Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot Chapter 4

נַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּתְּתָה בָּשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ וּקְנָסָהּ לְאָבִיהָ וְהַצַּעַר בִּתְפוּסָה. עָמְדָה בְבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאָב. מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַחִין. לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְּעַצמָהּ. נַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּתְּתָה כול׳. מָאן תַּנָּא נַעֲרָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין אֲפִילוּ קְטַנָּה. וְהַצַּעַר בִּתְפוּסָה. בָּאֲנוּסָה. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הָאוֹנֵס מִן הַצַּעַר. עַד כְּדוֹן דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים מַחְמַת הַבִּיאָה. חָבַל בָּהּ. סִימֶּה אֶת עֵינָהּ. קָטַע אֶת יָדָהּ. שִׁיבֵּר אֶת רַגְלָהּ. לְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ אוֹ לְאָבִיהָ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נוֹתֵן לְאָבִיהָ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמָהּ. מִיסְבַּר סְבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ עַד שֶׁתִּבְגּוֹר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִבְּגוּרָה וָאֵילָךְ. רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. עַד שְׁעַת בּוֹגְרָהּ פְּלִיגִין. אֲבָל מִבּוֹגְרָהּ וָאֶילַךְ כָּל עַמָא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָחוֹבֵל בְּבִתּוֹ וּבְנוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ. שֶׁלִּבְנוֹ יִתֵּן מִיַּד. וְשֶׁלְּבִתּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶן סְגוּלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִי יוּדָה אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. אִית מַתְנֵי. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַחוֹבֵל בְּבִתּוֹ קְטַנָּה נִיזְקָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ וּפָטוּר מִן הַבּוֹשֶׁת וּמִן הַפְּגָם. אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחִבְּלוּ בָהּ נִזְקָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ וְהַשְּׁאָר יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶן סְגוּלָה וּבוֹשְתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ שֶׁלְּאָבִיהָ. מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר כֵּן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. וְנָתַן לַנַּעֲרָה. וְנָתֵן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה. הָא כֵיצַד. עָמְדָה בַדִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיהָ אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה. מֵת אָבִיהָ אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. וְנָתֵן לְעַצְמָהּ. עָמְדָה בַדִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָגְרָה אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה. מִשֶּׁבָּגְרָה אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. וְנָתַן לְעַצְמָהּ. מְנָן אִילֵּין מִילַּיָּא. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם [אַחֲרֵיכֶם] לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָה. אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם. אֵין בְנוֹתֵיכֶם לִבְנֵיכֶם. בִּקְנָס הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֵין לָהֶן לֹא בִקְנָסֵי הַבַּת לֹא בְפִיתּוּיֶהָ וְלֹא בַחַבָּלֶיהָ. קְנָס אֵימָתַי הוּא מִתְחַיֵיב. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. בְּסוֹף. מְתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. עָמְדָה בְדִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאָב. מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַחִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָטִינָתָהּ לְהַהִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. וְנָתַן לַנַּעֲרָה. וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה. מְתִיב רִבִּי יוֹנָה לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר בְּסוֹף. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. עָמְדָה בַדִּין עַד שֶׁלּא בָגְרָה הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַב. מִשֶּׁבָּגְרָה הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ. וּבוֹגֶרֶת יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָטִינָתָ[הּ] לְהַהִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ. לְרַבּוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה נַעֲרָה וּבָגְרָה. וְאַתְיָא אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא כְּהָלֵין פְּלוּגְוָותָא. דְּתַנִינָן תַּמָּן. גָּנַב מִשֶּׁלְּאָבִיו טָבַח וּמָכַר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. מְתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי חַגַּיי. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר. בָּעֲמִידַת בֵּית דִּין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. נִיתְנֵי. גָּנַב מִשֶּׁלְּאָבִיו טָבַח וּמָכַר בְּחַיֵי אָבִיו. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לַעֲמוֹד בַּדִין עַד שֶׁמֵּת אָבִיו מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. וְהֵן אָמַר. אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. בְּרַם הָכָא כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ. לָא צוֹרְכָה דְלָא לְמִי הוּא נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמָהּ. נוֹתֵן לְאָבִיהָ.

MISHNAH: 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”? Rebbi 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 Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon frees the rapist from paying for suffering. So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations 87a/b , states flatly that the father has no claims to sums due under laws which are independent of the sex of the injured party. . If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs 8:1 states that the person causing an injury is liable to pay for diminution of values (permament reduction of earning power), suffering, medical costs, lost earnings (earnings lost while disabled in treatment), and shame. ? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi 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 Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately 87b , and the Tosephta, Baba Qama 9:8 , the payment due the son is given in the form of a capital value which is transferred to the son on his reaching majority. Everybody agrees that the father has no claim to any sum due to his son. ; those for the daughter shall be held as property value of Babli and Tosephta: They belong to the father. This is then explained away as referring only to lost earnings since in the Babli everybody holds that all earnings of an underage daughter belong to the father. supports R. Johanan. . Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi 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 7:1 Note 5 ff.) . If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value 9:9 and the baraita in Babli Baba Qama 87b nothing is awarded to the father. This is then explained away as referring to children who no longer live at home. In the Yerushalmi, payments for shame and diminution of value belong to the father; of the others he collects the yield of the capital until the daughter reaches adulthood. The treatments in the two Talmudim have very few points in common even though they are based on almost identical tannaitic texts. , but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father. What did you see to say so? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.. 22:19 ): “[The court] shall fine him 100 pieces of silver and give them to the girl’s father because he calumniated, a virgin of Israel ”, stating first the fine and then the reason. But for the rapist it says ( v. 29 ): “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 pieces of silver to the girl’s father.” Since the reason is stated immediately after the obligation to pay, it is inferred that the obligation to pay is independent of the availability of the father. Therefore, in the absence of a father, or if the girl is no longer in his potestas , one may disregard the mention of the father and read the verse as an obligation to pay the girl. ” 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? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi 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 43a , Qiddušin 16b ; Sifra Behar Parašah 6(5 ). The verse, Lev . 25:46 , speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate. . Rebbi 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? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rebbi Yose said, at the end. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi 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 Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi 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 Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi 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 7:2 . : “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi 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 71b , agrees with this reasoning. ? 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.

עָמְדָה בְבֵית דִּין עַד שֶלֹּא בָגְרָה הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַב. מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַחִין. לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁבָּגְרָה הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אִם לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לִגְבּוֹת עַד שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ. מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמְצִיאָתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא גָּבְתָה מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַחִין. עָמְדָה בְבֵית דִּין עַד שֶלֹּא בָגְרָה כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחֵי. וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הָאָב זוֹכֶה אֶלָּא בִנְתִינָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בַּמִּגְבָּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. וְרַבָּנִין אוֹמְרִין. בָּעֲמִידַת בֵּית דִּין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲבַד לָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵית דִּין וְרַבָּנִין עֲבְדִּין לָהּ כְּמִלְוֶוה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גּוֹבֶה בְּעִידִית. עַל דַעְתּוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין גּוֹבֶה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתָהּ. עַל דַעְתּוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתָהּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. עַל דַעְתּוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁלַח לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב וּלְרִבִּי אִימִּי בַּר פַּפַּי. מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי הַבַּת שֶׁלְּמִי. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. שׁוֹקֵד אָמַר. לְעַצְמָהּ. מַנִּי שׁוֹקֵד. שְׁמוּאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתָּנָה. בְּשֵּׁם רִבִי אָמְרוּהָ וּמִדְרָשׁ אָמְרוּהָ. וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָה. אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם. לֹא בְנוֹתֵיכֶם לִבְנֵיכֶם. בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי הַבַּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמְצִיאָתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא גָּבָת וּמֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאַחִין. מַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁעָשָׂת בְּחַיֵי הָאָב. אֲבָל עָשָׂת לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב כָּל עַמָא מוֹדוּ שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ.

