Commentary page

Ketubot 105a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Ketubot 105a

Ketubot 105a. The full printed text of this folio side — 16 numbered segments, about 473 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

תִּשָּׁבַע בַּסּוֹף, וְלֹא תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה. נֶחְלְקוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים, וְאָמְרוּ: תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף. אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: יָפֶה אָמַר חָנָן, לֹא תִּשָּׁבַע אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף.

She takes an oath at the end of their marriage, i.e., when she learns that her husband died. The oath is to the effect that he did not leave her any funds when he departed overseas, as she is claiming full payment of her marriage contract. And she does not take an oath at the outset of his trip overseas, when she demands support soon after his departure. The sons of High Priests disagreed with Ḥanan’s opinion and said: She takes an oath both at the outset and at the end. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: The halakha is in accordance with their statement, i.e., that of the sons of the High Priests. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said that Ḥanan spoke well: She takes an oath only at the end.

Segment 2

גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה דַּיָּינֵי גְזֵילוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: אַדְמוֹן בֶּן גַּדַּאי, וְחָנָן הַמִּצְרִי, וְחָנָן בֶּן אֲבִישָׁלוֹם. קַשְׁיָא תְּלָת אַתְּרֵין, קַשְׁיָא גְּזֵירוֹת אַגְּזֵילוֹת!

GEMARA: The mishna states that there were two judges who issued decrees [ gezeirot ] in Jerusalem. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita : There were three judges who adjudicated cases of theft [ gezeilot ] in Jerusalem: Admon ben Gaddai, Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. The fact that the baraita mentions three judges is difficult, as the mishna includes only two; and the fact that the judges are described in the mishna as those who issue decrees is also difficult as they are described in the baraita as judges who adjudicate cases of theft.

Segment 3

בִּשְׁלָמָא תְּלָת אַתְּרֵין לָא קַשְׁיָא: דַּחֲשִׁיב לֵיהּ — קָתָנֵי, דְּלָא חֲשִׁיב לֵיהּ — לָא קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא גְּזֵירוֹת אַגְּזֵילוֹת קַשְׁיָא!

The Gemara continues: Granted, the contradiction between the statement that there were three judges and the statement that there were two is not difficult, as those who are important to him the tanna teaches in the mishna, and those who are not important to him the tanna does not teach in the mishna. Although there were other judges, the tanna mentioned only those pertinent to the topic at hand. However, the contradiction between the ruling that refers to decrees and the ruling that refers to theft is difficult.

Segment 4

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שֶׁהָיוּ גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירוֹת עַל גְּזֵילוֹת. כִּדְתַנְיָא: קִיטְּמָה נְטִיעָה, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹמְרִים: נְטִיעָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, בַּת שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים — אַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There is no contradiction, as they would issue decrees concerning matters of theft, as it is taught in a baraita : With regard to an animal that severed a young plant in the field of another, Rabbi Yosei says that those who issue decrees in Jerusalem said: For a plant one year old, the animal’s owner must pay two silver pieces; for a plant two years old, he pays four silver pieces.

Segment 5

וּרְמִינְהִי, שְׁלֹשָׁה דַּיָּינֵי גְזֵירוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: אַדְמוֹן וְחָנָן וְנַחוּם! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאן תְּנָא נַחוּם — רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אַף נַחוּם הַמָּדִי מִגּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between the baraita cited above and another baraita : There were three prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem: Admon, Ḥanan, and Naḥum. In the previous baraita , Naḥum was not listed. Rav Pappa said: Who is the tanna who taught that the third judge was Naḥum? It is Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: Naḥum HaMadi was also among those who would issue decrees in Jerusalem, but the Sages did not agree with his opinion.

Segment 6

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְתִשְׁעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בָּתֵּי דִינִין הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּתֵּי סוֹפְרִים! דַּיָּינִין טוּבָא הֲווֹ, וְכִי קָאָמְרִינַן — אַגּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת קָאָמְרִינַן.

