Ketubot 104b (קד:) — the Talmud in English

She is as she was at first,

as though she had only now been widowed, and she has the option of claiming her ketuba for twenty-five years from the day of the claim.

But if the ketuba document emerges from under her control —

then she

may collect her ketuba forever.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Our teacher, let him teach us

two matters —

a. Whether

when the ketuba document emerges from under her control,

this is the

dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Meir in our Mishna,

or whether they disputed

when the ketuba document does not emerge from under her control.

b.

And whose opinion is the halakha?

He sent back to him:

a.

When the ketuba document does not emerge from under her control —

there is a dispute.

But when the ketuba document emerges from under her control —

she may collect her ketuba forever,

according to everyone.

b.

And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he brought a statement that

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

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

only

when she waited without collecting the principal of the ketuba, which is

one hundred dinars

for a widow, or

two hundred dinars

for a virgin.

But

with regard to the

additional payment

of 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 that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She does not even have the additional payment,

because she relinquishes that as well.

As Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The conditions of the ketuba —

are considered like the ketuba.

The additional payment is a “condition of the ketuba,” and since it is considered like the ketuba, she relinquishes that as well.

It was also stated

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught

that she relinquishes

only the one hundred or two hundred dinars, but the additional payment

of the ketuba —

she has it.

He said to him,

astonished,

Rabbi Abba to Rav Huna:

Really,

did Rav say that?

He said,

he asked

him,

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

Did you mean this in the sense of

“ishtiken” —

that by your astonished question you intended to silence me, since it is impossible that Rav said this?

Or

perhaps

did you mean “ashke’in” — that you intend to give me wine as thanks for telling you something in Rav’s name that is dear to you?

He said to him: “I mean ‘ishtiken’!”

I intended to silence you!

He saw

the mother-in-law

of

Rav Ḥiyya Arikha, who had been his brother’s wife,

and

a widow

who

had been living in her father’s house.

And

Rav Ḥiyya Arikha provided sustenance for his brother’s widow, since his brother had died without sons and he was the heir,

for twenty-five years in the house of the father,

while she was living in her father’s house.

At the end

of twenty-five years, Rav Aḥa stopped sending her sustenance, since once she was no longer entitled to her ketuba, she was no longer entitled to sustenance.

She said to him: Give me my sustenance,

give me sustenance now as well, as before!

He said to her: There is no

no

sustenance for you

except for 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 have not claimed your ketuba —

you have neither sustenance nor a ketuba!

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

She sued him

the widow

in court, before Rabba bar Sheila,

for him to give her either sustenance or her ketuba.

Rabba bar Sheila said to him,

to Rav Ḥiyya Arikha:

Tell me, please,

tell me, my dear friend,

what was the actual incident like,

what exactly happened!?

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

while she was living in her father’s house, and

during the lifetime of my master

["during the lifetime of my master"],

I carried it to her on my shoulders,

I personally carried her sustenance on my shoulders and brought it to her each and every day.

Rabba bar Sheila said to him

Rabba bar Sheila said to him:

What is the reason that the Sages say, “As long as she is in her husband’s house, she may collect her ketuba forever,”

because

we say that it is due to embarrassment

the embarrassment she feels before the orphans who provide her sustenance

that 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 personally carrying her sustenance to her on your shoulders —

it is due to embarrassment,

the embarrassment she feels about claiming it from you,

that she did not claim it

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

go, give

go and give

her

her ketuba.

He paid no attention,

Rav Ḥiyya Arikha did not heed Rabba bar Sheila’s ruling and did not provide her sustenance.

He wrote her

Rabba bar Sheila wrote

an “adrakhta,”

he gave her a document of judgment,

against his property,

stating that she had the right to collect her ketuba from the property of Rav Ḥiyya Arikha [who had inherited his brother’s property, which was liened to her ketuba], from wherever she wished to collect it [and he did not specify in the adrakhta that she could 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 Rabba bar Sheila had done to him.

