Ketubot 103a — the Talmud in English

What

, why did the Mishna state in its language, “They bring the provisions

to the place of her mother,”

which has an absolute meaning, making no distinction between the place of the older one and the place of the younger one, and both are found in their mother’s house?

Rather,

learn from it

, from our Mishna, that the place of the

daughter

is

with the mother

—it makes no difference whether she is older, and it makes no difference whether she is younger.

We learned in the Mishna:

The two of them shall not say [the two husbands]: “We will support her jointly.” Rather, one supports her, and the other gives the value of her support.

The Gemara brings an incident involving

a certain man, who

rented his mill

—he rented out his mill

to his fellow

—and agreed with him that the payment for the rental would not be money, but rather

grinding

, namely, that the renter would grind for him the provisions of his household, free of charge.

In the end, he became wealthy

, the owner of the mill;

he bought a mill and a donkey

, purchasing for himself an additional mill and a donkey to turn the mill, and the owner no longer needed the renter to grind his grain for him.

He said to him

, the owner to the renter:

Until now

, until this time,

you would grind with me

—you would grind my provisions for me free of charge, as payment for renting the mill from me.

But

now

, from now on, since I have no benefit from your grinding, for I have another mill and a donkey that turns it—

give me the rental payment

—from now on you must pay me the rental fee for the mill that I rented to you!

He said to him

, the renter:

I will grind, I will grind for you!

I am prepared to continue grinding for you, as we agreed at the beginning of the rental: that this would be the payment for the rental fee, and I will not give you another wage for renting the mill.

Ravina thought to say

that the dispute between the renter and the owner

is the same as our Mishna

, for it resembles the case in our Mishna, where we learned:

The two of them shall not say [the two husbands shall not be able to join together and claim]:

[два мужа не могут объединиться и утверждать]:

“We will support her jointly,”

for we undertook in this way to provide her with support, and she has support; we are not obligated to give her the value of support, which we did not undertake to give.

Rather—

one

of the husbands

supports her, and the other gives her the value of support.

It follows that if, after the undertaking, a change occurs in the situation, and what was initially discussed is no longer needed, they must pay money in exchange for it. Likewise in our Mishna: if one supports her and she no longer needs additional support, she may demand from the other that he give her the value of support, and he cannot claim that he undertook to give only provisions and not the value of provisions.

The same law applies to renting the mill: when the owner does not need the renter’s grinding, he may demand from the renter a monetary payment in place of the grinding labor that was discussed initially, since now he no longer needs his grinding.

He said

, he argued

to him, Rav Avira: Are they comparable?

How can the case of the mill be compared to the case of our Mishna?!

But

there

, in the case of our Mishna, the daughter who is supported has only

one stomach

—she has only one stomach to fill with food—whereas

she does not have two stomachs

, a doubled stomach she does not have. Therefore, the second one must provide her with the value of support, and he cannot exempt himself from his debt by claiming that he is prepared to provide her with provisions rather than the value of provisions.

But

here

, in the case of one who rents the mill,

he can say to him

—the renter can say to the owner: You can make full use of the mill that you bought, while I will continue grinding for you with the mill that you rented to me, in exchange for my grinding for you:

Grind

with the new mill that you bought for yourself, flour,

and sell

the flour to people and profit from its grinding; while I will continue to

grind

flour for you,

and leave it

—do not sell this flour, but leave it with you for your provisions, and my rental payment will continue as I stipulated with you when you rented the mill to me.

And Rav Avira adds:

And we said this only

when the renter can claim that he will continue paying the rental through grinding for the owner’s provisions,

when he has no grinding for the mill

—when the renter is sometimes idle from grinding work, lacking work and earning nothing at that time. Therefore, he can claim that he wants the original agreement to continue, with the payment being through grinding and not through money, and he will grind during the time when he lacks work.