MISHNAH: 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. Rebbi 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. Rebbi 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. Rebbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rebbi Simeon treats it as court decrees but the rabbis treat it as a loan. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land 5:1 states that debts for torts are foreclosed from the most valuable real estate, loans from average, and a ketubah from the least valuable (R. Meïr says, from average.) The value is determined by the going rate for a unit of surface area. . In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt 10:2. The details of the laws of the Sabbatical relating to this case are explained in Ševi‘it 10:2, Note 69 . . In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion. 21:17 ) states that the father has to give him a double portion (or 2 / 3 , assuming there are only two sons) “of everything that is found with him”, meaning everything in actual possession at the time of death. Money due for an executable court order is money in possession; money due for an outstanding loan is not money in possession since it is subject to the uncertainties of a court proceeding if foreclosure is needed and the position of the firstborn is not privileged in regard to future income. . Rebbi Ze‘ira sent to Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rebbi Immi bar Pappai: Who owns the earnings of the daughter? They said to him, the diligent said, herself. Who is the diligent? Samuel! Rebbi Mattanah said, it was said in the name of Rebbi 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 43a , Qiddušin 16b ; Sifra Behar Parašah 6(5 ). The verse, Lev . 25:46 , speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate. . Rebbi 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.

הַמְאָרֵס אֶת בִּתּוֹ וְגֵירְשָׁהּ אֵרְסָהּ וְנִתְאַלְמְנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. הִישִּׂיאָהּ וְגֵירְשָׁהּ הִישִּׂיאָהּ וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלָּאָב. אָמְרוּ לֹו מִשֶׁהִשִּׁיאָהּ אֵין לְאָבִיהָ רְשׁוּת בָּהּ. הַמְאָרֵס אֶת בִּתּוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מָצוּי לִיתֵּן לְבִתּוֹ בְּעַיִן יָפָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק. מִמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע לָמַד רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. זִינְתָה וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ מִשֶּׁבָּגְרָה הוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רַע. הוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע אֶלָּא אוֹ הִיא אוֹ זוֹמְמֶיהָ מַקְדִימִין לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה. רִבִּי מָנָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ. הוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רַע עוֹדָהּ נַעֲרָה וּבָגְרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לְאָבִיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. וְתַמְיָה אֲנִי הֵךְ רַבָּנִין מְדַמּוּ כְּתוּבָּה לִקְנָס. וְלֹא דָמֵי. דּוּ כְּתוּבָּה מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּקְנָס בַּסּוֹף. וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּמִי יֹאמַר לָךְ. וַאֲפִילוּ קְנָס מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא. וְאַתְיָא דְּרִבִי מָנָא כְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּכְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְעִירָא.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage and she was divorced, in preliminary marriage and she was widowed, the ketubah belongs to him is treated in Halakhah 5:1 . . If he gave her in definitive marriage and she was divorced, in definitive marriage and she was widowed, the ketubah belongs to her. Rebbi 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. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter was written and the dowry given at the time of the preliminary marriage, in contrast to the later practice which postponed these transactions to the time of the definitive marriage. In that case, the dowry has to be returned at the dissolution of the preliminary marriage and it is clear that the father wants to have the dowry returned to him. {Many Jewish communities in the Middle Ages enacted rules which guaranteed the return of the dowry to the wife’s family if the marriage was of short duration and/or there were no children; the best known being the rules of the community of Ṭulaiṭula (Toledo), Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘Ezer § 118.) . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr) learned from the calumniator, part 3, Chapter 49) and Nachmanides (Commentary to Deut . 22:19 ), the fine of the calumniator is 400 zuz since he wanted to steal from her the ketubah sum of 200 zuz by his accusation; as a thief he has to pay double restitution to the injured party. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that the father is the injured party. (Interpretation following R. Baruch Fränkel-Teomim.) . Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged. 22:17 is interpreted to mean “they have him flogged.” nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas. 22:18 it is written: They shall fine him 100 silver pieces and give them to the adolescent’s father. If the girl is no longer an adolescent, the punishment does not apply. but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning. 22:24 . If the witnesses for the husband are shown to be false (cf. Note 86 ), they are stoned since any false witness is punished by the sentence that would have been passed upon the accused if the testimony had been true. ? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi 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. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: 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 before a definitive marriage is possible. 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 Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira) are parallel institutions; the rules of the fine may inspire rules of ketubah . .

הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירָה בִתָּהּ עִמָּהּ וְזִינְתָה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְלֹא מַאָה סֶלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתָהּ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְלֹא מַאָה סֶלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵידָתָהּ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה הֲרֵי הִיא כְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָרֶיהָ. יֵשׁ לָהּ אָב וְאֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב יֵשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְאֵין לָהּ אָב הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה. הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירָה כול׳. כְּתִיב כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלָה. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתָהּ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה תְּהֵא בִסְקִילָה. וְרִבָּה אוֹתָה לִקְנָס. לֵית יְכִיל. וְתַנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה כֵן. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּסְקָלוּהָ אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהִיא מֵתָה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵתָה. אֶלָּא יֵשׁ לָךְ אֲחֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא בִסְקִילָה וְהִיא פְטוּרָה. וְאֵי זוֹ זוֹ. זוֹ גִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתָהּ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁתְּהֵא בִסְקִילָה. כְּתִיב כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְנוֹס וְיִבְעוֹל וְיִטְעוֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ הִקְדִּיחָה לוֹ אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים וּלְמַטָּן נֶאֱמַר עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים. מַה עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים לְמַטָּן זְנוּת אַף לְמַעֲלָן זְנוּת. אִי מַה עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּמַטָּן מִמְּקוֹם בְּתוּלִין אַף כָּאן. מְנַיִין אֲפִילוּ בָא עָלֶיהָ בִיאָה אֲחֶרֶת. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע. מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וְאָמַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ. פְּרָט לְיִיעוּדִין. לָקַחְתִּי. פְּרָט לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. לָקַחְתִּי. פְּרָט לָאֲרוּסָה. לָקַחְתִּי. פְּרָט לְיִיעוּדִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דָּמַר. מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה יֻתַּן כֶּסֶף לְיִיעוּדִין. לָקַחְתִּי. פְּרָט לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר כְּמִשְׁנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁמִּצְוַת יִבֻּם קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ [כְּ]מִשְׁנָה אֲחַרוֹנָה שֶׁמִּצְוַת חֲלִיצָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת יִיבּוּם. לָקַחְתִּי. פְּרָט לָאֲרוּסָה. וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מָצָא וְאִיבֵּד. שֶׁהֵבִיא הַבַּעַל עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינָת עוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִי. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא דַּם צִפּוֹר הוּא. שֶׁהֵבִיא הָאָב עֵדִים לְהַזִים עֵידֵי הַבַּעַל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. הַפָּרָשָׁה הַזּוֹ יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵדִים וְזוֹמְמֵיהֶן וְזוֹמְמֵי זוֹמְמֵיהֶן. הַבַּעַל אוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עֵדִים שֶׁזִּנְתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְהֵבִיא הָאָב עֵדִים לְהַזִּים עֵדֵי הַבַּעַל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. הֵבִיא הָ[אָ]ב [עֵדִים] לְהַזִּים עֵידֵי הַבַּעַל. וְהֵבִיא הַבַּעַל עֵדִים לְהַזִּים עֵידֵי הָאָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּשֶׁמָּצָא הָאָב עֵדִים לְהַזִּים עֵידֵי הַבַּעַל. וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה. הַכֹּל מָשָׁל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. זֶה אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מִקְרִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בַתּוֹרָה בְמָשָׁל. אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה. וְכִי עָלָת עַל דַּעְתָּךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק וַהֲלָהּ נֶהֱרָג עַל יָדָיו. אֶלָּא מָהוּ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ. עַל בּוּרְיוֹ. אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו דָּמִים לוֹ. וְכִי עָלָיו לְבַדּוֹ הַחַמָּה זוֹרַחַת. אֶלָּא מַה זְרִיחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא שָׁלוֹם לְכָל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם. אַף זֶה בִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא שָׁלוֹם מִמֶּנּוּ וָהָרְגוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. יֵיאָמְרוּ הַדְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן. מָהוּ יֵאָמְרוּ הַדְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְנוֹס וְיִבְעוֹל וְיִטְעוֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה. אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּתְחַוְורוּ הַדְּבָרִים כַּשִּׂמְלָה. רִבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר. וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין וְלֹא הַבַּעַל לוֹקֶה וְלֹא נוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ. עִמָּנוּ הָיָה בְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְהַבַּעַל שְׂכָרָן לְהָעִיד עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר. אָמְרוּ. עִמָּנוּ הָיָה בְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ. הַבַּעַל שְׂכָרָן לְהָעִיד עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִיבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן שׂוּמָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שׂוּמָה. מַה שׂוּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מָמוֹן אַף כָּאן מָמוֹן. וְהָתַנֵּי. לֹא אָמַר לָעֵדִים. בּוֹאוּ וְהֵעִידוּנִי. אֶלָּא הֵן בָּאוּ מֵאֵילֵיהֶן. הוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מַאָה סֶלַע אֶלָּא אוֹ הִיא אֹו זוֹמְמֶיהָ מַקְדִּימִין לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר. הָא אִם אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא שְׂכָרָן כְּמִי שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן. הֵבִיא הָאָב שְׁנֵי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. עִמָּנוּ הְיִיתֶם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. הַבַּעַל שְׂכָרָן לְהָעִיד עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר. פְּשִׁיטָא אוֹתָן שֶׁאָמְרוּ. עִמָּנוּ הָיָה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. נִסְקָלִין. וְאוֹתָן שֶׁאָמְרוּ. הַבַּעַל שְׂכָרָן לְהָעִיד עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר. לוֹקִין וְנוֹתְנִין מֵאָה סֶלַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אֵילּוּ וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אֵילּוּ לוֹקִין וְנוֹתְנִין מֵאָה סֶלַע. אֶלָּא לוֹקִין מִשּׁוּם לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הֵבִיא הָאָב עֵדִים לְהַזִּים עֵידֵי הַבַּעַל. הוּזְּמוּ עֵידֵי הָאָב. לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ לֹא הוּזְּמוּ עֵידֵי הָאָב לֹא נִמְצָא הַבַּעַל לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. סָבַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. שְׁנֵי דִינִין הֶן. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֶׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. כּוּלּוֹ דִין אֶחָד הוּא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אֶל זִקְנֵי הָעִיר זֶה בֵית דִּין שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הַשַּׁעְרָה זֶה בֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּכֹגֹ. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נֶפֶשׁ. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. בְּנַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה פְלִיגִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מַפְסֶדֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְנִסְקֶלֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּסְקֶלֶת שָׁם הִיא מַפְסֶדֶת כְתוּבָּתָהּ. אֲבָל בְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדוּ מְקוֹם שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין שָׁם הַבַּעַל לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אִין דְּלָא תַנִּיתָהּ פְלִיגָא. אֶלָּא בְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע פְלִיגִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין שָׁם הַבַּעַל לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע. אֲבָל בְּנַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדוּ מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּסְקֶלֶת שָׁם מַפְסֶדֶת כְתוּבָּתָהּ. וְאַתְיָא דְרִבִּי [יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן] כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא וּדְרִבִּי [מָנָא] כְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַבַּעַל לוֹקֶה וְלֹא נוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע עַד שֶׁיִּסָּקֵלוּ הָעֵדִים. קְנָס אֵימָתַי הוּא מִתְחַיֵיב. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. בְּסוֹף. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. מְתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר. בְּסוֹף. לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲפִילוּ עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְכִי אַתְיָיא מַקְשֵׁייהּ כְּמָאן דָּמַר. עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין צְרִיכִין הַתְרָיָיה. וְלֹא הִתְרָה בָהֶן לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָעֵדִים נִסְקָלִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. מָאן דָּמַר דּוּ כֵן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה אֶת הַיְתוֹמָה פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַר מָמָל. מַחֲלוֹקֶת כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וּקְנָסָהּ שֶׁלְּעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. אֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית אָב וְלֹא מַאָה סֶלַע. וְלֹא כִיתוֹמָה הִיא. רִבִּי אִימִּי וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע עַל הַקְטַנָּה פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. וְיֵאוּת. אִילּוּ גְדוֹלָה שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהּ שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הִיא. וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהּ כִּגְדוֹלָה שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב הַמְנוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה. לְעוֹלָם אֵינָהּ מַקְדֶּמֶת לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נַעֲרֵה בִשְׁעַת הוֹצָאָה. מַאי טַעֲמָא. וְהוֹצִיאוּ הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. וְהָא תַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. זִינָת עוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ וּמִשֶּׁבָּגְרָה הוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רַע. הוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע. אֶלָּא אוֹ הִיא אוֹ זוֹמְמֶיהָ מַקְדִימִין לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה. מִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּבָרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זְקַן הַתַּחְתּוֹן. תַּמָּן אַתְּ יְכִיל מֵימַר. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה שֶׁזִּינָת. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר הָכָא. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אוֹתוֹ אֶת הַבֶּן. תַּנֵּי. נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁזִּינָת סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁזִּינָת. אִם הָיְתָה עִיר שֶׁלְּגוֹיִם סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין. וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה סוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁעָבַד. וְאִם הָיְתָה עִיר שֶׁלְּגוֹיִם סוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מִבִּפְנִים וּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה מִבַּחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. הוּא שַׁעַר שֶקִּילְקֵל בּוֹ הוּא שַׁעַר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ הוּא שַׁעַר שֶׁנִּידּוֹן בּוֹ הוּא שַׁעַר שֶׁנִּסְקַל בּוֹ. כִּי עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. נִבְּלָה זוֹ כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁבָּא לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ יָבוֹאוּ גִידּוּלִים רָעִים שָׁגִּדְּלוּ יִתְנַבְּלוּ הֵן וְגִידּוּלָן.

