כתובות ח׳Ketubot 8

Mishnah

משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִתְאָרֵס מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁאִם מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת קַיָים. נָפלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים תִּמְכּוֹר וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים לֹא תִמְכּוֹר. אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה לֹא יִזְכֶּה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶם עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁין אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים כול׳. כִּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה. מַה בֵין עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה מַה בֵין מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה לִזְכוּתָהּ נָפְלוּ. מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לִזְכוּתָהּ וְלִזְכוּתוֹ נָפְלוּ.

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

רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּיתָהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא דָּבָר חָמוּר מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין וְקַל מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין. בְּרַם הָכָא חוֹמֶר הוּא מִצַּד אֶחָד וְקַל מִצַּד אֶחָד. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִין. הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִים. הֲרֵי הוּא קַל לָעֲנִיִים וְחוֹמֶר הוּא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וְתַנִּיתָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. קַל הוּא לָעֲנִיִים וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. שֶׁמִּדַּעְתּוֹ הֶבְקִירוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְגָפָה וּלְגָדִישׁ וּלְבָקָר וּלְכֵלִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ. הֲרֵי הוּא קַל לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְחוֹמֶר הוּא לָעֲנִיִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. קַל הוּא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לָעֲנִיִים. שֶׁאַדָּיִין לֹא זָכוּ בוֹ. וֶאֱמוֹר אוּף הָכָא. קַל הוּא לָאִשָּׁה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לְבַעַל. שֶׁאַדָּיִין לֹא זָכָה בָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ לִזְכוּתָהּ וְלִזְכוּתוֹ נָפְלוּ.

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

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָא. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הוֹאִיל וְהָאֲרוּסָה אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא וְהַנְּשׂוּאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. מַה זֶה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל אַף זֶה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. אָמַר לָהֶן בַּחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁים אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין חֲדָשִׁים עַל הַיְּשָׁנִים. אֵילּוּ הֵן חֲדָשִׁים. מִשֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת. וְאֵילוּ הֵן יְשָׁנִים. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת.

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

Mishnah

משנה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלְּקוּחוֹת. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן עֲקִיבָה אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה לֹא זָכָה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶן עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁים אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן. וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן עֲקִיבָה. לֹא כֵן הֵשִׁיבָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֶלָּא כֵן הֵשִׁיבָן. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתֶּם בָּאֲרוּסָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זַכַּאי לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. תֹּאמַר בִּנְשׂוּאָה שֶׁהוּא זַכַּאי בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. הֲרֵי עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת תּוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא זַכַּאי בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֶה לָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן. אָמַר לָהֵן. כָּךְ אֲנִי מוֹדֶה לָכֶם שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה מִכְרָהּ קַיָים. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי. אָמַר. לֹא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל יְחִידִי הוּא. לֹא סָמְכוֹן עֲלוֹי. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ וּפְלִיג עֲלוֹי. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חָזְרוּ נִמְנוּ וְהוֹרוּ בִנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְשֶׁלֹּא תִתֵּן. וְאַם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. פְּלִיגָא עֲלוֹי מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חָזְרוּ הוֹרוּ וְנִמְנוּ. שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְנוּ לֹא הָיוּ חוֹלְקִין עֲלוֹי.

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

Mishnah

משנה: רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חוֹלֵק בֵּין נְכָסִים לִנְכָסִים. נְכָסִים הַיְדוּעִים לַבַּעַל לא תִמְכּוֹר וְאַם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה בָּטֵל. וְשֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִים לַבַּעַל לא תִמְכּוֹר וְאַם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חוֹלֵק בֵּין נְכָסִין לִנְכָסִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נְכָסִים הַיְדוּעִין לַבַּעַל. אֵילּוּ הַקַּרְקָעוֹת. וְשֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין לַבַּעַל. אֵילּוּ מְטַלְטְלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא אָמַר. נְכָסִים הַיְדוּעִין לַבַּעַל. אֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל. וְשֶׁאֵינָם יְדוּעִים לַבַּעַל. אֵילּוּ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ וּבַעֲלָהּ נָתוּן בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אֵילּוּ הֵן נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין לַבַּעַל. אֵילּוּ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ וּבַעֲלָהּ נָתוּן בִּמְדִינָת הַיָּם.

