Bava Batra 145a — the Talmud in English

What is the reason?

The reason is that

she can say ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

“Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him.”

Since she is ready to fulfill her obligation and marry him, and all the delay is on his side, therefore she need not return [the money].

Here too

the same law applies to the shushbinut:

let us say, “Give me my shushbin, and I shall rejoice with him.”

And she should not have to return [the money] to the other brothers.

Rav Yosef said: Here, with what are we dealing?

We are dealing with shushbinut, in a case

where he rejoiced with him for the seven days of the wedding feast, but did not manage

the shushbin

to repay him

to return the gift to him

before he died

the groom; therefore he pays his brothers.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say

that we should say that the claim

“Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him” is subject to a dispute between tannaim?

They disputed whether one may make this claim and thereby be exempt from returning the betrothal money.

For it was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

One who betroths a woman

and divorces her, or he dies,

a virgin collects

for her ketuba

two hundred, and a widow

collects

one hundred. In a place where the custom is to return the betrothal money

as will be explained,

they return it. In a place where the custom is not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it; these are the words of Rabbi Natan.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In truth they said, in a place where the custom is to return

as will be explained,

they return it. In a place where the custom is not to return it, they do not return it; these are the words of Rabbi Natan.

And the Gemara infers from this that it is apparently difficult to understand:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi—is that not the first tanna!

For both of them say the same thing, that the matter depends on the local custom.

Rather, is it not

necessarily reasonable that regarding the claim

“Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him,” that is where they differ.

Their difference is whether the woman must return the betrothal money when the delay is on the husband’s side.

And the text is deficient,

and something is missing from the wording of the beraita,

and this is what it teaches,

and this is how it must be read:

One who betroths a woman

and divorces her or dies,

a virgin collects two hundred, and a widow one hundred. In what case is this said,

that she collects the ketuba and does not return the betrothal money?

When he retracts,

when the husband retracts and wishes to divorce her; therefore the woman need not return [the money], since he is the one who caused the annulment of the betrothal.

But if she dies,

the woman, then

in a place where the custom is to return it, they return it; in a place where the custom is not to return it, they do not return it.

And specifically when she dies.

All this is when the annulment of the betrothal depends on her.

But if he dies,

so that the betrothal is annulled because of him,

they do not return

the betrothal money.

What is the reason? —

She can say: “Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him!”

Since she is prepared to fulfill the marriage.

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to say,

Rabbi Yehuda came to disagree and say:

In truth they said: whether he dies or she dies, in a place where the custom is to return it, they return it; in a place where the custom is not to return it, they do not return it.

And she cannot say, “Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him”!

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disputed this reasoning.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

They did not dispute this. Rather,

everyone,

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages, hold:

she can say, “Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him.”

And therefore, in the case

where he dies,

where the husband dies,

everyone agrees,

all acknowledge that she does not return the betrothal money.

When they differ

is when they dispute, in the case

where she dies.

And here, they differ concerning whether betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost —

they are disputing.

[They dispute] whether, at the time of betrothal, the betrother’s intention was to give the betrothal money only on the understanding that in the end there would be a marriage, and if she died the money would return to him, or not, as will be explained.

Rabbi Natan held: betrothal money was not given to be irretrievably lost,

and therefore she must return it, and the money does not remain “submerged” with her.

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi

disagrees and

holds: betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost,

his intention being to give the money so that it remains with her in every case, as though it is “submerged” with her, and she need not return it.

But the Gemara asks about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reasoning: if he holds that betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost, and he waives the money for her,

but we learned: in a place where the custom is to return it, they return it;

How does the custom obligate her to return it? The betrother gave it to the woman on the condition that it remain with her, and this does not depend on the local custom.

And the Gemara answers:

This is what he is saying,

this is Rabbi Yehuda’s intention:

“And [concerning] gifts sent to the bride, certainly, in a place where the custom is to return them, they return them.”

It is referring to gifts that the betrothed sent to his betrothed, and they were not given to be irretrievably lost; rather, his intention was that if they ultimately did not marry, the gifts would be returned to him. But the betrothal money does not return, since he gives that money to be irretrievably lost.

And according to the Gemara’s conclusion, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan disputed whether betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost, it is possible to associate another dispute with their dispute:

And these tannaim,

the tannaim in the following beraita, hold

like those tannaim,

like Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Natan.

For it was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

If he betrothed her with a loaf,

one who betrothed a woman with a silver loaf containing twenty-five maneh, and ultimately divorced her,

a virgin collects two hundred, and a widow one hundred,

as the Gemara will explain below in what manner this is referring,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: a virgin collects two hundred

and a widow one hundred,

she collects the ketuba from the silver loaf that she received for the betrothal,

and returns the remainder to him.

What remains of the loaf she returns to the betrother.

Rabbi Yosei says:

If

he betrothed her with twenty, he gives her thirty halves.

And if

he betrothed her with thirty, he gives her twenty halves.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita.

With what are we dealing,

in what manner is the beraita speaking, such that the woman receives a ketuba?

If you say that she died,

if it is referring to a case where the woman died,

does she have a ketuba!?

She receives a ketuba only if her husband dies or divorces her.

Rather, that he died,

the husband, and therefore she receives a ketuba. But if so, it is difficult:

why does she return the remainder to him

why, according to Rabbi Yehuda, does she return the remainder of the betrothal money?

And let us say: “Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him!”