MISHNAH: 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. 22:21 ). 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. 22:19 . : “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 her22:21 , speaking of the girl proven to be an adulteress: “her town’s people should stone her with stones that she dies.” ,” 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 (she) but one has to read וְהוּא פָטוּר for וְהִיא פְטוּרָה. As the Babli argues, there must be one case which is added only for this kind of death penalty. [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. 22:13 ff. : “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse. 235, to R. Jehudah, as dissenting opinions. , and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish 9:10 . ? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel” he says, I took this woman, came to her and did not find her to be a virgin.” One could read this as meaning that the libel and the claim of missing virginity are two different actions by the husband. But v. 17 makes it clear that there is only one action: “He attacks her by libel, saying, I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.” The same argument is in Sifry Deut . . 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. agrees. ? The verse says, “and he calumniates her”, in any way. “He said, I took this wife and came to her,” that excludes assignations. 21:7–11 ) he can later assign the price he paid for her as bride money either for himself or for his son and declare her preliminarily married without investing an additional penny in her. But since the money originally was given for her work as a servant, not for marriage, the husband cannot say “I bought her as a wife”. ; “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one. “I took”, that excludes assignations. 21:7–11 ) he can later assign the price he paid for her as bride money either for himself or for his son and declare her preliminarily married without investing an additional penny in her. But since the money originally was given for her work as a servant, not for marriage, the husband cannot say “I bought her as a wife”. . Rebbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation 1:2 (59b 1. 40), Babli 19a , the only other places where the question is raised, only R. Yose ben R. Jehudah holds that the original money was not given with the idea that eventually it would be used as brides-money. But everybody agrees that the verses Ex . 21:8–9 require a separate action of assignment which is distinct from the original acquisition; therefore, the marriage of the indentured servant is not a “buy”. . “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 12:7, Note 140 ; Bekhorot Mishnah 1:7 . . “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one. “I came to her and did not find her a virgin. 22:14 . .” 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.. 22:17 . The father also is barred from being a witness in a case involving his daughter. ” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. 19:18–20 ) only is impossible testimony, i. e., that the opposing party produces witnesses to testify that the other witnesses could not possibly have seen what they testify to since they were at another place at the time they pretend to have seen certain things. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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.. 22:17 . It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says. ” That is all simile. Rebbi Ismael stated: That is one of three verses in the Torah which have been written as simile. 237; in Finkelstein’s opinion not of the original Sifry text. A slightly enlarged version is in Sanhedrin 8:8 , 26c 1. 6. . “If he gets up and walks outside on his support, the one who hit him is not prosecuted.. 21:19 , speaking of a person who deliberatly injures another. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 6; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 174. ” 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.. 22:2 , speaking of a thief digging a tunnel under a house, who can be killed with impunity if found out since in the tunnel “he has no 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 72a/b , this can only be asserted of a father coming to steal from his son. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi (Note 89) it cannot be asserted of anybody. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13; differently in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 192. . It was stated. §237. In the interpretation of the Babli, R. Eliezer ben Jacob requires that the court hear testimony about virginal blood. : Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse. 235, to R. Jehudah, as dissenting opinions. , and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth. 22:17 . It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says. ”. 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? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is said here “putting”, it is said there “putting”. Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money. 22:24 : “you shall not charge interest to [the recipient of a loan].” From the principle that a word has only one meaning, one infers that the husband “puts” a libel on his wife by paying for it; then according to this opinion he cannot be punished unless he actually pays for the false testimony. . 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. 22:24 . If the witnesses for the husband are shown to be false (cf. Note 86 ), they are stoned since any false witness is punished by the sentence that would have been passed upon the accused if the testimony had been true. ’? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them 42b ); exeptions to that rule must have a biblical basis. . If the father brought two groups of witnesses 9b , discusses only the simple case that the same witnesses testify both about the other witnesses and the husband’s involvment.) . 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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.. 20:17 . The Babli disagrees, Makkot 2b , since “a prohibition violated without an action is not prosecutable” (cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 2 ). ” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: 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 1:1 ), capital cases by a court of 23 ( Mishnah 1:4 ). The anonymous majority hold that potential cases of flogging are adjudicated by a court of 3 ( Mishnah 1:2 ). Therefore, flogging and payment of a fine can be imposed by the same court. ? 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 8b , this is reported as the opinion of R. Ḥiyya bar Abin and the Babylonian Rava. ? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23 is not found in other sources. The reference is to Deut . 22:15 , where the girl’s father is instructed to go “to the town’s Elders, to the gate.” The double determination is read as instruction to appear before two different courts. . He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There 1:1 . , we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi 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 only if the wife is found guilty, a set-up in which two courts could come to contradictory conclusions is impossible. . 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated 1:1 states clearly that there is a disagreement in the case of the calumniator. If there were a disagreement in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, it would have to be stated in the Mishnah. ? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi 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 Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu]: וְאַתְיָא דְרִבִּי מָנָא כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן כְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ “Rebbi Mana follows R. Ze‘ira and R. Yose bar Abun follows R. Abbahu.” It is possible to explain that version, in that R. Yose bar Abun was forced to invent the case that the witnesses for perjury were perjurers since in the case of the husband he follows R. Abbahu and that R. Mana, who in the main rule disagrees with R. Ze‘ira, accepts his explanation that the baraita is R. Meïr’s. . The husband is never flogged, nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas, unless the witnesses are stoned. When is he obligated for the fine? Rebbi Jonah said, at the end. Rebbi Yose said, from the first hour. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi 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? Rebbi Mana said, even according to Rebbi 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? Rebbi Abbamari said, who is that who says so? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One who rapes or seduces an orphan is free. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, this is in dispute; following Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba a fine is due, and the fine belongs to herself. Rebbi 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? Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say, one who calumniates an underage girl is free. Rebbi 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. Rebbi Ze‘ira, 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. 22:18–21 . .” But did not Rebbi 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. 8:6 , speaking of the unruly son, Deut . 21:18–21 , who can be judged only if he is an adolescent, in the 6 months after he grew two pubic hairs before the pubic hair is fully grown. If he was sentenced as an adolescent, he can be executed as an adult. ” There, you can say “they shall execute the adolescent” who whored; can you say here “they shall execute him”, the son. 22:21 says only “they shall stone him”, without indicating age. ? It was stated 10:10 . : 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 Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Take the blasphemer out from the encampment,. 24:14 . The same statement in the Babli Sanhedrin 45b . ” this teaches that the court sits inside and the place of stoning is outside. Rebbi 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. 17:5 , that the idolator has to be stoned “at your gates.” In Sifry Deut . 148: “The gate where he was found, not the gate where he was judged.” . “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.

הָאָב זַכַּאי בְּבִתּוֹ בְּקִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בַּכֶּסֶף בַּשְּׁטָר וּבַבִּיאָה וְזַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ וּמְקַבֵּל אֶת גִיטָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. נִיסֵּית יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ וְחַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהָ בְּפִרְקוֹנָהּ וּבִקְבוּרָתָהּ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי חֲלִילִין וּמְקוֹנֶנֶת. הָאָב זַכַּאי בְּבִתּוֹ כול׳. נִיחָא בַּכֶּסֶף וּבַשְׁטָר הָאָב זַכַּאי. בַּבִּיאָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. לִכְשֶׁתִּקָּנֶה לִי בִּיתָּךְ בַּבִּיאָה יִהְיֶה לָךְ כֶּסֶף זֶה. זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ. רִבִּי זַכַּאי דְּאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה מִישְׁאַל שְׁאַל. מְצִיאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לוֹ מַחְמַת שָׂדֶה מָה אַתְּ עְבַד לָהּ בִּמְצִיאָה אוֹ בְּאוֹכֶלֶת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. אִין תַּעַבְדִינָהּ בְּאוֹכֶלֶת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. נִישֵּׂאת יוֹתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. תְּקָנָה תִיקְּנוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מְפַקֵּחַ עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאוֹכֵל. וָאוֹמֵר. אַף בְאָב כֵּן. בְּלֹא כָךְ הָאָב מְפַקֵּחַ עַל נִיכְסֵי בִתּוֹ וְאוֹכֵל. חַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהָ וּבְפִרְקוֹנָהּ. תַּנֵּי. הַבַּעַל שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא לוֹכַל וְלֹא לְפַקֵּחַ. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר. אֲנִי אוֹכֵל וּמְפַקֵּחַ. שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וּבִקְבוּרָתָהּ. תַּנֵּי. לֹא רָצָה הַבַּעַל לְקוֹבְרָהּ הָאָב קוֹבְרָהּ וּמוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בַדִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא הָאָב. הָא אַחֵר אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בֵּין אָב וּבֵין אַחֵר גּוֹבֶה. וַתְיָיאן אִילֵּין פְּלוּגָתָא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְחַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהָ וּבְפִרְקוֹנָהּ וּבִקְבוּרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא אַחֵר הָא הָאָב גּוֹבֶה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בֵּין אָב בֵּין אַחֵר אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חַגַּי בֵּין לִקְבוּרָה בֵין לִמְזוֹנֵי הָאָב גּוֹבֶה אַחֵר אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לִקְבוּרָה בֵּין אָב בֵּין אַחֵר גּוֹבֶה. שֶׁלֹּא עָלַת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁתְּהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּשְׁלֶכֶת לַכְּלָבִים. תַּנֵי. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַסְפִּיד מַסְפִּידִין.

MISHNAH: The father has the benefit to give his daughter in preliminary marriage by money, contract, or intercourse 1:1 states that a woman can be preliminarily married either by money (given by the groom to his bride or her father) or by a contract (by which the groom signs his intention to marry his bride) or by intercourse (which has to be performed in front of two witnesses to be legally valid); the latter way is frowned upon in practice. ; he has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows Chapters 10–11. , 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. Rebbi 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.” Rebbi 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. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi 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.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, a third party. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial and for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi 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 14:7. The fee of the preacher who eulogizes the deceased can be recovered from the husband. : At a place where it is customary to eulogize, one eulogizes.

לְעוֹלָם הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב עַד שֶׁתִּיכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לַנִּישּׂוּאִין. מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל הֲרֵי הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל. הָלַךְ הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל הֲרֵי הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הָאָב. מָסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל הֲרֵי הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל. לְעוֹלָם הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב כול׳. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר לַחוּפָּה אֶלָּא לַבַּיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוּפָּה. בָּעֵי דָא אָמְנוּתָא טְרִקִילִין וְקָיְטוֹן חוּפָּה וְקָיְטוֹן נִכְנְסָה לִטְרִיקְלִין. לְהָדָא מִילָּא. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. לְיוֹרְשָׁהּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לְהָפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לְהָפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. מוֹדֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵיפֵר לָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּיכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ. לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבַיהָ. פְּרָט שֶׁמָּסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא בִסְקִילָה אֶלָּא בְחֶנֶק.

MISHNAH: 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 hall3:5, Note 229 . and a bedroom, the bridal chamber being the bedroom, and she entered the banquest hall. In which respect? Rebbi Eleazar said, to inherit from her document, the husband’s rights and obligations are activated not by the formal “seven benedictions” of the definitive marriage but by the bride entering the husband’s power. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even though Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he does not actually dissolve them until she enters the bridal chamber. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita is quoted in the Babli, 49a . supports Rebbi 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.

הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה. הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִיזּוֹנוּ מַה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן אַף הַבָּנוֹת אֵינָן נִזּוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֵן. הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ כול׳. מִצְוָה לַזּוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אֶת הַבָּנִים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. מִצְוָה לַזּוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיִי תַנֵּי. הַבָּנִים עִיקָּר. וְאִית תַּנָּיִי תַנֵּי. הַבָּנוֹת עִיקָּר. מָאן דָּמַר. הַבָּנִים עִיקָּר. לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. מָאן דָּמַר. הַבָּנוֹת עִיקָּר. שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ לְתַרְבּוּת רָעָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁא שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם זָן אֶת בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יוֹדְעִין אָנוּ מִי הָיָה בַמִּינְיָין. עוּקְבָּא אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. עוּקְבָּא. זוֹן בָּנֶיךָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מְנָן מָרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. עוּקְבָּא רְשִׁיעָא. זוֹן בָּנֶיךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי עוּלָּה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם זָן אֶת בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אִם הָיְתָה מֵנִיקָה פּוֹחְתִין לָהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר חֲנַנְיָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁה בְּכוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ נִיזּוֹנִין מֵהֶן. בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְאִית דְּאָמְרֵי לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו קְטַנִּים נִיזּוֹנִין מֵהֶן. אַלְמָנָתוֹ מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אִתְּתָבַת וְלָא אִפְרָשַׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בָּר מָמָל. אִתְּתָבַת וְאִפְרָשַׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים אִם הָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כוֹתֵב. הָא מוֹכָר לֹא. כָּתַב לְבָנָיו וּמָכַר לַאֲחֵרִים מָה הֵן מִסְתַּבְּרָא אִתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אֲנָא לֵית מַתַּת לֵיהּ אִתָא. רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא אַגְרִין לֵיהּ שַׁמָּשָׁא וּמְסַבִין לֵיהּ אִיתָא כְּמָה דוּ דְּהִיא שַׁמְּשָׁא. בְּנֵי בָנִים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. [בְּנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵין בְּנֵי בָנִים כְּבָנִים.] רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה הֲווֹן יָתְבִין. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. הוּא בְּנֵי בָנִים שֶׁכָּן הוּא בָנִים שֶׁלְּהַלָּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּנֵי בָנִים קָפְצָה עֲלֵיהֶן יְרוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר חֲנִינָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁא בְּמַקְפִּיד אֶת הַזָּקֵן וְהִכָּהוּ יִינָתֵן לוֹ בוֹשְׁתּוֹ שָׁלֵם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁהִקְפִּיד אֶת הָזָּקֵן וְהִכָּהוּ וְנָתַן לוֹ בָשְׁתּוֹ מֻשְׁלָם. אָמְרֵי. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה הֲוָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁא שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ חוֹמֶשׁ מִנְּכָסָיו לְמִצְוֹת. עַד אֵיכָן. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כֲּהָנָא חַד אָמַר [עַד] כְּדֵי תְרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. וְחָרָנָה אַמָר. כַּבֵּד אֶת יי מֵהוֹנֶךָ. כְּמֵרֵאשִּׁית כָּל תְּבוּאָתֶךָ. רִבִּי גַמְלִיאֵל בַּר אִינִיָּא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַה חוֹמֶשׁ בְּכָל שָׁנָה. גָּרַשׂ בְּהִילְכָתָא קַדְמִיָיתָא דְּפֵאָה וְלֹא מוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה עֲבַד לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה ממִדְרָשׁ. שֶׁדְּרָשָׁהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִיזּוֹנוּ. מַה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן אַף הַבָּנוֹת לֹא יִזּוֹנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל עָבְדִין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן לְשׁוֹן הֶדְיוֹט. כָּךְ הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין בְּאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיּאָה שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וַחֲבֵירוֹ חוֹטְפָהּ מִן הַשּׁוּק. וּכְשֶׁבָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בִּקְּשׁוּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מַמְזֵרִים. אָמַר לָהֶן הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן. הוֹצִיאוּ כְּתוּבַת אִימּוֹתֵיכֶן. וְהוֹצִיאוּ כְּתוּבַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן וּמָ‍צְאוּ כָתוּב בָּהֶן. לִכְשֶׁתִּיכָּנְסִי לְבֵיתִי תְּהַוְיָין לִי לְאִינְתּוּ כְדַת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדָאֵי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי עָבְדִין כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי דָרְשֵׁי. בְּסֶפֶר כְּתוּבָּה מְלַמֵּד. שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ. שֶׁאִם תִּינָּשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר תִּיטְּלִי מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב לֵיכִי. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. רִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי מֵאִיר. הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מִשֶּׁזָּכָה בָהּ (חֲבֵירוֹ) שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לוֹ. אִם אוֹבִיר וְלֹא אַעֲבִיד אֲישַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטְבָא. רִבִּי יוּדָה עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי יוּדָה. אָדָם מֵבִיא עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁהִיא חַיֶיבֶת. אֲפִילוּ אָכְלָה חֵלֶב אֲפִילוּ חִילְּלָה שַׁבָּת. וְכֵן הָיָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. פְּטָרָהּ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב בָּהּ. שֶׁכֵּן הִיא כוֹתֶבֶת לוֹ. וְאַחֲרָן דִּי אַתְיָין לִי עַלָּךְ מִן קָדְמַת דְּנָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּתוּבָּה מִלְוֶה גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל. לִכְפּוֹל אֵינָו גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא מֶחֱצָה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר. אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לִיקַּח בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְקִין לָהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה. הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לִיטּוֹל אֶת מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כוֹתֵב. תַּשְׁלוּמָהּ מִן נִיכְסֵיהּ דִּי אַתְיָין לִי וְדִי אַקְנָה לִקְבֵּל דְּנָהּ. רַב הוּנָא עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשּׁ רַב הוּנָא. הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ. מַה הַבָּנִים יוֹרְשִׁין אֶת הַמְטַלְטְלִין אַף הַבָּנוֹת נִיזּוֹנוֹת מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין הַבָּנוֹת נִיזּוֹנוֹת מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל. בְּנָן נוּקְבָּן דִיהֲוֹן לֵיכִי מִינַּאי יְהוֹן יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִיתְזְנָן מִנִּיכְסַיי עַד דְּתִינַּסְּבֹן לְגוּבְרִין. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ. מִן מְקַרְקְעֵי וְלֹא מִן מְטַלְטְלֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָא. אַתְיָיא דְּרַב הוּנָא כְרִבִּי וְדִשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנֵּי. אֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת וְאֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן לְמָזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהָבָּנוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת הַבָּנִים מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַבָּנִים וְהָבָּנוֹת מוֹצִיאוֹת מִן הַבָּנוֹת וְהַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת וְהָבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנִים. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת הַבָּנִים מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַבָּנוֹת וְאֵין הַבָּנוֹת מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַבָּנִים. אָמְרֵי. חָזַר בֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא. אָמְרִין. יֵאוּת. כְּתוּבָּה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה וּמָזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן פְּלִיגִין. [אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא. בְּכֶסֶף כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן פְּלִיגִין.] וְכֶסֶף כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן לָאו קַרְקַע הִיא. הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנָתַן עֵינָיו בָּהּ לְגָרְשָׁהּ וְקָפַץ וְתָלַשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר. הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִיכְסֵי שְׁבוּיִין וְשָׁמַע עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין וְקָפַץ וְתָלַשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר. אֵילּוּ הֵן נִיכְסֵי שְׁבוּיִין. כָּל שֶׁהָלַךְ אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם נִשְׁמַע עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְיָרַד לְנַחֲלָה. אֲבָל נִיכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן נִיכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁין. כָּל שֶׁהָלַךְ אָבִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְלֹא שָׁמַע עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְיָרַד לוֹ לְנַחֲלָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שָׁמַעְתִּי הֵן שְׁבוּיִין הֵן נְטוּשִׁין. אֲבָל נִיכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן נִיכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁין. כָּל שֶׁהָלַךְ אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ הֵיכָן הֵם. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. שָׁבוּי זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. שֶׁאִילּוּ לְדַעַת יָצָא הָיָה מְצַוֵּיהוּ. נָטוּשׁ זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא לְדַעַת. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁ[עִילָּה] הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהַבְרִיחוֹ מִנְּכָסָיו. שֶׁהֲרֵי לְדַעַת יָצָא וְלֹא צִיוָוהוּ. רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הַמְטַלְטְלִין אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם נִיכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב. אִילֵּין דִּיקְלַיָּא דְבָבֶל דְּלָא צְרִיכִין מֻרְכָּבָא לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא מֵיעַבְּדִינוּן כְּקָמָה עוֹמֶדֶת לִקְצוֹר וּגְפָנִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִבְצוֹר.