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

Mishnah

משנה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ כְּסָפִים יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת הַמְחוּבָּרִין אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר שָׁמִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין בַּפֵּירוֹת וְכַמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּלֹא פֵירוֹת וּמוֹתָר יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַמְחוּבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלּוֹ וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלָּהּ וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ כְּסָפִים יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבַד מְחוּבָּרִין כִּתְלוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶי בֶּן חְנִינָה. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בְקָמָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְהִיקָּצֵר וּגְפָנִים עוֹמְדוֹת להִיבָּצֵר. הָא שַׁחַת לֹא. בְּרַם הָכָא אֲפִילוּ שַׁחַת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. תַּמָּן לָא עֲבַד מְחוּבָּרִין כִּתְלוּשִׁין וְהָכָא עֲבַד מְחוּבָּרִין כִּתְלוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבַד מְחוּבָּרִין כִּתְלוּשִׁין. אֵלָּא אִם אַתָּה רוֹאֶה קָמָה קְצוּרָה אַתְּ מְיַיפֶּה כּוֹחָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. שָׂדֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרְעָה אַתְּ מְיַיפֶּה כּוֹחוֹ שֶׁלָּאִישׁ. מִסָּפֵק שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כָּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרְעָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה מִשֶּׁנִּזְרְעָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרְעָה הִיא טָבָה תְּרֵין דֵּינָרִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרְעָה הִיא יָפָה חַד דֵּינָר. אוֹתוֹ הַדֵּינָר יִלָּקַח בּוֹ קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

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

Mishnah

משנה: רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְקוֹם שֶׁיִיפָּה כוֹחוֹ בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ הוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ בִּיצִיאָתָהּ מְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ יִיפָּה כוֹחוֹ בִּיצִיאָתָהּ. הַמְחוּבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ וּבִיצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ וּבִיצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְקוֹם שֶׁיִיפָּה כוֹחוֹ כול׳. אַתְּ אָמַר. בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא מָכְרָה אוֹתָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. נְתָנָתָן לָאָרִיס הוּא מִשְׁתַּפֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ. עָשָׂת אוֹתוֹ בִּיכּוּרִים לֹא קָדְשׁוּ. אַתְּ אָמַר. בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ מָכַר אוֹתָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. נְתָנָתֶן לָאָרִיס הִוא מִשָׁתַּפָּה מִמֶּנּוּ. עָשָׂת אוֹתָן בִּכּוּרִין. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִתְפַּלְּגוֹן. וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּכָל הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּלְבֵיתֶךָ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִיכּוּרִים מִנִּיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לְאַחַר מִיתָה. הָא בְחַיִים לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא שַׁנְיָיא. הִיא בְחַיִים הִיא לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר אֵין אָדָם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֹא קִידְּשׁוּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קִידְּשׁוּ וּפְקָעַת מִינַּיְיהוּ קְדוּשָּׁתָן.

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

Mishnah

משנה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת זְקֵנִים יִמָּכְרוּ וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא תִמְכּוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שׁבָח בֵּית אָבִיהָ.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת כול׳. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאֵינָן עוֹשִׂין כְּדֵי טְפֵילָתָן. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּדֵי טְפֵילָתָן לֹא תִמְכּוֹר. שֶׁאַדַּיִין כְּבוֹד בֵּית אָבִיהָ קַיָים.

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

Mishnah

משנה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ זֵיתִים וּגְפָנִים זְקֵנִים יִימָּכְרוּ לְעֵצִים וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא תִמְכּוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁבָח בֵּית אָבִיהָ.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ זֵתִים וּגְפָנִים כול׳. רַב אָבוּן בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ זֵתִים וְלֹא קַרְקָעָן. גְּפָנִים וְלֹא קַרְקָעָן. אֲבָל אִם נָפְלוּ לָהּ זֵתִים וְקַרְקָעָן גְּפָנִים וְקַרְקָעָן לֹא תִקּוֹץ. שֶׁאַדַּיִין שְׁבָח בֵּית אָבִיהָ קַיָים. וְרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ נָפְלוּ לָהּ זֵתִים וְקַרְקָעָן גְּפָנִים וְקַרְקָעָן. לֹא דְמֵי בֵית זֵיתָא דְנָפְלוּ וְלֹא דְמֵי בֵית כָּרְמָא דְנָפְלוּ. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. כַּרְמָא אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ גְפָנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מָכוּר. שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹ. פַּרְדֵּיסָא אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אִילָנוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה מָכוּר. שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָן.

