Ketubot 104b — the Talmud in English

She is as at the beginning,

as though she had just now become widowed, and she has the possibility of claiming her ketuba for twenty-five years from the day of the claim.

And if a ketuba document was found in her possession —

she

may collect her ketuba forever.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Let our master teach us

two matters —

a. Whether

when a ketuba document is found in her possession,

this is the

dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Meir in our Mishna.

Or when no ketuba document is found in her possession,

did they dispute?

b.

And according to whose words is the halakha?

He sent to him:

a.

When no ketuba document is found in her possession —

there is a dispute.

But when a ketuba document is found in her possession —

she may collect her ketuba forever

according to everyone.

b.

And the halakha is according to the words of the Sages.

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, he brought a statement, which

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kappara: They taught

that she relinquishes her ketuba if she waited twenty-five years

only

if she waited and did not collect the principal of the ketuba, which is

one hundred

for a widow or

two hundred

for a virgin.

But

with regard to the

addition

to the ketuba that her husband added for her, which is a gift and is not part of the ketuba itself, she does not relinquish it; therefore

she has it

forever.

And Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: She does not even have the addition,

because she also relinquishes that.

For Rabbi Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The conditions of a ketuba —

are considered like a ketuba.

And the addition is a “condition of a ketuba,” and since it is considered like a ketuba, she relinquishes it as well.

It was also stated

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They taught

that she relinquishes

only one hundred and two hundred, but the addition

of the ketuba —

she has it.

He said to him

in astonishment,

Rabbi Abba to Rav Huna:

Is it truly so that

Rav said this?

He said,

he asked

him,

Rav Huna asked Rabbi Abba: What is the meaning of your question whether Rav truly said this —

Do you mean in the sense of

“ishtiḳen ka’amarta”

this: that you intended by your astonishment to silence me, because it is impossible that Rav said this?

Or

perhaps

“ashḳayen ka’amarta” —

that you intend to give me wine, as a sign of thanks for my having told you something in the name of Rav that is dear to you?

He said to him: “I said ‘ishtiḳen’!”

My intention was to silence you!

The mother-in-law

of

Rav Ḥiyya Arikha, was his brother’s wife,

she had been his brother’s wife.

And she was a widow

who was living

in her father’s house.

And he sustained

Rav Ḥiyya Arikha sustained his brother’s widow, since he had died without sons and he was the heir —

twenty-five years in the house of the father,

while she was in her father’s house.

At the end

of twenty-five years, Rav Aḥa stopped sending her maintenance, since from the time that she was no longer entitled to a ketuba, she was no longer entitled to maintenance.

She said to him: Give me my maintenance,

give me maintenance even now, as in the past!

He said to her: There is not

no

maintenance for you

except until twenty-five years!

She said to him: If so,

give me my ketuba!

He said to her:

Now that twenty-five years have passed and you did not claim your ketuba —

you have neither maintenance nor a ketuba!

For he held in accordance with the Rabbis, that a widow who is in her father’s house is not entitled to a ketuba after twenty-five years.

She brought him to judgment,

the widow

before Rabbah bar Shila,

so that he would give her maintenance or a ketuba.

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Shila said to Rav Ḥiyya Arikha:

Tell me, my dear,

tell me, my beloved friend,

the body of the incident—how was it,

how was the very matter itself!?

He said to him: I sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of the father,

while she was in her father’s house, and

in the life of my master

“in the life of my master,”

for I carried it to her on my shoulders,

I myself carried her maintenance on my shoulders and brought it to her every single day.

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Shila

said to him: What is the reason the Rabbis say, “As long as she is in her husband’s house, she may collect her ketuba forever,”

because

we say, because of embarrassment

the embarrassment that she has before the orphans who sustain her

is why she did not claim

her ketuba, and not because she relinquished it to them.

And if so,

here too,

since you honored her so greatly, by carrying her maintenance to her yourself on your shoulders —

because of embarrassment

the embarrassment that she has to claim from you

is why she did not claim it

until now, and not because she relinquished it to you. And therefore

go, give

go and give

her

her ketuba.

He paid no attention,

Rav Ḥiyya Arikha did not take into consideration the ruling of Rabbah bar Shila, and he did not sustain her.

He wrote for her

Rabbah bar Shila wrote

an adrakhta,

he gave her a document of judgment

against his property,

that she had the right to collect her ketuba from the property of Rav Ḥiyya Arikha [who had inherited the property of her husband, which was liened to her ketuba], from wherever she wished to collect from him [and he did not specify in the adrakhta that she had to collect specifically from the property of her deceased husband that Rav Aḥa had inherited].

Rav Aḥa came

Rav Aḥa

before Rava,

to complain about what Rabbah bar Shila had done to him.

He said to him,

Rav Aḥa Arikha said to Rava:

See, master, how they have judged me!

See, master, how Rabbah bar Shila judged me, having issued an adrakhta against my property.

