Ketubot 104a (קד.) — the Talmud in English

Because it hangs down

that it is in a high place, at the top of the mountain,

and the air is wholesome,

and its air is superior.

On that day when Rabbi’s soul came to rest, they decreed

upon it

that the Sages

[before his death]

fast and pray for mercy.

And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi’s soul has come to rest—

shall be stabbed with a sword!

Rabbi’s maidservant went up to the roof,

Rabbi’s maidservant ascended to the roof, and

she said

a prayer: The angels, who are

above, are requesting Rabbi

to come into their domain,

while those below,

the people on earth,

are requesting Rabbi

to remain with them.

May it be Your will that those below prevail over

their

superiors,

and that Rabbi remain alive.

But

when she saw,

Rabbi’s maidservant saw,

several times,

on a number of occasions, that

he entered

Rabbi

the lavatory, and removed his phylacteries

so that he could enter the lavatory, and upon leaving the lavatory he would return

and put them on

the phylacteries,

and he was pained

by removing and putting them on—

she said

in her prayer:

May it be Your will that those above prevail over those below.

And

although Rabbi’s maidservant had made Rabbi’s suffering known publicly,

the Sages did not cease requesting mercy

for him, that he remain alive.

She took a jug,

Rabbi’s maidservant took an earthenware jug,

and threw it from the roof to the ground,

and from the sound of the crash when the jug broke

they fell silent,

the Sages,

from

requesting

mercy

for Rabbi at that moment.

And Rabbi’s soul came to rest

at that very moment when they stopped praying.

The Sages said to bar Kappara: Go and see,

go to Rabbi’s house and see what happened to Rabbi.

He went,

bar Kappara went,

and found that his soul had come to rest,

and realized that Rabbi had died.

He tore his garment, and turned the torn part behind him,

and placed the torn portion of the garment behind him.

Bar Kappara began

his eulogy,

and said: “The heavenly princes

the angels in heaven,

and

their counterparts,

“the mighty rocks

who are the righteous on earth,

seized the Holy Ark

and struggled among themselves over who would hold the Holy Ark [Rabbi is compared to the Holy Ark].

The heavenly princes defeated the mighty rocks—

and the Holy Ark was taken captive

by the heavenly princes!

They said to him

the Sages said to bar Kappara: Did

his soul come to rest

Rabbi’s?

He said to them: You said it,

you said this,

but I did not say it.

At the time of Rabbi’s death, he raised his ten fingers upward,

and

said: Master of the universe! It is revealed and known before You that I labored with my ten fingers in Torah, and I derived no benefit

from this world

even

the slightest, not even commensurate with the little effort for which I labored

with my little finger. May it be Your will

that there be peace in my repose.

A Divine Voice emerged and said:

[Isaiah 57]

“He shall come in peace; they shall rest upon their couches”

and we raised the following difficulty:

“upon your couch”

in the singular

should have been required

for the prophet to say; why, then, did he use the plural?

This supports

the prophet’s wording

with regard to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda.

As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: When a righteous person departs from the world, the ministering angels say before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe! So-and-so the righteous has arrived!

He says to them

the Holy One, blessed be He:

Let the righteous come

from the Garden of Eden,

and go out to greet him

the righteous person who has just arrived!

And they say to him: Let

this righteous person

come in peace.

Then the righteous who went out to greet him return, and

rest upon their couches.

Rabbi Elazar said: When a righteous person departs from the world, three groups of ministering angels go out to greet him.

One group

says to him: Come in peace!

And

one group

says: He walks in his integrity,

on the upright path that he chose for himself!

And one says to him: He shall come in peace; they shall rest upon their couches.

And

when the wicked person is destroyed from the world, three groups of angels of destruction go out to greet him.

One says:

[Isaiah 48]

“There is no peace, said

the Lord, for the wicked.” And one says to him:

[Isaiah 50]

“He shall lie down in sorrow.” And one says to him

[Ezekiel 32]

“Go down and lie with the uncircumcised.”

Mishna:

A widow who did not collect her ketuba, even if a very long period of time passed,

as long as she is in her father’s house,

and the heirs support her there—she

may collect her ketuba forever,

whenever she wishes.

But

as long as she

remains

in her husband’s house,

and she is sustained there from the property of the orphans, she

may collect her ketuba

only

until twenty-five years

after her husband’s death, but not thereafter. This is because

within

the period of

twenty-five years

there is a possibility

that she “performed favors,”

that she took bread and salt from the property of the orphans in order to perform favors for her neighbors, and it follows that she took money from them that they were not obligated to give her, in an amount

corresponding to

the value of

her ketuba.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir—

who said

this

in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

And

if

the Sages say

the opposite: In their opinion, the woman does not forfeit her ketuba after twenty-five years because of the favors she performed for her neighbors, and twenty-five years was mentioned only with regard to the woman’s waiving of the ketuba, by virtue of her remaining silent and not claiming it for such a long period. Therefore, according to the Sages,

as long as she is in her husband’s house,

since the orphans honor her while she is with them, her silence is not proof that she waived it, because she is embarrassed to claim the ketuba from them. Therefore, she

may collect her ketuba forever.

But

as long as she is in her father’s house—she

may collect her ketuba until twenty-five years,

since her silence while in her father’s house for such a long period is proof that she waived it.

If she died,

the widow died without collecting her ketuba—

her heirs

[who inherit her rights to the ketuba]

remind

the father’s heirs of the claim to

her ketuba until twenty-five years

after the husband’s death. If they did not claim it by then, their silence constitutes proof that they waived it.

