Ketubot 110b (קי:) — the Talmud in English

But not from a city to a large city, nor from a large city to a city,

for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

They may compel him to move from an inferior dwelling,

from an inferior place

to a superior dwelling. But they may not

compel him to move

from a superior dwelling to an

inferior one.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They may not even

compel him to move

from an inferior dwelling to a superior one, because the superior dwelling “examines”

the body of one who comes to it from an inferior dwelling, as moving from an inferior place to a superior one causes a change in lifestyle, which can cause illnesses to the human body.

Gemara:

We raise a question concerning the wording of the Mishna:

Granted, from a large city to a city

they do not compel him to move—

as in a large city

the larger place,

all necessities are commonly found,

all the things it requires are available, whereas

in a city

which is smaller than a large city,

all necessities are not commonly found.

But from a city to a large city—

what is the reason

that they do not compel him to move?

Our Mishna supports

the teaching of

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina—

as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in large cities

is difficult,

because of the overcrowding there?

As it is stated [Nehemiah 11]:

“

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

This indicates that people must “volunteer” to live in a large city such as Jerusalem!

We further learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says.

And so on.

And we raise a question concerning it:

What is meant by “examines”?

mean?

It is in accordance with that which Shmuel said,

every

change in one’s regimen

of lifestyle,

at the beginning

of which it

leads to intestinal illness.

It is written in the book of Ben Sira: [Proverbs 15]

“

All the days of a poor man are bad.”

And concerning this we raise a difficulty:

But there are Shabbatot and Festivals,

when it is not bad for him!

And we answer:

It is in accordance with that which Shmuel said:

Every

change in one’s regimen,

even for the better,

is the beginning of intestinal illness.

Ben Sira says: The nights as well

are bad for the poor man.

Because

on low roofs—

his roof

is low, his house’s roof being lower than all the surrounding roofs.

And on the heights of mountains—

his vineyard.

He plants his vineyard on the heights of the mountains, which are not a good location for vineyards, because he does not have enough money to purchase a vineyard at the foot of the mountain.

And therefore,

from the rain of roofs,

the rainwater that pours onto the nearby roofs—all of it flows

onto his roof,

which is lower than the other roofs.

And from the soil of his vineyard,

the manure that he prepares to fertilize his vineyard at the top of the mountains is washed downward,

to the vineyards

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

Mishna:

1.

Everyone may compel

the members of his household

to ascend to Eretz Yisrael,

as they have the right to demand that the members of their household ascend with them to Eretz Yisrael; and if they do not ascend with them, they are released from their obligations toward them.

And not everyone

that is, no one

may compel

the members of his household to leave Eretz Yisrael for outside Eretz Yisrael, as they do not have the right to demand that they leave with them.

Likewise,

everyone may compel

one to ascend from Eretz Yisrael

to Jerusalem.

And not everyone

that is, no one

may compel

one to leave Jerusalem, not even for Eretz Yisrael.

Men and women alike

are equal with regard to the law of compelling one to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and to Jerusalem, and to leave them.

2. One who has a promissory note against another, in which a sum of specific coins is written, and there is a difference in the size of the coins between the various lands: The place specified in the document as the place of the loan determines which coins the borrower must pay.

But with regard to 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, the matter is disputed below in our Mishna; the reason for the distinction between a loan and a ketuba will be explained in the Gemara.

In the province of Cappadocia, the zuz coins were larger than the zuz coins in Eretz Yisrael.

And if it happened that he

married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael—

he gives her money of Eretz Yisrael,

and need not give her Cappadocian money, which is more valuable, even though the ketuba merely stated two hundred zuz, and in Cappadocia these coins are larger and consequently more valuable.

And likewise, if he

married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia—

he gives her money of Eretz Yisrael.

And likewise, if he

married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael—

he gives her money of Eretz Yisrael.

These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael—

If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael—

he gives her Cappadocian money.

And according to everyone, if he

married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia—

he gives her Cappadocian money.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Everyone may compel one to ascend

to Eretz Yisrael—

And we raise a question: “Everyone”—

what does this come to include?

And we answer:

It comes to include Hebrew slaves,

whom the master can compel to come with him to Eretz Yisrael.

And according to the one who teaches

in our Mishna

“slaves” explicitly, “everyone”—

what does this come to include? -

It comes to include

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

from a superior dwelling

outside Eretz Yisrael

to an inferior dwelling

in Eretz Yisrael.

We further learned in the Mishna:

“And not everyone may compel”— “Everyone”—

Everyone”—

what does this come to include? -

It comes to include a gentile slave

Canaanite

who fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael,

and whose owners do not want to ascend to Eretz Yisrael.

We say to him,

the owner, when he comes to Eretz Yisrael to take him and return him:

Sell him here,

sell your slave here in Eretz Yisrael to someone who will keep him here,

and go,

return to outside Eretz Yisrael with the proceeds of his sale,

because of the

mitzva of

dwelling in Eretz Yisrael.

We further learned in the Mishna:

Everyone may compel one to ascend to Jerusalem.

And we raise a question: “Everyone”—

what does this come to include?

And we answer:

It comes to include

that he can compel one to ascend even

from a superior dwelling

in Eretz Yisrael

to an inferior dwelling

in Jerusalem.

We further learned in the Mishna, in the latter clause of the first part:

And not everyone may compel one to leave. “Everyone”—

Everyone”—

what does this come to include? -

It comes to include

that one may not be compelled to leave Jerusalem

even from an inferior dwelling

in Jerusalem

to a superior dwelling

in Eretz Yisrael or outside Eretz Yisrael.