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

Mishnah

משנה: הַמּוֹצִיא יְצִיאוֹת עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ הוֹצִיא הַרְבֵּה וְאָכַל קִמְעָא קִמְעָא וְאָכַל הַרְבֵּה מַה שֶׁהוֹצִיא הוֹצִיא וּמַה שֶׁאָכַל אָכַל. הוֹצִיא וְלֹא אָכַל יִשְׁבַּע כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא וְיִטּוֹל.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: הַמּוֹצִיא יְצִיאוֹת עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי. אֲפִילוּ לֹא אָכַל אֶלָּא מְלֹא חוֹתְלָה. אַסִּי אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא הוֹצָאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשְּׁבָח. אֲבָל אִם הַשְּׁבָח יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁבָח. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל אַסִּי. וְכוּלְּהֹם שָׁמִין לָהּ בְּעדים. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא בִּנְטִיעָה. מָאן דָּמַר אַסִּי בְּבִנְיָין. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא בִּנְטִיעָה. עַל כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי. אֲפִילוּ לֹא אָכַל אֶלָּא מְלֹא חוּתְלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּאן בְּשֶׁאָכַל. כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכַל.

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

Mishnah

משנה: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים מוֹדִין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁאִם מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת קַיָים. מֵתָה מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בִכְתוּבָּתָה וּבִנְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יַחֲלוֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים נְכָסִים בְחֶזְקָתָן וּכְתוּבָּה בְחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל וּנְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים כול׳. הָכָא אַתְּ מַר. מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. וְהָכָא אַתְּ מַר. יַחֲלֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אִין דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. בְּשֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. וְהֵן דְאַתְּ אָמַר. יַחֲלֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. בְּשֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. וְנָפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וְעָשׂוּ פֵירוֹת מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הָהֵן יָבָם דְּהָכָא צְרִיכָא לְבֵית שַׁמַּי. כְּבַעַל הוּא אוֹ אֵינוֹ כְבַעַל. אִם הוּא כְּבַעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכֹּל. אִם אֵינוֹ כְבַעַל לֹא יוֹרֵשׁ כְּלוּם. מִסָּפֵק יַחֲלֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל פְּשִׁיטָא לוֹן שֶׁהוּא כְבַעַל וְיוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכֹּל. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָח אֵין לוֹ עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פִּירוֹת בִּלְבַד.

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

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין כְּתוּבָתָהּ חַיָיבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִי לָאו דְתַנִּינתָהּ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הֲוָות צְרִיכָא לָן מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֵין לָהּ קְבוּרָה. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁמָּא אֵין לָהּ קְבוּרָה. אִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְבוּרָה. בְּרָם הָכָא. אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְבוּרָה. וְאִם אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֵין לָהּ קְבוּרָה.

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

Mishnah

משנה: הִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָחִיו מָעוֹת יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת הַמְחוּבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר שָׁמִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין בַּפֵּירוֹת וְכַמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּלֹא פֵירוֹת וְהַמּוֹתָר יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַמְחוּבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלּוֹ וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָהֶן. קָדַם הוּא זָכָה קָדְמָה הִיא יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. כְּנָסָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: הִנִּיחַ אָחִיו מָעוֹת כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לָכֵן צְרִיכָא בְּמוּפְקָדִים אֶצְלוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וַאֲנִי הוּא הַיּוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁלִּי הֵן.

