, Rabbi Eleazar’s reason is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court.

Rav Ḥana said, one learns from a corrected scroll, like those who say, Issi’s scribe. From letters it is problematic. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, only from three documents in the hands of three people.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. But Rav said, it is forbidden to sign a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. Does this contradict what they say in the name of Rav, the witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust? One statement of Rav contradicts another! Rabbi Ḥaggai said, Rav did not say it is forbidden to sign but it is forbidden to keep. Consider the following, “if evil is in your hand, remove it,” that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust, “do not let injustice remain in your house,” that is a debt document that has been paid.

Mishnah

4 If one says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, and the other says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, they are trustworthy. If each of them says, that is my signature, each of them needs another with him, the words of Rabbi, but the Sages say, everyone is believed when confirming his own signature.

Halakhah

“If one says, this is my signature,” etc. Why was this necessary? For Rabbi. Even though Rabbi says, each of them needs another with him, here he agrees that they are trustworthy.

Rabbi Zeʿira said: It was stated in Rav’s Ketubot: Rabbi Eleazar says he testifies about the document. The Sages say he testifies about the loan.

It was stated: A person may write down his testimony and testify about it even some years later. Rav Ḥuna said, only if he remembers his testimony. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, even if he does not remember his testimony. It turns out that Rav Ḥuna follows Rabbi and Rabbi Yoḥanan follows the Sages.

Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the marketplace cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. How is that? If one identified his own signature and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anyone except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the marketplace testify on that signature? That is what Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are not two independent people: The signature of one is known by everyone, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anyone except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the marketplace? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rabbi Yudan said, that is correct. Two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos. One is known by everyone as a Jew, but the other is not known by anyone except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the marketplace to testify about him? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness! And in the earlier case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness.

Rabbi Ḥaggai said that Rabbi Zeʿira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Rabbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anyone to swear? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for testimony about firstborn status and rights of possession.

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing. Similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun and Rabbi Hoshaia ben Rabbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. The one who said it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. The one who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rabbi Abba said, everyone agrees that this is valid testimony. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, everyone agrees that this is invalid. Rabbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Ḥaggai, does not Rabbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I disagree with his teacher, so I disagree with him all the more. Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two witnesses and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Doesn’t every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rabbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one witness testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another witness testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Doesn’t every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Mishnah

5 If a woman said, I was married but I am divorced, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she is married and she says, I am divorced, she is not believed.

Halakhah

“If a woman said, I was married,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses came after she remarried, she should not leave. Rav Ḥuna and Rabbi Ḥanina both say, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry. As the following: A woman came to Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him, I was married but I am divorced, and he permitted her. After she left, they said to him, aren’t her witnesses at Lod? He said, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון? Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Abun said, there were two cases. In one case, they said to him, aren’t her witnesses at Lod? In the other case, they said to him, aren’t her witnesses at Caesarea? And so it was! He said to them, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון?

Rabbi Yudan asked: “I had been married but I was divorced at place X.” If two witnesses come and say, no woman was divorced at place X, do they contradict her? Rabbi Yose asked, if she said, I had been married but I was divorced at place X at a certain date, and two came and said, a woman was divorced at that place, but two others came and said, no woman was divorced at that place? That is a contradiction of the essence of the testimony. We rely on her statement.

One day, she said, I am married. The next day, she said, I am divorced. We asked her, yesterday you said this, today you say otherwise? She said to them, because of a group of immoral people who wanted to approach me. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Ila: Since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed. A similar case: Samuel wanted to sleep with his wife, but she said to him, I am impure. The next day, she said, I am pure. He said to her, yesterday, you said impure, today pure? She said to him, I did not feel well enough at that moment. He came and asked Rav, who told him, since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed.

Mishnah

6 If a woman said, I was kidnapped but I am pure, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she was kidnapped and she says, I am pure, she is not believed. If the witnesses came after she was married, she should not leave.

Halakhah

“If a woman said, I was kidnapped,” etc. Rav Ḥuna said, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry.

Women were kidnapped and brought there. The case came before Abba bar Abba and Samuel. They gave instructions and handed them over to chaperones who were to return them to the Land of Israel. He said to him: What did we do for the earlier times when they were alone with them? Abba bar Abba said to him, would you say so if they were your daughters? Samuel’s daughters were kidnapped, “like an error which comes from the ruler.” When they were brought here, their kidnappers came with them. They came before Rabbi Ḥanina and left their kidnappers outside. They said to him, we were kidnapped but we are pure. He permitted them. After they left, their kidnappers sent after them. He said, it is obvious that these are the daughters of a Sage. When they came to know who they were, they said to Simeon bar Abba, take care of your relatives. He married the first one, but she died. Then he married the second one, and she died. Why? Because they lied? Absolutely not, they did not lie. But because of the sin of Ḥanania, Rabbi Joshua’s nephew, who added a month to the year outside the Land.

Mishnah

7 Two women who were kidnapped and each one of them says I am pure, are not trustworthy. But if they testify one for the other they can be trusted. Similarly, if of two men each one says that he is a priest, they cannot be trusted. But if they testify for one another, they can be trusted.

Halakhah

“Similarly, if of two men,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Mishnah is valid for countryside sanctified food. But for family matters and the sanctified food of the altar one needs two witnesses. But wasn’t it taught: One raises to priesthood, Levitical status, or Israelite status, by the testimony of one witness. One understands priesthood and Levitical status. But the status of an Israelite? Is that not regarding family status? To give him the tithe of the poor.

“In the Land of Israel there are two legal claims to priestly status, the priestly blessings and the distribution from the threshing floor. In Syria, priestly blessings but not distribution from the threshing floor. Up to the place where the messengers for the New Moon arrive, up to Nimerin. Babylonia is like Syria. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, also in Alexandria in the time when regular courts are in session there. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as heave establishes a legal claim to priesthood, so First Tithe establishes a legal claim to priesthood. If somebody gives his heave to the court to distribute, he has no legal claim to priesthood.” I am saying that the heave came to him from his mother’s father, a priest.

Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said, I never testified except once, when I raised a slave to priestly status. Rabbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father. One to the priesthood, the other to Levitical status. A person came before Rabbi Hila. He said to him, this is my son and he is a priest. He answered him, he is your son but he is not a priest. Rabbi Ḥiyya the elder said to him, if you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a priest. If you do not believe him that he is his son, do not believe him that he is a priest. He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah. Rabbi Abin said, so he said to him: If you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a priest. If you do not believe him that he is a priest, do not believe him that he is his son. In that case, he would be unrelated and trustworthy in his testimony! He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah. Didn’t they say, Rabbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father? Let us say that Rabbi elevated a brother on the testimony of his brother. You may even say, a son on the testimony of his father, to Levitical status.

Mishnah

8 Rabbi Judah says, one does not elevate to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Eleazar said, when is this? If there are protesters. But if there are no protesters, one elevates to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Simeon, the son of the second in command, that one elevates to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Judah says, one does not elevate,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A complaint needs at least two plaintiffs. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, what situation are we discussing? If they elevated him on the testimony of one person, they should demote him on the testimony of one person. If they elevated him on the testimony of two persons, even if there are many opposed they should not demote him! Rabbi Ḥuna said, it follows the rabbis there. But according to the rabbis here and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob, just as one elevates him on the testimony of two persons, one demotes him on the testimony of two persons.

Mishnah

9 A woman who was jailed by Gentiles, if because of money matters, she is permitted to her husband. If because of criminal matters, she is prohibited to her husband. If a city was conquered after a siege, all wives of priests in it are disqualified. But if they have witnesses, even a slave, even a slave girl, those are believed. But nobody is trustworthy about himself. Rabbi Zachariah, the son of the butcher, said, by the Temple! Her hand did not leave my hand from the moment the Gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left! They said to him, nobody testifies on his own behalf.

Halakhah

“A woman who was jailed by Gentiles,” etc. Elsewhere we taught: “Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zachariah the son of the butcher testified about a girl who was given as a pledge in Ascalon and her family excluded her, but her witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure.” Because the witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure. Therefore, not if no witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure! Rabbi Eleazar said, there is a difference about a pledge, because many treat her as permitted.

“If because of criminal matters she is prohibited.” Rabbi Yudan the son of Rav Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumim in the name of Ḥizqiah: Only if she was sentenced to death. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, even if she was not sentenced to death. They said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A robber’s wife is like a robber’s wife.

What are palisades? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: For example, if bells, chains, and ropes, and geese, and chickens and machinery surround the town. And Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥama bar Ashi said, it happened that a blind woman was able to flee from there. If there was one breach, it protects them all. If there were hiding places, it is questionable. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, in the name of Rabbi Yudan the prince: Only if there were palisades of that government. But palisades from another government are like robbers.

And even a minor. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Even a minor, even a relative. Even an underage relative? We can learn from the following: Ḥananiah from Cartes was kidnapped, he, his son, and his wife. They came before Rabbi Ḥanina who did not receive them. They came before Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who received them. This implies, even an underage relative.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to step away to relieve himself, she should still be with two of them. But didn’t we teach: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rabbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. He also rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in the presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse: “I exhausted myself with worrying but found no rest.”

Mishnah

10 In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what one saw in one’s childhood. A man is trustworthy to say, this is my father’s handwriting, my teacher’s handwriting, my brother’s handwriting. I remember that this person went out in hinuma and uncovered hair, or that this man left school to immerse himself to eat heave, or that he received his share with us on the threshing floor, or that this place is bet happeras, or this far we went on the Sabbath. But a person is not believed to say that X had a right of way at this place, or that X had a space for eulogies at this place.

Halakhah

It was stated: Only matters with which they are familiar. It was stated: Only if they are supported by others.

Shouldn’t one worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: It is forbidden for a man to teach Torah to his slave. But did not Rabbi Zeʿira say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A slave is counted as one of the seven readers. Wayedabber is counted as one of three verses! Explain it as a case where he learned it by himself or his master taught him like Tebi. Shouldn’t one worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Women and slaves cannot share in the distribution on the threshing floor, but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and Levitical status from the house.

May one act in financial cases on their testimony? How is that? If everyone knew that the Sabbath boundary was at Reuben’s field. They came and said, this far we came on the Sabbath, and it turns out that this field is in Simeon’s hand. May one take it from Simeon and return it to Reuben?

Would they be trustworthy to say, we went out to collect unripe figs in the sabbatical year and heard X talking about his wife Y, or woman Z talking about her children?

Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Samuel asked: If they were proven to be false witnesses, do they have to pay? Or it might be, according to what Rabbi Abba, Rav Judah, said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses. And here it is so.

It was stated: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children collected them and said, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they did the same and said, X returned to his inheritance. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children collected them and said, X was clipped from his family. When he divorced her, they did the same and said, X returned to his family.

“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his childhood,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults about what they saw as minors. Therefore, not as minors! Elsewhere we taught: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.” And here, you say so? Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery under biblical standards. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming. But not if it clings to a branch. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we taught: When is this said? When they testified to what they said. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.

Mishnah

1 The following adolescent girls can claim a fine from someone who has intercourse with a bastard girl, or a Gibeonite or a Samaritan girl, and one who comes to a female convert, a kidnap victim, or a slave girl who was redeemed, converted, or freed, at less than three years and one day of age. They can also claim it from one who has intercourse with his sister, or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister, or his wife’s sister, or his brother’s wife, or his paternal uncle’s wife, or a menstruating girl; he has to pay the fine since it is not a capital crime even though he is subject to extirpation.

Halakhah

“The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife. Can the bastard girl be his wife? Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “he should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins,” that added many virgins. Rabbi Zeʿira said, if it had said “virgin’s brides-prices”; but it says only “appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”; the verse added them only for the bride-price. But where was this said? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse,” not only if her father refuses; from where even if from Heaven they refuse? The verse says “refusing should refuse,” in any case. But then a man who has intercourse with a slave girl should pay the fine! This is impossible, as it was stated: I could think that one who has intercourse with a Gentile slave-girl should be obligated, the verse says, “by bride-money he should take her as a wife to himself.” Only one whom he can marry; this excludes the Gentile slave whom he cannot marry. But he cannot marry his sister and he pays the fine! There is a difference since she can be married to others. But his daughter can be married to others and he does not pay the fine! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money.

“The Gibeonite.” Rabbi Yose said, they were worried about them only because of the detriment to the families. Could you not say, because of the disability of slaves? If that were true, one who cohabits with a Gibeonite would not be subject to a fine; but we have stated: One who cohabits with a Gibeonite is subject to a fine.

“A Samaritan.” That follows him who said, a Samaritan is like a full Jew. But for him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, it is not so. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect. Even if you say, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, why are Samaritans disqualified? Not because of a Gentile and a slave? If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. But a bastard girl can claim a fine! For restrictions or family relations you consider him a Gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman; the child is a bastard. But for a fine you consider this as a Jew having intercourse with a Gentile woman, in which case the child is a Gentile.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, a man who rapes or seduces an orphan girl does not have to pay. Rabbi Abba bar Mamai said, that is a disagreement, it follows Rabbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rabbi Aqiba she can claim the fine and the fine becomes her property. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said “at less than three years and one day of age,” and is she not like an orphan? And did we not state: “Because he raped her,” that includes an orphan for a fine, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean? Rabbi Aḥai said, explain it that he had intercourse with her when her father was alive; when her father died, he already had the obligation to give to her father.

There, we have stated: “If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth.” And we have stated: “The following are flogged.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rabbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay?Deuteronomy 25:2 “Corresponding to his guilt.” You sentence him for one offense but you may not sentence him for two offenses. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishmentsDeuteronomy 25:2: “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence a number of times because of his guilt.”

Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rabbi Meïr since Rabbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, as we have stated: “The following adolescent girls can claim a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rabbi Meïr since Rabbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rabbi Meïr learned from the calumniator.Deuteronomy 22:18 “They shall punish him,” flogging;Deuteronomy 22:19 “and they shall fine him,” money. But the rabbis say, the law of the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech; therefore, nothing can be inferred. Another explanation: one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he eats fat in error but is intentional about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice? So here, he is flogged and he pays. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said,Deuteronomy 25:2 “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is writtenLeviticus 24:21: “One who kills an animal must pay for it but one who kills a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of someone who kills an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of someone who kills a human to free him from paying money. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Rabbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reasoning of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about an adolescent girl, the other about an adult woman. The adolescent has a fine but nobody is flogged for her; for the adult he is flogged but pays no fine, she cannot be sold; she has no claim for shame and blemish. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or remitted the fine for him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays but is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one offense but you may not sentence him for two offenses. From perjured witnesses. Just as you say there, perjured witnesses pay but are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rabbi Jonah said, the reason of Rabbi Nathan bar Hoshaiah: “For his evil deed.Deuteronomy 25:2Deuteronomy 25:2” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish! “If somebody eats heave intentionally he pays the principal but not the fifth.” In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said he pays, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. He explains following Rabbi Meïr who says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rabbi Ḥinena said before Rabbi Mana: Even if Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish thought all the mishnayot were Rabbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rabbi Meïr? Is it not writtenLeviticus 22:14: “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation ofExodus 20:16 “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor,” but this one was treated separately,Deuteronomy 19:19 “do to him what he intended to do to his brother,” to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation ofLeviticus 22:10 “no outsider shall eat holy food,” but this one was treated separately,Leviticus 22:14 “if somebody should eat holy food in error,” to pay money.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rabbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since whoever eats heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rabbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since whoever eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rabbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since whoever muzzles his cow is flogged. Rabbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rabbi Zeʿira objected before Rabbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is freeLeviticus 17:4: “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rabbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since “Rabbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rabbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Avina said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rabbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rabbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rabbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay.

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What do these Tannaïm say about whipping and extirpation? Rabbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rabbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rabbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rabbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rabbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rabbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

According to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rabbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them. Rabbi Ḥananiah said, he who sets fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis! Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl.

But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and the surviving brother came and raped her.

Mishnah

2 The following cannot claim a fine: One who comes to a woman who converted, a kidnap victim, or a slave girl who was redeemed, converted, or freed, at more than three years and one day of age. Rabbi Jehudah says, the redeemed kidnap victim is in her holiness even if she is an adult.

Halakhah

“The following cannot claim a fine,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Jehudah excepted the kidnap victim only for the fine. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for the ketubah of a mina or 200 zuz. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even to let her eat heave. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, Rabbi Jehudah and Rabbi Dosa both said the same, as we have stated there: The kidnap victim eats heave, the words of Rabbi Dosa. Rabbi Ḥanina came in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabbi Dosa.

Mishnah

3 The one who comes to his daughter, his granddaughter from his daughter or his son, his wife’s daughter, his wife’s granddaughter from her daughter or her son does not pay the fine since he committed a capital crime and should be executed by the court; for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash as it is said: “If there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed.”

Halakhah

“The one who comes to his daughter,” etc. If another man had come to her, would the fine not be her father’s? Explain it that another man came to her before her father died and then her father died. That follows Rabbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rabbi Aqiba, she collects a fine and the fine is hers.

Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: We understand that, since it said “if there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed,” that if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life? Why does the verse say, it is a case of murder? To add the case of premeditation and warning. Rabbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah, “for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash,” that it deals not only with cases of error. Ḥizqiah said, one states a baraitaLeviticus 24:21: “One who kills an animal must pay for it but one who kills a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of someone who kills an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of someone who kills a human to free him from paying money.

Mishnah

4 If an adolescent girl had been preliminarily married but was divorced, Rabbi Yose the Galilean says she cannot collect the fine; Rabbi Aqiba says, she can collect the fine and it belongs to her.

Halakhah

“An adolescent girl who had been preliminarily married,” etc. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose the Galilean? “Who was not preliminarily married.”

Before she was preliminarily married, he gives to her father; after she had been preliminarily married, he gives to herself. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, if she is an adolescent, he gives to her father; if she is an adult, does he give it to herself? If she is a virgin, he gives to her father; if she is injured by wood, does he give it to herself? It is different, because it is written “an adolescent,” adolescent but not adult. “A virgin,” a virgin not one injured by wood. Is it not written “who was not preliminarily married,” “who was not preliminarily married,” to infer from there by an equal cut? Since in one case it is 50, so in the other case it is 50. Does Rabbi Yose not have “50”? He has “silver, silver.” Since “silver” written at one place is 50, so “silver” written at the other place also is 50.

If he came to her before she was preliminarily married, then she was preliminarily married and divorced. Does the statement of Rabbi Aḥai not imply that he pays? Did we not state: “For he had mistreated her,” to include the orphan for the fine, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Aḥai said, explain it that he came to her before her father died; when her father later died, he was already obligated to give to her father. One came to her before her father died and subsequently her father died; one came to her before she was preliminarily married, subsequently she was divorced. Rabbi Zeʿira said that Rav Ḥisda asked: If one came to her before she was married and then she was married? Since you say there, she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father, so in this case she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father.

Mishnah

5 The seducer pays for three things and the rapist for four. The seducer pays for shame, diminution of value, and fine. The rapist in addition pays for suffering; the seducer does not pay for suffering. The rapist pays immediately, the seducer only if he divorces her. The rapist drinks from his pot; the seducer may divorce if he wishes.

Halakhah

“The seducer pays three,” etc. This does not follow Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon freed the rapist from paying for suffering. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s wart when that one would have cut it himself in the future. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s trees when that one would have cut them himself in the future. They said to him, you cannot compare one who is deflowered by rape to one who is deflowered by consent; you cannot compare one who is deflowered on a dungheap to one who is deflowered in the bridal chamber! How does Rabbi Simeon interpret “because he mistreated her”? They said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it that he raped her on thorns.

“The seducer only if he divorces her,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if he does not want to keep her. But if he decides to keep her, he does not give anything. Rabbi Ismael stated: “He should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins,” which indicates that his obligation is to pay a bride-price, and bride-price is the ketubah; as it also says “add for me much bride-price and gifts.”

