Ketubot 104
דְּמִדַּלְיָא וּבְסִים אַוֵּירָא.
which is situated at a high altitude and whose air is scented.
הָהוּא יוֹמָא דְּנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי, גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן תַּעֲנִיתָא, וּבְעוֹ רַחֲמֵי, וְאָמְרִי: כֹּל מַאן דְּאָמַר ״נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי״ — יִדָּקֵר בַּחֶרֶב.
§ It is related that on the day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the Sages decreed a fast, and begged for divine mercy so that he would not die. And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has died will be stabbed with a sword.
סְלִיקָא אַמְּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי לְאִיגָּרָא, אָמְרָה: עֶלְיוֹנִים מְבַקְּשִׁין אֶת רַבִּי, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים מְבַקְּשִׁין אֶת רַבִּי. יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיָּכוֹפוּ תַּחְתּוֹנִים אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנִים. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזַאי כַּמָּה זִימְנֵי דְּעָיֵיל לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא וְחָלַץ תְּפִילִּין וּמַנַּח לְהוּ וְקָמִצְטַעַר, אֲמַרָה: יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיָּכוֹפוּ עֶלְיוֹנִים אֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים.
The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds.
וְלָא הֲווֹ שָׁתְקִי רַבָּנַן מִלְּמִיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי. שָׁקְלָה כּוּזָא, שָׁדְיָיא מֵאִיגָּרָא [לְאַרְעָא], אִישְׁתִּיקוּ מֵרַחֲמֵי, וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי.
And the Sages, meanwhile, would not be silent, i.e., they would not refrain, from begging for mercy so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not die. So she took a jug [kuza] and threw it from the roof to the ground. Due to the sudden noise, the Sages were momentarily silent and refrained from begging for mercy, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְבַר קַפָּרָא: זִיל עַיֵּין, אֲזַל אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. קַרְעֵיהּ לִלְבוּשֵׁיהּ וְאַהְדְּרֵיהּ לְקִרְעֵיהּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ, פְּתַח וַאֲמַר: אֶרְאֶלִּים וּמְצוּקִים אָחֲזוּ בַּאֲרוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, נִצְּחוּ אֶרְאֶלִּים אֶת הַמְּצוּקִים, וְנִשְׁבָּה אֲרוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַתּוּן קָאָמְרִיתוּ וַאֲנָא לָא קָאָמֵינָא.
The Sages said to bar Kappara: Go and ascertain the condition of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He went and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died. He tore his clothing and reversed them so that the tear would be behind him and not be noticed. When he returned to the Sages he opened his remarks and said: The angels [erelim] and righteous mortals [metzukim] both clutched the sacred ark. The angels triumphed over the righteous, and the sacred ark was captured. They said to him: Has he died? He said to them: You have said it and I did not say it, as it had been decided that no one should say that he died.
בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי זָקַף עֶשֶׂר אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה, אֲמַר: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁיָּגַעְתִּי בְּעֶשֶׂר אֶצְבְּעוֹתַי בַּתּוֹרָה, וְלֹא נֶהֱנֵיתִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁלוֹם בִּמְנוּחָתִי. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״יָבֹא שָׁלוֹם יָנוּחוּ עַל מִשְׁכְּבוֹתָם״.
It is further related: At the time of the death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he raised his ten fingers toward Heaven and said in prayer: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that I toiled with my ten fingers in the Torah, and I have not derived any benefit from the world even with my small finger. May it be Your will that there be peace in my repose. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “He enters in peace, they rest in their beds” (Isaiah 57:2).
״עַל מִשְׁכָּבְךָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! מְסַיֵּיעַ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַצַּדִּיק נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם, אוֹמְרִים מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, צַדִּיק פְּלוֹנִי בָּא. אוֹמֵר לָהֶם: יָבוֹאוּ צַדִּיקִים וְיֵצְאוּ לִקְרָאתוֹ, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: ״יָבֹא בְּשָׁלוֹם״, יָנוּחוּ עַל מִשְׁכְּבוֹתָם.