But when he has grinding for the mill

, if the renter has full grinding work and earns from his labor, he must grind for others, and with the wages he receives from them he will pay the owner. He cannot claim that he will continue paying through grinding and not through money, for in

such a case

—we compel him on account of “the measure of Sodom.”

That is, we forcibly prevent him from behaving according to the practice of the people of Sodom, who did not do favors for one another.

For when the renter can grind for others instead of grinding for the owner, this is a situation of “the owner benefits, and the renter suffers no loss.” Therefore, he must grind for others and pay the owner the wage, and not grind provisions for the owner.

Mishna:

One of the conditions of the marriage contract that the Sages instituted is that, after his death, his widow shall continue living in his house and shall eat her provisions from his inherited property, as long as she is a widow [and has not claimed her marriage contract].

A widow who said, “I do not wish to move

[I cannot leave]

from my husband’s house”—

the heirs cannot say to her: “Go to your father’s house”

to live there,

“and we will support you”

there!

Rather, they support her and give her a dwelling

in her husband’s house,

according to her honor.

And if

she said

, the widow:

“I do not wish to move from my father’s house!”—

the heirs can say to her: “If you are

living

with us, you have

from us

provisions.

But if you are not with us—

you have no

provisions

from us!”

But

if she claimed

that she wished to live in her father’s house

because she is a young woman and they are young men—

they support her while she is in her father’s house.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

The widow

uses the dwelling

[the apartment, the place where she lived with her husband]—

in the manner in which she

was

using it during her husband’s lifetime.

And likewise she uses

male and female slaves

of her husband’s parents—

in the manner in which she

was

using them during her husband’s lifetime.

Pillows and cushions—

in the manner in which she uses them during her husband’s lifetime.

Silver vessels and gold vessels—

in the manner in which she uses them during her husband’s lifetime.

Since

he thus wrote for her

, the husband in her marriage contract:

“And you shall sit in my house, and be sustained from my property”—

all the days of your widowhood!

The Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

“You shall sit

in my house”!

Rav Yosef taught: “In my house

”—in a house that is suitable and spacious for living, the widow has the right to live together with the sons—

and not “in my hut

”! For if their dwelling was in a hut, like a narrow shack, and there was not enough room both for the widow’s residence and for the sons’ residence, the residence of the orphaned sons takes precedence over the residence of the widow.

Rav Naḥman said: Orphans who sold the dwelling of the widow—

have done nothing

, but the dwelling is taken away from the purchasers, and the widow lives in it.

The Gemara asks:

And what is different

—how is the sale of the dwelling different, such that the heirs cannot remove the widow’s right to the dwelling, and she takes it away from the purchasers—

from what Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan—

For Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Orphans who acted first

, before they came before the court,

and sold

the property

of

an inheritance in which there were only

“few properties”

[an inheritance insufficient to support all the orphans, where the law is: “The daughters shall be supported, and the sons shall beg at the doors”]—

what they sold

, the orphans to the purchasers,

they sold

, and we do not take it from the purchasers, even though initially, had they come to court, the daughters would have acquired the property for their support, and the orphans would not have been able to sell it.

If so, what is the distinction between the enactment concerning the dwelling for the woman, where, if the orphans sold it, they have done nothing, and the enactment concerning the inheritance of daughters in few properties, where, if the orphans sold it, what they sold, they sold?!

And we answer:

There

, in the inheritance of the daughters in few properties,

the property was not liened to her

, the daughter,

during the lifetime

of the father. For the daughter has no rights, during his lifetime, in her father’s property, to eat her provisions after his death and collect them from the heirs even from few properties. Rather, it is an enactment of the Sages that, with few properties, the daughters shall be supported and the orphans shall beg at the doors. And since the inherited property is not liened to her, if the orphans violated the enactment and acted first and sold it, their sale is a valid sale.

But

here

, concerning the widow’s dwelling,

the property is liened to her

, the husband’s property,

during the lifetime

of the husband, for her right to a dwelling, since this is what the husband undertook toward her at the time of their marriage, and he wrote for her that she would sit in his house all the days of her widowhood. Therefore, the heirs cannot remove her lien by selling the dwelling to other people.