Rabbi Eleazar asked: Do the daughters of the rape victim have the rights given by the ketubah stipulations? It is clear to me that the rape victim has no ketubah of the male children, and that the seduced victim has no ketubah of the male children. If you say that he questions in both cases, we could ask, do the daughters of the rape victim and the daughters of the seduced girl have the rights given by the ketubah stipulations? That is a problem following the rabbis, but it is obvious following Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah; as it was stated: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah says, the rapist gives a mina as ketubah.

Mishnah

6 How does he drink from his pot? Even if she is lame, even if she is blind, or even if she is afflicted with boils. If a matter of immorality was found with her or she could not marry in Israel, he may not keep her since it is written: “She shall be his wife,” a wife appropriate for him.

Halakhah

“How does he drink from his pot,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: It should not have said “she shall be his wife” for the calumniator; it is superfluous since she already is his! Why does the verse say, “she shall be his wife”? You should infer from this by an equal cut. One has to infer from “she shall be his wife,” “she shall be his.” Since “she shall be his” which is said there means a wife appropriate for him, so “she shall be his” which is said here means a wife appropriate for him. Then since “she shall be his” which is said there means a wife appropriate for him and he pays the fine, so “she shall be his” which is said here means a wife appropriate for him and he pays the fine. Rabbi Zeʿira, Ulla ben Ismael, in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It should not have said “she shall be his wife” for the calumniator; it is superfluous since she already is his! Why does the verse say, “she shall be his wife”? You should infer from this by an equal cut. One has to infer from “she shall be his wife,” “she shall be his.” Since “she shall be” which is said there means that if he divorced her one tells him to take her back, so “she shall be his” which is said here means that if he divorced her one tells him to take her back. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “In the cases of both the rapist and the calumniator who divorced, one forces them to take back. If they were Cohanim they absorb the forty.”

As it was stated: “Living married to a husband,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition. If she said, he is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir.

Mishnah

7 About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced, Rabbi Eleazar says that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not.

Halakhah

“About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it turns out that Rabbi Eleazar follows the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Aqiba. Just as Rabbi Aqiba said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her, so Rabbi Eleazar said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her. Then also for a seduced one? Rabbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, explain it that she waived it for him. Can anyone waive anything that does not belong to him? Explain it for an orphan; as it was stated in the House of Rabbi as follows: The orphan, Rabbi Eleazar said that the rapist has to pay her but the seducer does not. Can anyone waive something which is not in his possession? Let us hear from the following, as Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Zeʿura: The fine is not due from the first moment on. As we have stated there: “If she came to court before her father died, the payments due belong to her father and if the father died they belong to the brothers.” If you say that the fine is due from the first moment, it would belong to the brothers from the first moment! Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah deals with shame and diminution of value. As Rabbi Mana said, how is it? The rapist is obligated for everything and the seducer is free from everything. Rabbi Abin said, Rabbi Shammai asked: What does it mean that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not? The rapist has to pay everything but the seducer is free from paying for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine. That is Rabbi Aqiba’s. Or, the rapist is free from paying for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine but the seducer is free from everything? That is Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s.

Mishnah

8 How much is shame worth? Everything depends on the offender and the offended. For diminution of value one considers her as if she were a slave girl to be sold; how much would she have been worth before and how much would she be worth now. The fine is equal for everybody since everything determined by the Torah is equal for everybody.

Halakhah

“How much is shame worth? Everything depends on the offender and the offended,” etc. One cannot compare one who is offended by a person of high standing to one offended by a person of low standing. The shame for a person of high standing is great but the injury he incurs is small. The shame for a person of low standing is small but the injury he incurs is great.

Mishnah

9 Anytime there is a sale there is no fine and anytime there is a fine there is no sale. The underage girl is subject to sale but not to fine; the adolescent can claim a fine but has no sale; the adult has neither fine nor sale.

Halakhah

“Anytime there is a sale,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This is Rabbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis there can be sale and fine together. Following Rabbi Meïr: From one day old until the age of 3 years and one day there is sale but no fine. From the age of 3 years and one day until she becomes an adult there is a fine but no sale. The adult, neither sale nor fine. Following the rabbis: From one day old until the age of 3 years and one day there is sale and fine together. From the age of 3 years and one day until she grows two pubic hairs there is sale but no fine. After she grows two pubic hairs until she becomes an adult there is a fine but no sale. The adult, neither sale nor fine.

There, we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled.” Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: That is Rabbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rabbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned! What do the rabbis do with this? Rabbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male.

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent,” not an adult. Read “an adolescent,” not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine,” read ‘because he mistreated her’, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is punished by stoning but she is free. Rabbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free.

Mishnah

10 One who says, I seduced X’s daughter, pays for shame and diminution of value on his own testimony but he does not pay the fine. One who says, I stole and I slaughtered or sold, pays the value on his own testimony but neither double restitution nor four or five times. My ox killed X or X’s ox, he pays on his own testimony. My ox killed X’s slave, he does not pay on his own testimony. This is the principle: Anybody who has to pay more than the damage he caused does not pay on his own testimony.

Halakhah

“One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. Rabbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 šeqel a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 šeqel are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils. He said to him, what does it say afterwards? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free. Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person,” the one’s who caused the damage. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person,” the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth. He came to Rabbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rabbi Gamliel ben Avina asked before Rabbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

Mishnah

1 Payments for shame, diminution of value, and fine of a seduced adolescent girl belong to her father, as are payments for suffering for the victim of an attack. If she appeared in court during her father’s lifetime, they are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’. If she did not appear in court until after the father’s death, they belong to herself.

Halakhah

“A seduced adolescent girl,” etc. Who stated “adolescent”? Rabbi Meïr. But following the rabbis, even an underage girl.

“Payments for suffering for the victim of an attack.” The rape victim. This does not follow Rabbi Simeon since Rabbi Simeon frees the rapist from paying for suffering.

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rabbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rabbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately; those for the daughter shall be held as property value. Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Judah the father of Rabbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value. If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value, but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

What did you see to say so? Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” How is this? If there were court proceedings before her father died, you can say “he shall give to the girl’s father”; after the father died you can say “he shall give to her.” If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, you can say “he shall give to the girl’s father”; after she became an adult you can say “he shall give to her.”

From where comes this? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: They have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rabbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rabbi Yose said, at the end. Rabbi Yose objected to Rabbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, the payments are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’”? He said to him, that refers to what Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rabbi Jonah objected to Rabbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards his father died,..., he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rabbi Yose objected to Rabbi Ḥaggai: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

Mishnah

2 If she did appear in court before she became an adult, the payments belong to her father, after the father’s death, they belong to the brothers. If she did not appear in court before she became an adult, they belong to herself. Rabbi Simeon says, if she did not collect before the father died, they belong to herself. Her earnings and what she finds, even if she had not collected by the time the father died, belong to the brothers.

Halakhah

“If she did appear in court before she became an adult,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 silver pieces to the girl’s father;” this teaches that the father acquires only by handing over. Rabbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rabbi Simeon treats it as court decrees but the rabbis treat it as a loan. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion.

Rabbi Zeʿira sent to Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rabbi Immi bar Pappai: Who owns the earnings of the daughter? They said to him, the diligent said, herself. Who is the diligent? Samuel! Rabbi Mattanah said, it was said in the name of Rabbi as explanation of a verse: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the earnings of the daughter. Rabbi Yudan said, the Mishnah says so: “Her earnings and what she finds, even if she had not collected when the father died, belong to the brothers.” Anything she earned during her father’s lifetime. But what she earned after her father’s death according to everybody is hers.

Mishnah

3 If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage and she was divorced, in preliminary marriage and she was widowed, the ketubah belongs to him. If he gave her in definitive marriage and she was divorced, in definitive marriage and she was widowed, the ketubah belongs to her. Rabbi Jehudah says, the first ketubah is his. They said to him, from the moment he gave her in definitive marriage, he no longer has any power over her.

Halakhah

“If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rabbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Isaac: Rabbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning? Rabbi Mana asked before Rabbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father. Rabbi Jeremiah said before Rabbi Zeʿira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour but the fine is only at the end; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the obligation of the fine is from the first moment. It turns out that Rabbi Mana is like Rabbi Jeremiah and like Rabbi Yose ben Zeʿira.

Mishnah

4 If a proselyte woman converted together with her daughter and the latter committed adultery, she is executed by strangling; she has neither a door of her father’s house nor 100 tetradrachmas. If she was conceived not in holiness but born in holiness, she is executed by stoning; she has neither a door to her father’s house nor 100 tetradrachmas. If she was conceived and born in holiness, she is a Jewish woman in all respects. If she has a father but no door to her father’s house, or a door to her father’s house but no father, she is stoned since the door to her father’s house was mentioned only as a commandment.

Halakhah

“If a proselyte woman converted,” etc. It is written: “For he calumniated a virgin of Israel.” That excludes this one who is not from Israel. “For he calumniated a virgin,” to include the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but her birth was in holiness, that she should be stoned. Why does one not add her for the fine? You cannot do that; as Ḥizqiah stated: We understand that it was said “they shall stone her,” does that not imply that she dies? Why does the verse say, “and she shall die”? But there must be another one who is stoned but he is free; who is that? That is the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but who was born in holiness.

It is written: “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel.” Since “a libel” later implies whoring, so also here it means whoring. Since “a libel” later implies from the place of virginity, so also here? From where if he came upon her otherwise? The verse says, “and he calumniates her,” in any way. “He said, I took this wife and came to her,” that excludes assignations; “I took,” to exclude the one waiting for her levir; “I took,” to exclude the preliminarily married one.

“I took,” that excludes assignations. Rabbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation. “I took,” to exclude the one waiting for her levir; not only for the earlier teachings that the obligation of the levirate precedes that of ḥalîṣah, but even according to the later teachings that the obligation of ḥalîṣah precedes the obligation of levirate. “I took,” to exclude the preliminarily married one.

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin.” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses.

“And they spread out the cloth.” That is all simile. Rabbi Ismael stated: That is one of three verses in the Torah which have been written as simile. “If he gets up and walks outside on his support, the one who hit him is not prosecuted.” Could anybody think that one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But what is “on his support,” in his health. “If the sun shone on him, he has blood.” Does the sun shine only on him? But just as the sun is particular that it brings peace to the entire world, so also this one, if one knows that the other is at peace with him and he kills him, he is guilty.

It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth.” Not that “they spread the cloth” but until the things become clear like a cloth. Assi said, “they spread the cloth,” the witnesses are not stoned, nor is the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas, until they say: you were with us at a certain place, and the husband hired them to testify falsely. If they said, you were with us at a certain place, but they did not say, the husband hired them to testify falsely? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is said here “putting,” it is said there “putting.” Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money. But did we not state: He did not say to the witnesses, come and testify in my case, but they came on their own, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses would be stoned’? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them. If the father brought two groups of witnesses. One side say, you were with us at a certain place. The other side say, the husband hired them to testify falsely. It is obvious that those who said, you were with us at a certain place, are stoned, and those who said, the husband hired them to testify falsely, are flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, neither by these not by those are they flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas, but they are flogged because of “you shall not testify as a false witness against your fellow man.”

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? Rabbi Zeʿira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders,” that is a court of three members; “to the gate,” that is a court of 23. He explains it following Rabbi Meïr, since Rabbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There, we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator are judged by three judges, the words of Rabbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rabbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rabbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rabbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun follows Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Mana follows Rabbi Abbahu.

The husband is never flogged, nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas, unless the witnesses are stoned. When is he obligated for the fine? Rabbi Jonah said, at the end. Rabbi Yose said, from the first hour. Rabbi Yose objected to Rabbi Jonah: In your opinion, since you say at the end, can he be flogged and made to pay 100 tetradrachmas by a court of three and the witnesses stoned by a court of 23? Rabbi Mana said, even according to Rabbi Yose one could ask the question following him who holds that perjured witnesses need to be warned. If they did not warn them, is he flogged and made to pay 100 tetradrachmas by a court of three; are the witnesses stoned by a court of 23? Rabbi Abbamari said, who is that who says so?

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: One who rapes or seduces an orphan is free. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, this is in dispute; following Rabbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rabbi Aqiba a fine is due, and the fine belongs to herself. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “She has neither a door to her father’s house nor 100 tetradrachmas;” is she not like an orphan? Rabbi Immi and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi both say, one who calumniates an underage girl is free. Rabbi Hoshaiah said, that is correct. If she were an adult who was not warned, would there be any case? And an underage girl who was warned is like an adult who was not warned.

Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: She cannot be executed unless she is an adolescent at the time of the execution. What is the reason? “They shall execute the adolescent at her father’s door.” But did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored in her father’s house and the husband calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the witnesses are executed by stoning. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: “If he escaped after being sentenced and then his pubic hair grew fully.” There, you can say “they shall execute the adolescent” who whored; can you say here “they shall execute him,” the son?

It was stated: One stones a preliminarily married adolescent girl who whored at her father’s door. If she does not have a father’s house’s door one stones her where she whored. If it was a Gentile town one stones her at the court’s door. Also, a person who practiced idolatry one stones at the place where he worshipped. If it was a Gentile town one stones him at the court’s door. But did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “Take the blasphemer out from the encampment,” this teaches that the court sits inside and the place of stoning is outside. Rabbi Yose said, there is a difference: The place where he went astray is the place where he was found, is the place where he was judged, is the place where he was stoned. “For she did a foul deed in Israel.” This one befouled all of Israel, for she came to whore in her father’s house. The bad growth they grew shall come and foul up them and their growth.

Mishnah

6 The father has the benefit to give his daughter in preliminary marriage by money, contract, or intercourse; he has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows, and to receive her bill of divorce, but cannot eat usufruct in her lifetime. If she is definitively married, the husband in addition eats usufruct in her lifetime but is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial. Rabbi Jehudah says, even the poorest in Israel should not provide for her less than two flutes and one wailing woman.

Halakhah

“The father has the benefit to give his daughter,” etc. One understands that the father has a benefit from money or contract. By intercourse? Explain it that the groom said to the father: When your daughter becomes mine by intercourse, this money shall be your property.

“He has the right to what she finds.” Rabbi Zakkai from Alexandria asked: How do you treat what she found on her field, as a find or as her usufruct? If you treat it as usufruct it is hers..

“If she is definitively married, the husband in addition eats usufruct in her lifetime,” as a regulation they instituted that he should oversee his wife’s property and eat from it. Is it also thus for the father? Without incentives the father overseas the daughter’s property; should he eat? “He is required to pay for her upkeep and her ransom.” It was stated: If the husband said, it is impossible for me to eat and to oversee, one does not listen to him; but if the father said, I shall oversee if I can eat, one listens to him.

“And her burial.” It was stated: If the husband refused to bury her, the father buries her and recovers his expenses in court. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rabbi Yose says, both the father and also a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, a third party. Therefore, the father can recover. Rabbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rabbi Ḥaggai, both for burial and for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. It was stated: At a place where it is customary to eulogize, one eulogizes.

Mishnah

7 She always remains in the father’s power until she enters the husband’s power for definitive marriage. If the father entrusted her to the husband’s emissaries she is in the husband’s power. If the father went with the husband’s emissaries, or the father’s emissaries went with the husband’s emissaries, she is in the father’s power. If the father’s emissaries entrusted her to the husband’s emissaries, she is in the husband’s power.

Halakhah

“She always remains in the father’s power,” etc. Not only to the bridal chamber but to a house where the bridal chamber is. In which way? A banquet hall and a bedroom, the bridal chamber being the bedroom, and she entered the banquest hall. In which respect? Rabbi Eleazar said, to inherit from her. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows. Rabbi Zeʿira said, even though Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he does not actually dissolve them until she enters the bridal chamber. Rabbi Huna said, a baraita supports Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “To whore in her father’s house,” that excludes the case that the father’s emissaries entrusted her to the husband’s emissaries, after which she should not be stoned but strangled.

Mishnah

8 The father is not obligated to support his daughter. This inference did Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain in the vineyard of Jabneh: “The sons shall inherit and the daughters be supported.” Since the sons do not inherit before their father’s death, neither are the daughters supported before their father’s death.

Halakhah

“The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted at Usha that a man has to feed his underage children. Rabbi Joḥanan said, we know who participated in that vote. Uqba came before Rabbi Joḥanan who said to him: Uqba, feed your children. He answered, Master, why? He said to him: Evil Uqba, feed your children. Rabbi Ulla said, a Mishnah confirms that a man has to feed his underage children, since we have stated there: “If she is nursing, she has to work less and one adds to her food.”

Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted in Usha that if one writes all his property over to his sons, he and his wife are supported by them. What is the situation of underage children? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah, but some say it in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Ḥanina: He, his wife and his underage children are supported by them. What about his widow? Rabbi Zeʿira said, this was asked but not resolved. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, it was asked and resolved, Rabbi Abba said, it seems reasonable that if she ate during her husband’s lifetime then she eats; otherwise, she does not eat. It says only “if one writes”; that excludes the seller. If he wrote to his sons and sold to others, what is here reasonable? Rabbi Ḥanina said, I would not give him anything. Rabbi Mana: Is it not reasonable that they hire him a servant and marry a wife to him so she should serve him?

What is the situation of grandchildren? Rabbi Mana said, grandchildren are like children. Rabbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.

Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Jehudah bar Ḥaninah: They voted in Usha that one who insults an Elder or hits him has to indemnify him fully for his shame. It happened, that somebody who insulted an Elder and hit him had to indemnify him fully for his shame. They said, it happened to Rabbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina.

Rabbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rabbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other saidProverbs 3:9: “Honor the Eternal with your property.” “Corresponding to the first of all your yield.” Rabbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rabbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? Will he not die? But lest he die in the future.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah insisted on interpreting the ketubah: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah explained: ‘The sons shall inherit and the daughters shall be supported.’ Since the sons can only inherit after their father’s death, so the daughters can claim support only after their father’s death.

The House of Hillel insist on interpretation of the ketubah. Hillel the Elder explained it, using the vernacular. In Alexandria they were writing that a man there became betrothed to a woman. Another man abducted her from a public place. When this came before the Sages, they intended to declare the children as bastards. Hillel the Elder told them, bring your mothers’ ketubah. They brough their mothers’ ketubah. They found written there: “When you enter my house you shall be my wife according to the laws of Moses and the Jews.”

The House of Shammai insist on interpretation of the ketubah. As the House of Shammai explain, the text of her ketubah document teaches, for he writes: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.

Rabbi Meïr insists on interpreting the contract text. Rabbi Meïr explained, if somebody accepts a field as a contractor, at the moment he accepts, one estimates how much it is expected to yield and he gives to the owner. Because the standard contract reads: “If I let it lie fallow and do not work on it, I shall pay as if from the best.”

Rabbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. Rabbi Jehudah explained: A man brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rabbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him “any other obligations that may come to you from me from earlier times.”

Rabbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rabbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan, she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rabbi Eleazar the caper grower insists on interpreting the contract text. Rabbi Eleazar the caper grower explained: nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa explained: a person lending money to another person should not take pledges except in court; he should not enter the debtor’s house to take the pledge, for he writes to him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this sum.”

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rabbi and Samuel follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. Even if you say, they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. But is the money stipulated in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate?

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas; it was heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father or any person from whom he might inherit went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of broken persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known. Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping the relative off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rabbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of broken people. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

Mishnah

9 If he did not write her a ketubah, a virgin collects 200 zuz and a widow 100, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court. If he substituted something valued at a mina for the 200 zuz and did not write “that all my property is guaranty for your ketubah,” he still is obligated by it, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

Halakhah

“If he did not write her a ketubah,” etc. The Mishnah is Rabbi Meïr’s, since Rabbi Meïr said: “Anybody who writes for a virgin less that 200 zuz or a mina for a widow engages in immoral intercourse.” Who needs it? Rabbi Meïr! Even though Rabbi Meïr says that any contract which does not contain an alienation clause cannot be foreclosed, here he agrees that it can be foreclosed.

