Ketubot 52a — the Talmud in English

But

a mamzeret or a netina

married to

an Israelite,

even though she too has a ketuba and the conditions of the ketuba, which she collects and departs with

he is not obligated to redeem her ,

because from the outset he did not bind himself to this condition,

for

behold,

I do not read in her

what is written for an Israelite woman in the conditions of the ketuba:

“And I shall restore you to myself as a wife,”

for he cannot take her back to himself.

Rava said: Whoever is caused [to become forbidden] by the prohibition of captivity,

such as a woman married to a kohen, who, had she not been taken captive, would have been permitted to him—

he is obligated to redeem her,

for this is what he bound himself to her for from the outset.

But if

she is caused [to become forbidden] by the prohibition of another matter,

such as a woman married to a High Priest—

he is not obligated to redeem her,

because he did not bind himself to her from the outset, as we say regarding a mamzeret and a netina that he did not bind himself to her originally.

For Rava holds that the conditions of the ketuba of an Israelite and of a kohen are equal, except that the kohen adds and stipulates that even if she becomes forbidden to him because of captivity, she will not lose the ketuba-obligation of her redemption.

Shall we say

that the dispute between Abaye and Rava—

as

a dispute of

conditions

it is!

For we learned in a beraita:

One who makes his wife prohibited by vow

from deriving benefit from him—

and she is taken captive, Rabbi Eliezer says:

Even though he will ultimately divorce her because of the vow,

he redeems

her

and gives her the amount of her ketuba.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He gives her the amount of her ketuba—

but he does not redeem her.

Rabbi Natan said: I asked Sumakhos: When Rabbi Yehoshua said

that he

gives her the amount of her ketuba but does not redeem her

—did he speak specifically

when he made her prohibited by vow and afterward she was taken captive, or

perhaps even

when she was taken captive and afterward he made her prohibited by vow

he does not redeem her, although it is reasonable that he made her prohibited by vow only in order to exempt himself from the redemption?

And he said to me: I have not heard

anything concerning this matter,

but it appears that

the

matter is

specifically that when

he made her prohibited by vow and afterward she was taken captive

he is not obligated to redeem her,

for if you say

that even when

she was taken captive and afterward he made her prohibited by vow

he does not redeem her,

he would come to scheme

and make her prohibited by vow in order to exempt himself from her redemption!

Is that not

specifically

when he makes the wife of a kohen prohibited by vow,

that is, when a kohen makes his wife prohibited by vow—

they disagree,

because although she became forbidden to him by the vow, I still read in her, “And I shall return you to your land,” and therefore Rabbi Eliezer says that he redeems her. But regarding the wife of an Israelite, in whom I do not read, “And I shall restore you to myself as a wife,” he does not redeem her.

And

if so,

Abaye says in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that he redeems her,

and Rava says in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says that he does not redeem her, and this is because she is caused [to become forbidden] by the prohibition of another matter!

And we reject this:

No. With what are we dealing here? With a case in which she vowed

herself

and he upheld the vow for her,

that is, either he said that the vow should stand, or he remained silent on the day that he heard the vow and did not annul it.

Rabbi Eliezer holds:

This is as though

he placed a finger between her teeth

for her to bite, for he caused the vow to stand, and he will not be able to fulfill, “And I shall restore you to myself as a wife,” and therefore he is obligated to redeem her.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds:

This is as though

she placed a finger between her teeth

and bit it, for she caused herself not to allow the husband to fulfill, “And I shall restore you to myself as a wife,” and therefore he is not obligated to redeem her.

And we are astonished:

If she placed a finger between her teeth,

for she caused herself to become forbidden to him, then

what is the function of the ketuba,

why does she receive a ketuba?

Furthermore,

we learned in that same beraita:

Rabbi Natan said: I asked Sumakhos: When Rabbi Yehoshua said

that he

gives her the amount of her ketuba but does not redeem her,

was it

when he made her prohibited by vow and afterward she was taken captive

specifically,

or

even

when she was taken captive and afterward he made her prohibited by vow,

even though there is concern that he made her prohibited by vow in order to exempt himself from her redemption?

And he said

to him, Sumakhos:

I have not heard.

And if

we are speaking

of her having vowed

and he upheld it for her,

what difference is it to me

whether

he made her prohibited by vow and afterward she was taken captive, or whether she was taken captive and afterward he made her prohibited by vow,

for it was she who vowed, and if so, there is no concern that he will scheme in order to exempt himself from her redemption!