Gemara:

Abaye

asked

Rav Yosef

a question concerning Rabbi Meir’s statement, that a widow forfeits her ketuba after failing to claim it for twenty-five years because she performed favors for her neighbors from the orphans’ property, to the value of her ketuba:

Is it possible that

the poorest woman in Israel

collects her small ketuba only

until twenty-five years, and

also

Marta daughter of Baitos,

the wealthy woman, collects her large ketuba only

until twenty-five years?

After all, the value of the favor performed by a wealthy woman does not reach the amount of her large ketuba?

He said

he answered

him,

Rav Yosef answered Abaye with a parable: Indeed, this is so, because

according to the camel—

is its load!

The stronger the camel, the greater the load placed upon it.

And the same applies to a wealthy woman: Her performance of favors is greater than that of a poor woman, and she performs favors over twenty-five years corresponding to the entirety of her large ketuba.

They raised a dilemma: According to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that she forfeits her ketuba because she performed favors for her neighbors from the orphans’ money, if so,

what is the halakha with regard to dividing it into thirds

[“dividing into thirds” is an expression of division]?

Should we assess each year as the proportional share of the twenty-five years [i.e., four percent], and if she comes to collect her ketuba within twenty-five years, should we deduct from the ketuba what she took from the orphans’ property for the sake of performing favors? Or perhaps the Sages established only that she forfeits her entire ketuba after twenty-five years, but did not establish that a proportionate amount is to be deducted from her ketuba each year?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: As long as

she is in her father’s house, she may collect her ketuba until twenty-five years, because if she did not collect it by that time, it is evident that she waived her ketuba.

Abaye

asked

Rav Yosef:

Is it possible to say that a woman who

came,

who came to collect her ketuba,

before sunset

that completes the twenty-fifth year—

may collect her ketuba?

But a woman who came to collect her ketuba

after sunset—

may not collect

it at all!?

And is it the case that

at that

time,

a little

she waived it!?

Did she waive her ketuba during this short period!?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to him:

Yes,

indeed this is so! For

all the measures of the Sages are so,

as they establish a fixed and definitive time.

As we likewise learned that

with forty se’a

of water, one

immerses

in them. But

with forty se’a

of water

lacking a kortov

[something small]—he

cannot immerse in them.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Yishmael

son of Rabbi Yosei testified before Rabbi, saying in the name of his father: They taught

that the widow forfeits her ketuba if she does not claim it within twenty-five years

only

in the case

where the ketuba document is not emerging from her possession.

But

if

the ketuba document is emerging from her possession

in the court—she

may collect her ketuba forever,

because if she had waived it, she would have brought her ketuba to the court beforehand, and would not have continued to hold it after waiving it.

And Rabbi Elazar said: Even when the ketuba document is emerging from her possession—she

may collect only until twenty-five years.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

to Rabbi Elazar from that which was taught in a beraita:

A creditor collects

his debt forever, even

without mention.

That is, even though he did not mention or claim his debt for twenty-five years, this is not proof that he waived his debt.

And Rav Sheshet infers:

What are the circumstances?

In what case is the beraita speaking?

If he did not hold

the lender

a document—

with what could he collect?

Rather,

it must be speaking

where he holds a document.

And

specifically

a creditor, he

is one

who is not one who waives,

as the lender does not waive his debt, since he has no reason to waive it: The lender gave his money to the borrower, and he did not benefit from the borrower in a manner that would cause him to waive the debt.

But a widow,

who benefits from the orphans, and whose obligation does not stem from money that she gave her husband, but from her husband’s commitment toward her—

she does waive it,

she waives the debt! And the long period of twenty-five years that passed from the time her husband died without her claiming the ketuba proves that she waived it.

He,

Rav Sheshet,

raised this objection to him,

challenging Rabbi Elazar from this beraita,

and he

himself also

resolved it,

explaining it so that it would not contradict Rabbi Elazar:

Actually,

the beraita is speaking in a case

where he does not hold

the lender

a document

in his possession. Therefore, only a creditor may collect after twenty-five years, but not a widow, since she waives it.

And

as for what I asked—if he does not have a document, how can he collect the debt—it can be said that

with what are we dealing here?—

where the debtor admits

the debt, but claims that the lender waived the debt, as evidenced by the fact that he did not claim it. The beraita teaches that a lender never waives his debt. But a widow does indeed waive it.

Rather, the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Sheshet’s resolution:

But did Rabbi Ela not say,

that this is what

the Sages teach,

“the authors of the beraita”:

A divorcee—

she is like a creditor.

What are the circumstances?

If she does not hold the ketuba, with what can she collect?

Rather, is it not that she holds the ketuba

in her possession?

And

we should infer: Specifically,

a divorcee is

like a creditor, in that

she

certainly

is not one who waives

the ketuba;

she is,

since her husband divorced her. Rather, she may collect her ketuba forever, even if she did not mention anything concerning her ketuba for twenty-five years, like a creditor.

But a widow—

she does waive it,

she waives her ketuba! And we answer:

Here too,

the authors of this beraita are teaching their ruling in a case where the document is not emerging from her possession; rather, they are speaking

where the debtor admits

the debt. In that respect, a divorcee is equal to a creditor, as neither waives the debt; but a widow whose ketuba document is not emerging from her possession does waive it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yehuda bar Kazza taught in the “teaching of the house of Kazza””

[Kazza is the name of a Sage]: A widow who

claimed her ketuba

within twenty-five years—