The Gemara asks: Why does it say: “They rest in their beds,” in the plural? It should have said: In your bed, in the singular, as the beginning of the verse is phrased in the singular. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, the ministering angels say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the righteous individual so-and-so is coming. The Holy One, Blessed be He, then says to them: The righteous should come forth and they should go out toward him. And the righteous say to the newly deceased individual: He enters in peace, and subsequently, the righteous rest in their beds.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַצַּדִּיק נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם, שָׁלֹשׁ כִּיתּוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת יוֹצְאוֹת לִקְרָאתוֹ, אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ: ״בֹּא בְּשָׁלוֹם״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת: ״הוֹלֵךְ נִכְחוֹ״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ: ״יָבֹא שָׁלוֹם יָנוּחוּ עַל מִשְׁכְּבוֹתָם״. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָרָשָׁע נֶאֱבָד מִן הָעוֹלָם, שָׁלֹשׁ כִּיתּוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי חַבָּלָה יוֹצְאוֹת לִקְרָאתוֹ, אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת: ״אֵין שָׁלוֹם אָמַר ה׳ לָרְשָׁעִים״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ: ״לְמַעֲצֵבָה יִשְׁכַּב״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ: ״רְדָה וְהׇשְׁכְּבָה אֶת עֲרֵלִים״.
Rabbi Elazar said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, three contingents of ministering angels go out toward him. One says to him: Enter in peace; and one says to him: Each one that walks in his uprightness; and one says to him: He enters in peace, they rest in their beds. At the time when a wicked person perishes from the world, three contingents of angels of destruction go out toward him. One says to him: “There is no peace, says the Lord concerning the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22); and one says to him: “You shall lie down in sorrow” (Isaiah 50:11); and one says to him: “Go down, and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19).
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה טוֹבָה כְּנֶגֶד כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
MISHNA: As long as a widow is living in the house of her father and is being supported by her husband’s heirs, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, even after many years. As long as she is living in the house of her husband, she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, at which point she may no longer collect the payment. This is because there is enough time in twenty-five years for her to do favors and give to others, thereby spending the resources of the orphans, until what she has spent equals the value of her marriage contract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ — גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ — גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים.
And the Rabbis say the opposite: As long as she is residing in the house of her husband she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, since during this time the heirs are caring for her and she is therefore embarrassed to sue them for payment of her marriage contract. However, as long as she is in the house of her father she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, and if by then she has not sued for it, it is assumed that she has waived her rights to it.
מֵתָה — יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מַזְכִּירִין כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים.
If she died, her heirs mention her marriage contract up until twenty-five years later.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: עֲנִיָּיה שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, וּמָרְתָּא בַּת בַּיְיתּוֹס עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים?
GEMARA: The mishna stated that according to Rabbi Meir, over a period of twenty-five years a woman will spend a sum equal to her marriage contract from the resources of the orphans. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it true that the poorest woman among the Jewish people, whose marriage contract is of minimal value, will not spend this amount until twenty-five years have passed, and Marta bat Baitos, who was very wealthy and whose marriage contract was worth a huge sum, will also spend a sum equal to her marriage contract within twenty-five years?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְפוּם גַּמְלָא שִׁיחְנָא.
He said to him: According to the camel is the load, i.e., a wealthy woman, whose marriage contract is of greater value, will spend more money over a particular period of time than a poor woman, whose marriage contract is of lesser value.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַהוּ שֶׁתְּשַׁלֵּשׁ? תֵּיקוּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Meir, the amount of benefit she gains is determined by the years that have passed. If so, what is the halakha with regard to whether she divides the value of her marriage contract in accordance with the number of years that have gone by, such that if some of the twenty-five years passed, she forfeits the proportionate value of her marriage contract? No answer was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל זְמַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: אֲתַאי קוֹדֶם שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה — גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, לְאַחַר שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה לָא גָּבְיָא? בְּהַהִיא פּוּרְתָּא אַחֵילְתַּהּ?
§ We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: As long as she is in her husband’s house she may collect payment of her marriage contract at any time, but while she is in her father’s house she may collect it only within twenty-five years. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If she came before the setting of the sun at the end of the twenty-five-year period, she collects payment of her marriage contract, but if she came after the setting of the sun she may not collect it? In that slight period of time did she waive her rights to the payment of her marriage contract?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, כׇּל מִדַּת חֲכָמִים, כֵּן הִיא. בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה — טוֹבֵל, בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן.