Mishnah

10 If he did not write her “if you are kidnapped I shall ransom you and bring you back as my wife,” or for Cohens’ wives “I shall return you to your country,” he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court. If she was kidnapped he is obligated to ransom her. If he said, here is her divorce document and her ketubah, let her redeem herself; he is not allowed to do that. If she became ill, he is obligated to heal her. If he said, here is her divorce document and her ketubah, let her redeem herself; he is allowed to do that.

Halakhah

“If he did not write her “if you are kidnapped I shall ransom you,” etc. “If she was kidnapped he is obligated to ransom her,” etc. It was stated: If a sister-in-law was kidnapped, the heirs do not have to ransom her. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Not only if she was kidnapped when her husband was still alive but even if she was kidnapped after the husband’s death, the heirs do not have to ransom her. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Aḥa: The Mishnah supports Rav: “And bring you back as wife;” there is no “wife.”

“For Cohens’ wives ‘I shall return you to your country.’” Does this mean, exactly to her country? To a civilized place.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: For any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah. If it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate. As the following: A woman came to Rabbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor give a fixed price? She said, no. Did not Rabbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “Do not turn yourself into a pleader,” that one shall not disclose the judgment to a party? He knew her to be honest.

Mishnah

11 If he did not write her “the male children you will have from me shall inherit the amount of your ketubah in addition to their part with their brothers”; he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

Halakhah

“If he did not write her “the male children,” etc. That is what Rabbi Immi said, that a man should be disposed to give generously to his daughter.

There, we have stated: “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if he speaks about somebody who is a legal heir, his statements are valid, but about somebody who is not a legal heir, his statements are invalid.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, Ben Beroqa spoke only about a son among sons or a daughter son among daughters, not about a daughter and brother or a brother among daughters. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: There was a case and Rabbi decided following Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did they say that practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the reason? He asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did the Sages say that practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Are you not the one who stated “shall inherit”? He said to him, you stated “shall take”; he came to him. He said to him, there is no “shall inherit” but “shall take.” When he came to his father, he said to him: you disadvantaged Nathan the Babylonian; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this is what he told him: I made an error in what I taught you; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, this is one of the leniencies of the ketubah stipulations. In general, a person can transfer rights only by a document; here even verbally. In general, a person cannot transfer rights to somebody not yet existing; here to the non-existing. Rabbi Jeremiah said before Rabbi Zeʿira: I am wondering how the rabbis can compare ketubah to inheritance, for inheritance is a biblical law but ketubah is from their words; how can one argue this? Even if you say that ketubah is a biblical law, do they not agree that the stipulations of the ketubah are from their words?

Mishnah

12 “The female children you will have by me shall live in my house and be supported by my estate until they are married to men”; he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

Halakhah

““The female children you will have by me,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if they became adults, they lost the support. If they married, they lost their dowries. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rabbi Abin in the name of Hila: They all agree on the following: If a widow sues the heirs, she says I did not receive my ketubah, but the heirs say you received your ketubah. Before she remarried, the burden of proof is on the heirs that she received her ketubah. After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah. But did we not state: “If an orphan was married off by her mother or her brother and they wrote her a dowry of 150 zuz, after she grows up she can extract from them.” The reason, because she was underage. Therefore, a grown up gave up her claim. Explain it that she had received partial payment. Did not Rabbi Avina say in the name of Rabbi Assi: If a firstborn took as a simple brother, this is prima facie evidence that he gave up his claim. Still, if she had received part payment. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture. There came a case before Rabbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rabbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state, “if they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries”? He said to him: I quoted a tradition, you quoted a Baraita. Let the tradition be disregarded before the Baraita.

““And you shall dwell in my house.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If he slept with her when she still was in her father’s house, did he then activate all ketubah stipulations or is that only by definitive marriage? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If she renounced her ketubah, what is the situation? She renounced her rights but not those of her children.

Mishnah

13 “And you shall dwell in my house and be supported by my property during all of your widowhood”; he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

Halakhah

Rabbi Zeʿira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rabbi Abime bar Pappai: What if there was no house? They said to him, the heirs rent a house for her. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. As the following: A woman’s ketubah was twenty denars, and there was a house worth at most ten denars. The case came before Rabbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her a house or they give her twenty denars. Rabbi Mana said, since the house is not worth more than 20 it is as if her ketubah was only twenty. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs.

Mishnah

14 This is what the people of Jerusalem wrote. The people of Galilee wrote like the people of Jerusalem. The people of Judea wrote: “Until the heirs will want to pay her the ketubah.” Therefore, if the heirs wish they can pay her the ketubah and send her away.

Halakhah

“This is what the people of Jerusalem wrote,” etc. The people of Galilee cared for their honor more than for their money; the people of Judea cared for their money more than for their honor. Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Caesarea follows Judea and all other countries Jerusalem.

A man said when he was dying: “This man’s wife should be paid her ketubah.” The case came before Rabbi Mana, who said, let the words of the deceased be confirmed. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Can a person do away verbally with a ketubah stipulation? He answered, since you are saying that, what is your reason? He said to him, are we not living in Galilee? And we are taught to say that the people of Galilee prefer their honor over their money.

Mishnah

1 Even though they said that a virgin collects 200 zuz and a widow a mina, if he wants to add even 100 minas, he may add. If she became widowed or divorced, whether preliminarily or definitively married, she collects everything. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, definitively married, she collects everything; preliminarily married a virgin collects 200 zuz and a widow a mina since he added only with the idea to bring her in.

Halakhah

“Even though they said that a virgin collects 200,” etc. How does he become indebted to her? Do not Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, if somebody writes a debenture for another person under the assumption that he owes him and it turns out that he does not owe, he does not have to give to him! He wants to give much to be called X’s son-in-law. That is, if he decided this at the time of the preliminary marriage. What if he decided this at the time of the definitive marriage? He wants to give much for sexual relations with her, which are sweet. That is if he slept with her. If he did not sleep with her? He wants to give much for the acquisition he made. If he had decided at the preliminary marriage, at the definitive marriage, he already is called X’s son-in-law, sexual relations are nothing new, there is no new acquisition; from thereon he wants to give much that she should not change her mind. But can she? Was it not stated that “a man divorces only by his own will”? Rabbi Abin said, she makes his life miserable and he frees her.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides, so the father decides; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons. Rabbi Zeʿira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons,” but only if it is a first marriage. This follows what Rabbi Ḥanania said: If somebody definitively married off his son in a house, the latter acquired the house, but only if it is a first marriage. Rabbi Hoshaia said, she acquired movables but did not acquire the house. Do they disagree? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Explain it that his father used it for storage. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It is needed in case what was stored was borrowed from the market. Rabbi Abbahu said, if he said it is loaned, he did not acquire it. There came a case before Rabbi Jacob ben Rabbi Abun and he instructed following Rabbi Abbahu. Rabbi Zeʿira said, essentialy this has no basis but the rabbis build and add to it!

You say that the father decides for his daughter; even if she is an adult? Let us hear from the following: The father decides for his daughter, but the mother does not decide for her daughter, nor the brother for his sister. Is there a difference about his sister whether she is an adolescent or an adult? So here, there is no difference whether she is an adolescent or an adult. Rabbi Abba from Carthage asked, even a third party? They said, even if she be an adult? A third party, let us hear from the following: The father decides for his daughter, but the mother does not decide for her daughter, nor the brother for his sister. So much more for the adult. Also in money matters it is so: Give your daughter to X and I shall give you so-and-so much. Buy this field and I shall give you so-and-so much.

So is the Mishnah: “Because he did only add for the love of the first night, when he had intercourse with her.” If he slept with her, divorced her, and took her back, the love of the first night is still there. If he slept with her, died, and she became available to the levir, the love of the first night is still there. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Alexis in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah who said, if they were divorced or widowed after a preliminary marriage she collects 200, after the definitive marriage she collects everything. Rabbi Ḥanania said, practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Abbai said, they said to Rabbi Ḥanania, get outside to recite. Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Yosa, Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, practice does not follow Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Yose said, we had a rule that Ḥizqiah and Rabbi Jonathan said the same thing. As it was stated: If somebody’s son went overseas and one heard that he died, the father went and wrote his property to somebody else, and after that, the son returned. The gift remains valid; Rabbi Simeon ben Menasia says that the gift is invalid since he would not have written the deed if he had known that his son was alive. And Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and the reason of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah is the reason of Rabbi Simeon ben Menasia; and Rabbi Yannai said, they said to Rabbi Ḥanania, get outside to recite. And Rabbi Yose bar Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, practice does not follow Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. An actual case was judged according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah.

Mishnah

2 Rabbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes for a virgin a contract of 200 zuz and she writes “I received 100 from you,” or for a widow a mina and she writes “I received 50 from you.” Rabbi Meïr says, anyone who diminishes the ketubah of a virgin below 200 or that of a widow below 100 is engaging in whoring copulation.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes,” etc. Does Rabbi Jehudah think that the minimum for a virgin is a mina and for a widow 50 zuz? Should he not write so from the start? But it must be a diminution afterwards. Why can he not write that “I received from you such and such”? It was found that bar Kappara stated: “I received from you such and such.” Rabbi Joḥanan said: Rabbi Jehudah formulated this only for the end; but at the start, even Rabbi Jehudah agrees. What is the beginning and what is the end? The colleagues in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he had intercourse, and after he had intercourse. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he took her in, and after he took her in. If he did not have intercourse with her, divorced her, and took her in again; that is before and after.

What is a wife and what is a concubine? Rabbi Meïr says, a wife has a ketubah, a concubine has no ketubah. Rabbi Jehudah says, both have a ketubah. A wife has a ketubah and the ketubah stipulations; a concubine has a ketubah but no ketubah stipulations. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: These are the opinions of Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah. But the words of the Sages: “A man may marry a woman and stipulate with her not to feed her and not to provide for her. Not only that, but that she should feed and provide for him and teach him Torah. It happened that Rabbi Joshua, son of Rabbi Aqiba, married a woman and stipulated with her not to feed her and not to provide for her. Not only that, but that she should feed and provide for him and teach him Torah. But when years of famine came and they distributed the properties among themselves, she started complaining about him to the Sages of Israel. He said to them, for me she is trustworthy more than anybody. She told them, it is true that thus I stipulated with him. They said to her, nothing comes after acquisition.”

Mishnah

3 One gives a virgin twelve months from when the husband requested to marry her to provide for herself. Just as one gives to the woman so one gives to the man to provide for himself. And to a widow thirty days. If the time has come and they are not definitively married, they eat from his property and may eat heave. Rabbi Ṭarphon says, one gives her everything in heave. Rabbi Aqiba said, half profane and half heave.

Halakhah

“One gives a virgin twelve months.” It was stated: Adulthood in its time is twelve months. Rabbi Hila said, state: One gives an adult twelve months and one gives her a preliminary wedding, and thirty days to a widow. We have stated: “One gives a virgin twelve months,” and you say so? Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Hila: After she was an adult for twelve months one gives her the preliminary marriage and afterwards thirty days. If she spent twelve months for the first and then the second one came. If he says to her, did you not wait already? She can say to him, I love you better than the young one. He is a widower, she is a virgin, and he wants to definitively marry. She can say, I love you better than a bachelor. If he is a bachelor and she a widow, and she wants to be definitively married. He can say, I love you better than a virgin. If she is underage and wants to grow up one listens to her.

When the time came and they were not definitively married, they eat from his property and do not eat heave. If the husbands died, they eat from his property and eat heave. Samuel, the brother of Rabbi Berekhiah, said: Only if the time was up on a Wednesday. What if the time was up on Tuesday or Thursday? Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina and Levi: Both say that he is as if the Sages had jailed him. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, if the delay is his fault, she is fed from his property.

It was stated: “Rabbi Ṭarphon says, one gives all heave to her, for heave is found everywhere. Rabbi Aqiba says, half profane food and half heave, for women frequently are impure for holy things.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any place, where heave is mentioned, one gives her twice the corresponding amount of profane food.

Mishnah

4 The levir does not cause her to eat heave. If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, or even all the time for the husband except for one day for the levir, or all the time for the levir except for one day for the husband, she cannot eat heave. That is the earlier Mishnah. The court in later times said that no woman eats heave unless she had been entering the bridal chamber.

Halakhah

“The levir does not cause her to eat heave,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah said, we stated there: The sister-in-law is fed from her husband’s estate all of the three months. If her levir had come before the court and fled, she is fed from his property. If he became sick it is as if he had fled. If he went overseas it is as if he had fled. If the widow said, I am bound in my widowhood to my husband’s house, one listens to her. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: The one who says, I shall not giveḥalîṣah, is like the one who says, I shall not divorce. Rav Zabda said, Rabbi Isaac intructed that the one who says., I shall not give ḥalîṣah, is like the one who says, I shall not divorce.

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber. ”Already Rabbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rabbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

Mishnah

5 If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings, she can work and sustain herself. The excess, Rabbi Meïr says, is dedicated, Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane.

Halakhah

“If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rabbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property. Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs, as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after the husband’s death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated. Rabbi Zeʿira said, what one states there supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield?

Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the status of her earnings is between them. Rabbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father today is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rabbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane. His slave’s earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die. more than for slaves. Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves. Rabbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate and quoted for this: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

Mishnah

6 These are the kinds of work a woman does for her husband: She grinds flour, bakes, launders, nurses her baby, makes his bed, and spins wool. If she brought a slave girl with her, she does not have to grind flour, bake, and launder. Two, she does not have to nurse her baby. Three, she does not have to make his bed or spin wool. Four, she sits in a chair. Rabbi Eliezer says, even if she brought him a hundred slave girls, he forces her to spin wool because indolence causes immorality.Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also a man who by a vow forbids his wife to work must divorce her and pay her ketubah since idleness induces mental illness.

Halakhah

“These are the kinds of work a woman does for her husband,” etc. It was stated: Seven main labors did they enumerate; the rest the Sages did not need to specify.

“She nurses her baby.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, is says only “her baby,” therefore not twins. Why does it say “her baby”? As it was stated: “A man cannot force his wife to nurse another man’s child, nor can a woman force her husband to let her nurse another woman’s child. If she made a vow not to nurse her baby, the House of Shammai say that one removes the breast nipple from his mouth, but the House of Hillel say, one forces her. If she was divorced, one cannot force her if the baby is not used to her, but if he is used to her one forces her and pays her wages to nurse her baby.” How old is the baby if he can be presumed to know her? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Three months. But Rabbi Zeʿira was staring at him. He asked him, why are you staring at me? Should I say to you following Samuel, since Samuel said, three days? Samuel follows his opinion, since Samuel said, I recognized the midwives who delivered me. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, I recognized the circumciser who circumcised me. Rabbi Joḥanan said, I recognized the women who kept my mother company.

It was stated: A baby suckles continuously until 24 months; after that he is as if an unclean creature would suckle, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says, he suckles continuously even four or five years. If he stopped, one does not return him. How long? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: From hour to hour. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Three days from hour to hour. It was stated: From hour to hour. Rabbi Hizqiyah, Rav: When has this been said? If he stopped while being healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one does return him. When there was no danger. But if it was because of danger, one returns him even after a number of days.

“If she brought.” Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, not only if she brought but even if she could have brought. As it was stated: His wife ascends with him but does not descend with him; a widow and her children descend but do not ascend; workers ascend but do not descend. The daughter neither ascends nor descends. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Jehudah said, because one cares for the slave girl. Rabbi Abun said, Because these labors are degrading, they are referred to as the slave girl’s. Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi Abun said, because usually a woman does not sit aimlessly in her house. Rav Huna said, even if she brought him 100 slave girls, he can force her to serve him with particular attention. What are services with particular attention? She rubs his body, washes his feet, and mixes him the cup. Why? Because she is obligated to do that, or because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these? If you say because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these, here she brought him slaves! It must be because she is obligated to do that. Rabbi Eudaimon in Sepphoris asked before Rabbi Mana: Is it not reasonable because she is obligated to do that? He said to him, that is what I am always thinking.

It was stated so: He forces her to work with wool, but not with flax since that causes bad breath and broadens the lips.

Mishnah

7 If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse, the House of Shammai say two weeks, the House of Hillel say one week. Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without permission; journeymen one week. The period mentioned in the Torah: People who do not have to work every day, journeymen twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once in thirty days, sailors once in three months, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Halakhah

“If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse,” etc. The House of Shammai say, two weeks as after the birth of a girl. But the House of Hillel say one week, as after the birth of a boy or the days of her menstruation.

“Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without their wives’ permission.” Therefore, with permission even longer. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “He sent them to the Libanon, ten thousand per month.” Rabbi Abin said, the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred being fruitful and multiplying over the Temple. What is the reason? “One month they would be in Libanon, two months each in his house.” Rav said, “the one entering and the one leaving, month for month for all months of the year.”

Here you say, one week. But there, you say, twice a week. Bar Qappara stated: “Journeymen can hire themselves out without their wives’ permission for one week.”

”The period mentioned in the Torah.” Some Tannaïm state: שְׁאֵר that is intercourse; עוֹנָה that is food. Some Tannaïm state: עוֹנָה that is intercourse; שְׁאֵר that is food. He who said שְׁאֵר is intercourse: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh;” עוֹנָה is food: “He fed you and made you hunger.” He who said שְׁאֵר is food: “He let rain on them שְׁאֵר like dust”; עוֹנָה that is intercourse, “that you should not deprive my daughters,” that refers to intercourse. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob explains the verse, “her flesh her garment,” that her garment should fit her flesh, that he should not give a young woman clothes of an old woman nor an old woman clothes of a young one. “Her garment her season,” that he should not give summer clothing for the rainy season nor that for the rainy season in summer. From where does he get food? Since he is not permitted to withhold from her things that are not necessities of life, not so much more things that are necessities of life! From where does he get the obligation of periodic intercourse? Since he may not withhold from her things which do not constitute the main reason for marriage, so certainly he may not withhold the things which constitute the main reason for marriage!

Rabbi Eliezer inferred from the gift which Jacob had sent to his brother Esaw, for he sent him according to copulations. “200 she-goats and 20 he-goats,” one for ten; “200 ewes and 20 rams,” one for ten. “Nursing camels and their sons 30.” Rabbi Berekhiah said, because it is decent in his sexual behavior did the verse not publicize. “40 cows and ten bulls,” one for four since they are tired; “20 she-donkeys and ten he-donkeys,” one for two since they are tired.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Is it reasonable to consider scholars like those who do not work? Rabbi Mana said, would it not be more reasonable to compare them to sailors since they exert themselves harder? Rav said, “she eats with him every Friday night,” in clean language.

Mishnah

8 If a woman revolts against her husband, one reduces her ketubah by seven denars a week; Rabbi Jehudah says, by seven tropaïkes.For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says, he continues to reduce, for maybe an inheritance will come to her from outside and he would be able to collect from it. Similarly, if the husband revolts against his wife, one adds to her ketubah three denars a week; Rabbi Jehudah says three tropaїkes.

Halakhah

“For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah,” etc. Here you say seven, and there you say three? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, since she is obligated for seven, he deducts seven; he, since he is obligated for three, has to add three. Think of it, if she brought him slaves, she is not obligated for anything! Think of it, if he stipulated that he is not obligated for either šĕʿēr, or dress, or ‘onāh, he is not obligated for anything! What is it? Following Rabbi Joḥanan, that the suffering of the male is greater than that of the female. That is what is written: “It was when she had nagged him day after day and pressured him.” What means “and pressured him”? Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, that she slipped away from under him. “He felt badly, to die.” He felt badly, ready to die, but she did not feel badly, to die. But some say that she fulfilled her needs with others. So much more she should have wanted, since Rabbi Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Naḥman: This human limb, if you starved it you satisfied it, if you satisfied it you starved it.