MISHNAH: The father is not obligated to support his daughter contract with his wife does not force a father to feed his underage or adolescent daughter even though he has the right to receive her earnings. . This inference did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain in the vineyard of Jabneh: “The sons shall inherit and the daughters be supported. stipulation quoted in Aramaic in Mishnah 12 . ” 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. corrected following the Babli, “R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is obligatory to feed one’s daughters. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi 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. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah 1:1, Note 59 , and eventually in the next paragraph, he is called R. Jehudah bar Ḥanina. : They voted at Usha 1:1, Note 60 . that a man has to feed his underage children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we know who participated in that vote. Uqba came before Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Uqba, feed your children. He answered, Master, why? He said to him: Evil Uqba, feed your children. Rebbi 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.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi 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? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥanina: He, his wife and his underage children are supported by them. What about his widow since her husband died without leaving an estate. Therefore, if the sons supported her during their father’s lifetime, they must support his widow indefinitely. ? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this was asked but not resolved. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it was asked and resolved, Rebbi 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? Rebbi Ḥanina said, I would not give him anything. Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable that they hire him a servant and marry a wife to him so she should serve him? 5:4 . The variant readings are indicated by גי. In this text, “here” means the text in Giṭṭin , “there” is a different setting in Yebamot 6:6 (Notes 115,116). The topic of the Mishnah in Giṭṭin is the enforcement of the ketubah contract for the support of a wife and her daughters; the question is whether the ketubah also covers granddaughters. Similarly, here the question is whether the rules of Usha require a man to feed his underage grandchildren (if they have no father or the father is incapacitated.) In Yebamot , the question is whether grandchildren count as much as children in the obligation “to be fruitful and multiply.” The answer there is a qualified yes, while here and in Giṭṭin it is no. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, [grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi 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 Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina 8:6 (6c) that the “full payment for shame” is one Roman libra of gold. . 1:1, Notes 58–64 , as noted by the scribe when he stopped copying the entire paragraph. In the Babli, 50a . Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said ( Prov. 3:9 ): “Honor the Eternal with your property” … “corresponding to the first of all your yield” it is clear that the inference is from the part of the verse which is not quoted here. . Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? {One studies this in the first Halakhah of Peah.} 1:1, Notes 58–64 , as noted by the scribe when he stopped copying the entire paragraph. In the Babli, 50a . Will he not die: A person is permitted to give to charity one fifth of his property once; from thereon in he is restricted to one fifth of his income lest he die of hunger in the future. ? But lest he die in the future. 15:3, Notes 34–79 (whose readings are denoted by י ); its Tannaïtic parts are paralleled in Tosephta Ketubot 4:9–13 . Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah insisted on interpreting the ketubah : Rebbi 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. Rebbi Meïr insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi 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.” Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Jehudah explained: A man brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi 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.” Rebbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi 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. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower explained: nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi 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].”: “a person lending money to another person should not take pledges from him for more than the value of the loan since he writes for him: It will be paid …” That text should be considered the correct one since (a) it refers to the text of the contract and (b) the statement here is a biblical commandment ( Deut. 24:10–11 ). 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. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi 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 Rebbi. Rebbi 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. ]; missing in Yebamot . But is the money stipulated in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate. 22:19 . ? “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. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of broken people. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav “Rav Jehudah”. It is impossible to determine the original reading since R. Jacob bar Aḥa, a student of R. Joḥanan, was a great collector of the sayings of earlier authorities. : missing here which are needed to make sense of the statement. “Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables [for the rules of broken people]. Rav Sheshet asked”. 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?

לֹא כָתַב לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה בְּתוּלָה גוֹבָה מָאתַיִם וְאַלְמָנָה מְנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֶּית דִּין. כָּתַב לָהּ שָׁוֶה מְנָה תַּחַת מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא כָתַב כָּל נִיכְסִין דְּאִית לִי אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתוּבָתִיךְ חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֶּית דִּין. לֹא כָתַב לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה כול׳. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. כָּל הַפּוֹחֵת לִבְתוּלָה מִמָּאתַיִם וּלְאַלְמָנָה מִמְּנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה. לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אַף עַל גַּב דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֲחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהוּא גוֹבֶה.

MISHNAH: 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 marriage (temporary marriage for sexual pleasure only). A similar institution, ἄγραφος γάμος, “marriage without written contract,” which nevertheless implied all monetary obligations of the husband towards his wife, was known in contemporary Egyptian native law; cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, Chapter IIB3. . If he substituted something is a mortgage (primarily or exclusively) on all the husband’s property, it is reasonable to assume that in the Yerushalmi version likewise it is understood that a piece of real estate was offered to satisfy the ketubah claims. 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 contracts following the Babylonian style; the fact that a document is designated as ketubah makes these stipulations enforceable. . HALAKHAH: “If he did not write her a ketubah ,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said contracts following the Babylonian style; the fact that a document is designated as ketubah makes these stipulations enforceable. : “Anybody who writes for a virgin less that 200 [ zuz ] or a mina for a widow engages in immoral intercourse.; that amount can therefore be foreclosed. A similar argument is in the Babli, 51a , where, however, the position is taken that R. Jehudah agrees that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the obligation of the husband’s estate is 200 or 100 zuz but that by written agreement of the wife this obligation can be reduced. ” Who needs it? Rebbi Meïr! Even though Rebbi Meïr says that any contract which does not contain an alienation clause 1:6 ). cannot be foreclosed, here he agrees that it can be foreclosed.

לֹא כָתַב לָהּ אִם תִּשְׁתַּבְּיָין אֶפְרְקִינִיךְ וְאוֹתְבִינִיךְ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ וּבַכֹּהֲנוֹת אֲהַדְרִינִךְ לִמְדִינְתִּיךְ חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. נִשְׁבֵּית חַיָיב לִפְדּוֹתָהּ וְאִם אָמַר הֲרֵי גִּיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ תִּפְדֶה אֶת עַצְמָהּ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. לָקְתָה חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתָהּ. אָמַר הֲרֵי גִּיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ תִּפְדֶה אֶת עַצְמָהּ רַשַּׁאי. לֹא כָתַב לָהּ דְּאִין תִּשְׁתַּבְּיָין אֶפְרְקִינִיךְ כול׳. נִשְׁבֵּית חַיָיב לִפְדּוֹתָהּ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. יְבָמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין חַיָיבִים לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַר אַשִׁי בְשֵׁם רַב. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁנִּישְׁבֵּית בְּחַיֵי בַעֲלָהּ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין חַיָיבִין לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַר אָחָא. מַתְנִיתִין מְסַיְיעָא לְרַב. וְאוֹתְבִינִיךְ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ. אֵין כָּאן אִינְתּוּ. וּבַכֹּהֲנוֹת אֲהַדְרִינִיךְ לִמְדִינְתָּא. מָה. לִמְדִינְתָּה מַמָּשׁ. לְיִישׁוּב. תַּנֵּי רַבָּן שֶׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. כָּל מַכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קִיצָה מִתְרַפֶּה מִכְּתוּבָתָהּ. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִיצָה מִתְרַפְּאָה מִן הַנְכָסִין. כְּהָדָא. חָדָא אִיתָא אֲתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לָהּ. קְצַץ הוּא אַסְיָיךְ. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. לָא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִִבִּי חַגַּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אַל תַּעַשׂ עַצְמָךְ כְּעֹרְכֵי הַדַּיָינִין. שֶׁלֹּא לְגַלֹּות לְיָחִיד אֶת דִּינוֹ. יְדַע הָיָה בָהּ שֶׁהִיא כְשֵׁירָה.

