Ketubot 110b — the Talmud in English

, but not from a town to a metropolis, nor from a metropolis to a town,

for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

They may remove [her] from an inferior dwelling-place

from an inferior place

to a superior dwelling-place. But they may not

remove [her]

from a superior dwelling-place to an inferior dwelling-place

.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They may not even

remove [her]

from an inferior dwelling-place to a superior dwelling-place, because the superior dwelling-place “examines

the body that comes to it from the inferior dwelling-place, since moving from a bad place to a good place causes a change in the way of life, something that can cause illnesses to the human body.

Gemara:

And we considered the words of the Mishna:

Granted, from a metropolis to a town

they do not remove [her]—

for in a metropolis

the large one,

all things are commonly found,

all the things it needs are present, whereas

in a town

which is smaller than a metropolis,

all things are not commonly found.

But from a town to a metropolis—

what is the reason

they do not remove [her]?

It supports

our Mishna

[the teaching of] Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina—

for Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: From where [do we know] that dwelling in metropolises—

is difficult

because of the crowding in them?

As it is stated

[Nehemiah 11]:

“And the people blessed all the men who volunteered to dwell in Jerusalem.”

And it is implied that volunteers are needed to dwell in a metropolis such as Jerusalem!

We also learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says.

And so on.

And we considered it:

What does “examines

mean?

As Shmuel said, for Shmuel said:

Every

change of regimen

[the conduct of the way of life], even for the better—

the beginning

[leads to]

intestinal illness.

It is written in the Book of Ben Sira:

[Proverbs 15]

“All the days of the poor are bad.”

And concerning this we wondered:

But there are Shabbatot and Festivals,

on which it is not bad for him!

And we answered:

As Shmuel said, for Shmuel said:

Every

change of regimen,

even for the better—

the beginning of intestinal illness.

Ben Sira says: Even nights

of the poor are bad.

For

in low roofs—

his roof,

his house’s roof is lower than all the roofs around it.

And in the heights of mountains—

his vineyard.

He plants his vineyard at the heights of the mountains, which is not a good place for vineyards, since he does not have enough money to buy a vineyard at the foot of the mountain.

And therefore,

from the rain of roofs,

the rainwater that pours onto the nearby roofs—all pours

onto his roof,

which is lower than the other roofs.

And from the soil of his vineyard,

the fertilizer that he prepares to fertilize his vineyard at the mountaintop—is swept downward,

to the vineyards

of other people, which are at the foot of the mountain.

Mishna:

a.

Everyone may bring up

the members of his household

to the Land of Israel,

for they have the right to demand that the members of their household ascend with them to the Land, and if they do not ascend with them, they are exempt from their obligations toward them.

And not everyone

[that is, everyone may not]

may remove

the members of his household from the Land of Israel to outside the Land, for they do not have the right to demand that they leave with them.

Likewise,

everyone may bring up

from the Land of Israel

to Jerusalem.

And not everyone

[that is, everyone may not]

may remove

from Jerusalem, not even to the Land of Israel.

Both men and women

are equal in the law of ascending to the Land of Israel and to Jerusalem, and in leaving it.

b. One who has a promissory note against another, and a sum of specific coins is written in it, and there is a difference in the size of the coins between the countries—the place specified in the note as the place of the loan determines which coins the borrower must pay.

But regarding payment of two hundred zuz of a woman’s ketuba, if it happened that he married a woman in one place and divorced her in another, and there is a difference in the size of the zuz coins between the two places, they dispute the matter below in our Mishna, and the reason for the distinction between a loan and a ketuba will be explained in the Gemara.

In the country of Cappadocia, the zuz coins were larger than the zuz coins in the Land of Israel.

And if it happened that he

married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in the Land of Israel—

he gives her from the money of the Land of Israel,

and he does not have to give her from Cappadocian money, which is more valuable, even though two hundred zuz alone were written in the ketuba, and in Cappadocia these coins are larger and consequently more valuable.

And likewise, if he

married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in Cappadocia—

he gives her from the money of the Land of Israel.

And likewise, if he

married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in the Land of Israel—

he gives her from the money of the Land of Israel.

These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in the Land of Israel—

he gives her from Cappadocian money.

And according to everyone, if he

married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia—

he gives her from Cappadocian money.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Everyone may bring up

to the Land of Israel—

And we considered it: “Everyone”—

to include what?

And we answered:

To include slaves

Hebrew slaves, whom the master can compel to come with him to the Land of Israel.

And according to the one who teaches

in our Mishna

“slaves” explicitly, “everyone”—

to include what? —

To include

that he can compel the members of his household to ascend even

from a superior dwelling-place

in outside the Land

to an inferior dwelling-place

in the Land of Israel.

We also learned in the Mishna:

“And not everyone may remove”— “

Everyone”—

to include what? —

To include a slave

Canaanite

who fled from outside the Land to the Land,

and his owners do not want to ascend to the Land,

we say to him

to his owner, when he comes to the Land of Israel in order to take him and return him to him:

Sell him here,

sell your slave here in the Land of Israel to someone who will keep him here,

and go,

and return to outside the Land with the money from his sale,

because of

the mitzva of

dwelling in the Land of Israel.

We also learned in the Mishna:

Everyone may bring up to Jerusalem.

And we considered it: “Everyone”—

to include what?

And we answered:

To include

that he can bring up even

from a superior dwelling-place

in the Land of Israel

to an inferior dwelling-place

in Jerusalem.