The Gemara asks: And were there no more judges? Didn’t Rabbi Pineḥas say that Rabbi Oshaya said: There were 394 courts in Jerusalem, and a comparable number of synagogues, and a comparable number of study halls, and a comparable number of houses of teachers of schoolchildren. The Gemara answers: There were many judges, but when we say that there were a small number, it is specifically concerning those who issue decrees that we say so.

Segment 7

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: גּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן תִּשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע מָנֶה מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, לֹא רָצוּ — מוֹסִיפִין לָהֶם. לֹא רָצוּ? אַטּוּ בְּרַשִּׁיעֵי עָסְקִינַן? אֶלָּא: לֹא סָפְקוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָצוּ — מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן.

§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: Those who issue decrees in Jerusalem would take their wages, ninety-nine maneh , equal to 9,900 dinars per year, from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. If they did not wish to do so, one adds to their wages. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: If they did not wish to do so? Does this mean that if they desired higher wages, they were paid more? Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who demand wages beyond what they need? Rather, on the contrary, Rav Asi said that if their wages were insufficient for their needs, then even if they did not wish to receive higher wages, one adds to their wages so that they may devote themselves to their communal service.

Segment 8

קַרְנָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל אִיסְתֵּירָא מִזַּכַּאי וְאִיסְתֵּירָא מֵחַיָּיב, וְדָאֵין לְהוּ דִּינָא. וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְשׁוֹחַד לֹא תִקָּח״!

The Gemara relates: The Sage Karna would take an istera , a small coin, from the innocent party, and an istera from the guilty party, i.e., he would charge both parties that came to him for judgment, and then he would judge their case. The Gemara asks: But how could he do so? Isn’t it written: “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8), which indicates that a judge may not take money from either of the two litigants?

Segment 9

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַצְלוֹיֵי דִּינָא, קַרְנָא כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁקֵיל מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ — לָא אָתֵי לְאַצְלוֹיֵי דִּינָא, וְכִי לָא אָתֵי לְאַצְלוֹיֵי דִּינָא מִי שְׁרֵי?

And if you say that this prohibition against taking a bribe applies only when a judge does not take from both parties, as there is a concern that perhaps he may come to pervert the judgment in favor of the party that gave him the bribe, whereas in the case of Karna, since he took from both parties he will not come to pervert the judgment, who says that the verse is referring only to those circumstances? Is it permitted to take a bribe even in a case when one will not pervert the judgment?

Segment 10

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְשׁוֹחַד לֹא תִקָּח״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא לְזַכּוֹת אֶת הַחַיָּיב וְשֶׁלֹּא לְחַיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְזַכּוֹת אֶת הַזַּכַּאי וּלְחַיֵּיב אֶת הַחַיָּיב אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״וְשׁוֹחַד לֹא תִקָּח״!

But isn’t it taught in a baraita : “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8); what is the meaning when the verse states this? If it comes to teach that one should not acquit the guilty and one should not convict the innocent due to a bribe, it is already stated: “You shall not wrest judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:19). Rather, this verse teaches that even if the purpose of the bribe is to ensure that one acquit the innocent and convict the guilty, the Torah nevertheless says: “And you shall take no bribe.” This indicates that it is prohibited for a judge to receive anything from the litigants, even if there is no concern at all that justice will be perverted.

Segment 11

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּשָׁקֵיל בְּתוֹרַת שׁוֹחַד, קַרְנָא בְּתוֹרַת אַגְרָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל. וּבְתוֹרַת אַגְרָא מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לָדוּן — דִּינָיו בְּטֵלִין! הָנֵי מִילֵּי אֲגַר דִּינָא, קַרְנָא אֲגַר בְּטֵילָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל.

The Gemara answers: This applies only when one takes the money in the form of a bribe, even if he does not intend to pervert the judgment, whereas Karna took the money in the form of a salary, not a bribe. The Gemara asks: But is it permitted to take money from litigants in the form of a salary? Didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Kiddushin 58b): With regard to one who takes a salary to judge cases, his judgments are void? The Gemara answers: This applies only when he took money as his compensation for judging the case, whereas Karna accepted the money as compensation for unemployment, i.e., as he could not engage in his usual work while dealing with the case, he would take compensation for this unemployment.