He said to him: Yes. All the measures of the Sages that prescribe specific parameters or sizes are such that if one oversteps the fixed limits, he has not accomplished anything as far as the halakha is considered. Consequently, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water, one may immerse and become ritually pure. However, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a less one kortov, a small amount, he is unable to immerse therein and become ritually pure.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ, אֲבָל שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ — גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ — אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said in the name of his father, Rabbi Yosei: They taught all of the above only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, such as in a locale where the custom is not to write a marriage contract, but in a situation where she does have a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And Rabbi Elazar said: Even if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she still collects payment of her marriage contract only within twenty-five years after the death of her husband.
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַזְכָּרָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי, אִי דְּלָא נָקֵט שְׁטָרָא — בְּמַאי גָּבֵי? אֶלָּא דְּנָקֵיט שְׁטָרָא: וּבַעַל חוֹב הוּא דְּלָאו בַּר אַחוֹלֵי הוּא, הָא אַלְמָנָה אַחֵילְתַּהּ!
Rav Sheshet raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, based upon the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): A creditor may collect the money he is owed even after a long time has passed without his having mentioned the debt. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If he does not hold the document that records the debt, with what is he collecting the debt? Rather, it must be that he does hold the document. It can be inferred that even so, it is specifically a creditor, who it could be assumed is not one to have forgiven his debt, who may continue to collect the debt after a long period of time. But a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to the payment of her marriage contract even if she has the marriage contract in her possession. This conclusion contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא נָקֵיט שְׁטָרָא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.
The Gemara states that Rav Sheshet raised the objection and he resolved it: Actually, the case in the Tosefta is where the creditor does not hold a document that records the debt, and the reason he may collect the debt is because here we are dealing with a case where the debtor admits that he owes the creditor money. Consequently, it cannot be proven from this case that a widow who has a marriage contract in her possession is unable to collect its payment.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא, שׁוֹנִין: גְּרוּשָׁה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּבַעַל חוֹב. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא נְקִיטָא כְּתוּבָּה, בְּמַאי גָּבְיָא? אֶלָּא לָאו דִּנְקִיטָא כְּתוּבָּה, וּגְרוּשָׁה הִיא דְּלָאו בַּת אַחוֹלֵי הִיא, הָא אַלְמָנָה אַחֵילְתַּהּ!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ela say: The Sages teach in a baraita: A divorcée is like a creditor and may collect her marriage contract after a long period of time even if she has not made mention of it during the course of that time? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If she does not hold a marriage contract in her possession, with what is she collecting payment? Rather, is it not that she holds a marriage contract in her possession, and it is a divorcée who may collect under these circumstances, as she is not one who could be assumed to have waived the rights to the payment owed to her, as she does not maintain a relationship with the family that would prompt her to waive the rights to her claims? But a widow is likely to waive the rights to her claim, even though she is in possession of a contract.
הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.
The Gemara answers: Here too, the case is one where the debtor, i.e., the husband, admits to owing the divorcée payment for her marriage contract, although she does not have the marriage contract in her possession.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תָּנֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר קָזָא בְּמַתְנִיתָא דְּבֵי בַּר קָזָא: תָּבְעָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ —
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yehuda bar Kaza teaches in a baraita of the school of bar Kaza: If the widow demanded payment of her marriage contract,
הֲרֵי הִיא כְּבַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם הָיָה שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ — גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם.
it is as though she is at the beginning of her period of widowhood, and she has another twenty-five years from that point during which she may demand payment of her marriage contract. And if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, כְּשֶׁשְּׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מַחְלוֹקֶת, אוֹ כְּשֶׁאֵין שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ? וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי מִי?
The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, sent the following message to Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov: Our teacher, instruct us. Does the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis apply in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, or does it apply only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession? And in accordance with the statement of whom is the halakha decided?
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: בְּשֶׁאֵין שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ — גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov sent back this answer to him: When she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, there is a dispute, but in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, all agree that she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And in a case where there is a dispute, the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָנֶה מָאתַיִם, אֲבָל תּוֹסֶפֶת — יֵשׁ לָהּ.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited a dispute: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: They taught that a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract after twenty-five years only with regard to one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, which constitute the principal payment of the marriage contract. However, she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.
וְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ תּוֹסֶפֶת אֵין לָהּ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַיְיבוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: תְּנַאי כְּתוּבָּה כִּכְתוּבָּה דָּמֵי.
And Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She does not have the right to demand payment even of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract, as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The stipulation of an additional sum in the marriage contract is like the principal sum of the marriage contract. Consequently, if she waived her rights to the principal sum of the marriage contract, she has waived her rights to the additional sum as well.
אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָנֶה מָאתַיִם, אֲבָל תּוֹסֶפֶת יֵשׁ לָהּ.
It was also stated that other amora’im debated this matter: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that she is considered as having waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract only with regard to the principal payment of one hundred or two hundred dinars, but she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: אֲמַר רַב הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתִּיק(ן) קָאָמְרַתְּ, אוֹ אַשְׁקְיַין קָאָמְרַתְּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתִּיק(ן) קָאָמֵינָא.
Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Did Rav really say so? Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: Did you say that in order to silence me, because you disagree with this ruling? Or did you say that because you are so satisfied with this ruling that you would like to give me wine to drink? Rabbi Abba said to him: I said that in order to silence you. This indicates that Rabbi Abba disagrees with Rav and accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan on this issue.
חֲמָתֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא אֲרִיכָא אִינְתַּת אֲחוּהּ הֲוַאי, וְאַלְמָנָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲוַאי, וְזָנַהּ עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין בְּבֵי נָשָׁא.
§ The Gemara relates that the mother-in-law of Rav Ḥiyya Arikha, so named because of his height, as the word arikha literally means long, was also the wife of his brother, and she was a widow who resided in the house of her father, and Rav Ḥiyya sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, from his brother’s estate.
לְסוֹף אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: הַב לִי מְזוֹנֵי. אֲמַר לַהּ: לֵית לִיךְ מְזוֹנֵי. הַב לִי כְּתוּבָּה. אֲמַר לַהּ: לָא מְזוֹנֵי אִית לִיךְ, וְלָא כְּתוּבָּה אִית.
At the end of the twenty-five years, she said to him: Give me my sustenance. He said to her: You do not have the right to continue to demand sustenance. She said to him: In that case, give me the payment of my marriage contract. He said to her: After twenty-five years, you have no right to demand sustenance and you have no right to demand payment of your marriage contract.
תְּבַעְתֵּיהּ לְדִינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לִי אִיזִי גּוּפָא דְעוֹבָדָא הֵיכִי הֲוָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זָנִיתַהּ עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמֵשׁ שָׁנִים בְּבֵי נָשָׁא, בְּחַיֵּי דְמָר, דִּבְכַתְפַאי אַמְטַאי לַהּ.
She summoned him for judgment before Rabba bar Sheila. He said to Rav Ḥiyya Arikha: Tell me, then, what was the essence of the case? Rav Ḥiyya Arikha said to him: I sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, and I swear by the life of the Master, i.e., by your life, that I delivered her sustenance to her regularly on my own shoulders.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם, דְּאָמְרִינַן: מִשּׁוּם כִּיסּוּפָא הוּא דְּלָא תָּבְעָה. הָכָא נָמֵי: מִשּׁוּם כִּיסּוּפָא הוּא דְּלָא תָּבְעָה, זִיל הַב לַהּ.
Rabba bar Sheila said to him: What is the reason that the Sages said that as long as the widow is in the house of her husband, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract? It is because we say that it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, because she is in her husband’s house and his heirs are treating her well. Here too, in this case, it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, as you treated her with great respect despite the fact that she was living in her father’s house. Therefore, go and give her the payment of her marriage contract.
לָא אַשְׁגַּח. כְּתַב לַהּ אַדְרָכְתָּא אַנִּיכְסֵיה. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי מָר הֵיכִי דָּנַן! אָמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר דָּנָךְ.
Rav Ḥiyya Arikha did not heed the ruling of Rabba bar Sheila and did not give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabba bar Sheila wrote an authorization for her to seize his property in payment of the debt. Rav Ḥiyya Arikha came before Rava, and he said to him: Let the Master see how Rabba bar Sheila has judged me. Rava said to him: He has judged you well.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, לֵיזִיל לַהְדַּר לִי פֵּירֵי דְּמִן הָהוּא יוֹמָא עַד הָאִידָּנָא. אֲמַר לַהּ: אַחְוִי לִי אַדְרָכְתִּיךְ. חַזְיַיהּ דְּלָא הֲוָה כְּתִוב בָּהּ ״וְאִישְׁתְּמוֹדַעְנָא דִּנְכָסִים אֵלּוּ דְּמִיתָנָא אִינּוּן״. אֲמַר לַהּ: אַדְרָכְתָּא לָאו שַׁפִּיר כְּתִיבָא.