Following Rabbi Eliezer, how far can he deduct? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion for the husband of a preliminarily married woman, or a sick one, a menstruating woman or one who is waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him when she was having her period, the Torah made her rebel against him! But we must hold that she rebelled against him before she had her period and now she has it. At that moment she would not be able to rebel but you say one writes, therefore one also deducts. From where does one deduct? From the additions to her ketubah. Let us hear from the following: “Rabbi Yose says, he continues to reduce, for maybe an inheritance will come to her from outside and he would be able to collect from it.” He mentioned only inheritance, which is infrequent. That means he deducts from the additions to he ketubah. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Samuel: One writes a bill of rebellion for a preliminarily married woman, but one does not write a bill of rebellion for one who is waiting for her levir. But did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state that one writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married woman or one who is waiting for her levir? There, according to the first Mishnah, here according to the later Mishnah. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, even if you say according to the later Mishnah, ”the later Court instituted that one warns her for four weeks, then she writes a receipt for her ketubah and leaves.”

Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose: A wife who leaves because of a bad reputation has no rags; the rebellious one has rags. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The rebellious one and the one who leaves because of a bad reputation can claim neither sustenance nor rags.

Rabbi Yose said: Those who write: “If he hates, if she hates,” that is a monetary condition and these conditions are valid.

Mishnah

9 If somebody provides for his wife through a third party, he cannot give her less that two qab of wheat or four qab of barley. Rabbi Yose said, only Rabbi Ismael assigned her barley, becaused he lived in proximity of Idumea.

Halakhah

“If somebody provides for his wife through a third party,” etc. What is “in proximity of Idumea”? In the South.

Mishnah

10 One gives her half a qab of legumes and half a qab of oil, a qab of dried figs or a mina of fig cake; if there are none available one finds her fruit from other places. Also one gives her a bed and a mat; if he has no bed, a mat and a rug. Also, one gives her a cap for her head and a belt for her loins, and shoes every holiday, and garments worth 50 tetradrachmas every year. One does not give her new ones in the summer or worn ones in the winter, but one gives her garments worth 50 tetradrachmas in the winter and she covers herself with the worn garments in the summer; and the rags are hers.

Halakhah

“One gives her half a qab of legumes and half a qab of oil,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, a mina, i. e. four riṭl. He gives her a pillow, a light and wick, and an amphora, and a pot. Rabbi Yose said, she has no right to a pillow since the wives of poor men do not sleep on a pillow. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If she left over from her food, it is hers, if she left over rags they are his - if she left over rags they are hers. That is, of a married woman. But for a widow, both her leftover food and her leftover rags are hers.

Mishnah

11 One gives her a silver obolus for her needs and she eats with him Friday nights. If he does not give her a silver obolus for her needs, she works for herself. And what does she work for him? In Judea, a weight of five tetradrachmas warp, which is ten tetradrachmas in Galilee, or in Judea the weight of ten tetradrachmas woof which are twenty tetradrachmas in Galilee. If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food. When has this been said? For the poorest man in Israel. But for the most honored one, everything commensurable with his honor.

Halakhah

“One gives her a silver obolus for her needs and she eats with him every Friday night,” etc. The matters are formulated in clean language. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Really eating. In the opinion of Rav, she eats at his expense; in the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan she eats at her own expense.

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos two seʿah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Also they assigned it for cooking. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rabbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered,...” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock....” But did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rabbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered,....”

Mishnah

1 What a woman finds or makes with her hands belongs to her husband. Of what she inherits he eats the yield during her lifetime. Payments she receives for settlements for shame and diminution of value belong to her; Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, in case it is covered, she receives two thirds and he one third; in case it is visible, he receives two thirds and she one third. His part shall be given immediately; her part shall be invested in real estate and he eats its yield.

Halakhah

“What a woman finds or makes with her hands belongs to her husband,” etc. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Immi: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: One said, this is everybody’s opinion, the other said it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. It is reasonable that Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish should be the one who said it is in dispute since he explained that the husband provides her with food but does not give her a silver obolus as pocket money, and we did state: “If he does not give her a silver obolus as pocket money, what she makes with her hands is hers.” The work of her hands is parallel to what she finds. Rabbi Jacob bar Immi came in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is everybody’s opinion. That means that Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish varies in his opinions.

For whom is it needed? For Rabbi Meïr! Even though for Rabbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work and you say that her find belongs to him! Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rabbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel. Rabbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.

Rabbi Isaac instructed about one who had sent away his wife but not liquidated her ketubah, that he has to feed her until the time he liquidated it.

Rabbi Redipha, Rabbi Aḥa, in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Cahana: Because he does not make her lose anything. In secret, why does he take? Because of the pain he suffers with her.

Mishnah

2 If somebody decided on money for his son-in-law and the son-in-law died, the Sages said that he can say, I was ready to give to your brother, but it is impossible for me to give to you.

Halakhah

“If somebody decided on money for his son-in-law and the son-in-law died,” etc. Are these not the things that are acquired by speech? Bar Qappara stated: He promised the dowry on condition there be a marriage. And it is so: If somebody decided on money for his underage daughter, one forces him to give. But not for the adult one? Rabbi Abun said, one forces the groom to give a bill of divorce.

Mishnah

3 If she decided to bring him 1’000 denars, he decides as equivalent fifteen minas. Corresponding to estimates he decides one-fifth less. If it was appraised for a mina and it is worth a mina, he has only a mina. For the estimate of a mina she gives him 31 tetradrachmas and one denar. For 400 she gives 500, for what the groom decides, he decides one-fifth less.

Halakhah

“If she decided to bring him 1’000 denars,” etc. Why did they say for money, one and one half times, and for estimations less one fifth? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one estimates the will of the woman that she wants to use her vessels and depreciates them by a fifth. One estimates the will of the man to use it in trade and to make them one and one half. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that nobody has the right to sell his wife’s vessels. Example: Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Yasa, and Rabbi Immi went to appraise for Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s daughter. They said to the groom: Deduct a fifth and double. He said to them, he deducts a fifth and does not double.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If she brought him gold, at full value. This was also stated. Jewellery to be turned into denars, at the rate of one and one half. Denars to be turned into jewellery, at their full value. Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rabbi Immi: If she brought him an animal? He said to him, at full value. If she brought him real estate: He said to him, at full value. But does he not gain from it? But she collects the real estate, he has only the usufruct.

Mishnah

4 If she decided to bring him money, each tetradrachma is turned into six denars and the groom engages himself for ten denars for the perfume box for each mina; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all follows local custom.

Halakhah

“If she decided to bring him money,” etc. “If she decided to bring him 500 denars by appraisal, he makes it 400. If he did not do that but made it 1’000; if she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, he deducts five denars for each tetradrachma, but he cannot touch the addition. If she decided to bring him 500 denars in coin, he makes it 750. If he did not do that but made them 1’000; if she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, he deducts six denars for each tetradrachma, but he cannot touch the addition. If she decided to bring him 1’000 zuz, he must turn them into fifteen minas. If he did not do that but wrote over to her a field worth 12 minas in place of the 1’000 zuz. If she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, one does not decrease for a virgin to less than 200 and for a widow to less than a mina.” Here, you say, he deducts. But there, you say, he does not deduct. Here, if she invalidated part of it, there if she did not invalidate part of it. Here, you say, he touches the addition but there, you say, he does not touch the addition. Here, he added but did not subtract; there, he subtracted but did not add. It was stated: Both for appraisal and for coin. Why for appraisal? Corresponding to what he subtracts, corresponding to what what he adds, corresponding to what she brings.

So is the Mishnah: “And a perfume box for every mina.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, they made usufruct of perfumes like usufruct of money. Rabbi Avin said, they made usufruct of procreation like usufruct of money. As the following: The students of Rabbi Yose went to Qaddišin; they found them childless. They said to them: Did you stipulate between you? If you stipulated, it is fine; otherwise everything follows the local custom.

Mishnah

5 If somebody marries off his daughter without mentioning particulars he should not give her less than 50 zuz If he had decided to take her in naked the husband should not say, if she comes to my house I shall clothe her in my garment, but he covers her when she still is in her father’s house. Similarly, those who marry off an orphan girl should not give her less that 50 zuz, and if money is available one provides for her according to her social standing.

Halakhah

“If somebody marries off his daughter,” etc. Rabbi Abba Mari, Rabbi Yose’s brother, asked: Did we not state: From where that even if he said, I shall go naked but clothe her, one does not tell him to be naked and to clothe her but he clothes her according to her social standing? There, it is the way of people to say, it is better for me to stand naked if only I cover my wife; but here it was a prior condition.

So is the Mishnah: And so those who provide for the orphan girl. Rabbi Ḥinena said, this means that one says to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains it, if nothing is in the wallet one takes out a loan up to fifty. But if there is money in the wallet, one may add. Rabbi Yose said, this means that one does not say to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains if there is money in the wallet. But if there is no money one diminishes. As the following, about a girl in the days of Rabbi Immi. He said, let it be held over for the holiday. Rabbi Zeʿira said to him, you are causing a loss, but give everything, for the Lord of the holiday exists. It turns out that Rabbi Ḥanina holds with Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Yose with Rabbi Immi.

Mishnah

6 If an orphan girl was married off by her mother or her brothers and they wrote her 100 or 50 zuz, after she becomes an adult she can claim from them what is appropriate to be given to her. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he married off his first daughter, the second should be given in the way the first had been given. But the Sages say, sometimes it happens that a person was poor and became rich, or was rich and became poor. But one appraises the property and gives to her

Halakhah

“If an orphan girl was married off by her mother or her brothers,” etc. So is the Mishnah: If they married off the first one there should be given. The words of the Sages: ”Sometimes a man marries off his daughter and spends money on her, and sometimes a man marries off his daughter and collects money for her.”

Rabbi Zeʿira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Ammi bar Pappai, who is the Tanna of “a tenth of the estate”? Rabbi Zeʿura said to him in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A tenth of the estate following Rabbi. They asked before Rabbi: If there were ten daughters. Then if the first one took a tenth of the estate, the second took a tenth of the estate, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and so on up to the tenth, there is nothing left for the son! He said to them: The first one takes a tenth of the estate and leaves; the second takes a tenth of the remainder, the third from what then is left, the fourth of what then is left, up to the tenth from what then is left. It turns out that the daughters take two thirds less a little, and the son takes one third plus a little.

If there were two daughters and one son; the first one took a tenth of the estate, but the son died before the second could take her tenth. Rabbi Ḥanina was of the opinion that the second takes a tenth of the estate and the rest they divide equally among themselves. Rabbi Joḥanan told him that in this case there was nothing else to provide for her, but here she may sell from the remainder and provide for herself! Rabbi Tebi in the name of Rabbi Joshia: The reason of Rabbi Ḥanina: If she can collect from encumbered real estate, from what lies before her not so much more? Rabbi Joḥanan sticks to his opinion, since Rabbi Zeʿira said that Rabbi Joḥanan does not collect. Who collects? Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Hila collect. Rabbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan girls who asked to be provided for. He brought the case before Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rabbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rabbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rabbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans get up and complain, I would give it to them. Even so, they saw and did not complain. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yose: How do you decide in practical cases? He said to him, following Rabbi Ḥanina. And so an actual case was decided following Rabbi Ḥanina. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Hila: One considers the estate as if it were dry.

Mishnah

7 If somebody gives money in trust for his daughter and she says, I am trusting my husband, the trustee should execute what he was entrusted with, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Yose says, is it not only about a field? If she wants to sell it, can she not sell it now? When has this been said? If she is an adult. But about a minor, no legal act of a minor is valid.

Halakhah

“If somebody gives money in trust for his daughter and she says, I am trusting my husband,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of the case that he gave at the time of the preliminary marriage. But if he gave at the definitive marriage even Rabbi Meïr agrees If he established the trust after the definitive marriage, that is the disagreement.

”If somebody says, give my sons one šeqel per week and they need a tetradrachma, one gives them a tetradrachma. Do not give them more than one šeqel per week, one gives them a šeqel. But for the support of the wife and the daughters, whether he says give or do not give, one gives them a šeqel. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, Meïr used to say, if somebody says, give my sons one šeqel per week and they need a tetradrachma, one gives them a šeqel, and for the remainder they should be provided for by charity. But the Sages say, one takes continuously until the property is used up and after that they should be provided by charity.” Rabbi Yose said, that gives a simple example for Ḥilfai’s question. He said, I shall sit on the river bank and if I cannot extract the teachings of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. What could he say? “The trustee should execute what he was entrusted with.”

”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take.” Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rabbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance Rabbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rabbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar since Rabbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rabbi Joḥanan said only “it seems.” Rabbi Samuel said, but did not Rabbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing? Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Assi: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rabbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rabbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rabbi Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives.

Mishnah

1 If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him, up to thirty days he shall appoint a provider, more than that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah; in the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.

Halakhah

“If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse,” and here you say so? There, he makes a vow to separate her from his body, but here he makes a vow to separate her from his property. But can anybody make a vow not to pay his debt? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, since in the future he will divorce her, pay her the ketubah, and stop her food supply, it is as if there was no debt. Why could she not sit there and wait; if he divorced her everything would be in order, otherwise let him provide her with food? It follows him who said that the wife’s food is not from words of the Torah, as it was stated: The court will not determine food for the wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s. Then should she not be considered as a worker not worth a peruṭah? This proves that she is not considered as a worker not worth a peruṭah.

He could appoint a provider, as the following: “X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do.” Let him appoint a provider! A woman has the right to say, it is impossible for me to be provided for by anybody other than my husband. But did we not state: “If somebody provides for his wife through a third party.” There, if she accepted it; here, if she did not accept it. If she did not accept it then he should not appoint even for one day! She continues with him for one month, perhaps he will find an opening for his vow. Samuel says, if he vowed for thirty days. But if he vowed forever, he shall divorce immediately and pay the ketubah. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Avina in the name of Rav: Even if he vowed forever, she continues with him for one month, perhaps he will find an opening for his vow.

Some Tannaïm state: thirty days. Some Tannaïm state: up to thirty days. He who says thirty days supports Rav; he who says up to thirty days supports Samuel.

Rabbi Yose said, they differ about wives of Cohanim. “Beyond that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the end of the second month. “Rabbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the end of the second month. “In the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the beginning of the third. And a disagreement was stated, at the end of three months, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Mana said to him, where no disagreement was stated, you introduce a disagreement. But they disagree if he is an Israel. “Beyond that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the beginning of the second month. “Rabbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the beginning of the second. “In the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the end of three months. It was stated thus: At the end of three by everybody’s opinion.

Mishnah

2 If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not taste any kind of fruits has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah; in the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.

Halakhah

“If somebody causes a vow of his wife,” etc. Can anybody cause somebody else’s vow during his lifetime? It must be that the wife made a vow, the husband heard it, and said to her: If you will eat from such and such, my property will be forbidden to you. If she ate from such and such, why should his property not be forbidden to her? Is that not the case from the beginning of the chapter? But if his wife made a vow, her husband was informed, and did not dissolve it, following him who says that he put his finger between her teeth, he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rabbi Ḥuna said, even he who said that she put his finger between her teeth, and should be divorced without ketubah, will agree in case he provoked her to make the vow.

Mishnah

3 If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself with one of the kinds has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rabbi Yose says, among the poor if he did not give a time limit, among the rich for thirty days.

Halakhah

“If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself,” etc. Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Among the poor if he did not give a time limit.” Ulla bar Ismael said, among the poor if he did not give a time limit; but if he gave a time limit even if it were for ten years it is permitted, for no fox dies if he gets dusty from his lair. Nathan bar Hoshaiah said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Except holidays.

Mishnah

4 If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not go to her father’s house, if they live in the same city she does, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. If they live in another city, for one holiday he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.

Halakhah

“If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not go to her father’s house,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira said, they stated there: If he made her make a vow that she should not wash in the bathhouse, in walled cities one week, in villages two weeks. That she should not wear shoes, in villages three months, in walled cities 24 hours.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, they taught that about the pursueds’ holiday. What is the pursueds’ holiday? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Bun said, that is the first holiday when her father drives her to her husband’s house.

Mishnah

5 If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not pay condolence visits or go to weddings has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. But if he argues because of another reason, he is in his rights. If he said to her you should tell X what I said to you or that she should fill vessels and pour them out on garbage heaps, he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.

Halakhah

“If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not pay condolence visits,” etc. ”If he made her vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, he shall divorce her and pay the ketubah, since he gives her a bad reputation among her female neighbors. And so if she made a vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, she should leave without ketubah since she gives him a bad reputation among his male neighbors.” ”If he made her vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, he shall divorce her and pay the ketubah, since tomorrow a relative of hers will die and nobody will take notice of her. And so if she made a vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, she should leave without ketubah since tomorrow a relative of his will die and nobody will take notice of him.” ”Rabbi Meïr is saying in the name of his teacher Rabbi Aqiba: ‘It is better to pay condolence visits than to go to a wedding since the former is the end of every human, and the living should take notice.’ Why does the verse say, ‘and the living should take notice’? But do so they shall: eulogize so they should eulogize, bury so they should bury, accompany so they should accompany.”

“If he argues because of another reason, he is in his rights,” because of bad reputation.

“If he said to her I require that you tell Mr. X what you said to me,” alone, “or I said to you,” alone, “or that she should fill vessels and pour them out on garbage heaps, he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.” There, they say, like Er’s action, but the rabbis here say, senseless things.

Mishnah

6 The following leave without ketubah: Any one violating the laws of Moses or Jews. What is the law of Moses? She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut ḥallah, or makes vows which she does not keep. And what is the law of Jews: She leaves home with her hair in disorder, or spins in public, or speaks with everybody. Abba Saul says, also one who curses his parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced.What is the big-voiced? Any who speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

Halakhah

“The following leave without ketubah,” etc. “What is the big-voiced,” etc. And all with witnesses. “X tithed, X saw the stains, X cut her ḥallah, X permitted her vow.” They checked and found it was not so.

“She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut ḥallah, or makes vows which she does not keep.” We understand all these because he is involved. “She makes vows which she does not keep,” what is his interest in this? He can say, I cannot live with a vowing wife because she buries her children. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Yudan: Children die for the sin of vows, as it is written: “For vain vows I struck your children.”

“With her hair in disorder.” They said that for the courtyard; so much more for the passageway. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If one goes out in her wig, she does not go out with her hair in disorder. That is, to the courtyard; if she does it in the passageway, she goes out with her hair in disorder. There exists a courtyard which is like a passageway and a passageway which is like a courtyard. A courtyard through which outsiders have broken is like a passageway and a passageway through which no outsiders are breaking is like a courtyard.

Abba Saul says, also one who curses their child in his parents’ presence. Rabbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced. What is the big-voiced? Samuel says, any who speaks and her women neighbors hear her voice. Rav says, any one whose voice is heard by other people from bed to bed during intercourse.

Rabbi Ḥanin stated in the name of Rabbi Samuel: Both for women about whom they said that they have ketubah as also those about whom they said they leave without ketubah, as the minor, the secondarily prohibited, and the she-ram, did they speak about a mina or 200 zuz? But even if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she loses, but she takes her existing rags. But the one who leaves because of a bad reputation loses everything. Can she take her paraphernalia? Rabbi Zeʿira said, she takes. Rabbi Hila said, she does not take. Rabbi Hila, Rabbi Yasa, Rabbi Abba bar Cohen mention it in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Both women about whom they said that they leave without ketubah, did they speak about the ketubah of a mina or 200 zuz? But even if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she loses. Rabbi Simon said, Rabbi Joḥanan: All the Mishnaiot are connected to this baraita. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yasa: About which baraita? Of Rabbi Ḥanin from Samuel? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. And Rabbi Ḥiyya formulated so: “Women who infringe upon the law lose everything.

Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: If they saw her putting on her underpants and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rabbi and he said, what of it? They asked before him: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rabbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant, she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rabbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rabbi Abun said, since she agreed that he should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked, that is a problem.

Mishnah

7 If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turned out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had vows to fulfill, she should leave without ketubah. If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no bodily defects and it turned out that she had bodily defects, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had bodily defects, she should leave without ketubah; and all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman.If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove that the defects developed after she was preliminarily married and his field was swamped; once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove that she had the defects before the preliminary wedding so that his acquisition was in error, the words of Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects, and if there is a public bathhouse in his town he has no claim for hidden defects since he checks her out through his female relatives.

Halakhah

“If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her,” etc. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house,” etc. We have stated defects. Which vows? Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq: If she vowed not to eat, or not to drink wine, or not to wear dyed garments. Rabbi Zeʿira said, the fine linen garments which come from Bet Sheʿan have the status of dyed garments. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he said to her, “on condition that you have no obligation of vows on you.” But if he said, “on condition that you have no obligation of any vow on you,” then even if she made a vow not to eat carob fruit it is a vow.

“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rabbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rabbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.” What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage... because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rabbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. But if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she can claim her ketubah. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she has no ketubah. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: But she needs a bill of divorce from him even if he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: In case he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage, what does Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish say? Let us hear from the following: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” This implies that if the father proved his case, she can claim her ketubah. What do you see to say, if he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage! Where do we hold? Since afterwards it is stated: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” If he made it conditional, could he not also claim for visible ones? But did not the colleagues say before Rabbi Yose: Should we say that the following statement disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? “Once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” This implies that if the husband proved his case, she has no claim to ketubah. But by the statement of Rabbi Simeon ban Laqish, she has a claim to ketubah. Rabbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: The Mishnah deals with the case that he definitively married her but did not sleep with her; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish speaks about the case that he definitively married her and slept with her; I am saying that she was acceptable to him since he took her to bed.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rabbi Ammi bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects,” and this is of the visible defects! Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rabbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar his measure is half an ubiquitous gold piece. Rabbi Radifa, Rabbi Jonah: Rabbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rabbi Samuel the son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun: Rabbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautyiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addtion, for a man women’s breasts.

The Mishnah deals with defects which do not spontaneously appear. But about defects which spontaneously appear, the husband has to bring proof and say that he stipulated about them.

Mishnah

8 If a man developed defects, one does not force him to divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? For minor defects. But for major defects one forces him to divorce.

Halakhah

“If a man developed defects,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah, “if he had.” But if they developed newly, one forces him to divorce. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. There came a case before Rabbi Jeremiah about a kopeaḥ, and he forced him. It turns out that following Rav if he did not become so, following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if he became so. Rabbi Zeʿira said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rabbi Meïr. Which statement of Rabbi Meïr? The former or the later? If the former, until she made a condition. If the later, even if he made a condition it is nothing. But this Mishnah turns out following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; does “the following one forces to divorce” follows the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it was a major defect, e. g., blind in one eye, amputated of one of his hands, lame in one of his legs, immediately he shall divorce and pay the ketubah.” This Mishnah turns out following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; “the following one forces to divorce” follows the rabbis.

Mishnah

9 The following men are forced to divorce: Those afflicted with boils, the one afflicted with a polyp, the dung collector, the brass refiner, and the tanner, whether they had these conditions before they married or developed them after they married. For all of these, Rabbi Meïr says that, even if he contracted with her, she can say “I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot stand it.” But the Sages say, she is forced to stand it except for the one afflicted with boils because she causes him consumption. It happened in Sidon that a tanner died who had a brother tanner; there the Sages said, she can say: “I could stand that in your brother, I cannot stand it in you.”

Halakhah

“The following men are forced to divorce: Those afflicted with boils,” etc. “The meqammeṣ.” This is the dung collector; but some say it is the tanner. Rabbi Zeʿira said, the Mishnah implies that this is the dung collector since we have stated: “The meqammeṣ and the tanner.” “The brass refiner.” Samuel said, that is the one who smelts brass from its ore.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I met an old man, afflicted with boils, from Sepphoris. He told me, “There are 24 kinds of boils; the worst one, and the one for which a woman is bad, is flowing boils.” Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: With the latter kind, the evil Pharaoh was afflicted; that is what is written: “The Eternal struck Pharaoh and his house with great plagues,” etc. Rabbi Berekhia said: Because he dared to touch the matron’s body. There are 24 kinds of cedar, and from all of them the verse mentioned only seven. That is what is written: “I shall give in the desert cedar, acacia, myrtle, and oil wood; I put in the prairie beroš, tidhar, and teaššur together.” Beroš is cypress; tidhar is idra. Teaššur is the box-tree. They added to them ʾallonim, ʿarmonim, and ʾalmogim. ʾAllonim are oaks, ʿarmonim plane trees, ʾalmuggim aloes.

Mishnah

1 If a woman inherited property before she became preliminarily married, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel agree that if she sells or gives it away it is valid. If she inherited after she became preliminarily married, the House of Shammai say she may sell, the House of Hillel say she should not sell, but both of them agree that if she sold or gave it away it is valid. Rabbi Jehudah said: They said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, should he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new properties and you want to burden us with the old ones?

Halakhah

“If a woman inherited property,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Before she was preliminarily married. What is the difference between before she was preliminarily married and after she was preliminarily married? Before she was preliminarily married, it fell to her; after she was preliminarily married it fell to her and him.

Rabbi Phineas asked before Rabbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

Rabbi Jehudah said, they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because preliminarily married she is his wife and definitively married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones, now you want to roll the new on over the old ones! The new ones, after the definitive marriage; the old ones before the definitive marriage, when she was married in the second ceremony.

Mishnah

2 If she inherited property after she was definitively married, both agree that if she sold or gave away the husband retrieves from the hand of the buyers. If she interited before she was definitively married and sold after she was definitively married, Rabban Gamliel said if she sold or gave away it is valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, they said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, did he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new properties, and you want to burden us with the old ones?

Halakhah

“If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ”Rabbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rabbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him: ”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.

Mishnah

3 Rabbi Simeon differentiates between properties: Properties known to the husband she shall not sell and if she sold or gave away it is invalid. Those unknown to the husband she shall not sell but if she sold or gave away it is valid.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Simeon differentiates between properties,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, properties known to the husband are real estate, those not known to the husband are movables. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, properties known to the husband are those she inherited in the presence of the husband, those not known to the husband are those she inherited while her husband was overseas. A baraita supports Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The following are properties not known to the husband, what she inherited while her husband was overseas.

Mishnah

4 If she inherited money; real estate should be bought with it and he eats its yield. For produce cut from the ground, real estate should be bought and he eats its yield; with produce connected to the ground, Rabbi Meïr says one has to estimate how much the property is worth with produce and how much without, for the difference real estate should be bought and he eats its yield. But the Sages say, standing produce is his, cut it is hers; real estate should be bought from it and he eats its yield.

Halakhah

“If she inherited money; real estate should be bought,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah said, this is Rabbi Meïr’s opinion since Rabbi Meïr considers standing produce as if it were cut. Rabbi Yose said, he did not hear that Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, Rabbi Meïr said this only for standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested; therefore not unripe produce. But here, even unripe produce. Rabbi Jeremiah asked, are not the arguments of Rabbi Meïr contradictory? There, he did not consider standing produce as if it were cut, but here he considers standing produce as if it were cut. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Meïr does not consider standing produce as if it were cut. But if you see cut grain, you empower the woman; if you see an unseeded field, you empower the man. In case of doubt you estimate how much it is worth unseeded and how much seeded. If before it was seeded it was worth two denars and when it was seeded one denar, with that denar real estate should be bought and he reaps its yield.

Mishnah

5 Rabbi Simeon says, in the circumstances where he was empowered at her entrance he was disabled at her exit, and in the circumstances where he was disabled at her entrance he was empowered at her exit. What was connected to the ground at her entrance is his and at her exit is hers, what was cut from the ground at her entrance is hers and at her exit is his.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Simeon says, in the circumstances where he was empowered,” etc. You say, at her entrance they are his: If she sold them they are not sold, if she gave them to a sharecropper he has the reward from it, if she dedicated them as First Fruits they are not dedicated You say, at her exit they are hers, if he sold them they are not sold, if he gave them to a sharecropper she has the reward from it, if he dedicated them as First Fruits, this is the disagreement of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, since they disagreed:Deuteronomy 26:11: ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave to you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since he said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish it never was dedicated. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan it is dedicated and the holiness is removed.

Mishnah

6 If she inherited old male and female slaves, they should be sold and real estate bought with the proceeds, of which he eats the yield. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, she does not have to sell because they are the glory of her father’s house.

Halakhah

“If she inherited male and female slaves,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of those who do not work enough for their upkeep. But if they work enough for their upkeep, she does not have to sell because the glory of her father’s house still exists.

Mishnah

7 If she inherited old vines or olive trees, they should be sold for their wood and real estate bought with the proceeds, of which he eats the yield. Rabbi Jehudah says, she does not have to sell because they are the glory of her father’s house.

Halakhah

“If she inherited old vines or olive trees,” etc. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: The Mishnah deals with the case that she inherited olive trees but not their ground, vines but not their ground. But if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, she does not have to sell since her father’s house’s glory still exists. But the rabbis here say, even if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, did she not inherit the value of the olive grove, did she not inherit the value of the vineyard? A baraita supports the rabbis there: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him the real estate by description. ‘I am selling you the grove’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him the real estate by description.”

Mishnah

8 If somebody invests in his wife’s properties, if he invested much but it yielded little, or he invested little but it yielded much, what he invested he invested and what it yielded it yielded. If he invested and had no yield, he shall swear how much he invested and get repaid.

Halakhah

“If somebody invests in his wife’s properties,” etc. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: Even if he ate only one basket of dates. Assi said, that is, if the investment is greater than the increase in value. But if the increase in value is greater than the investment, one gives him the increase in value. A baraita disagrees with Assi: “In all cases one evaluates it as for a sharecropper.” The baraita disagrees about planting; what Assi said was about a building. The baraita disagrees about planting, is that what Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: Even if he ate only one basket of dates. He said to him, in one case if he ate, in the other if he did not eat.

Mishnah

9 If a woman waiting for her levir inherited property, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that if she sells or gives away it is valid. If she died, what shall be done with her ketubah and the properties which enter and leave with her? The House of Shammai say, the husband’s and the father’s heirs shall split it. But the House of Hillel say, the properties are in the hands of the holders; the ketubah in the hands of the husband’s heirs and the properties which enter and leave with her in the hands of the father’s heirs.

Halakhah

“If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid.” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, that revenue is as if they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rabbi Zeʿira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

Rabbi Hoshaia stated: Her heirs, those who inherit her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rabbi Yose said, if Rabbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has no ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

Mishnah

10 If his brother left money, real estate should be bought with it and he eats its yield. For produce cut from the ground, real estate should be bought and he eats its yield; connected to the ground, Rabbi Meïr says one has to estimate how much it is worth with produce and how much without, for the difference real estate should be bought and he eats its yield. But the Sages say, standing produce is his, cut it is up for grabs. If he took possession first, it is his; if she took possession first, real estate should be bought for the proceeds and he eats its yield. If he married her, she is his wife in every respect except that her ketubah is a lien on the property of her first husband.

Halakhah

“If his brother left money,” etc. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is necessary, if the money was deposited with him, that you would not let him say, since I am the heir it is mine.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but . In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, the creditor adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rabbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rabbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Mishnah

11 He should not say to her “here your ketubah is lying on the table” but “all my properties are pledged for your ketubah.” If he divorced her, she has no ketubah- lien. If he took her back, she is like all women who have a ketubah.

Halakhah

“He should not say to her ‘here is your ketubah’,” etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rabbi Yose said, the baraita has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first ketubah.” In the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband.

Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Hamnuna said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a ketubah since she was not permitted to marry outside. That you should not say the case should be considered as if he divorced her and she should have a ketubah; therefore it was necessary to say that she does not have a ketubah.

In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her.

Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed three things: That a person should use his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings. And that children have to go to school. Also, he decreed impurity for glass ware. But did not Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abuna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Yose ben Yoʿezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity for Gentile lands and glass ware; Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Jehudah bar Ṭabbai? Rabbi Jonah said, Jehudah bar Ṭabbai and Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed on metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed on the purity of hands. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rabbi Mana saidDeuteronomy 32:47: “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

Mishnah

1 If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rabbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits.” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid.

Halakhah

“If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If he did not take her in. But if he took her in, nobody can lose his rights by these expressions. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this is the word of Rabbi Ḥiyya: He who says that “my hands are removed from this field, my feet are removed from this field,” did not say anything. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Does a Mishnah imply that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions? Did we not state there: “If somebody was married to two wives when he sold a field and the first one wrote for the buyer: I have no claims on you, the second one can take it away from the buyer’s hands,” this implies, not the first one. He said to him, that text itself implies that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions, but here the second wife cannot take anything away from the first, and why can the first one not take it away from the buyer’s hands? For she writes to him: For any complaint I shall have regarding this field, I shall have nothing against you.

If he wrote for her and she wrote for him. Just as he did not lose his rights so she did not lose her rights. If he wrote to her “from preliminary and definitive marriage,” that is the disagreement between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. In the opinion of the House of Shammai she shall sell; in the opinion of the House of Hillel she should not sell.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” and she inherited properties afterwards, what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rabbi Zeʿira: From his rights you can infer his obligations. If he had not written to her, would it make any difference, would he not receive its yield? That means, from his rights you can infer his obligations. Rabbi Levi bar Ḥaita asked: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties which you shall inherit in the future,” what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence?

If she sold produce connected to the ground: Rav Aḥa said, as if she sold harvested produce; Rabbi Yose said, as if she sold a tenth of the ground. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If somebody writes a field over to his wife, she cannot sell the produce. Rabbi Zeʿira said, a baraita says so “What are revenues derived from revenues? He sells the produce, buys real estate, and eats its revenue.” Rabbi Immi asked: If another person had written real estate over to her, would he not receive the revenue? If he himself wrote, not so much more! He said only “wrote over,” but not “sold.” What is the difference between one who writes and one who sells? He tried to find a reason to hide food from the wife.

It is reasonable according to Rabbi Jehudah, if he wrote: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and the revenues,” that he cannot take the revenues. Even if he wrote: “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” he cannot eat its yield. It is reasonable according to the rabbis; if he wrote: “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” can he eat its yield? Even if he wrote, “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and its yields,” can he eat its yield? Let us hear from the following, as Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Jehudah said in the name of Rav: If somebody writes a field over to his wife, he has no right to its yield. Rabbi Zeʿira said, a baraita says so “What are revenues derived from revenues? He sells the produce, buys real estate, and eats its revenue.” Since he wrote, “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and their yields,” is that not as if he wrote a field over to his wife, and you say, he has neither revenue nor revenue from revenue! That means, there is no difference in the opinion of Rabbi Jehudah whether he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” or he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and their revenues,” he cannot take any revenue. Similarly, for the rabbis it makes no difference whether he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties and their revenues,” or he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with this field and its yield,” he can take its yield.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but not in the matter of words. Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for he said, if she dies he inherits from her, but in matters of words, “since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid,” in personal matters. But in money matters, one’s stipulations are valid and that is a money matter! Why did we say that the condition is invalid? Because in the end he acquired it. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The law should have been that if she sold or gave it away it should be valid, for the buyer acquired it. Why did they say it is invalid? That a wife should not sell her husband’s property and say, it is mine.

Rabbi Justinus had a case and he asked the rabbis who told him, leave you properties. He asked Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, who told him, enter your properties. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Who are those rabbis? What about Rav, Rabbi Joḥanan, and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? He said to him, Rabbi Justinus’s rabbis.

They asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: Following the Sages, if she died who inherits from her? Those, her brothers, inherit from her.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If the brothers divided the inheritance, the widow is supported by them. For you should not say, they should be considered as if they had sold the properties and the widow would not be supported by these, since it is obvious that if they sold, they sold their own property.

Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Abbahu: It is written: “If the Jubilee will happen for the Children of Israel.” If the institution of the Jubilee exists, inheritances return; if the institution of the Jubilee does not exist, inheritances do not return. It is the opposite way, it comes to tell you that even if the institution of the Jubilee exists and inheritances return, inheritance by biblical law does not return!

Rabbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rabbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rabbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rabbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rabbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rabbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rabbi. Rabbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rabbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rabbi Mana before Rabbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Rabbi Yose said: Those who write “if she should die childless, her property should return to her father’s family” write a monetary condition which is a valid condition.

Mishnah

2 If somebody died and left his wife, a creditor, and heirs, and he was owed a deposit or a debt by a third party, Rabbi Ṭarphon says, these should be given to the weakest among them. Rabbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But these should be given to the heirs for all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

Halakhah

“If somebody died and left a wife,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the weakest in his claim. For example, one lent before witnesses, the other lent on a mortgage document; it should be given to the one who lent before witnesses. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the weakest in his body. Think about it, if he is rich, like those of the family Andreas. Rabbi Aḥa said, the weakest in his body and poor. As the following: They gave to a relative of Rabbi Samuel bar Abba as the weakest. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rabbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Rabbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rabbi Simeon bar Abba and said, what was done with that poor woman? He said to him, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rabbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Was he justified in doing this? Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Should we say that Rabbi Joḥanan follows his doctrine and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish his own? Since they disagree: Everybody agrees that if they err in arguments, one does not reverse. In the words of the Torah, one reverses. Where do they disagree? If one errs in a Mishnah, for Rabbi Joḥanan says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in arguments, but Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in words of the Torah. What is said of the Mishnah is also said of words of the Elders.

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing? One is biblical, the other is not biblical.

Mishnah

3 If he left produce taken from the ground, the one who takes them first acquires them. If the widow acquired more than her ketubah sum, or the creditor more than his claim, the remainder, Rabbi Ṭarphon says, should be given to the weakest among them. Rabbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But it should be given to the heirs since all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

Halakhah

“If he left produce taken,” etc. Both Rav and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish say, if they were collected at a trading place. But if somebody collected it in his house, his house acquired for him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if he collected it in his house, his house did not acquire for him. For he thinks that they are his but they are not his. Does from this follow how the owner acquires his produce in a Sabbatical year? Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to say, from the moment he put them into his vessel. Rabbi Yose said, even if he put them into his vessel he did not acquire, for he thinks that they are his but they are not his.

That widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rabbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rabbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. A similar case: The father of the sons of Shammai died and bequeathed a goat to them. The creditor came and took it. The case came before Rabbi Abbahu who said, he took his own property. Did we not state that if either an heir or a creditor came and took, one does not remove from his hand; for they thought they were theirs but they were not theirs. Rabbi Jacob bar Zabdi said, Rabbi Abbahu agrees that if they sold it, or gave it as a pledge, or moved it to another place, if then the creditor came and took it one removes it from his possession.

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing? One is biblical, the other is not biblical.

Mishnah

4 If somebody engages his wife as grocer or appoints her as steward, he can make her swear any time he wants. Rabbi Eliezer says, even about her distaff and her dough.

Halakhah

“If somebody engages his wife as grocer,” etc. Is Rabbi Eliezer not correct? What is the rabbis’ reason? If you say so, there never would be peace in his house. If she broke vessels, is she responsible as an unpaid or a paid trustee? It would be reasonable to consider her a paid trustee. They said, she is not even an unpaid trustee, for if you say so, there never would be peace in his house.

Mishnah

5 If he wrote to her: “I have no vow or oath against you,” he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates. “I have no oath against you, or your heirs, or your business associates,” he cannot ask an oath from her, or her heirs, or her business associates, but the heirs can ask an oath from her, or her heirs, or her business associates.