He said to him,

Rava

judged you properly,

Rabbah bar Shila! Since you did not heed his words, he ought to have issued an adrakhta against your property, so that the widow could collect what was due to her in her ketuba!

The widow heard Rava’s ruling, and then

she said to him,

to Rava:

If so,

that I have the right to collect my ketuba from his property,

let him go,

let Rav Ḥiyya Arikha go, and

return to me,

and return to me all the

produce

of the property of my deceased husband that he consumed,

from that day until now,

from the day that Rabbah bar Shila wrote the adrakhta for me against his property, in the value of my ketuba, until this day.

Since the property belonged to me from the time the adrakhta was written, the produce of the field also belongs to me from then.

He said to her,

Rava:

Show

show

me your adrakhta!

He saw it,

Rava saw,

that it was not written in it

“and we have ascertained

we have ascertained [we, the judges]

that these properties

that we are bringing out an adrakhta against are the property

of the deceased, they are,

they are the property of her deceased husband, which is liened to her ketuba.”

He said to her,

Rava: This

adrakhta

document

was not properly written.

For the wording of this adrakhta indicates that she may collect her ketuba from Rav Aḥa’s own property, whereas only the property of her deceased husband is liened to her ketuba, and it is impossible to collect by means of such an adrakhta.

She said to him,

the widow said to Rava:

Let the adrakhta go!

Let the adrakhta go away from here, and let us not take it into consideration! But at least

let me take

let me take the produce from the property of my deceased husband [known as his property],

from the day that the day of the proclamation was completed until now,

from the day on which the thirty days were completed, from the time the court appraised the land and publicly proclaimed their appraisal. For from then I am entitled to consume the produce of the field, according to everyone.

He said to her: These words

that the creditor has the right to consume the produce of the field against which an adrakhta was issued in his favor apply

where no error was written in the adrakhta.

But where an error was written in the adrakhta —

it is of no consequence!

It is as though the adrakhta had not been written; therefore, as long as the widow has not actually collected the field liened to her, she is not entitled to consume its produce.

She said to him,

the widow said to Rava: But even if “we have ascertained” was not written in the adrakhta, that the judges recognize that this field is from the property of her deceased husband, one must treat the adrakhta as though this matter had been written in it, since without it the adrakhta has no validity.

But

you,

Rava,

are the one who said: “Liability

the lien of the borrower’s land to the lender for his debt, if it was not written explicitly in the document

is a scribal error!”

For a person does not lend with a document without receiving liability; rather, the scribe who wrote the document erred and did not write the matter of liability, and it is as though the liability had been written.

And the same law should apply: the failure to write “we have ascertained” that these properties are the property of the deceased should be considered a scribal error, and as though it had been written in the document, since it is obvious that the ketuba is collected only from the property of the deceased.

Rava said to her: With regard to this,

with regard to the adrakhta for collecting your ketuba,

there is no possibility of saying

with regard to it

“it is a scribal error.” For with regard to this —

even Rabbah bar Shila

erred!

For

from the outset he

[Rabbah bar Shila] was

of the opinion

that since Rav Aḥa inherited his brother’s property, there is no difference from where she collects her ketuba, from the property of the deceased or from Rav Aḥa’s property, because

these and these

his brother’s property and his property, are property

belonging to him

they are. And if so,

what difference is it to me

whether she collects her ketuba by means of the adrakhta

from these,

from the property of her deceased husband,

what difference is it to me

whether she collects

from these,

from Rav Aḥa’s own property.

And

however,

it is not so!

Rabbah bar Shila was not correct in writing such an adrakhta!

For if she can collect by means of the adrakhta also from the heir’s property,

sometimes

it can happen that

she goes

the widow

and improves it,

and improves the heir’s property from which she is destined to collect by means of the adrakhta,

and

whereas the property

of her husband,

which she will not improve, since she does not intend to collect from it,

from my money,

will remain neglected.

And

then, after the widow improves the heir’s property, and before she collects it,

he will say to her,

the heir will come and say to her:

Take what is yours,

go and collect your ketuba from the property of your deceased husband [the neglected property],

and give

and give

me

my property

that is mine [

the improved property].

And

if indeed such a case occurs —

it will come

the matter will result

in bringing out

to bring out

a derogatory claim against the court,

that they do not arrange matters properly and cause a loss to the widow, who invests her money and effort in improving a field, and the heir comes and removes it from her.

We return to you, chapter “One who marries a woman.”

Mishna:

The two judges of decrees

[will be explained in the Gemara]

were in Jerusalem: Admon and Hanan son of Avishalom.

Hanan

was

saying two things,

over which the Sages disagreed with him and did not concede to him.

But

Admon

was

saying seven

things to which the Sages did not concede.

And these are the two things over which Hanan and the Sages disagreed:

1.

One who went overseas, and his wife claims

in court that they should give her

maintenance

from the sale of his property—