Abaye said: We hold

, we hold that this is the halakha in practice:

A widow’s dwelling that collapsed—

the heirs are not obligated to rebuild it

, since their father’s undertaking was only to grant her the right to sit in his house, and not to provide her with a dwelling.

It was also taught so

, in accordance with Abaye’s words:

A widow’s dwelling

that collapsed—

the heirs are not obligated to rebuild it. And furthermore, but even if she says

to the orphans:

сиротам:

“Leave me, and I will build it from my own”

and live in it—

they do not listen to her

, since her right is only to continue living in her husband’s house as long as his house exists, and no more.

Abaye raised a dilemma

: A house that was about to collapse, and the widow arose and

repaired

it, strengthening the breaches of the house, and therefore it continued to exist and did not fall—

what is the law?

Should we say that, since without the repair that the widow performed it would have fallen, and she would not have had the right to rebuild it and live in it, this is as though her right to live in this house had ended, and her repair did not help her to continue living in the house? Or perhaps, as long as the house exists, she has the right to dwell in it, even if the entire existence of the house is only by virtue of the repair that she performed in it?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna: If she

said, “I do not wish”

except to live in my father’s house, they are not obligated to provide her with provisions there.

And we raised it:

And let them give her

provisions

when she sits there

, when she sits there, in her father’s house; why must they force her to live with them?!

And we answer:

It supports

our Mishna

the

words of

Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: The blessing of the house—

is in its multitude.

When the members of the household are numerous, the house is blessed and the expense per person is smaller, since the numerous members of the household assist one another; likewise, there is greater fortune for many people living together.

Therefore, the heirs want the widow to live together with them, and then the expense for her provisions will be smaller than if she lives in her father’s house. The ratio between the two expenses is four to five.

And we object:

Then let them give her according to the blessing of the house!

That is, if the matter concerns financial savings, why should the widow not be able to sit in her father’s house and receive her provisions there with the “blessing of the house” deducted, which was reduced because of her departure [which is, as stated, in the proportion of four to five]?

And we answer:

This too is so

—indeed, if she wishes them to deduct the “blessing of the house” from her provisions, she may live in her father’s house, and they will provide her provisions there with the blessing of the house deducted.

Rav Huna said: The language of the Sages

contains a teaching concerning

blessing; the language of the Sages

contains a teaching concerning

wealth,

and in the

language of the Sages

there is a teaching concerning

healing.

The Gemara explains his words:

The teaching concerning

blessing

is

that which we said

, that there is a blessing of the house that reduces the household expenses.

Concerning

wealth—

as we learned: One who sells produce to his fellow

—the purchaser does not acquire the produce until he pulls it to himself, even though he paid money for it.

He pulled

the produce to himself, the purchaser,

but did not measure

its quantity—

he acquired

it.

He measured but did not pull—

he did not acquire

it.

And if the purchaser

was intelligent

and bought a large quantity, and did not have time to pull it, and feared that perhaps the seller would retract before he pulled it—

he rents his place

from the seller of the produce and acquires the produce through acquisition by virtue of his courtyard. Thus, one learns from the words of the Sages advice concerning how to conduct oneself in monetary matters.

Healing—

as we learned: A person shall not chew wheat and place it upon his wound on Passover, because it becomes leavened.

From here one can learn that there is healing for a wound through chewing wheat and placing it upon the wound.

Since the Gemara is dealing with the relationship between the widow and the husband’s heirs concerning eating provisions, the Gemara brings the beraita describing Rabbi’s death, which also included his instructions to his heirs concerning how to conduct themselves toward his widow.

The Sages taught: At the time of Rabbi’s death, he said: “I need my sons!”

I need them!

His sons entered

of Rabbi

to him. He said to them

several instructions before his death:

a.