Halakhah

“If he wrote to her: “I have no vow or oath against you,” etc. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both say, not only about properties over which she exercised control during her husband’s lifetime but even about properties over which she exercised control after her husband’s death are the heirs prevented from making her swear.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rabbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rabbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rabbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rabbi Zeʿira asked Rabbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rabbi Eleazar is the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rabbi Joḥanan is Rabbi Yannai’s student.

Mishnah

6 “I have no vow or oath against you, neither I, nor my heirs, nor my business associates, against you, or your heirs, or your business associates,” he cannot ask an oath from her, neither he, nor the heirs, nor the business associates, from her, or her heirs, or her business associates.If she went from her husband’s grave to her family, or she remained in her in-law’s family but was not appointed as steward, the heirs cannot make her swear. But if she was appointed as steward, the heirs can make her swear for the future, but they cannot make her swear about the past.

Halakhah

““I have no vow or oath against you,” etc. Rabbi Jonah said, only if she was made a steward during her husband’s lifetime. But if she was appointed as a steward after her husband’s death, the heirs cannot make her swear. That is the Mishnah: if she was not appointed a steward, the heirs cannot make her swear. If she was appointed a steward, the heirs can make her swear for the future, but they cannot make her swear about the past. What is “about the past”? From the time of death to the time of burial. And Rabbi Yose said, even if he appointed her as steward after her husband’s death, the heirs can make her swear. But did we not state: “If he did not appoint her as steward, the heirs cannot make her swear. If he appointed her as steward, the heirs can make her swear for the future but cannot make her swear for the past.” He explains it about the first case. But if it is about the first case, Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both say, not only about property over which she had control during her husband’s lifetime but even about property over which she acquired control after her husband’s death the heirs cannot make her swear. Explain it, from the time of death to the time of burial. For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The heirs cannot make her swear from the time of death to the time of burial. Bar Qappara stated: That she should not abandon him and leave for her family.

Mishnah

7 If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that the ketubah was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From orphans’ property, or from encumbered property, in his absence she shall not be able to collect without an oath.

Halakhah

“If she went from her husband’s grave to her family,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿura said, this came down in the manner of a biblical oath. The ketubah is acknowledged in her hand for collection; it is as if collected. But since with the document of 200 there is an acknowledment of payment and she says, one mina is due to her, she cannot be paid without an oath.

It was stated “compromised.” Not that she reduced her ketubah. If her ketubah was 200 but she claims a mina, she is paid without an oath. What is the difference between one who compromises and one who claims less? Rabbi Ḥanina said, if she compromises there was a transaction between them; if she claims less there was no transaction between them.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Since we stated there: “If one witness testifies that the ketubah was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” should it be similar that if one witness testifies that the ketubah was reduced, she shall not be able to collect the reduced sum without an oath? Rabbi Yose said, at the moment that one witness testifies that the amount should be reduced, he is like a single witness who contradicts the testimony of two witnesses but no single witness can contradict the testimony of two.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a compromised promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In that the son’s power is greater than the father’s, since the son collects without swearing while the father can collect only by swearing. Rabbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Rabbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rabbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: Bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted that for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rabbi Avin said, you mean, if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked those two steps, he loses? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?

“If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rabbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rabbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rabbi Simeon! Since Rabbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rabbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, here about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.

Mishnah

8 If she had compromised her ketubah, how is that? If her ketubah was 1ʿ000 zuz and he said to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received only one mina, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.If one witness testifies that the ketubah was paid, how is that? If her ketubah was 1ʿ000 zuz and he said to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received nothing, and one witness testifies that the ketubah was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.From encumbered property, how is that? If he sold his real estate to others and she collects from the buyers, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From orphans’ property, how is that? If he died and left his estate to the orphans, if she is paid out by the orphans she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Not in his presence, how is that? If he went overseas and she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Rabbi Simeon says, any time she asks for her ketubah, the heirs can require an oath from her. If she does not ask for her ketubah, the heirs cannot require an oath from her.

Halakhah

“If she had compromised her ketubah, how is that? If her ketubah was lʿ000 zuz,” etc. “If one witness testifies that the ketubah was paid,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.”

“If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rabbi Jeremiah says, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain it that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

Alexis said before Rabbi Mana: We act much better than you do. We send edicts. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He answered him, we also act in this way, we have the herald announce for thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He said to him, think of it, if he was in distant corners. He said to him, we send three letters, one after thirty days, one after the next thirty days, and one after the next thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. Rabbi Ḥanina said, that is, if he was present at the trial and then fled. But if he was not present at the trial, we cannot irrevocably give away, but only announce.

You find that one may say that Ḥanan and Rabbi Simeon said the same thing. Just as Ḥanan said, she shall swear only at the end, so Rabbi Simeon says, she shall swear only at the end. Just as you say, practice follows Ḥanan, so here practice follows Rabbi Simeon.

Mishnah

9 If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah. A ketubah without the bill of divorce when she says, I lost my bill of divorce but he says, I lost my receipt; similarly, the holder of an instrument of debt not accompanied by a prozbol; these shall not be paid. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, since the times of the persecution, a woman collects without the bill of divorce and the creditor collects without prozbol.

Halakhah

“From encumbered property, how is that?” Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody disputes a court document, he is not trustworthy. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Is that not the Mishnah? “If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah”! Rabbi Joḥanan said to him: Babylonian, after I removed the clay from the pearl, you say to me: Is that not the Mishnah? Rav said, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she produces she collects. He changed his mind and said, she collects even at a place where one writes a ketubah; let anyone powerful object to this! Rabbi Yose objected: Was it not stated: She might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, and collect a second time? If those died. Are there not witnesses? Bring them! They went overseas. Is there not an agreement? Is there no registrar of agreements? There is a registrar of agreements; as you say, if a document is lost, one writes a replacement. This is what one says, if the ketubah was lost, one writes a new one. Rabbi Abba objected: Was it not stated, she might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, wait until he dies, and collect a second time? Rabbi Yose bar Abun said to him: Would she not have to prove that she lived with him until he died?

Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abuna in the name of Rav: At a place where one writes ketubah documents, if he says I wrote, but she says you did not write, the burden of proof is on her to prove that he did not write. But at a place where one does not write ketubah documents, if he says I wrote, but she says you did not write, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he wrote.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba found Rabbi Jonathan’s prozbol and ran to give it to him. He said to him, I do not need it, as it was stated: The creditor can be believed if he says, I discarded this document and tore it up. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: The Mishnah says so: “Since the times of the persecution, a woman collects without the bill of divorce and the creditor collects without prozbol.” Is that not impossible? I tore it without discarding? Here, I discarded and tore it.

Mishnah

10 Two bills of divorce and two ketubot, she collects two ketubot. Two ketubot and one bill of divorce, or one ketubah and two bills of divorce, or one ketubah, and a bill of divorce, and death; she collects only one ketubah since a person who divorces his wife and takes her back, takes her back on the basis of her prior ketubah. If a minor was married off by his father, his wife’s ketubah is valid since he kept her by that understanding. If a proselyte converted together with his wife, her ketubah is valid since he kept her by that understanding.

Halakhah

“If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah,” etc. “Two bills of divorce and two ketubot” etc. But only if the bill of divorce is dated between the two ketubot. So far if they are equal. If one was for a mina, the other for 200 zuz? Rav Huna and Rav Jeremiah and Rav Ḥisda. One said, she collects the first one. The other said, she collects the second one and the excess she collects from the date of the second.

Rabbi Ḥanaiah said before Rabbi Mana: Does this not mean that if a person borrows from another, and then he borrows again, he has to declare “in addition to the first paper you have on me”? It is frequent that a woman says, my ketubah is lost, write me another. Is it frequent that a man say, my paper is lost, write me another? But it is possible that he should declare for him.

Rabbi Yudan from Sicily brought this case before Rabbi Yose: Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Nobody should use a paper on which he borrowed and paid the loan back to take out another loan on the same day? He said to him, here if he had paid back, there if he did not pay back. Rabbi Ḥanin stated before Rabbi Hila: Two Amoraïm, one said for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, the other said, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations.

One understands a proselyte. A minor? Can a minor divorce? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, I explained it following what Rabbi Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her when he regained sight or became sane mentally. And here, if he slept with her after he reached adulthood.

Mishnah

1 If somebody was married to two women when he died, the first one precedes the second, and the heirs of the first precede the heirs of the second. If the first one he had married died, then he married the second one and he himself died, the second and her heirs precede the heirs of the first.

Halakhah

“If somebody was married to two women,” etc. The Mishnah refers to ketubah, but for sustenance both are equal. Between ketubah and burial, what has precedence? Between ketubah and a loan attested to by witnesses, what has precedence? Between ketubah and daughters’ dowry, what has precedence? For him who says, one collects for dowry from mortgaged property, daughters’ dowry has precedence. But for him who says, one does not collect for dowry from mortgaged property, daughters’ dowry does not have precedence.

It says only, “she died.” Therefore, if she was divorced, her status is that of a creditor. As it was stated: “He married a woman and wrote her a ketubah. He divorced her but did not pay the ketubah. He married another woman and wrote her a ketubah. He took back the first one and wrote her a ketubah in addition to the first ketubah. The second ketubah of the first wife has precedence over that of the second wife and her heirs, and the second wife and her heirs have precedence over the heirs of the first.”

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rabbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rabbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rabbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rabbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

Debts diminish and, equally, debts add. How is this? If there was a field which in the future would return in the jubilee year, you consider it virtual property.

How is that? If he preliminarily married Rachel, definitively married Leah, and only then definitively married Rachel. In the opinion of the rabbis, Rachel has precedence; in the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah she does not have precedence. They say, even Rabbi Eleazar will agree that since in the end he definitively married Rachel, Rachel has precedence. To what can this be compared? To one who took out a loan from another person and said to him, if I have not paid it back by twelve months, all my properties shall be mortgaged to you. If the twelfth month arrived and he has not paid back, his properties become mortgaged from that moment on. But if he said, all my properties shall be mortgaged to you only after twelve months, they become mortgaged only after twelve months. The status of the days in between is in dispute between Rabbi Meïr and the rabbis. In Rabbi Meïr’s opinion, the properties became pledged by the document. In the rabbis’ opinion, the properties became pledged by the money.

Mishnah

2 If somebody was married to two women who both died, and then he died, and the orphans demand their mothers’ ketubot, if the estate is sufficient only for both ketubot they split evenly. If there was an excess denar, these take their mother’s ketubah and those take their mother’s ketubah. If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.

Halakhah

“If somebody was married to two women,” etc. That refers to what Rabbi Immi said, that a man should be induced to give generously to his daughter. If that is so, then even if there is no excess denar? Rabbi Abun said, in case you can uphold their words with the words of the Torah, you uphold their words with the words of the Torah. But in case you cannot uphold their words with the words of the Torah, you disregard their words and uphold the words of the Torah.

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If one of the brothers died, they all split evenly. Rabbi Mana said, that is necessary if they did not yet divide the estate. You should not say that he should be considered nonexistent and his house should inherit from him. If there was a male firstborn, you say the firstborn takes a double portion. What does he take? A double portion among his house or among all brothers? Rabbi Hoshaia stated: If there were two groups of daughters, they all split evenly. If there was a firstborn, you say the firstborn takes a double portion. What does he take? A double portion among his house or among all ketubot?

At which point in time does one appraise? The students of Rabbi Mana say, at the end. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said to them, are you not those who speak in the name of your teacher, “that is necessary if they did not yet divide the estate”? But one assesses from the first moment!

Mishnah

3 If the estate contained expected property, it does not have the status of property in actual possession. Rabbi Simeon says, even if there was no mortgageable property, it does not count unless there is mortgageable property in the value of at least a denar more than the two ketubot.

Halakhah

“If the estate contained expected property,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, they disagree about the basic claim of the two ketubot. Rabbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. But for the excess denar everybody agrees that it is movable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, everybody agrees about the basic claim of the two ketubot that it must be real estate. Where do they disagree? About the excess denar, where Rabbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: But in Syria they routinely collect from bronze and bedspreads. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only from bedspreads of that night. Rav Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The people in Arabia routinely collect from camels and spices. Similarly, only from spices of that night? Rabbi Ḥuna’s widow collected from movables following her place’s custom.

Mishnah

4 If somebody was married to three women when he died, the ketubah of one was a mina, of the other one 200, and of the other one 300. If the estate is only 100, they divide equally. If it was 200, the one who claims a mina takes 50, and those who claim 200 and 300 each take three gold denars. If it was 300, the one who claims a mina takes 50, the one who claims 200 takes a mina, and the one who claims 300 takes six gold denars. Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.

Halakhah

“If somebody was married to three women,” etc. Samuel said, sharpness of the judges. As in the case of two mortgages written on one field, to whom the court wants to hand it over in possession they hand it over. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If the estate is only 100, they divide equally.” Was this said for the sharpness of the judges? And did we not state: If the heirs inherited an instrument of indebtedness, the male firstborn takes a double portion; and if an instrument of indebtedness was presented to them, the male firstborn pays a double portion. Was this said for the sharpness of the judges? Rabbi Abin in the name of Samuel: There is no difference, whether two mortgages were written on one field or one mortgage was written on two fields, on whom the court decide they hand it over in possession.

Samuel said, if they empower one another. If the third empowered the second to deal with the first. She said to her, is not a mina due to you? Take 50 and leave!

“Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rabbi Eleazar said: You say that in case the tetradrachma lost or added value. But for earnings or losses they split evenly. That is difficult! One gave 100 denars and the other gave ten, and you say so? The colleagues say, he may say to him, by my contribution the merchandise rose. So far, if they ran after little merchandise. If there was much merchandise? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he may say to him, by the time you sold one piece, I am selling ten. That is, at a nearby place. If it was far away? Rabbi Hila said, he may say to him, by the time you go and return once, I am going and returning ten times. There, we have stated: “If the ox gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: The same holds for earnings. Rabbi Yose said, the statement of Rabbi Zeʿira disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yudan: Does Rabbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said, they disagree explicitly: Rabbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rabbi Zeʿira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

Mishnah

5 If somebody was married to four women when he died, the first one precedes the second, the second the third, and the third the fourth. The first one swears to the second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth; the fourth is paid out without an oath. Ben Nanas said, should she be preferred because she is the last one? She also should be paid only after an oath. If all ketubot were executed on the same day, one who precedes another one even if only by an hour has acquired precedence; therefore in Jerusalem one used to note hours. If the documents were all executed at the same hour and there is only one mina, they split evenly.

Halakhah

“If somebody was married to four women when he died,” etc. Rabbi Abuna in the name of Rabbi Samuel: Following Ben Nanas, if one document was produced against the wife buyers, they all divide evenly. Rabbi Aqiba said before Rabbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rabbi Samuel, since Samuel said, sharpness of the judges? As in the case of two mortgages written on one field, to whom they want to hand it over in possession they hand it over. And here, he says so? Not with two mortgages, what about one? He did not hear what Rabbi Abin said in the name of Samuel: There is no difference, whether two mortgages were written on two fields or two mortgages were written on one field, to whom the court decide they hand it over in possession. Rabbi instituted that one follows Ben Nanas in matters of annona, head taxes, and real estate taxes.

As the following. Relatives of Rabbi Yose bought fields from the family of Bar Tapqan. Those from the family of Bar Tapqan went and married women, and gave them šeqiʿin. They came and wanted to attack the relatives of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Mana said to them: I know that at the moment at which you bought these fields, these šeqiʿin were not before you.

Mishnah

6 If somebody was married to two wives when he sold his field and the first wife wrote to the buyers “I have no claims against you,” the second takes from the buyer, the first from the second, and the buyer from the first; they go on in circles until they compromise between them. The same holds for a creditor and a woman who is a creditor.

Halakhah

“If somebody was married to two wives,” etc. Rabbi Yose said, this means that if somebody borrowed from two persons and the second comes and says to him, get up and let us settle, and the borrower says, will not in the end the first hear of it and come to foreclose, he the second lender may say let us settle, and if he forecloses, he forecloses. If he settled, one may assume that the first will come and foreclose. If he settled with the first, Rabbi Phineas said, such a case came before Rabbi Jeremiah who said, he settled. Rabbi Yose said, did he not write “what I shall acquire”? It happens only with an heir. Rabbi Ḥanina said, even with a creditor it can happen if he did not write “anything I shall acquire,” or if he said, “you shall not be paid except from this.” Rav Mattaniah said, this follows him who said, for ketubah but not for stipulations. But for him who said, for ketubah and for stipulations, does it not return?

Mishnah

1 If a widow is supported by the orphans’ property, she has to work for them but they are not obligated to bury her. Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.

Halakhah

“If a widow is supported by the orphans’ property,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: What she finds belongs to herself. If she had sustenance left over? Since her finds belong to her husband, the married woman’s leftover sustenance belongs to her husband. Since a widow’s finds belong to herself, her leftover sustenance belongs to herself. Her worn-out clothing belongs to her. Since even a married woman, whose leftover sustenance belongs to her husband, keeps her worn-out clothing to herself, the widow, whose leftover food belongs to herself, her worn-out clothing so much more! There, she needs them for the time of her period. Here also, she needs them for the time of her period.

Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Also she does not perform for them services of intimacy. What are services of intimacy? She rubs their bodies, washes their faces, or mixes their cup.

One adds to her sustenance: A married woman has no wine, a widow has wine. If a married woman said, my earnings should be counted against my sustenance, one does not listen to her; if a widow said, my earnings should be counted against my sustenance, one listens to her.

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rabbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rabbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me,” even though others came and took of his property one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rabbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rabbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rabbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rabbi Yudan there came a case before Rabbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rabbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing a transfer document he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Mishnah

2 A widow, whether after preliminary or definitive marriage, may sell without court supervision. Rabbi Simeon says, after definitive marriage she may sell without court supervision; after preliminary marriage, she may sell only under court supervision since she has no sustenance and any person who has no claim to sustenance may sell only under court supervision.

Halakhah

“A widow, whether after preliminary or definitive marriage,” etc. Rabbi Simeon is of the opinion that everything depends on sustenance. If he had agreed to sustain her after preliminary marriage, she may sell without court supervision. If he had agreed to sustain her after definitive marriage, she may sell only under court supervision. The words of the Sages? Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A person is concerned for his widow’s dignity whether after preliminary or after definitive marriage.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The one who renounced her ketubah in favor of the orphans is sustained by them. This is difficult. If there were a woman without ketubah, does she not have claim to sustenance? A woman without ketubah has claim to sustenance. But here is it not enough that she renounced her ketubah in favor of the orphans, that you want to cheat her of her sustenance?

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If she requested her ketubah in court, she lost her claim to sustenance. Rabbi Yose said, but only from a clear mind; not if forced. As in the case of the widow of Rabbi Eudaimon from Mozva to whom they said, Rabbi Abba bar Cohen wants you. She requested her ketubah and lost her sustenance. After the matter became known, it was brought before Rabbi Yose and she returned to her sustenance.

Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Zimra: A widow who lived two or three months without asking for sustenance, loses the sustenance of these three months. That is, if she did not take a loan. But if she took out a loan, she collects. If there is no pledge in her hand. But if she has a pledge in her hand, she collects even if she did not take a loan. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That is what they said, at the start one sells for sustenance of twelve months but one gives her sustenance for 30 days. If at the end of thirty days they say, we gave, but she says, I did not receive, it would be similar to what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If one took a loan of 12’000 for a year in order to repay one gold denar per month. It is obvious that he gave for the first month and did not give for the last. About the days in between they said, not at the start.

Rabbi Abbahu quoted in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: At the start one sells for sustenance of twelve months but one gives her sustenance for 30 days. Why should they sell for the sustenance of 12 months? Not to disadvantage the woman. Why do they give her sustenance for 30 days? If you said otherwise, you would act in detriment of the orphans, as it was stated: If a widow took possession even of 1’000 zuz for her sustenance, one does not take it away from her. What could one say to her? “Show what is in your hands!” The students of Rabbi Mana said to her, “show what is in your hands.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said to them, since in the end she will have to swear about anything in her hands, one says to her, let it be so.