MISHNAH: 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 in addition to the ransom he paid for her. ,” 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 and (b) to deduct the amount of the ransom from her ketubah. . If she was smitten, 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 This means, as explained in the Halakhah, that medical costs which can be determined beforehand are not part of the husband’s obligation but ongoing costs for chronic conditions are to be paid by the husband just like ongoing costs for food are his responsibility. . 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. Rebbi 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. Rebbi 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. and where she can find a new husband. 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 in cash. . As the following: A woman came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor give a fixed price? She said, no 9:6 , 17a 1. 20, the woman is identified as a relative of R. Simeon ben Abba. In the Babli, 52b , R. Joḥanan is reported to have sided with the heirs, telling them to get an all-inclusive price from the doctor. . Did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Do not turn yourself into an pleader 1:8. It is unethical for a judge to dispense legal advice. ,” that one shall not disclose the judgment to a party? He knew her to be honest.

לֹא כָתַב לָהּ בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין דְּיִהֲוֹן לֵיכִי מִינַאי אִינּוּן יִרְתוּן כְּסַף כְּתוּבְתִּיךְ יָתֵר עַל חוּלַקְהוֹן דְּעִם אֲחֵיהוֹן חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא תְנַיי בֵית דִּין. לֹא כָתַב לָהּ. בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין כול׳. הָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מָצוּי לִיתֵּן לְבִתּוֹ בְּעַיִן יָפָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. אִם אָמַר עַל שֶׁרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשֹׁה דְּבָרָיו קַיָימִין. וְעַל מִי שֶׁאֶין רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַיָימִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אֶלָּא עַל בֶּן בֵּין הַבָּנִים וְעַל (בַּת) בֶּן בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת. בַּת בֵּין הָאָח לֹא. אָח בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת לֹא. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹרָה רִבִּי כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וְרִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שָׁאַל אֶת נָתָן הַבַּבְלִי. מַה טַעֲמָא אָמְרוּ. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה טַעֲם שָׁאַל אֶת נָתָן הַבַּבְלִי. מַה רָאוּ חֲכָמִים לוֹמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. לֹא אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁשָּׁנִיתָה לָנוּ כֵּן יִרְתּוּן. (אָמַר לֵיהּ. יִטְלוּן תָּנִית. אָתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ.) אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית כָּאן יִרְתּוּן אֶלָּא יִטְלוּן. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי אָבוֹי אָמַר לֵיהּ. קִיפַּחְתָּה אֶת נָתָן הַבַּבְלִי. לֵית כָּאן יִטְלוּן אֶלָּא יִרְתּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אָכֵין אֲמַר לֵיהּ. טָעִיתִי טָעוּת שֶׁשִּׁנִּיתִי לָכֶם. לֵית כָּאן יִטְלוּן אֶלָּא יִרְתּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. קַל הוּא בִתְנַאי כְּתוּבָּה. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם מְזַכֶּה אֶלָּא בִּכְתוּבָּה וְכָאן אֲפִילוּ בִדְבָרִים. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם מְזַכֶּה אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁהוּא בָעוֹלָם וְכָאן לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָעוֹלָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְתַמְיָה אֲנָא אֵיךְ רַבָּנִין מְדַמּוּ כְתוּבָּה לִירוּשָּׁה. לֹא דָמֵי. דִּירוּשָּׁה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה כְּתוּבָּה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וְתֵימַר אָכֵן. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כְּתוּבָּה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה לֹא מוֹדוּ בִתְנַיֵּי כְתוּבָּה שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן.

MISHNAH: 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 (the ≥200 zuz from the husband and all the dowry noted in the document) from the estate; only the remainder is divided between the sons (with an eventual first-born son taking two parts.) ”; 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 Rebbi Immi said, that a man should be disposed to give generously to his daughter. 8:6 . There, we have stated 8:6 . The biblical law of inheritance ( Num. 27:8–11 ) states that inheritances should be distributed to the next of kin; it is implied that all persons of the same degree of relationship shall be treated equally (except for the rule of the firstborn. Deut. 21:15–17 ). In Mishnah 8:5 , the anonymous majority states that a person may make a will in which he distributes his property unevenly. The will will be valid if formulated in the language of gifts, invalid in the language of inheritance. In Mishnah 8:6 , R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa states that even the language of gifts is acceptable if and only if the recipient is a legal heir directly in line; e. g., one son among many, but not a daughter in the presence of sons since daughters inherit only if there are no sons. If there are no sons, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa will accept unequal distribution of the estate among the daughters. The Mishnah here is formulated following Ben Beroqa since it accepts unequal distribution of the estate even without writing ( Babli Baba Batra 131a ). : “Rebbi 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.” Rebbi 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. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There was a case and Rebbi decided following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did they say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the reason? He asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did the Sages say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa is anonymous, it represents practice and it follows R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa. The Babli, Baba Batra 131a , presents the question in slightly different form and ends up by denying its validity. The Babli holds (seemingly against the Yerushalmi) that property rights based on a ketubah stipulation are strictly weaker than those mentioned in the ketubah contract in that they cannot be asserted against third parties. ? 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””, making the transaction one of a gift valid from the time of the marriage. Therefore, the rules of inheritance are irrelevant and there is no relation between the Mishnah here and Ben Beroqa’s statement about wills. (Everybody agrees that by a gift “valid now but executed only after my death”, a person can freely dispose of his assets without regard to biblical laws of inheritance.) . When he came to his father, he said to him: you disadvantaged Nathan the Bablylonian; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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”. Rebbi Ze‘ira 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. . Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how the rabbis can compare ketubah to inheritance, for inheritance is a biblical law but ketubah is from their words is purely a rabbinic institution (or better, a generally followed practice in post-exilic Judaism, inspired by but not derived from the biblical “bridal gift”.) This is the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, cf. the last paragraph of this tractate. Since the Mishnah text is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s, the question is relevant. ; 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 stipulations and the laws of inheritance. ?

בְּנָן נוּקְבָּן דְּיִהַוְיָן לֵיכִי מִינַאי אִינּוּן תְּהוֹן יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְזְנָן מִנִּכְסַי עַד דְּיִתְנַסְבָן לְגוּבְרִין חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא תְנַיי בֵּית דִּין. בְּנָן נוּקְבָּן דְּיִהַוֹן לֵיכֵי מִינַאי כול׳. רִב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. בָּגְרוּ אִיבְּדוּ מְזוֹנוֹת. נִישְׂאוּ אִיבְּדוּ פַרְנָסָתָן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. בָּגְרוּ לֹא נִישְׂאוּ נִישְׂאוּ לֹא בָגְרוּ. אִיבְּדוּ מְזוֹנוֹתָן וְלֹא אִיבְּדוּ פַרְנָסָתָן. רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם הִילָא. וּמוֹדִין לְהַךְ כְּהָדָא. אָלְמָנָה שֶׁהִיא תוֹבַעַת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִין. הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. לֹא נִתְקַבַּלְתִי מִכְּתוּבָּתִי. וְהַיּוֹרְשִין אוֹמְרִין לָהּ. נִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתוּבָּתָךְ. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּלָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ. נִישֵּׂאת עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא הַרְאָיָיה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַבְּלָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ. וְהָא תַנִינָן. יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אָחִיהָ וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם. טַעֲמָא דִקְטַנָּה. הָא גְדוֹלָה וִויתִּירָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּטְלָה מִקְצָת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִסִּי. בְּכוֹר שֶׁחָלַק בְּפָשׁוּט חֲזָקָה וִויתֵּר. עוֹד הִיא שֶׁנָּטְלָה מִקְצָת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא נָטַל זֶה מִבְּכוֹרָתוֹ כְּלוּם. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וּבְעָא מֵיעֲבַד כְּהָדָא דְרַב חִסְדָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. בָּגְרוּ וְלֹא נִישְׂאוּ נִישְׂאוּ וְלֹא בָגְרוּ אִבְּדוּ מְזוֹנוֹתָן וְלֹא אִבְּדוּ פַרְנָסָתָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָא אָמְרִי שְׁמוּעָה וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ מַתְנִיתָא. תִּבָּטֵל שְׁמוּעָה מֵיקַּמֵּי מַתְנִיתָא. וְאַתְּ תְּהֵא יָתְבָא בְּבֵיתִי. רָבִין בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בָּא עָלֶיהָ עוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. מֵעַכְשָׁיו נִתְקַיְימוּ בָהּ תְּנָאֵי כְּתוּבָּה אוֹ אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָחֲלָה לוֹ עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָהוּ. זְכוּתָהּ אָבְדָה זְכוּת בָּנֶיהָ לֹא אָבְדָה.