Be careful concerning the honor of your mother

[and the Gemara will explain that this refers to his wife, who was their stepmother].

b.

Let a lamp be lit in its place

beside the table, as though I were alive [and the Gemara will explain that Rabbi came to his house every Friday evening even after his death],

let a table be set in its place, and let a bed be made in its place.

c.

Yosef Ḥefni

[the Haifaite, from Haifa],

Shimon Efrati—

they served me during my lifetime, and they shall serve me in my death

[and the Gemara will explain these matters].

The Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

a.

“Be careful concerning the honor of your mother.”

And we raised it: Why did Rabbi need to command his sons concerning the honor of their mother? Is not honoring father and mother a mitzva

from the Torah? For it is written

[Exodus 20]:

“Honor your father and your mother”!

And we answer: She was not their mother, but

“she was a father’s wife,”

for she was Rabbi’s wife, while they were Rabbi’s sons from another woman.

And we object: But the honoring of a

“father’s wife” also

is a mitzva

from the Torah

, and Rabbi should not have needed to command them concerning its fulfillment!

For

this

was taught: “Honor your father and your mother.”

“Your father”—

this

[the verse expanded through the extra word “et” to include]

your father’s wife.

“And your mother”—

this

[the verse expanded through the extra word “et” to include]

your mother’s husband.

Whereas the letter

vav

, which is

extra

[for the verse could have said, “Honor your father, your mother”]—

to include

the mitzva of honoring

your elder brother!

And we answer:

These words

—that one must honor the father’s wife—

during the lifetime

of the father, when she is the father’s wife.

But after the death

of the father,

not

are his sons commanded to honor his widow; therefore Rabbi needed to command them about this in his instructions.

b.

“Let a lamp be lit in its place, let a table be set in its place, and let a bed be made in its place.”

What is the reason?

Every twilight

, during the twilight of Friday evening,

he would come

—Rabbi would come—

to his house

, after his death.

That one twilight

, once at twilight it happened that

a neighbor came

, one of the neighbors arrived, and

was calling at the door

, calling aloud at the gate entrance that she had arrived.

She said

to her

maidservant

, who served in Rabbi’s house:

“Be silent, for Rabbi is sitting!”

Be silent, since Rabbi is sitting here!

When he heard

, Rabbi, that it had become known that he came to his house—

he no longer came

in order

not to bring disrepute upon the earlier righteous ones

, who were not righteous like him, since they had not received permission to come to their homes.

c.

“Yosef Ḥefni, Shimon Efrati”—

“They served me during my lifetime, and they shall serve me in my death.”

They thought from it

, the listeners understood from him, that

he was speaking about this world

. That is, the listeners thought that Rabbi’s words meant that they would continue to serve him here in this world, by being occupied with his burial.

But both of them died immediately after Rabbi’s death, and they buried them before they buried Rabbi.

When they saw that their biers preceded his bier

, when they realized that their biers had been brought to the cemetery to bury them even before Rabbi’s bier had been brought there,

they said: “Learn from this, for that world

, that they would serve him in the World to Come,

he was speaking

, Rabbi.

And the Gemara explains: since this is not Rabbi’s testament, but only a notification of who is destined to serve him in the World to Come, what need did Rabbi have to notify and publicize to the masses who would serve him in the World to Come—

And this is what he said

Rabbi

so—

so that they should not say,

so that people, when they saw Rabbi’s attendants dying close to his death and not meriting to serve him at his burial, would not say that

they had committed an offense,

that they had transgressed an offense carrying the penalty of death,

and until now as well,

and the fact that they had remained alive until then,

it was Rabbi’s merit,

because they had been his attendants,

that had benefited them.

And therefore Rabbi announced that their death close to his death was so that they would continue to serve him in the World to Come.

He said to them

Rabbi:

“I need the Sages of Israel!”

The Sages of Israel entered to him.

He said to them

Rabbi: a.

“Do not eulogize me in the towns!”

(It will be explained in the Gemara below).