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

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן שֶׁלּוֹ אֶלָּא. לְהַיי דָא מִילָּא שֶׁאִם קָדַם הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְתָפַס מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. אַף בְּבַעַל חוֹב כֵּן. לֹא כֵן תַנֵּי. יוֹרֵשׁ וּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקָּדַם אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְתָפַס מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בַּר עוּלָּא. נִישְמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הִקְדִּישׁ תִּשְׁעִים מְנָה וְהָיָה חוֹבוֹ מֵאָה מְנָה מוֹסִיף עוֹד דֵּינָר וּפוֹדֶה נְכָסִים הַלָּלוּ. וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר דֵּינָר אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הֶקְדֵּשׁ נִרְאֶה יוֹצֵא בְלֹא פִדְיוֹן. רִבִי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹעֲלִין מְעִילָה גְמוּרָה. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִם מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מְעִילָה גְמוּרָה יְהֵא נִפְדֶּה בְשָׁוֶוה. אִם אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה בְשָׁוֶוה לֹא יִמְעֲלוּ בוֹ מְעִילָה גְמוּרָה. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בִמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. וְכִי יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בַקַּרְקַע. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּקָמָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִלּוּ עָבַר הַגִּזְבָּר וְתָפַס [אֵין] מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. הוּא גִּיזְבָר הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ. מַה גִיזְבָּר עָבַר הַגִּיזְבָּר וְתָפַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. אַף יוֹרֵשׁ עָבַר הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְתָפַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַף בְּשׁוֹר כֵּן. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. שׁוֹר קַרְקַע. רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר מָרִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שׁוֹר עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהִזִּיל. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. לְפִי שֶׁהֶירְעֲתָה כוֹחָה שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא כְתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלָּא עַל נִיכְסֵי בַעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן יִיפִּיתָה כוֹחָהּ בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה שֶׁאִם קָדַם הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְתָפַשׂ מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אִילָנוֹת וּקְצָצוֹת זְקֵינִים וּנְעָרִים מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן.

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

Mishnah

משנה: לֹא יֹאמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי כְתוּבָּתֵיךְ מוּנַחַת עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן אֶלָּא כָל נְכָסַיי אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתוּבָּתֵיךְ. גֵּירְשָׁהּ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּהּ. הֶחֱזִירָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּהּ.

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

Halakhah

הלכה: לֹא יֹאמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי כְתוּבָּתֵיךְ כול׳. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. כּוֹנֵס וּמְגָרֵשׁ וּמַחֲזִיר וְהִיא שׁוֹבֶרֶת לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ שׁוֹבֶרֶת לוֹ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא. כְּנָסָהּ וְגֵירְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ. אִם חִידֵּשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נְכָסָיו. וְאִם לָאו כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ עַל מְנָת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֶחֱזִירָהּ. סוֹף דָּבָר עַד שֶׁיִּכְנוֹס וִיגָרֵשׁ וְיַחֲזִיר. דְּרֻבָּא אָתָא מֵימָר לָךְ. אֲפִילוּ כְּנָסָהּ וְגֵירְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ. אִם חִידֵּשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נְכָסָיו. וְאִם לָאו כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

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

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא. אֲרוּסָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא לַשּׁוּק. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. יֵעָשֶׂה כְמִי שֶׁגֵּירַשּׁ וִיהֵא לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

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

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיְתָה מוּנַחַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶצֶל אֲבוֹתֶיהָ וְהָיְתָה קַלָּה בְעֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתְקִינוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶצֶל בַּעֲלָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הָיְתָה קַלָּה בְעֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ כּוֹסוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת וְתַמְחוּיִים. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנִּינָן. לֹא יֹאמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי כְתוּבָּתֵיךְ מוּנַחַת עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן. אֶלָּא כָל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ. חָזְרוּ וְהִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁאָדָם נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהוּא מְאַבְּדָהּ הִיא קָשָׁה בְעֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ.

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

וְהוּא הִתְקִין שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים. שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְשֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת הוֹלְכִין לְבֵית הַסֵּפֶר. וְהוּא הִתְקִין טוּמְאָה לִכְלֵי זְכוּכִית. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי אָבוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלֵם גָּזְרוּ טוּמְאָה עַל אֶרֶץ הַעַמִּים וְעַל כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר טַבַּי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. יְהוּדָה בַּר טַבַּי וְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח גָּזְרוּ עַל כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת וְהִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּי גָּזְרוּ עַל טַהֲרַת יָדַיִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי. כָּךְ הָיְתָה הֲלָכָה בְּיָדָם וּשְׁכָחוּהָ. וְעָמְדוּ הַשְּׁנִיִים וְהִסְכִּימוּ עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. לְלַמְּדָךְ. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נוֹתְנִין אֶת נַפְשָׁם עָלָיו סוֹף שֶׁהוּא מִתְקַיֵים בְּיָדָם כְּמַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְאַתְיָיא כַּמָאן דָּמַר רִבִּי מָנָא כִּי לֹא דָּבָר רֵק הוּא מִכֶּם כִּי הוּא חַיֵּיכֶם. וְאִם רֵק הוּא. מִכֶּם. לָמָּה. שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם יְגֵיעִין בּוֹ. כִּי הוּא חַיֵּיכֶם. אֵימָתַי הוּא חַיֵּיכֶם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתֶּם יְגֵיעִין בּוֹ.

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