She is ready to marry him, and all the delay is only on his side; so why must she return [the money]? It was already explained above that everyone holds that one may claim, “Give me my husband, and I shall rejoice with him.”

Rather, [it is] a married Israelite woman who committed adultery

under her husband, and therefore her husband wishes to divorce her.

And the Gemara discusses:

And in what manner,

in what manner did the adultery occur?

If willingly,

if she committed adultery willingly,

does she have a ketuba

when the husband divorces her because of this? Since she prohibited herself to her husband, she forfeits the ketuba.

Rather, [it is] under duress,

and if you wish to say that the adultery occurred under duress, then

she is permitted to him

she is permitted to her husband, and he need not divorce her. And if he nevertheless wishes to divorce her, she need not return the betrothal money to him!

Rather, [it is] a wife of a koen who was raped.

It is referring to the wife of a koen, who is forbidden to her husband even in a case of rape, and therefore he must divorce her. But since this occurred under duress, she does not forfeit the ketuba. And the dispute of the tannaim

is concerning whether betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost,

whether the betrothal money must be returned at the time of the divorce.

Rabbi Meir held: betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost,

and therefore she receives her ketuba and does not return the loaf she received for the betrothal.

And Rabbi Yehuda held: it was not given to be irretrievably lost,

and therefore she takes the ketuba from the loaf, and must return the remainder to her husband.

And Rabbi Yosei is uncertain whether it was given to be irretrievably lost or whether it was not,

and therefore they divide money whose ownership is in doubt, as he holds and decides concerning all money whose ownership is in doubt.

And therefore,

if

he betrothed her with twenty

shekels, which are eighty zuz [there are four zuz in each shekel], and there is uncertainty whether she must return this money, and because of the uncertainty they divide it, therefore she receives forty by virtue of the uncertainty, and for the remaining forty she collects the ketuba. And if she is a widow, who receives one hundred, which is one hundred zuz, her husband must add to it:

he gives her thirty halves,

thirty half-shekels, and each half-shekel is two zuz. It follows that thirty half-shekels are sixty, so that she receives one hundred zuz, the amount of her ketuba obligation.

And if

he betrothed her with thirty

shekels, which are one hundred twenty zuz, she receives half by virtue of the uncertainty, which is sixty, and he must add to reach one hundred zuz; therefore

he gives her twenty halves,

which are forty zuz, and altogether she received one hundred zuz. And this is the Gemara’s intention above, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disputed in accordance with the dispute between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

And the Gemara’s conclusion for the halakha:

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Nahman said: In every place where the custom is to return

the betrothal money,

they return it,

since they hold that betrothal money was not given to be irretrievably lost, and therefore this depends on the local custom.

And its translation is: [the practice of] Nehardea,

that is, ordinary towns: if they are adjacent to Nehardea, which is a city where they return it, they are like it.

And the Gemara is uncertain:

What [is the law concerning] the rest of Babylonia?

Do the other cities of Babylonia follow Nehardea and also have to return [the money], or not?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: the gifts return,

the gifts that the groom sends to the bride after the betrothal; she must return them.

The betrothal money does not return.

She need not return the betrothal money. And this does not depend on the local custom, since they hold that betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is —

whether he dies, whether she dies, or he retracts,

if the husband retracts the betrothal and does not wish to marry her,

the gifts return, the betrothal money does not return.

The gifts she must return; the betrothal money she does not return.

But if

she retracts,

if the woman wishes to annul the betrothal,

even the betrothal money also returns.

She also returns the betrothal money, since even though we hold that betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost, and the betrother gave it on the condition that it remain with her, nevertheless, in the event that she retracts, his intention is that she return the money.

It follows that Rav Pappa also holds that betrothal money was given to be irretrievably lost, and it does not depend on the local custom; he merely adds that if she retracts, she must return it.

Ameimar said:

he disagrees and holds that forever

the betrothal money does not return, by decree, lest they say that betrothal takes effect with her sister.

If people see that she returns the betrothal money, they will think that the betrothal was an erroneous betrothal and will say that her sister is permitted to him. Therefore, even when she retracts, she does not return the betrothal money.

Rav Ashi said:

he does not accept Ameimar’s decree, since

the bill of divorce proves concerning her,

for he divorces her with a bill of divorce, and if so it is proven that she was his wife. It is only that nevertheless the betrothal money must be returned. Therefore there is no reason to decree lest they say that betrothal takes effect with her sister.

But the Gemara rejects his question:

But that statement of Rav Ashi is nonsense.

His words are incorrect, because

there are those who hear this but do not hear that.

There are some who know about the return of the betrothal money but do not know that he divorced her with a bill of divorce. Therefore there is concern lest they say that betrothal takes effect with her sister.

We learned in the Mishna:

that shushbinut is collected in court:

We learned in the Mishna that shushbinut is a full debt, and therefore it is possible to sue for its fulfillment in court.

And the Gemara brings a beraita, which adds further laws that follow from this:

The Sages taught: Five matters

laws

were stated concerning shushbinut,

as the Gemara will explain them below.

a.

It is collected in court.

Since this is an ordinary debt, he can sue him to fulfill his obligation.

b.

And it returns at its appointed time.

He must return it to him when the giver marries a woman, and not earlier. And even if he wishes to return it, the recipient may refuse, because he also wishes that he rejoice with him on his day of rejoicing.

c.

And it does not involve interest

if he returns more to him than he received from him. The reason will be explained below.