Rather, always

we are speaking

of his having made her prohibited by vow

himself,

and Abaye explains according to his reasoning, and Rava explains according to his reasoning.

Abaye explains according to his reasoning

as follows:

A widow to a High Priest—

everyone agrees that he is obligated to redeem her,

for I read in her both at the beginning, when he stipulated the condition, and at the end, when the condition takes effect: “And I shall return you to your land.”

A mamzeret and a netina to an Israelite—

everyone agrees that he is not obligated to redeem her,

for I read in her neither at the beginning nor at the end, “And I shall restore you to myself as a wife,” since she was forbidden to him from the outset!

One who makes the wife of a kohen prohibited by vow,

that is, a kohen who makes deriving benefit from his wife prohibited by vow,

also—

everyone agrees that he is obligated to redeem her, that is,

like

a widow to a High Priest,

for the condition of “And I shall return you to your land” can be fulfilled both at the time of the condition and at the end.

They disagree

—Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua—

regarding one who makes the wife of an Israelite prohibited by vow,

for at the time of the condition it was fit to fulfill it, since he could take her back to himself. But at the end he cannot take her back, since he made her prohibited from him. And this is what they disagree about:

Rabbi Eliezer follows the initial state,

that is, the time when the condition was stipulated, and at that time he could fulfill it; therefore he is obligated to redeem her.

And Rabbi Yehoshua follows the final state,

when he cannot fulfill the condition, and therefore he is not obligated.

And

if

Rava explains according to his reasoning

as follows:

A widow to a High Priest,

and likewise

a mamzeret and a netina to an Israelite—

—

everyone agrees that he is not obligated to redeem her.

The reason, regarding a mamzeret and a netina, is that it is not fitting to fulfill the condition either at the beginning or at the end, since she is forbidden to him.

And regarding a widow to a High Priest, even though he can fulfill the condition of “And I shall return you to your land,” this is not because of captivity, but because of another matter, that is, because she is forbidden to him.

They disagree—

regarding one who makes [her] prohibited by vow, both regarding the wife of a kohen and regarding the wife of an Israelite

that is, whether the husband is a kohen or whether the husband is an Israelite.

For regarding the wife of a kohen, at the beginning, at the time of the condition, it was fit to fulfill the condition of “And I shall return you to your land” because of captivity, and not only because of another matter. But at the end he cannot take her back because of another matter, that is, because of the vow.

And likewise, regarding an Israelite, initially it was fit to fulfill the condition of “And I shall restore you to myself as a wife.” But at the end it is not fit, since she made herself forbidden to him.

And this is what they disagree about:

Rabbi Eliezer follows the initial state, and Rabbi Yehoshua follows the final state.

We learned in our Mishna:

If she was taken captive, he is obligated to redeem her, etc.

The Sages taught: If she was taken captive during her husband’s lifetime—

and afterward her husband died,

if

her husband knew about her

having been taken captive before he died—

the heirs are obligated to redeem her,

for the husband became obligated for her redemption during his lifetime.

But if

her husband did not know about her

having been taken captive until he died—

the

heirs

are not obligated to redeem her,

for the husband did not become obligated during his lifetime, and the obligation to redeem her is not imposed upon the heirs.

Levi intended to carry out a practical ruling

to perform an act

in accordance with this teaching

as it was taught in this beraita.

Rav said to him: Thus said my beloved

Rabbi Hiyya, who was his uncle:

The halakha is not in accordance with this teaching,

but even if her husband knew that she had been taken captive before he died, the heirs are not obligated to redeem her.

And it is like that which was taught

in a beraita:

If she was taken captive after her husband’s death—

—

the orphans are not obligated to redeem her.

And furthermore, even

if

she was taken captive during her husband’s lifetime and afterward her husband died—

the orphans are not obligated to redeem her,

since

I do not read in her

now, after her husband died, the condition written in the ketuba:

“And I shall restore you as a wife.”

The Sages taught: If she was taken captive, and they demanded from him

from her husband

up to

twice

her price

that is, ten times the price for which she is worth being sold in the marketplace—

the first time

that she was taken captive—

he redeems

her even for such a sum .

But

from then onward,

if

he wishes—

he redeems. If he wishes—

he does not redeem,

because the Sages instituted for her only one redemption .