And since,

incidentally,

the first clause states, “One may not compel

one to leave Eretz Yisrael for outside Eretz Yisrael,”

the latter clause also states, “One may not compel

one to leave Jerusalem.”

The Sages taught: If

he,

the husband,

says

that he wishes

to ascend

to Eretz Yisrael,

and she says

that she wishes

not to ascend—

she is compelled to ascend.

And if not,

if she does not agree to ascend—

she shall leave

with a bill of divorce

without her ketuba!

And if

she says that she wishes to ascend, and he says that he does not wish to ascend—

he is compelled to ascend, and if not—

he is compelled to

divorce

her with a bill of divorce,

and give her the ketuba.

She says that she wishes to leave

Eretz Yisrael or Jerusalem,

and he says that he does not wish to leave—

she is compelled not to leave. And if not,

if she decides to leave—

she shall leave

with a bill of divorce

without her ketuba.

He says that he wishes to leave, and she says that she does not wish to leave—

he is compelled not to leave. And if not—

he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

We learned in the second part of the Mishna:

If he married a woman

in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her money of Eretz Yisrael.

And we raise a question concerning it:

This itself,

the words of the Mishna themselves,

is difficult,

as there is a contradiction between its statements.

On the one hand,

it teaches

in it that if he

married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia—

he gives her money of Eretz Yisrael.

Apparently,

it is evident that we follow

the place where

the

obligation was created,

and the document was written in Eretz Yisrael.

But on the other hand,

consider the latter clause, which we learned in it: If he

which we learned: If he

married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael—

he gives her money of Eretz Yisrael.

Apparently,

it is evident that we follow

the

place of

collection,

which is Eretz Yisrael.

But this contradicts what we first learned, that “we follow the place where the obligation was created”!

And we answer:

Rabba said: This matter—

This matter

they taught it as one of the leniencies of a ketuba.

Since

he holds—the tanna in our Mishna—that the obligation of a

the tanna in our Mishna holds that the obligation of

ketuba is an obligation

an obligation

of rabbinic origin, and not from the Torah, the Sages therefore were lenient: If there is a difference in the value of the money between the place where the obligation was created and the place of collection, she always collects according to the lower amount between them.

and not of the Torah; therefore, the Sages were lenient and ruled that when the value of the coins differs between the place where the obligation was created and the place of collection, she always collects according to the lower amount between the two.

Whereas

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

Because

he holds that the obligation of a

the

ketuba is

of Torah origin, and she always collects according to the place where the obligation was created, and not according to the place of collection.

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 document was written is

Babylonia—

he collects from him Babylonian money.

And if

it is written in it

that the place where the document was written is

Eretz Yisrael—

he collects from him money of Eretz Yisrael.

And if

it is written in it without specification

that is, the place where the document was written is not specified—

then, if he

produces it in Babylonia—

he collects from him Babylonian money.

And if he

produces it in Eretz Yisrael—

he collects from him money of Eretz Yisrael.

And if

it is written in it “silver” without specification—

the borrower may choose with what he pays him,

the lender, because the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

And the beraita concludes:

“This is not so with regard to a ketuba!”

And we raise a question: “This is not so with regard to a ketuba”—

with regard to what?

To which matter does the statement of the beraita, “This is not so with regard to a ketuba,” refer?

Rav Mesharsheya said: These words

These words

refer to the first clause

of the Mishna; they were stated

to exclude

and refute

the

words of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: A ketuba is of Torah origin,

and according to him, one follows the place where the obligation was created, as with all promissory notes. The beraita teaches us that the Sages were lenient with regard to a ketuba, because it is of rabbinic origin.

We learned in a beraita:

If “silver” is written in it without specification,

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

whatever the borrower wishes,

whatever type of coins he wants,

he may use to pay him,

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

And we raise a question:

But say that the word “silver” without specification in the language of the document means

ingots,

so that he must give him one hundred pieces made of silver metal; since 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

where

where the word “coin” is written in it,

but the type of coin was not specified.

And the Gemara raises a further objection:

But say,

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

small coins

[only perutot], and give him one hundred copper perutot, or give him silver of equivalent value!?

Rav Pappa said: Silver small coins—

people do not make them.

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

The Sages taught: A person should always dwell in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city whose majority are idolaters, and he should not dwell outside Eretz Yisrael, even in a city whose majority are Jews.

For anyone who dwells in Eretz Yisrael—

is likened to one who has a God,

and anyone who dwells outside Eretz Yisrael—

is likened to one who has no God.

As it is stated [Leviticus 25]:

in Leviticus 25:

“To give you the land of Canaan—

to be your God.”

And this is difficult:

For

if

everyone who does not dwell in the Land has no God?

Rather, this is to tell you: Anyone who dwells outside Eretz Yisrael—

is as though he worships idols!

And likewise, concerning David, he

the verse

says [I Samuel 26]:

in I Samuel 26:

“For they have driven me out this day from sharing in 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 Eretz Yisrael—

is as though he worships idols.

And David was compelled to flee from Eretz Yisrael to the king of Moab and to Achish.

Rabbi Zeira was avoiding Rav Yehuda,

because

he wanted to ascend

he wanted to go up

to Eretz Yisrael,

and he was concerned that if Rav Yehuda saw him, he would forbid him to ascend there.

For Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael

at this time

violates a positive mitzva.