MISHNAH: “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. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rebbi 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 in the Babli since it requires either that the widow present the ketubah , which will be torn up upon payment, or bring witnesses that she married at a place where routinely no ketubah is written; then she has to deliver a receipt. . After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah was not liquidated at that time. . 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, there can be no argument that the widow renounced her claim. . Did not Rebbi Avina say in the name of Rebbi 136a . 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture 136a , this is very much in dispute since a dissenting opinion holds that the firstborn only lost his right to re-open past distributions but that he is not restrained from asserting his double claim in the future. . There came a case before Rebbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rebbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rebbi 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”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: 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 stipulations do not apply to the preliminarily married woman. This is obviously implied by the question raised here. ? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If she renounced her ketubah , what is the situation? She renounced her rights but not those of her children.

וְאַתְּ תְּהֵא יָתְבָא בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְזַנָּה מִנִּיכְסַיי כָּל יְמֵי מֵייגַּד אַרְמְלוּתִיךְ בְּבֵיתִי חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא תְנַיי בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא שְׁאַל שָׁאִיל לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב וּלְרַב אֲבִימֵי בַּר פַּפַּי. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם בַּיִת. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שׂוֹכְרִין לָהּ בַּיִת. מִיכָּן וָהֵילַךְ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת קַרְקַע וְהֵן אוֹמְרִין מָעוֹת. הַדִּין עִם הַיְּתוֹמִים. כְּהָדָא. חָדָא אִיתָא הֲוָה פֶורְנָהּ עֶשְׂרִין דֵּינָרִין. וַהֲוָה תַמָּן חַד בַּיִת כְּרַב עֲשָׂרָה דֵינָרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אָמַר. אוֹ יֵיבוֹן לָהּ בַּיְתָא אוֹ יֵבוֹן לָהּ עֶשְׂרִים דֵּינָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִכֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיתָא טָב אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִים כְּמָאן דְּלֵית לָהּ פֶורְנֵה אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִים. מִיכָּן וָהֵילַךְ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת קַרְקַע וְהֵן אוֹמְרִין מָעוֹת. הַדִּין עִם הַיְּתוֹמִים.

MISHNAH: “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: (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) which in itself is not without problems, see Note 267 . As the reader will easily verify, the Aramaic portions of the text have been adapted to Babylonian spelling. Therefore, the text cannot serve as witness to the details of the text: רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁלַח שָׁאִיל לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב וּלְרַב אֲבִימֵי בַּר פָּפָּא . לֹא הָיָה שָׁם בַּיִת מַאי . אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שׂוֹכְרִין לָהּ בַּיִת. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת קַרְקַע וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים מָעוֹת. הַדִּין עִם הַיְּתוֹמִים. כְּהָדָא. חָדָא אִיתְּתָא הֲוָה פֶורנָהּ עֶשְׂרִין דֵּינָרִים. וַחֲוָה תַמָּן חַד בַּיִת טָב עֲשָׂרָה דֵינָרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אָמַר. אוֹ יְהָבוֹן לָהּ בַּיְתָא אוֹ יְהָבוֹן לָהּ עֶשְׂרִים דֵּינָרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. מִכֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיתָא אֶלָּא בָעֲשָׂרָה דֵּינָרִין כְּמָאן דְּלֵית לָהּ פֶורְנֵה אֶלָּא בָעֲשָׂרָה דֵּינָרִין . מִיכָּן וָהֵילַךְ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת קַרְקַע וְהֵן אוֹמְרִין מָעוֹת. הַדִּין עִם הַיְּתוֹמִים. Rebbi Ze‘ira sent to ask Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and (Rebbi) Abime bar Pappai: What if there was no house? They said to him, the heirs rent a house for her. One concludes (the standard commentary to Rosh ), ad loc . that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. As the following: A woman’s ketubah representing both the sum the husband gave from his side and the dowry which has to be returned at the dissolution of the marriage. was twenty denars for one gold denar a total of 500 zuz . , and there was a house worth at most ten denars. The case came before Rebbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her the house or they give her twenty (R. Nissim Gerondi, in his commentary on Alfasi, 20b in the Wilna ed.), R. Ḥanina tells the heirs either to give the widow (who probably is not their mother) the house to dwell in or to pay the ketubah in full, where R. Mana disagrees and holds, in accordance with the practice of the Babli, that the ketubah cannot be worth more than the real estate which guarantees it. In Rosh’s version, the entire discussion is only about the right of the widow to an apartment. denars. Rebbi Mana said, since the house is not worth more than 10 it is as if her ketubah was only 10 and incorrect in the ms. . One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. The following is Rosh’s explanation (Chapter 4, #29): “This is the explanation: What are the rules if there was no house there appropriate as a dwelling for the widow and the orphans together? They said to him, the orphans rent a house for her and if she says, real estate, i. e., ‘I want to dwell in my husband’s house’, but they say money, ‘we rent you an apartment but we want to dwell [in the house]’, the law sides with the heirs since she has no property rights in the real estate, only an easement. Therefore, they can rent an apartment for her and they can dwell in that house. {And what we say that she has the right to continue living in her husband’s dwelling ( Mishnah 12:3 ), that is if the house is large enough for all but they want to move her to a lesser apartment.} In the case of that woman, whose ketubah was 20 denars and the only apartment in the estate was a house worth 10 denars (Note of Qorban Nathanael : insufficient to pay the ketubah ), R. Ḥanina ruled that either they give her the house or they pay her 20 denars. On that, R. Mana(I) said that she should not take the real estate but that they could give her 10 denars since she has no property rights in the real estate, only an easement. Therefore also in general, since she has no property rights to the apartment, only a claim to be given one, they can move her out of the apartment and rent a different one for her. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and (Rebbi) 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 Rebbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her a house or they give her twenty denars. Rebbi 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.

כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלֵם כּוֹתְבִין. אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין כְּאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלֵם. אַנְשֵׁי יְהוּדָה הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין עַד שֶׁיִּרְצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין לִיתֵּן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּפוֹטְרִין אוֹתָהּ. כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלֵם כּוֹתְבִין כול׳. אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל חָסוּ עַל כְּבוֹדָן וְלֹא חָסוּ עַל מָמוֹנָן. אַנְשֵׁי יְהוּדָה חָסוּ עַל מָמוֹנָן וְלֹא חָסוּ עַל כְּבוֹדָן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. וְאִית דְּאָמְרֵי לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. קַיסָרִין כִּיהוּדָה וּשְׁאָר כָּל הָאֲרָצוֹת כִּירוּשָׁלֵם. חַד בַּר נַשׁ מִי דְמַךְ אֲמַר. יֵיבוֹן לְאִיתְּתָא דְּהַהוּא גַבְרָא פֶרְנֵא. אֲתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. יִתְקַיְימוּן דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מְבַטֵּל תְּנַאי כְתוּבָּה בַּפֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַנְתְּ אָמְרָת אַתְּ מְנָא לָךְ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֹא בַגָּלִיל אֲנָן קַיָימִין. וְסַבְרִנָן מֵימַר. אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל חָסוּ עַל כְּבוֹדָן לֹא עַל מָמוֹנָן.

MISHNAH: 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 unless she was supported by the estate for 25 years ( Mishnah 12:4 ), it is clear that the heirs save money by immediately paying the ketubah in full. But certainly it is not honorable to evict the widow from her husband’s home. ; the people of Judea cared for their money more than for their honor. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Abbahu, and some say it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Caesarea2:1, Note 40 . follows Judea and all other countries Jerusalem. A man said when he was dying: “This man’s wife should be paid her ketubah. and not provide dwelling and sustenance for his widow. ” The case came before Rebbi Mana, who said, let the words of the deceased be confirmed. Rebbi Ḥanina said to him: Can a person do away verbally with a ketubah stipulation stipulations are part of the marriage contract, they cannot be abrogated except by mutual consent, by a rider attached to the ketubah contract. There can be no unilateral abrogation of contractual obligations. ? 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 stipulations were part of the contract; the dying husband’s wish was illegal and could not be enforced. .