We also learned in the Mishna, in the latter part of the first section:

And not everyone may remove. “

Everyone”—

to include what? —

To include

that they do not remove from Jerusalem

even from an inferior dwelling-place

in Jerusalem

to a superior dwelling-place

in the Land of Israel, or in outside the Land.

And since,

and incidentally

the first clause taught “they do not remove

from the Land of Israel to outside the Land,”

the latter clause also taught “they do not remove

from Jerusalem.”

The Sages taught: If

he,

the husband,

says

that he wishes

to ascend

to the Land of Israel,

and she says

that she wishes

not to ascend—

they compel her to ascend.

And if not,

if she does not agree to ascend—

she leaves

with a bill of divorce

without a ketuba!

And if

she says to ascend, and he says not to ascend—

they compel him to ascend, and if not—

they compel him to

divorce

her with a bill of divorce,

and he gives her the ketuba.

She says to leave

the Land of Israel or Jerusalem,

and he says not to leave—

they compel her not to leave. And if not,

if she decides to leave—

she leaves

with a bill of divorce

without a ketuba.

He says to leave, and she says not to leave—

they compel him not to leave. And if not—

he divorces her and gives her the ketuba.

We learned in the second part of the Mishna:

He married a woman

in the Land of Israel and divorced her in Cappadocia; he gives her from the money of the Land of Israel.

And we considered it:

This itself,

the words of the Mishna themselves,

is difficult,

for there is a contradiction in its words.

On the one hand,

it teaches

in it that if he

married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in Cappadocia—

he gives her from the money of the Land of Israel.

Apparently,

it is proven,

we follow

after the place where the

lien was created,

and the note was written in the Land of Israel.

But on the other hand,

consider the latter clause,

which we learned in it: If he

married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in the Land of Israel—

he gives her from the money of the Land of Israel.

Apparently,

it is proven that

we follow

the place of the

collection,

which is in the Land of Israel.

But this contradicts what we first learned: “We follow the lien”!

And we answered:

Rabba said,

this matter—

they taught here among “the leniencies of a ketuba.”

Since

he holds

that the obligation of

a ketuba,

an obligation

of the Sages

and not from the Torah, therefore the Sages were lenient: if there is a difference in the value of the money between the place of the lien and the place of collection, she always collects according to the lesser rate between them.

Whereas

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her from Cappadocian money.

Because

he holds that the obligation of

the

a ketuba—

is by Torah law,

and she always collects according to the place of the obligation, and not according to the place of collection.

The Sages taught: One who produces a promissory note against another—

If

it is written in it

that the place where the note was written is

Babylonia—

he collects from him Babylonian money.

And if

it is written in it

that the place where the note was written is

the Land of Israel—

he collects from him the money of the Land of Israel.

And if

it is written in it plainly

[without specifying the place where the note was written]—

then if he

produced it in Babylonia—

he collects from him Babylonian money.

And if he

produced it in the Land of Israel—

he collects from him the money of the Land of Israel.

And if

silver plainly is written in it—

the borrower collects from him whatever he wishes

for the lender, since the burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to extract from another.

And the beraita concludes:

“Which is not so with a ketuba!”

And we considered it: “Which is not so with a ketuba”—

with regard to what?

To which matter does what the beraita said, “Which is not so with a ketuba,” refer?

Rav Mesharsheya said:

These words

refer to the first clause

of the Mishna,

to exclude

and remove

from the words

of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: A ketuba is by Torah law,

and according to his words we follow the place of the lien, like all promissory notes. And it teaches us that they were lenient with a ketuba because it is rabbinic.

We learned in a beraita:

“If silver plainly is written in it”,

for example, he wrote in the note “one hundred silver” without specifying in which coins—

whatever the borrower wishes,

of whatever type of coins he wishes,

he collects it

for the lender, even one hundred issarim, which is the least valuable silver coin!

And we considered it:

And say that “silver” plainly in the language of the note means

a silver ingot,

that he must give him one hundred pieces made of silver metal, since, as he did not specify a particular coin, it is reasonable that his intention was silver metal, and therefore he did not specify which coin!?

Rabbi Elazar said:

The beraita is speaking of a case

in which “coin” is written in it,

but the type of coin was not specified in it.

And the Gemara further asks:

And say,

say that the intention of the note is that he give him

small coins

[copper coins alone], and give him one hundred copper small coins, or give him silver equal to their value!?

Rav Pappa said: Silver small coins—

people do not make them.

They do not make small coins of silver, but only of copper; therefore it is impossible to say that his intention was small coins.

The Sages taught: A person should always dwell in the Land of Israel, even in a city whose majority are idolaters, and let him not dwell outside the Land, even in a city whose majority are Jews,

for anyone who dwells in the Land of Israel—

is like one who has a God,

and anyone who dwells outside the Land—

is like one who has no God.

As it is stated

[Leviticus 25]:

“To give you the land of Canaan—

to be your God.”

And one must wonder:

And

for

is everyone who does not dwell in the Land without a God?

Rather, this is to tell you: Anyone who dwells outside the Land—

is as though he worships idols!

And likewise concerning David, he

[the verse]

says

[I Samuel 26]:

“For they have driven me out today from attaching myself to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, worship other gods.”

But who said to David, “Go, worship other gods”?

Rather, this is to tell you: Anyone who dwells outside the Land—

is as though he worships idols.

And David was compelled to flee from the Land of Israel to the king of Moab and to Achish.

Rabbi Zeira was avoiding Rav Yehuda,

because

he wanted to ascend

he wanted to ascend

to the Land of Israel,

and he was concerned that if Rav Yehuda saw him, he would prohibit him from ascending there.

For Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to the Land of Israel

at this time

transgresses a positive commandment.