Mishnah

3 If she sold her ketubah entirely or partially, or donated her ketubah to another, entirely or partially, she cannot sell the remainder except under court supervision. But the Sages say, she may sell even four or five times, and may sell for sustenance without court supervision but writes in the document that “I sold for sustenance.” A divorcee may sell only under court supervision.

Halakhah

“If she sold her ketubah entirely or partially,” etc. It was stated: “She sells and writes ‘this I sold for ketubah’ and ‘this I sold for sustenance,’ the words of Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Yose said, she sells and writes non-specifically; in this she is empowered.” If a loan before witnesses comes due, she says, I sold for sustenance. If a loan by contract comes due, she says, I sold for my ketubah. And even if a loan before witnesses comes due, she sells for sustenance and turns around and forecloses it for her ketubah; could one not say to her, show your sale? Explain it, if the object increased in value.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Just as a man is concerned about his widow’s honor so he has to be concerned about his divorcee’s honor, as Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, “do not hide yourself from your flesh,” that refers to one’s divorcee. Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s wife did mistreat him badly. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah went to him and told him, rabbi, send her away, for she does not treat you with the honor due to you. He said to him, her ketubah is too large for me. He said to him, I shall give you the ketubah and send her away. He gave him the ketubah and he divorced her. She went and married the city treasurer. That one lost his property and became blind. She took him around the town and led him. Once they went around the entire town and nobody gave him anything. He said to her, is there not another neighborhood? She said to him, there is the neighborhood of my divorcer; it is beyond my powers to bring you there. He started hitting her. Rabbi Yose the Galilean passed by and heard them demeaning one another in public. He took them, brought them to one of his houses, and provided them with food all the days of their lives, because “do not hide yourself from your flesh,” that refers to one’s divorcee. Nevertheless they quarelled loudly in the night and her voice was heard saying, the pain she suffered outside her body was easier to bear than that inside her body.

Mishnah

4 If a widow’s ketubah was 200 and she sold either the worth of a mina for 200 or the worth of 200 for a mina, her ketubah was paid. If her ketubah was for a mina and she sold the worth of a mina and a denar for a mina, her sale is void. Even if she says, I shall return the denar to the heirs, her sale is void.

Halakhah

“If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200 or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina. If it was worth a mina and she sold it for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy? Explain it that the property increased in value. Rabbi Abin said, this supports Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions.” He explains it, unless it was excessive. If he redeemed what was worth a mina by 200, Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed. A baralta disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane. And its end disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value. Rabbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring a sacrifice to atone for larceny. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

Mishnah

5 Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid unless there would have been left a field for sowing nine qab, and in a garden half a qab, or following the words of Rabbi Aqiba, a fourth. If her ketubah was 400 zuz and she sold to one person worth 100, to a second 100, to a third 100, and to the last the value of a mina and a denar for a mina, the last transaction is invalid but all others are valid.

Halakhah

“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Yasa: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rabbi Mana did not specify; Rabbi Abin specified: Rabbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rabbi Elazar said, a Mishnah supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two witnesses is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three witnesses it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse says, ‘witnesses’.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

Mishnah

6 If the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much, their sale is invalid. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, their sale is valid; otherwise, what is the court’s power worth? But if they offered public tender, even if they sold either the worth of a mina for 200 or the worth of 200 for a mina, their sale is valid.

Halakhah

“If the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much,” etc. As you say for a private person, in real estate up to one third, in movables up to one sixth. And similarly, for Temple property, in real estate up to one sixth, in movables up to one in twelve. There, we have stated: “The estimation for orphans is thirty days, the estimation for Temple property sixty days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings.” And why thirty? In order to empower the orphans. Why should they not announce longer? Up to thirty days you empower the orphans, more than that you diminish their power. Why do you not say that for Temple property? Temple property is different because each offer made is firm. Then they should announce forever! If suffices for the Temple that it should be twice that of a private person. Rabbi Yudan said, since you say that Temple property is different because each offer made is firm, this implies that if they find their estimation they do not continue but close the deal.

“And one announces mornings and evenings,” at the time when agricultural workers go out or come back, and he mentions the field and its description. Rabbi Yose said, if they do not get their estimated price, they can conclude the sale. Is that the Mishnah, “if the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much, their sale is invalid”? Becausethey sold too low or too high, but if they found their estimate they close the deal. Rabbi Ḥananiah said before Rabbi Mana: What can you say, we deal with the case that they did not announce in public! From what is said afterwards: “Except if they offered public tender.” What is public tender? Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, announcement.

Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves, because they might flee, securities and movable property, because they might be stolen. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rabbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave is redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “Real estate nine persons and a Cohen, and a human by the same rule”? He answered him, the human here is a free person.

Ḥananiah bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rabbi, who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rabbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rabbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Did you not teach us in your old man’s name, “except if they offered public tender”? He accepted it; Rabbi changed his mind and acted following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

Mishnah

7 Neither the orphan, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram may claim ketubah, or usufruct, or sustenance, or depreciation. But if he married her from the start as a she-ram, she has claim to her ketubah. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or Gibeonite girl to an Israel, an Israel girl married to a bastard or Gibeonite, have claim to ketubah.

Halakhah

“Neither the orphan girl, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram,” etc. One understands the secondarily prohibited and the she-ram. The orphan? Does an orphan not have ketubah? Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi J̣oḥanan: Explain it for an orphan who repudiated. Rabbi Ayvo bar Naggari, Rabbi Immi: Just as they fined her, so they fined him. In which respect? That if he preliminarily married her by giving her a pound of gold, he loses it all.

“No usufruct.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rabbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rabbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rabbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had from her property.

Rabbi Yose said: All the time my teacher Rabbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

Rabbi Reuben asked before Rabbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden wife eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.

There, we have stated: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel; it is invalid from Gentiles.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

What is the difference between these and those? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have ketubah. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has ketubah. For him who says since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no ketubah.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Hila say that they differ about sustenance. Rabbi Joḥanan said, she may demand sustenance. Rabbi Eleazar said to him, one says to him, divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say, for him who says they differ about the conditions attached to a ketubah, Rabbi Joḥanan said, she has the ketubah stipulations. Rabbi Eleazar said to him, everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about sustenance, it follows that they do not differ about the stipulations of a ketubah. They fined her, but did not fine her heirs.

Mishnah

1 If somebody marries a woman and contracts with her to sustain her daughter for five years, he is obligated to sustain her for five years. If the mother was married to another man who contracted with her to sustain her daughter for five years, he is obligated to sustain her for five years. The first one cannot say, if she will come to live with me I shall sustain her, but he has to bring her support to her place. Similarly, the two cannot say we shall support her in common, but one of them sustains her and the other gives the money equivalent to her sustenance.

Halakhah

“If somebody marries a woman and had contracted with her,” etc. How does he become indebted to her? Do not Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, if somebody writes a debenture for another person under the assumption that he owes him and it turns out that he does not owe, he does not have to give to him! Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they gave it the status of an addition to the ketubah. Then he should have to pay in the end! They gave it the status of the gift for a woman’s preliminary marriage. Then he should pay up front! They treated it as when one marries a woman preliminarily by promising to give her twelve silver denars within one year by delivering one silver denar’s worth every month.

It was stated: He supports her the first five years, whether in inflation or in deflation. If living expenses were high and became low, if he was the cause, he pays the high rate, if she was the cause, he pays the low rate. If they were low and became high, whether he was the cause or she was the cause, he pays the low rate. That is, “the daughter neither ascends nor descends.”

There, we have stated: “The female children you will have by me shall live in my house and be supported by my estate,” and it was stated about this: They will be clothed with garments supplied by me. For whom does the daughter work? Let us hear from the following: “The husband has to sustain her and they pay the cost of her sustenance.” This means, he feeds her but she works for her husband. Rabbi Yose said, this means that if somebody had agreed to sustain his daughter-in-law, he has to sustain her, but she works for his son. If he wants her to be with him but she does not want to, the law is with her, as we have stated: “They pay the cost of her sustenance.” If she fell ill, it is as if she had married. If she died, is it as if she had married? If she died, she already is dead.

Mishnah

2 If the daughter married, the husband has to sustain her and they pay the cost of her sustenance. If they died, their daughters are supported from unincumbered property but she is supported from mortgaged property since her status is that of a creditor. The intelligent ones did write: On condition that I support your daughter for five years the entire time you are with me.

Halakhah

“If the daughter married, the husband has to sustain her,” etc. What is the status of the ketubah stipulations if he wrote them in the document? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he wrote them for emphasis; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he wrote them to collect from encumbered property. Rabbi Jeremiah switched the traditions. Rabbi Yudan said, a Mishnah supports him who said, he wrote them for emphasis, since we stated there: “One does not foreclose from mortgaged property to indemnify for produce or investment, or sustenance of widow and daughters, in order not to impede the economy.” Are the first categories not based on a document? Here also based on the document. Rabbi Ḥanania said, “since her status is that of a creditor”! Is that not based on a document? Here also based on the document.

If she dies she is not with him. If she was divorced she is not with him. If he took her back? One says, this was stated for the ketubah but not for the stipulations; one says, both for the ketubah and the stipulations, which opinion is valid? “The intelligent ones did write: On condition that I support your daughter for five years the entire time you are with me;” on that it was stated: Only for the first marriage. This parallels what Rabbi Ḥanina said, if somebody marries off his son in a house, the latter acquires the house, but only for a first marriage.

Mishnah

3 If the widow said, I cannot move from my husband’s house, the heirs cannot say to her, go to your father’s house and we shall support you there, but they support her and give her a dwelling commensurate with her honor.

Halakhah

“If the widow said, I cannot move from my husband’s house,” etc. It is writtenPsalms 88:6: “Among the dead is freedom.” When a person dies he becomes free from the Commandments.

Rabbi commanded three things on his death-bed: My widow should not move from my house; do not eulogize me in small towns; and he who served me during my lifetime should also serve me in death. “My widow should not move from my house,” is that not a Mishnah? “The widow who said, I cannot possibly move from my husband’s house...” Rabbi Dositheos said, that they should not say, this is the house of the patriarchate and must serve the patriarchate. Rabbi Eleazar bar Yose said, as we have stated: “She lives in the houses just as she lived while her husband was overseas, she uses silver and gold vessels just as she used to while her husband was overseas, she is fed just as she was fed while her husband was overseas.” “Do not eulogize me in small towns” because of the quarrels. “He who served me during my lifetime should also serve me in death;” Rabbi Ḥananiah from Sepphoris said, for example Yose Ephrati and Joseph from Haifa. Rabbi Ḥizqiah added, do not use many shrouds on me and let my coffin have holes at the bottom. These words say that Rabbi was buried in a single shroud since Rabbi said, not as a man left, he will come. But the rabbis say, just as a man left, he will come. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Nathan: The garment that went with a person to the grave will come back with him. What is the reason?Job 38:14 “The seal turns itself around like clay, they appear in dress.” Antoninus asked Rabbi, what is the meaning of what is written: “The seal turns itself around like clay?” He said to him, He Who brings the generation clothes it.

Rabbi Joḥanan commanded: Dress me in beige, neither white nor black. If I rise among the just I shall not be ashamed, if I rise among the wicked I shall not be ashamed. Rabbi Joshia commanded: Dress me in clean white. They said to him, in what are you better than your teacher? He said to them, why should I be ashamed of my deeds? Rabbi Jeremiah commanded: Dress me in clean white, dress me in my socks, put my shoes on my feet and a walking stick in my hand, lay me on my side; when the Messiah comes I shall be ready.

The people from Sepphoris said: We shall kill anybody who tells us that Rabbi died. Bar Qappara associated with them, his head covered and his garments torn. He said to them: Earthlings and angels held the Tablets of the Covenant; the angels were stronger and they took away the Tablets. They said to him: Rabbi died. He said to them: You said it. They tore their clothes and the sound of the tearing was heard from the gate to a distance of three mil.

Rabbi Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Mana: Miracles happened that day. It was Sabbath eve and all the surrounding towns came together to eulogize him. They made him Rabbi rest in eighteen synagogues until they brought him to his resting place but the day extended for them until each one had time to get to his house, fill an amphora of water, and light the candles. When the sun set, the rooster crowed. They were anxious and said, maybe we did desecrate the Sabbath? There came a voice and said to them, every one who was not lazy for the eulogies of Rabbi shall be announced for the life of the Future World, except the fuller. When the latter heard this, he climbed on the roof, threw himself down, and died. There came a voice and said, including the fuller.

Rabbi dwelt in Sepphoris seventeen years and applied to himselfGenesis 47:28: “Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years,” Jehudah lived in Sepphoris seventeen years. Of these he suffered from toothache for thirteen years. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, all these thirteen years no woman lying-in died in the Land of Israel and no pregnant woman had a miscarriage in the Land of Israel. Why did he have a toothache? Once he saw a calf to be slaughtered when it bellowed and said to him, Rabbi, save me! He said to it, for that you were created. At the end, how was he healed? He saw them killing a burrow of rats. He said to them, let them live, it is writtenPsalms 145:9 “His mercy extends to all His creatures.”

Rabbi was very meek and said, all a man might ask from me I am ready to do, except what the Elders of Bathyra did for my ancestor: they divested themselves and appointed him. If Rav Huna, the Head of the Diaspora, came here I would let him sit higher than myself since he is from the tribe of Judah and I am from Benjamin, he is from the male line and I am from the female. Once, the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya visited him and said, Rav Huna is outside. The face of Rabbi became saffron-colored. He R. Ḥiyya said to him, it is his coffin. He Rabbi said to him, go outside and look who wants you there. He stepped outside and did not find anybody; he understood that he Rabbi was angry with him. He did not visit him again for thirty days. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, in those thirty days did Rav learn from him R. Ḥiyya the principles of Torah. At the end of thirteen years and thirty days, Elijah visited him Rabbi in the likeness of the older Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to him, how does my lord feel? He said to him, one tooth hurts me. He said to him, show it to me. He showed it to him, he put his finger on it and it was healed. The next day, the older Rabbi Ḥiyya came to him and asked him, how does Rabbi feel, what is with that tooth? He said to him, from the moment that you put your finger on it, it was healed. At that moment, he said, woe on you, lying-in women of the Land of Israel, woe on you, pregnant women of the Land of Israel! He R. Ḥiyya said to him, that was not me. From that moment on, he Rabbi treated him with honor. When he Rabbi went to the assembly hall, he said, may the older Rabbi Ḥiyya come inside. Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose asked, closer than me? He said, beware! The older Rabbi Ḥiyya inside, and Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose innermost. Rabbi used to state the praises of the older Rabbi Ḥiyya before Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose. Once, he R. Ismael ben R. Yose saw him R. Ḥiyya in the bathhouse and he did not show him reverence. He R. Ismael ben R. Yose said to him Rabbi, is that the one of whom you state praises? He said, what did he do to you? He said, I saw him in the bathhouse and he did not show me reverence. He Rabbi said to him R. Ḥiyya, why did you do that? He said to him, so much should come over me if I realized that I was washing myself, at that time my eyes were occupied with the allegorical interpretation of the entire book of Psalms. From that moment on, he Rabbi appointed two students to accompany him R. Ḥiyya because of the danger.

Rabbi Yasa fasted eighty days to see the old Rabbi Ḥiyya. In the end, he saw his bier and him sleeping on it. If you say that Rabbi Assi was an insignificant person, one tanner came to Rabbi Joḥanan and said, I saw the sky falling but one of your students supported it. He asked him, could you recognize him? He said, if I would see him, I would recognize him. He made all his students pass before him the tanner, and he recognized Rabbi Assi. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish fasted three hundred fasts to see the old Rabbi Ḥiyya but did not see him. In the end, he started to feel badly and said, did he study Torah more than I did? They said to him, he spread Torah more than you did and in addition he went into exile. He said to them, did I not also go into exile? They said to him, you went into exile to study, he went into exile to teach.

When Rav Huna, the Head of the Diaspora, died they brought him here. They said, where shall we put him? They said, let us put him next to Rabbi Ḥiyya the elder for he is one of them. They said, who might want to bring him there? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, I shall go up to put him there. They said to him, you are looking for a pretext, for you are an old man and you want to go to rest there yourself. He said to them, put some string on my feet and when I shall be weak you pull. He went in and found the three arguing. “Jehudah my son, after you, and no more. Ḥizqiah my son, after you, and no more. Joseph ben Israel, after you, and no more.” He R. Ḥaggai lifted his eyes to look, it was said to him lower your eyes, turn around. Rabbi Ḥiyya the elder who said to his son Jehudah, make space for Rav Ḥuna that he may rest there. But Rav Ḥuna did not accept this. They said, since he did not accept that one made space for him, so his descendants will never end. He R. Ḥaggai exited from there eighty years old and his years were doubled.

It is writtenGenesis 47:30: “You shall carry me from Egypt and bury me in their burial place.” What would Jacob lose at any place he would prophesy? Rabbi Eleazar gave an inner reason, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi gave an inner reason, Rabbi Ḥanina gave an inner reason. What is the inner reason? Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said,Psalms 116:9 “I will walk before the Eternal in the Land of Life.” But the lands of life are only Tyre and its surroundings and Caesarea maritima and its surroundings; there is cheap food, there is plenty. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara, the Land whose dead will live again in the days of the Messiah. What is the reason?Isaiah 42:9 “He gives soul to the people on it.” That would mean that our teachers in Babylonia would lose out! Rabbi Simai said, the Holy One, praised be He, walks before them and they roll like wine barrels. When they arrive in the Land of Israel their souls are with them. What is the reason?Ezekiel 36:24 “I shall bring you to your soil,”Ezekiel 37:14 “give My spirit into you, and you will live.”

Rabbi Berekhiah asked Rabbi Ḥelbo. Rabbi Ḥelbo asked Rabbi Immi. Rabbi Immi asked Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Ḥanina, some say Rabbi Ḥanina asked Rabbi Joshua: Even those like Jeroboam and his kind? He said to him,Deuteronomy 29:22 “Sulphur and salt, conflagration throughout the country.” Rabbi Berekhiah said, one asked the other and we understand nothing from it. What does it mean? Since the Land of Israel was burned, judgment was executed on it. We have stated in the name of Rabbi Jehudah: Seven years was the Land of Israel burned; that is what is writtenDaniel 9:27 “The Covenant overtook the public for one week.” What did the secondaries in it do? Pieces, pieces and it was burned.

It is writtenJeremiah 20:6–7: “But you, Pashḥur, and all inhabitants of your house will go into captivity. You will come to Babylon, die there, and be buried there.” Rabbi Abba bar Zemina said, Rabbi Ḥelbo and Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina. One of them said, if somebody dies there and is buried there, he has two detriments in hand. If he dies there and is buried here, he has one detriment in hand. The other one said, burial atones for their death.

Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: A human’s feet bring him to where he is wanted. It is written1 Kings 22:20 “The Eternal said, who will seduce Ahab that he should go and fall in Ramot Gilead?” Might he not die in his house rather than there? Eliḥoref and Aḥiah were two of Solomon’s secretaries. He Solomon saw the Angel of Death looking at them and grinding his teeth. He said a word and put them into space. He the Angel of Death went and took them from there, then he came laughing before him Solomon. He said to him, just before you were grinding your teeth and now you are laughing at us? He said to him, the Merciful told me to take Eliḥoref and Aḥiah from space and I was wondering who would put them there where I was sent to take them; He put it into your mind to do so that I could complete my mission. I went and dealt with them there. The two sons of Rabbi Reuben ben Strobilos were students of Rabbi. He Rabbi saw the Angel of Death looking at them and grinding his teeth and said, let us exile them to the South, maybe the exile atones. He the angel of death went and took them from there.