The woman said to Rava: If so, he should go and return to me the produce that has grown on the property that I have a right to receive as payment, from that day that I received authorization to seize his property until today. He said to her: Show me your document of authorization. He saw that it was not written in it: And it is known to us that these properties are from the estate of the deceased. Rava said to her: The authorization is not written well. Consequently, the property is not considered as though it were yours from the time that the authorization was written, and you do not have a right to the produce.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: תֵּיזִיל אַדְרַכְתָּא, אֶישְׁקוֹל מִיּוֹמָא דִּשְׁלִימִי יוֹמֵי אַכְרָזְתָּא עַד הַשְׁתָּא. אֲמַר לַהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב טָעוּתָא בְּאַדְרָכְתָּא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב טָעוּתָא בְּאַדְרָכְתָּא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
She said to him: Let the authorization go, i.e., even if I have no right to the produce that grew from the time the authorization was written, I should have the right to take the produce that grew from the time when the days of announcement were completed, after the court assessed the value of the property, until now. He said to her: This applies only in a case where there was no error written into the authorization, but where there was an error written into the authorization, we have no right to collect the debt with it. You therefore have no rights to any of the produce.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר אַחְרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא.
She said to him: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error, and it is considered as though the guarantee were written in the document? Here too, say that the omission of the above clause is regarded as a scribal error and is considered as though it were written in the authorization.
אֲמַר לַהּ רָבָא: בְּהָא לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא, דִּבְהָא אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא טָעֵי. מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא סְבַר הָנֵי וְהָנֵי דִּידֵיהּ, מָה לִי מֵהָנֵי, מָה לִי מֵהָנֵי,
Rava said to her: In this case, it cannot be said that the clause was meant to be included in the document and it was left out due to a scribal error, because in this case even Rabba bar Sheila erred and thought that the clause should not be included. Initially, Rabba bar Sheila thought as follows: Since these properties that always belonged to Rav Ḥiyya Arikha and those properties that had belonged to his deceased brother are all his, i.e., Rav Ḥiyya Arikha’s, as he inherited his brother’s property, what difference does it make to me if she collects from these properties, and what difference does it make to me if she collects from those properties? Although only the property of her deceased husband is liened for the payment of her marriage contract, it should not really matter whether she collects from this property or from other property belonging to the heir.
וְלָא הִיא. זִימְנִין דְּאָזְלָה וּמַשְׁבְּחָה לְהוּ וּדְבַעְלַהּ מַכְסְפִי, וְאָמַר לַהּ: שְׁקוּל דִּידָךְ וְהַב לִי דִּידִי, וְאָתֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי לַעַז עַל בֵּי דִינָא.
Rava continues: But that is not so. Sometimes the widow will go and improve the property of the heir, thinking that she will receive her payment from it, and the property of her deceased husband will depreciate due to neglect on the part of the heir, who knows that it is this property that is liened to ensure payment of the widow’s marriage contract. And eventually, the heir will say to her: Take your property, i.e., the property that belonged to your husband, and give me my property. And people will come to cast aspersion on the court as not being concerned for the welfare of the woman, who will be left with the depreciated property. Consequently, the document of authorization to seize property must specify exactly which property belonged to the widow’s deceased husband, which she is entitled to collect. Since Rabba bar Sheila erred and did not write this specification, the document of authorization he wrote was useless.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַנּוֹשֵׂא
שְׁנֵי דַּיָּינֵי גְּזֵירוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אַדְמוֹן וְחָנָן בֶּן אֲבִישָׁלוֹם. חָנָן אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר שִׁבְעָה. מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת, חָנָן אוֹמֵר:
MISHNA: There were two prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem, Admon and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. Ḥanan states two matters about which the Sages disagreed; Admon states seven. The mishna elaborates: With regard to the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, claiming that her husband left her without funds and she is seeking a ruling that would provide for her from her husband’s property, Ḥanan says:
