Has she no claim to maintenance1 since [her mother] is not entitled to a kethubah, or is it likely that the Rabbis have imposed a penalty only upon her mother who had committed a transgression but not upon her who had committed no transgression? — This remains unanswered.
Raba asked: Is the daughter of a betrothed wife entitled to maintenance2 or not? Is she entitled to maintenance3 since [her mother] is entitled to a kethubah4 or is it possible that she is not entitled [to maintenance],3 since the Rabbis have not ordained [the writing of] the kethubah until the time of the marriage?5 — The question must stand unanswered.
R. Papa asked: Is the daughter of an outraged woman6 entitled to maintenance2 or not? According to the ruling of R. Jose the son of R. Judah, who has laid down7 that [her mother] is entitled to recover8 a kethubah for one maneh,9 the question does not arise.10 It arises only according to the ruling of the Rabbis who have laid down that the fine11 is regarded as a quittance for her kethubah. What, [it may be asked, is the decision]?12 Has she no claim to maintenance13 since [her mother] is not entitled to a kethubah,14 or might it possibly [be argued thus:] What is the reason why a kethubah [has been instituted for a wife]? In order that the man might not find it easy15 to divorce her;16 but [this man],17 surely, cannot18 divorce her?19 — This must stand unanswered.
YOU SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE etc. R. Joseph learnt: IN MY HOUSE20 but not in my hovel.21 She is entitled, however, to maintenance.22 Mar son of R. Ashi ruled: She is not entitled even to maintenance.23 The law, however, is not in agreement with Mar son of R. Ashi.
R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: If marriage was proposed to her24 and she accepted, she is no longer entitled to maintenance.25 [This is to imply that] if she did not accept,26 she would not be entitled to maintenance! — R. Anan replied: This was explained to me by Mar Samuel: If she said, '[l cannot accept the proposal] out of respect for the memory of27 So-and-so, my husband', she is entitled to maintenance; [but if she said], 'Because the men are not suitable for me,' she is not entitled to maintenance.28
R. Hisda ruled: If she29 played the harlot she is not entitled to maintenance. R. Joseph ruled: If she painted her eyes30 or dyed her hair31 she is not entitled to maintenance.32 He who ruled: 'If she played the harlot'33 would even more so deprive her of maintenance if she paints her eyes or dyes her hair. He, however, who ruled: 'If she painted her eyes or dyed her hair'33 would allow her maintenance34 if she played the harlot. What is the reason? — Her passions have overpowered her.
The law, however, is not in agreement with any of these reported rulings but with that which Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: She35 who claims her kethubah at court is not entitled to maintenance. But is she not entitled? Surely it was taught: If she sold her kethubah, pledged it, or mortgaged [the land that was pledged36 for] her kethubah to a stranger, she is not entitled to maintenance. [Does not this imply] that only such37 [acts deprive a widow of her maintenance] but not [the act of] claiming [her kethubah at court]? — These [acts38 deprive her of her maintenance] whether she appeared at court or not, but the act of claiming [her kethubah deprives her of maintenance] only if she appeared39 in court but does not [deprive her of it] if she did not appear at court.
SO DID THE MEN OF JERUSALEM etc. It was stated: Rab ruled, 'The halachah is in agreement with [the practice of] the MEN OF JUDAEA', but Samuel ruled, 'The halachah agrees with [the practice of] the MEN OF GALILEE'.
Babylon40 and all its neighbouring towns41 followed a usage in agreement with the ruling of Rab; Nehardea42 and all its neighbouring towns41 followed a usage agreeing with the ruling of Samuel.
A woman of Mahuza43 was once married to [a man of] Nehardea. When they came to R. Nahman,44 and he observed from her voice that she was a native of Mahuza, he said to them, '[The decision must be in agreement with Rab, for] Babylon and all its neighbouring towns have adopted a usage in agreement with the ruling of Rab'. When, however, they pointed out to him, 'But, surely, she is married to [a man of] Nehardea,' he said to them, 'If that is the case, [the decision will be in agreement with Samuel for] Nehardea and all its neighbouring towns followed a usage agreeing with the ruling of Samuel. How far does [the usage of] Nehardea extend? — As far afield as the Nehardean kab45 is in use.46
It was stated: [When a kethubah is being paid to] a widow, said Rab, assessment is made of what she wears,47 but Samuel said: That which she wears is not assessed. Said R. Hiyya b. Abin: [Their opinions48 are] reversed49 in the case off retainer.50 R. Kahana taught: And so51 [are their opinions]48 in the case of a retainer;50 and [Rab] had laid down this mnemonic, 'Strip the widow and the orphan52 and go out'.
R. Nahman said: Although we have learned in a Mishnah in agreement with the view of Samuel53 the law is in agreement with that of Rab. For we learned: Whether a man has consecrated his estate, or whether he has consecrated the valuation of himself54 [the Temple treasurer]55 has no claim either upon the clothes of that man's wife,56 or upon the clothes of his children, or the coloured articles that were dyed for them,57 or any new sandals that [their father] may have bought57 for them.58
Said Raba to R. Nahman: Since, however, we have learned in a Mishnah in agreement with the view of Samuel, why does the law agree with that of Rab? The other replied: At first sight it might appear59 to run parallel to the principle of Samuel, but if you examine it carefully [you will find that] the law, in fact, must be in agreement with [the view of] Rab. For this60 is the reason:61 When he62 bought63 [the clothes] for her [he did so] on the assumption that she would live with him.64 He did not, however, buy63 them for her on the assumption that she should take them65 and depart.66
A daughter-in-law of the house of Bar Eliashib was claiming her kethubah from orphans. When she summoned them to court and they said, 'It is degrading for us that you should come with us in such [clothes]', she went home and dressed and wrapped herself in all her garments. When they came before Rabina he told them: The law is in agreement with the ruling of Rab who laid down [that when a kethubah is being paid to] a widow, assessment is made of what she wears.
A man67 once said, 'Let a bride's outfit68 be provided for my daughter', and the price of an outfit was subsequently reduced. 'The benefit',69 ruled R. Idi b. Abin, 'belongs to the orphans'.70
A man67 once said,
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Which is only one of the obligations a man undertakes in the kethubah he gives to his wife.
- Out of her deceased father's estate if he had sons from another wife.
- V. supra p. 316, n. 13.
- If her father had written one for her on betrothal. As he is responsible for the kethubah of his wife so should he be responsible for the maintenance of his daughter (v. supra p. 316, n. 13).
- As the obligation of the kethubah does not begin before marriage, that of maintenance also does not begin earlier.
- Whom the offender has subsequently married (v. Deut. XXII, 28f).
- Supra 39b.
- Out of the man's estate, though he had already paid to her father the fine prescribed in Deut. XXII, 29. v. supra 39b.
- V. Glos.
- As the kethubah is recoverable from the man's estate so is the daughter's maintenance (v. supra p. 316, n. 13).
- That is paid to her father (Deut. XXII, 29).
- As regards the daughter's maintenance.
- V. supra p. 316, n. 13).
- As the kethubah cannot be recovered so cannot the daughter's maintenance.
- Lit., 'that she shall not be easy in his eyes'.
- He cannot easily divorce her if his act involves him in the payment of the amount specified in the kethubah.
- Who committed outrage.
- V. Deut. XXII, 29.
- Hence the ruling that the woman is not entitled to a kethubah. As this argument, however, does not apply to her daughter the latter may well be entitled to maintenance.
- Sc. only if the deceased left a proper house must his sons provide living accommodation for his widow. (Cf. however, fast. infra n. 20.)
- [H], M.S.M [H] = [H] (v. Shab. 77b), 'a house of distress', 'a poor man's house' (Rashi). If the house is too small the orphans may ask her to live elsewhere. Aliter. [H] = [H], 'valley', 'group of fields', estate'; the widow 'must be 'content to live in her late husband's house with his heirs, hut she cannot claim a separate residence' (Jast.).
- Though she is in residence in her paternal home, she does not forfeit her claim to maintenance from her late husband's estate. Though the first part of the clause of her kethubah, DWELL IN MY HOUSE, is not carried out, the second part, BE MAINTAINED OUT OF MY ESTATE, nevertheless remains valid.
- As one part of the clause is inapplicable the other part also becomes void.
- The widow.
- Her WIDOWHOOD is deemed to have terminated thereby, and in consequence she loses the rights attached to it.
- Whatever the reason.
- Lit., 'on account of'.
- The heirs cannot be compelled to continue her maintenance once she has had an offer from a man who is willing to provide for her.
- The widow.
- Rt. [H], (denom. of [H], stibium, a powder applied to the eyelids), 'to paint the eyelids', cosmetically or medically (v. Jast.).
- Rt. [H] (denom. of [G] with inserted [H], 'to adorn with paint or dye' (v. Levy). Jast. derives it from [H], 'to rub', 'to rub with paint' (s.v. [H]); 'dyeing the hair' (Jast. s.v. [H]).
- Since it is apparent that she is not much concerned for the memory of her late husband.
- 'She is not entitled to maintenance'.
- Lit., 'she has'.
- The widow.
- V. Rashi.
- Lit., 'these, yes'.
- Whereby the widow actually recovers her kethubah.
- Lit., 'yes'.
- [Stands here for Sura which was in the neighbourhood of the old great city of Babylon, v. Git. Sonc. ed. p. 17, n. 3.]
- So Rashi, 'her dependencies', sc. places following her usages (Jast.); 'seine Nachbarorte' (Golds).
- V. supra p. 222. n. 8.
- A Jewish trading centre. One of the 'neighbouring towns' or 'dependencies' of Babylon.
- In connection with a dispute concerning the fulfilment of the terms of the kethubah (v. the final clauses of our Mishnah).
- V. Glos. Here a term for a dry measure in general, not the specific kab (Obermeyer p. 242).
- Lit., 'spreads'.
- Sc. the value of her clothes is deducted from the amount of her kethubah.
- Those of Rab and Samuel.
- Samuel ruling that the value of clothes is, and Rab maintaining that it is not to be deducted from the man's wages.
- Or 'client' (v. Jast.), when he leaves the employ of his master who, during the period of his service, had been supplying him with his clothes. [H] (rt. [H] 'to gather') 'gleaner', 'field labourer'.
- As in the case of a widow.
- Sc. the retainer or client.
- Viz. that a wife's clothes are the property of her husband.
- V. Lev. XXVII, 1ff.
- Who comes to collect such offerings.
- Cf. supra note 9.
- Though they have not yet used them (cf. Rashi). This shews that the raiments are the property of the wife.
- 'Ar. 24a, B.K. 102b.
- [H], adv., Lamed and Kaf. prefixed to the noun [H], 'light'.
- Lit., 'what'.
- Why the Temple treasurer has no claim upon a wife's clothes though their value is rightly to be deducted from the amount she is paid in settlement of her kethubah.
- The husband.
- Or, 'transferred possession'.
- Consequently, so long as she lives with him, they are her absolute property and no one can take them away from her. Hence the ruling of the Mishnah of 'Ar. that the Temple treasurer cannot claim them.
- When he died.
- Hence the ruling of Rab that their value is to be deducted from her kethubah.
- On his death bed. The instructions of a person in such a condition have the force of a legally written document.
- The cost of which was well known, all brides being similarly provided for (Rashi).
- [H] (rt. [H] 'to cut', hence 'to endow') 'endowment', hence 'good luck' (v. fast.); 'surplus' (Colds.).
- It is their duty to provide the outfit, and since they can obtain it at a reduced price the balance is theirs.
'Four hundred zuz1 [of the value of this] wine shall be given to my daughter', and the price of wine rose. 'The profit', ruled R. Joseph, 'belongs to the orphans'.2
Relatives of R. Johanan had [the responsibility of maintaining their] father's wife who was in the habit of consuming much3 food. When4 they came to R. Johanan5 she told them, 'Go and ask your father that he should assign a plot of land for her maintenance'.6 When they subsequently came before Resh Lakish, he said to them, '[By such an assignment] he has increased all the more [the allowance for] her maintenance'.7 'But', they said to him, 'R. Johanan did not say so?' — 'Go', he told them, 'and give her [proper maintenance], otherwise8 I shall pull R. Johanan out of your ears'. R. Johanan, when they came to him again, said to them, 'What can I do when one of equal standing9 differs from me?' R. Abbahu stated: This was explained to me by R. Johanan: [If the husband] said,10 'towards maintenance' he has thereby increased [the allowance for] her maintenance;11 but if he said,10 'for maintenance' he has thereby limited the allowance for her maintenance.12
MISHNAH. ALTHOUGH [THE SAGES] HAVE ENACTED THAT A VIRGIN COLLECTS13 TWO HUNDRED ZUZ14 AND A WIDOW ONE MANEH,14 IF HE [THE HUSBAND] WISHES TO ADD, EVEN A HUNDRED MANEH, HE MAY DO SO.
[A WOMAN] WHO WAS WIDOWED OR DIVORCED, EITHER AFTER BETROTHAL OR AFTER MARRIAGE, IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT ALL [THAT IS DUE TO HER].15 R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH RULED: [ONLY A WOMAN WIDOWED] AFTER HER MARRIAGE RECEIVES ALL [THAT IS DUE TO HER], BUT IF AFTER A BETROTHAL, A VIRGIN RECOVERS ONLY TWO HUNDRED ZUZ14 AND A WIDOW ONLY ONE MANEH,14 FOR THE MAN PROMISED16 HER [THE ADDITIONAL JOINTURE] WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF MARRYING HER.17
R. JUDAH RULED: IF [A HUSBAND] WISHES HE MAY WRITE OUT FOR A VIRGIN13 A DEED FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE WRITES [A QUITTANCE],18 'I HAVE RECEIVED FROM YOU A MANEH', AND FOR A WIDOW [HE MAY WRITE OUT A DEED FOR] A MANEH AND SHE WRITES [A QUITTANCE]. 'I HAVE RECEIVED FROM YOU FIFTY ZUZ'. R. MEIR RULED: [THE INTERCOURSE OF] ANY MAN WHO UNDERTAKES TO GIVE A VIRGIN LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED ZUZ14 OR A WIDOW LESS THAN A MANEH14 IS19 AN ACT OF PROSTITUTION.
GEMARA. [Is not this]20 obvious? — It might have been presumed that the Rabbis have fixed a limit in order that the man who has no means might not be put to shame; hence we were taught [that there was no limit].
IF HE WISHES TO ADD etc. It was not stated, 'If he wishes to write',21 but 'WISHES TO ADD'.22 This then provides support for [a ruling which] R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Jannai. For R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Jannai: The supplementary provisions23 [that are included] in a kethubah are subject to the same regulations as the statutory kethubah.24 [In what respect] can this25 matter?26 — In respect of a woman who sells or surrenders [her kethubah],27 or one who rebels,28 one who impairs,29 or claims [her kethubah],30 or one who transgresses the Law;31
Original footnotes renumbered.
- V. Glos.
- Since the bequest was not a quantity of wine but a specified sum of money.
- Lit., 'spoilt', or 'caused to diminish, (Af. of [H]).
- During their father's lifetime. He was on the point of dying and disposing of his property (cf. p. 322, n. i).
- To consult him as to how they could reduce their liability.
- So that the liability of the heirs would thereby be limited to the value of that plot of land only. Such an assignment, of course, is valid only if it was made on one's death bed and is subject in addition to the woman s consent (V. Pe'ah, III, 7 and Rashi a.l.). The efficacy of R. Johanan's advice being dependent on the consent of the woman explains also why R. Johanan, despite his regrets for giving advice to relatives (supra 52b), proceeded to advise them again (v. Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H]). In the other case his advice was effective despite the woman's wish.
- His assignment of the land cannot deprive the widow of her right to proper maintenance, and can only be regarded as the provision of an additional source of income from which she might draw in case the maintenance the heirs provided was not on a liberal scale.
- Lit., 'and if not'.
- Lit., 'who is corresponding to me'.
- When he assigned a particular plot of land for his wife's maintenance.
- 'Towards' implying an addition to what is already due to her.
- 'For maintenance' implying 'in return' or compensation for the maintenance to which she is entitled.
- As her statutory kethubah.
- V. Glos.
- Sc. her statutory kethubah as well as any additional jointure her husband may have settled upon her.
- Lit., 'wrote'.
- And since he died before marrying her she can have no claim to it.
- Though she has received nothing.
- Lit., 'behold this'.
- That A HUSBAND MAY ADD, IF HE WISHES etc.
- Which might have implied a mere gift.
- Sc. to the kethubah, implying that the additional jointure assumes the same designation as the statutory kethubah itself.
- Such as additional jointure, maintenance, or any other of the terms mentioned in the previous chapter.
- Infra 104b.
- The treatment of the additional jointure as the statutory kethuhah.
- Lit., 'it goes out (results) from it'.
- By such an act she sells her additional jointure as well as her statutory kethubah though only 'kethubah' was mentioned when the transaction took place.
- Against her husband, by refusing conjugal rights or work (v. infra 63a). If, in consequence, reductions are made from her kethubah (v. loc. cit.) her additional jointure, like her statutory kethubah, is subject to these deductions.
- By admitting that she had already been paid a part of her kethubah (infra 87a). In such a case she cannot recover the balance of the additional jointure even though that part of the kethubah had been left unimpaired. (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]).
- V. supra 54a. As she loses her maintenance by claiming her statutory kethubah so she loses it by claiming only her additional jointures (Rashi).
- A woman who transgresses the Mosaic law or traditional Jewish practice may be divorced without receiving her kethuhah (infra 72a). This applies to her additional jointure also.