He said to him

Rav Aḥa Arikha said to Rava:

See, Master, how they judged me!

See, Master, how Rabba bar Sheila judged me, issuing an adrakhta against my property.

Rava said to him

Rava

judged you correctly,

Rabba bar Sheila! Since you did not heed his words, he should have issued an adrakhta against your property, so that the widow could collect what she was owed by her ketuba!

The widow heard Rava’s ruling, and then

she said to him

to Rava:

If so,

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

let him go,

let Rav Ḥiyya Arikha go and

return to me

all the

produce

of my deceased husband’s property that he consumed,

from that day until now,

from the day Rabba bar Sheila wrote me the adrakhta against his property, valued at the amount of my ketuba, until this day.

Since the property belonged to me from the time the adrakhta was written, the produce of the field has likewise belonged to me from that time.

He said to her

Rava:

Show

show

me your adrakhta!

He saw it,

Rava saw

that it did not contain

“And we ascertained

that we, the judges, had determined

that these properties

against which we are issuing the adrakhta are the property

of the deceased,”

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

Rava 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 through such an adrakhta.

The widow said to him

the widow said to Rava:

Let the adrakhta go!

Let the adrakhta go away from here, and let us disregard it! But at least

let me take

the produce from the property of my deceased husband [known to be his property],

from the day the announcement period ended until now,

from the day the thirty days ended, after the court assessed the land and publicly announced its assessment. For from that time I am entitled to consume the produce of the field, according to everyone.

He said to her: These matters

that a 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, and therefore, as long as the widow had not actually collected the field liened to her, she was not entitled to consume its produce.

She said to him

the widow said to Rava: Even if “we ascertained” was not written in the adrakhta, namely, that the judges recognized the field as property of her deceased husband, the adrakhta should be treated as though this 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, when it was not explicitly written in the document

is a scribal error”!

For no one lends money through a document without receiving liability, but the scribe who wrote the document erred and failed to write the matter of the liability; therefore it is as though the liability had been written.

The same should apply to the failure to write “we ascertained” that these properties belonged to the deceased: it should be considered a scribal error, 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: In this matter,

with regard to the adrakhta for collecting your ketuba,

there is no room to say

about it

“it is a scribal error.” For in this matter —

even Rabba bar Sheila

erred!

For

at first he

Rabba bar Sheila

thought

that since Rav Aḥa had inherited his brother’s property, it made no difference from where she collected her ketuba, from the property of the deceased or from Rav Aḥa’s property, because

these and those —

his brother’s property and his own property — are the property

of him.

And if so,

what difference is it to me

whether she collects her ketuba through the adrakhta

from these,

from her deceased husband’s property,

what difference is it to me

if she collects

from these,

from Rav Aḥa’s own property?

But

however,

that is not so!

Rabba bar Sheila was not correct in writing such an adrakhta!

For if she can collect through the adrakhta even from the heir’s property,

sometimes

it may happen

that she goes

the widow

and improves it,

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

but

the property

of her husband,

which she would not improve because she does not intend to collect from it,

from my funds,

would remain in a wretched state.

And

then, after the widow improved the heir’s property and before she collected it,

he would say to her,

the heir would come and say to her:

Take what is yours,

go and collect your ketuba from your deceased husband’s property [the wretched property],

and give

and give

me

my property,

which is mine

[the improved property].

And

if such a case would indeed occur —

it would come

the matter

to bring out

to bring out

a bad name for the court,

as though it did not arrange matters properly and caused the widow a loss: she invested her money and effort in improving a field, and the heir then removed it from her possession.

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

Mishna:

The two judges of decrees [

as will be explained in the Gemara ]

were in Jerusalem: Admon and Hanan ben Avishalom.

Hanan

was

saying two things,

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

Whereas

Admon

was

saying seven

things with which the Sages did not concede to him.

These are the two matters concerning which Hanan and the Sages disagreed:

1.

In the case of one who went overseas, and his wife claims

in court that they provide her

maintenance

from the sale of his property—