Ulla was an emigrant. He was dying there and started to cry. They said to him, why are you crying? We shall bring you to the Land of Israel. He said to them, how does this help me? I am losing my pearl in an impure land. One cannot compare one who expires in the bosom of his mother to one who expires in the bosom of a strange woman. Rabbi Meïr was dying in Assos. He said, tell the people of the Land of Israel, there is your Messiah. With all that, he said to put his bier on the cape since it is writtenPsalms 24:2: “For He founded it on seas, based it on rivers.”

“Seven seas surround the Land of Israel: The ocean, lake Tiberias, lake Samkho, the salt sea, lake Ḥolata, lake Sheliat, lake Apamea.” But does there not also exist the lake of Ḥomṣ? Diocletian dammed up rivers and created it. It is writtenNumbers 21:20: “Looking down on the desert.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if one ascends the desert mountain one finds the likeness of a sieve in lake Tiberias, that is the well of Miryam. Rabbi Joḥanan bar Mara said, the rabbis estimated it and it is assessed opposite the middle gate of the old synagogue of Imdvtgyn.

Rabbi Bar Qiria and Rabbi Eleazar were taking a walk on the road when they saw coffins being brought into the Land from abroad. Rabbi Bar Qiria said to Rabbi Eleazar: What good is that going to do them? I am reading for themJeremiah 2:7 “My inheritance your considered an abomination” during your lifetime, “you came and made My Land impure” in your death. He said to him, when they arrive in the Land, one takes a lump of earth and puts it on the coffin, as it is writtenDeuteronomy 32:43 “His earth atones for His people.”

Mishnah

4 If she said, I cannot possibly move from my father’s house, the heirs can tell her: If you are with us, you are provided with sustenance, but if you are not with us, you are not provided with sustenance. If she argues because she is young and they are young, one provides her with sustenance while she is in her father’s house.

Halakhah

“If she said, I cannot possibly move from my father’s house,” etc. “If she argues because she is young and they are young,” to avoid a bad reputation.

Mishnah

5 All the time she lives in her father’s house, she always can collect her ketubah; if she she lives in her husband’s house, she can collect her ketubah for 25 years, for in 25 years she will have received benefits in the value of her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meïr who spoke in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the Sages say, all the time she lives in her husband’s house, she always can collect her ketubah; if she lives in her father’s house, she can collect her ketubah for 25 years. If she died, her heirs can sell her ketubah for up to 25 years.

Halakhah

“All the time she lives in her father’s house,” etc. For the good she received; her properties became delivered during her husband’s lifetime and after 25 years she gave up the claim to her ketubah. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi La: One understands for a woman who has no ketubah. But should a woman who has a ketubah not be able to collect forever? He answered him, it tells you more: Even a woman who has a ketubah collects only up to 25 years. The statement of Rabbi Eleazar says, the creditor collects forever. He said only, “the creditor”; but a woman can collect only up to25 years. Rabbi Abin said, this is reasonable only for a woman who is not being supported. But for a woman who is being supported, I say that she did not claim it because of her support.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, not only that she claims, but even if she mentions her claims, as we have stated there: “If she died, her heirs can mention her ketubah for up to 25 years.” He tells you more: Even if she let 25 years minus one day go by before claiming, and then claimed, one gives her another 25 years.

Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One stated this only for the ketubah of a mina or 200 zuz. But a ketubah of 1’000 denar she collects forever. Rabbi Abbahu quoted in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even a ketubah of 1’000 denar she can collect only up to 25 years. This disagreement parallels the following disagreement, as was stated there: “Torts are estimated from choice land, creditor’s claims from average, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable.” Rabbi Jeremiah said to him, this was stated only for the ketubah of a mina or 200 zuz, but a ketubah of 1’000 denar is evaluated in terms of average quality land. But Rabbi Yose said, even a ketubah of 1’000 denar she collects only from the least valuable land. It turns out that Rabbi Yose follows Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Jeremiah Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. As we have stated there: “If somebody signs over his property to his sons and signs over some real estate to his wife, she lost her claim to ketubah.” Rav said, if he lets them acquire through her. Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah. Rabbi Abba said, the reason of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina or two hundred, but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand denar they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah.

Mishnah

1 Two robbery judges were in Jerusalem, Admon and Ḥanan ben Absalom. Ḥanan said two things and Admon seven. If somebody went overseas and his wife now is demanding sustenance, Ḥanan says that she is made to swear in the end. The High Priests’ sons disagreed with him and said, she is made to swear in the beginning and in the end; Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos endorsed their statement. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, Ḥanan said correctly that she is made to swear only in the end.

Halakhah

“Two robbery judges were in Jerusalem,” etc. Did not Rabbi Phineas say in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: 469 synagogues were in Jerusalem and each one of them had a Book house and a study house; the Book house for Scripture and the study house for Mishnah? But these two were appointed for robberies; to teach you that if anybody has the power to intervene, if he does not exercise his power the misconduct is attributed to him. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Nathan: Naḥum the Mede also was with them. In Rabbi Nathan’s opinion, three robbery judges were in Jerusalem.

Rabbi Ḥizqiya in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi used to explain three verses for praise. “She sat at the entrance to the double spring.” Is this possible? Even the most brazen whore would not do that. But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all hope is directed; she said before Him: Master of the universe, do not let me leave this house empty. Another explanation: “She sat at the entrance to the double spring;” she opened his eyes and told him, I am single and pure. “And Eli was very old;..., that they slept with.” It is written “they bedded them.” Rabbi said, the women were bringing their nests to become purified for their husbands and they were deferring the sacrifices; the verse counts it as if they had slept with them. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, that is what he scolds them for: “Why do you disregard my slaughter sacrifice and my flour sacrifice?” Could he remove them from the serious sin and scold them for the simple one? “His sons did not walk in his ways,” that they were taking tithe and judging. Rabbi Berekhiah said, a camel caravan was passing by, they neglected public needs and dealt in merchandise.

It happened that Rabbi Ismael allotted sustenance to a woman in the markets of Sepphoris. What means “in the markets”? From the markets. Rabbi heard this and said, who told him that he did not send her? Who told me that he did not leave for her? Do the passers-by know? Rabbi Hila said, this is what Rabbi asked: Rabbi is of the opinion that the Mishnah does not speak of a married woman but of a widow. He said, Samuel and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the Mishnah deals with a widow. It was stated in the House of Rabbi thus: “If somebody left for overseas and his wife demands sustenance.” They wanted to say, for him who says, the Mishnah speaks of a married woman, “in the beginning” that he did not send her, “in the end” that she did not put aside and did not act dishonestly. For him who says, the Mishnah speaks of a widow, “in the beginning” that he did not leave for her, “in the end” that she did not put aside and did not act dishonestly. Samuel, Rabbi Berekhiah’s brother, said, that she did not renounce her ketubah in the orphans’ favor.

If somebody together with his wife left for overseas, then she returns and says, my husband died, she shall be supported and collect her ketubah. My husband divorced me, she shall be supported from her ketubah since, as you take it, if she be a married woman, she must be supported from her husband’s; if she is no longer a married woman, she can be supported from her ketubah. “If somebody returns from overseas and his wife requests support but he says, let her earnings cover her sustenance, one listens to him. But if the court had allotted, what they allotted, they have allotted.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, if her earnings are not enough for her support. In this case, does one listen to him? Following him who says, there is no support for the wife in biblical law, as we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Rabbi Yose says, if her earnings are sufficient for her support. In that case, why what they allotted, they have allotted? Explain it, if they allotted excess.

If somebody was overseas and said, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are included. If he said that when he was dying, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are not included.

Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav; Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Practice follows Ḥanan in his two statements; practice does not follow Admon in his seven statements. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula: In every case in which Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement, practice follows him.

Mishnah

2 If somebody went overseas and another person provided for his wife, Ḥanan says, he lost his money. The High Priests’ sons disagreed with him and said, let him swear on what he expended, that she shall collect; Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos endorsed their statement. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, Ḥanan said correctly that he put his money on a deer’s antler.

Halakhah

“If somebody went overseas,” etc. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If somebody pays off somebody else’s debt without the latter’s knowledge, is that the disagreement of Ḥanan and the High Priests’ sons? Rabbi Yose said, there the reason of the High Priest’s sons is that he would not expect his wife to starve. But here, the debtor could say: “I could negotiate with him and he would forgive some.” Think of it, if the loan was on a pledge! “I could negotiate with him and he would return my pledge.” So far about a creditor who does not push for repayment. Even for a creditor who pushes, we can hear from the following: “He may give his šeqel.” If somebody does not pay his šeqel, does one not take a pledge from him? This says, even for a creditor who pushes. You should know that this is so, as we have stated: “He can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges, nests for childbirth, purification and reparation offerings” since nothing of these comes to the other person’s hand. And here also, that nothing should come into his hand.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor except for annona and head-tax. Rav said, anything for which one is held responsible for one’s neighbor has to be repaid. The strength of Rav is from the following: “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it.” He did not hear that Rabbi Joḥanan said, they exacted a fine from a robber. Rabbi Abin asked, what is greater? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, and Rabbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus both said in the name of Samuel; one said, it is like annona and head-tax; the other said, it is not like annona and head-tax.

There, we have stated: “He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing.” Rabbi Judan and Rabbi Yose. One of them said, here if the vow refers to his body, there if the vow refers to his property. But the other said, here if he has somebody else who can heal him, there if there is nobody else who can heal him. If he has somebody else who can heal him, he should not be able to heal him personally! Not by everybody is a person successfully healed.

Is not the property of the finder forbidden to the owner of the cow? Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rabbi Isaac: If each man’s property was forbidden to the other.

Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rabbi Meïr! For Rabbi Meïr said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If somebody made a vow to forbid a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands? Let us hear from the following: “If he said, this loaf shall be dedicated, if he or another person ate it, they committed sacrilege; therefore, it can be redeemed. But if he said, it is for me as if dedicated, if he ate it he committed sacrilege on goodwill but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted. The students of Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: That is if he said I shall not eat it nor taste it; if he forbade only eating to himself. But the question was, if somebody made a vow to forbid a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands?

As it was stated: “If somebody went overseas and another person provided for his wife.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, another. Therefore, the father can recover. Rabbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows, and to receive her bill of divorce, but cannot eat usufruct in her lifetime... He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rabbi Yose says, both the father or a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rabbi Ḥaggai, both for burial as for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. For sustenance, neither the father nor a third party can recover.

Mishnah

3 Admon promulgated seven rules. If somebody dies and is survived by sons and daughters. If the estate is large, the sons inherit and the daughters will be sustained. If the estate is small, the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go begging. Admon said, because I am a male, shall I lose? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.

Halakhah

“Admon promulgated seven rules,” etc. How large is a large estate? Rabbi Zeʿura, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: That there should be twelve months of sustenance for all of them. Samuel heard this and said, this is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi, but the Sages say, until they reach adulthood or are married. They asked before Rabbi Yose, what did you hear from Rabbi Joḥanan? He said to them, let us explain the words of the Sages by their words! Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rabbi Joḥanan, if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since the heirs started to eat with permission, they continue to eat until the last coin is gone.

When does one appraise for them? Rabbi Mana said, one appraises at the end. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him, the words of the rabbis imply that one does not listen to you, for Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rabbi Joḥanan, if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since the heirs started to eat with permission, they continue to eat until the last coin is gone! Therefore, one appraises at the start. Rav Ḥisda asked: If there was sustenance for twelve months and then the property increased in value? Let us hear from the following, for Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So here, if it increased in value, their property value increased. If the estate was not sufficient for twelve months’ sustenance, may the sons say to the daughters, take what is yours and leave! Rabbi Abba said, is that a question? The Mishnah says that they cannot say so to them, as we have stated there: “If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.”

As you say, after deduction for her ketubah, after deduction of burial costs, after deduction of loans by witnesses or by contract. After deduction for daughters’ dowries? For him who says, one forecloses from mortgaged property for daughters’ dowries, the dowries are privileged. For him who says, one does not foreclose from mortgaged property for daughters’ dowries, the dowries are not privileged. Let us hear from the following: The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow does not push the sons aside and the widow does not push the daughters aside. How is that? If there was enough for 12 months sustenance and a widow to sustain. That explains that sometimes the widow pushes out the sons by means of the daughters. Just as she pushes out the sons by means of the daughters, should she not push them out by means of the sons? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance.

“The sons shall go begging.” Some Tannaïm state, “shall support themselves.” He who says “shall support themselves,” “make yourselves comfortable under the tree.” He who says, “go begging,” “may his children wander about begging, asking out of their ruins.”

Rav Zeʿira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav; Zeʿira in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Ḥanan made two statements, practice follows him; Admon made seven statements, practice does not follow him. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula: In every case in which Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement, practice follows him.

Mishnah

4 If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits that he owes him vessels, Admon says, since he admitted part of the claim he is made to swear, but the Sages say, what he admitted was not of the kind that was claimed. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement,

Halakhah

“If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil,” etc. The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free.

Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free. And why did we state: “Rabban Gamliel obligates him”? This comes to tell you the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he obligates people. Rabbi Abbahu supported that of Rabbi Immi. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is obligated. Rav followed Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went with another to court before Rav. He started claiming from him barley, wheat and spelt. Rav told him, charge him with anything you have to charge, and in the end he will swear one oath about everything. Rabbi Abbahu said, so argued Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rabbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free, did we not state “if he sued him for vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? If he is obligated for vessels about vessels, not so much more vessels for real estate? What does he do with it? He explains it, to transfer an oath to him. But did we not state: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits that he owes him vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for oil and he admitted vessels, everybody agrees that what he admitted does not refer to the claim, for Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abuna said in the name of Rav: The Mishnah deals with the case that he sued for vessels full of oil; the ones are full, the others empty. One understands vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Abun formulates it as oil bucket. Can one not ask him in the end? If he lost his speech.

Mishnah

5 If somebody obligates himself about money for his son-in-law but then goes bankrupt, she must wait until her hair grows white. Admon says: “If I had obligated myself, I would have to wait until my hair grows white. My father obligated himself, what can I do? Marry definitively or divorce!” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.

Halakhah

“If somebody obligates himself about money for his son-in-law,” etc. The Mishnah deals with the case that he obligated himself in her presence. But if he obligated himself not in her presence, even the rabbis will agree.

It was stated: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah said, Admon and the rabbis did not disagree about one for whom the father had promised money but went bankrupt that she may sit until her hair grows white. Where did they disagree? If she promised herself. Admon says, she might say, “I was of the opinion that my father wants to give, but now my father does not want to give, what can I do? Marry definitively or divorce!” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.

Mishnah

6 If somebody protests about a field when he himself had signed as a witness, Admon says: “The second one fits me, the first one was harder”; but the Sages say, he lost his right of appeal. If he made the field a marker for another, he lost his right.

Halakhah

“If somebody protests about a field,” etc. Not only if he himself made it a marker for another field, but even if a third person made it for a fourth, when he signed as a witness, he lost his right.

Mishnah

7 If somebody went overseas and lost the way to his field, Admon says, he shall go the shortest way but the Sages say, he has to buy a right of access for a hunded minas or fly through the air.

Halakhah

“If somebody went overseas,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he sues with reasons. This means, only if four owners surround him. Samuel says, even if one surrounds him on all sides. Joshua’s stipulation! “If he was lost in vineyards or fields, he crosses and leaves until he reaches a road to his house, even a plot full of vineyards, for this is one of the conditions under which Joshua distributed the Land to Israel.” Joshua stated this to leave, maybe to enter? Joshua stipulated for a person, perhaps for his cow? Rabbi Yose said, his cow usually returns; since a swarm of bees does not usually return, they treated it as if it were his body.

Rabbi Jeremiah said, both Admon and Rabbi Aqiba said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he sold them to another person, Rabbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.” He had not heard that Rabbi Hila said, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They disagree when nothing was mentioned. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was mentioned. Then Rabbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he has to buy access. But in the case here, even while it is clear that he had access, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access.

Mishnah

8 If somebody produces a promissory note on another person who in his turn produces a document that the creditor sold him a field, Admon says, “if I really owed you, you should have collected what is yours when you sold me the field;” but the Sages say, that one was smart when he sold him real estate because he can take it as a pledge.

Halakhah

“If somebody produces a promissory note on another person,” etc. Rabbi Jonah says, if it is worth it; Rabbi Yose says, even if it is not worth it. Think of it, if he had real estate! He can say to him, I want good real estate. Think of it, if he had good real estate! He can say to him, I want mine. In addition, he can say to him, to care for two parcels overtaxes my powers.

Mishnah

9 If two people mutually produced promissory notes of one on the other, Admon says: “If I owed you, how come you borrowed from me?” But the Sages say, each collects the amount of his note.

Halakhah

“If two people mutually produced promissory notes of one on the other,” etc. If one borrowed a mina from the other, but the other borrowed from him 200 zuz. Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rab Sheshet disagree. One says, one counts one mina against the other mina, but the other says, each one collects the amount of his note. He who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, learns it from tame oxen who injured one another, where half of the excess damage is paid. He who says, each one collects the amount of his note, learns it from the Sages and Admon. Can the Sages and Admon not agree that one counts one mina against the other mina? Because we have stated: Admon says: “If I owed you, how come you borrowed from me?” Therefore it was necessary to say, each one collects the amount of his note. If the holder of the note of 200 forgave a mina, but the holder of the note of a mina did not forgive. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, then what he forgave he cannot collect but what was not forgiven he can collect. If the note for 200 was written in a document but the loan for a mina was not written. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, the holder of the written note can collect but the recipient of the oral promise cannot collect.

Mishnah

10 There are three districts for marriage, Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee. One does not move from one village to another village and from one walled city to another walled city, except that in one district one moves from one village to another village and from one walled city to another walled city, but not from a village to a walled city or from a walled city to a village. One moves from a bad neighborhood to a better one but not from a better one to a worse one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not even from a bad neighborhood to a better one, because the better neighborhood tests.

Halakhah

“There are three districts for marriage, Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee.,” etc. The Mishnah refers to the case that he was from Judea and married a woman in Galilee, or from Galilee and married a woman in Judea. But if he was from Judea and married in Judea, or from Galilee and married in Galilee, one forces her to move. ”‘I, x, am from Judea and married a woman in Judea,’ one forces her to move, ‘in Galilee’ one does not force her to move. ‘I, X, am from Galilee and married a woman in Galilee,’ one forces her to move, ‘in Judea’ one does not force her to move. One moves from a mostly Gentile village to a totally Jewish village but not from a totally Jewish village to a mostly Gentile village.”

And from where that a better neighborhood tests? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama in the name of Ḥanina: “That disaster should not cling to me and I die.” He was in the plain and was directed to the mountains, and you say so? But from here that a better neighborhood tests!

Mishnah

11 Everybody moves to the Land of Israel but not everybody leaves. Everybody moves to Jerusalem but not everybody leaves. How is this? If he married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he pays her in coin of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in Kappadokia, he pays her in coin of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in Kappadokia and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he pays her in coin of the Land of Israel; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in coin of Kappadokia. If he married a woman in Kappadokia and divorced her in Kappadokia, he pays her in coin of Kappadokia

Halakhah

“Everybody moves,” etc. If he wants to move to the Land of Israel but she does not, one forces her to move. If she wants but he does not, one does not force him to move. If he wants to move to Jerusalem but she does not, one forces her to move. If she wants but he does not, one does not force him to move. If he wants to leave the Land of Israel but she does not, one does not force her to leave. If she wants to leave but he does not, one forces her not to leave.

“He pays her in coin of the Land of Israel.” This implies that the coins of the land of Israel are the best of all countries. This supports him who says that a woman’s ketubah is from the words of the Torah, against Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: A woman’s ketubah is from the words of the Torah. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a woman’s ketubah is only an institution of the Soferim.