Segment 12

וַאֲגַר בְּטֵילָא מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: מְכוֹעָר הַדַּיָּין שֶׁנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לָדוּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּינוֹ דִּין. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא אֲגַר דִּינָא, דִּינוֹ דִּין? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לָדוּן — דִּינָיו בְּטֵילִין! אֶלָּא אֲגַר בְּטֵילָא, וְקָתָנֵי: מְכוֹעָר הַדַּיָּין!

The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to take money as compensation for unemployment? Isn’t it taught in a baraita : Ugly is the judge who takes a salary to judge cases; however, his judgments are valid judgments? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this baraita ? If we say that it is referring to one who accepted money as his compensation for judging, are his judgments valid judgments? But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Kiddushin 58b): With regard to one who takes a salary to judge cases, his judgments are void? Rather, it must certainly be referring to a situation where he takes money as compensation for unemployment, and yet the baraita teaches: Ugly is the judge.

Segment 13

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּטֵילָא דְּלָא מוֹכְחָא. קַרְנָא בְּטֵילָא דְמוֹכְחָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל, דַּהֲוָה תָּהֵי בְּאַמְבָּרָא דְחַמְרָא וְיָהֲבִי לֵיהּ זוּזָא.

The Gemara answers: This statement that the judge is ugly applies only when the fact that he is taking a salary for his unemployment is not evident, as he was not engaged in some other type of work at the time. Karna, however, would take money for his unemployment when it was evident that he was taking time off work to judge the case, as he was examining people's wine stores [ ambara ] to see which casks would last and which were going sour, and they would pay him one dinar as a salary. Consequently, when Karna paused from his work to deal with a case, it was clear that he was losing money.

Segment 14

כִּי הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא כִּי הֲוָה אָתֵי דִּינָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַבוּ לִי גַּבְרָא דְּדָלֵי לִי בַּחֲרִיקַאי וְאֵידוּן לְכוּ דִּינָא.

This resembles an incident involving Rav Huna. When people would come for judgment before him, he would say to them: As I am unable to take time off from my work, give me a man who can draw water for me, to irrigate the fields in my place, and I will judge your case.

Segment 15

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה סְמוּיוֹת עֵינֵיהֶן שֶׁל מְקַבְּלֵי שׁוֹחַד. אָדָם חָשׁ בְּעֵינָיו, נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן לָרוֹפֵא — סָפֵק מִתְרַפֵּא סָפֵק אֵינוֹ מִתְרַפֵּא. וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וּמְסַמִּין עֵינֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַשּׁוֹחַד יְעַוֵּר פִּקְחִים״.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Come and see how blind are the eyes of those who accept bribes, and how they ruin themselves. If a person has pain in his eyes, he gives a doctor money, and even then it is uncertain whether he will be healed or whether he will not be healed. And yet those judges take the value of a peruta , a small amount of money as a bribe, and actively blind their eyes, as it is stated: “For a bribe blinds those who have sight” (Exodus 23:8).

Segment 16

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי הַשּׁוֹחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים״, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַטִּפְּשִׁין. ״וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים״, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לָרְשָׁעִים. מִידֵּי טִפְּשִׁים וּרְשָׁעִים בְּנֵי דִינָא נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״כִּי הַשּׁוֹחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים״, אֲפִילּוּ חָכָם גָּדוֹל וְלוֹקֵחַ שׁוֹחַד — אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא סַמְיוּת הַלֵּב. ״וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים״,

The Sages taught: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly blind the eyes of fools. “And perverts the words of the righteous” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly pervert the statements of the wicked. The Gemara asks: Are fools and the wicked suitable for judgment, i.e., to be appointed as judges? Rather, this is what the tanna of the baraita said: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise”; even if he were very wise but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without suffering blindness of the heart, i.e., he will eventually turn foolish. “And perverts the words of the righteous”;

Ketubot 105a

Ketubot 105a

Rashi

Tosafot

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text