Ketubot 52b — the Talmud in English

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Forever!

Captives are not redeemed for more than their value, because of the rectification of the world.

That is, so that the captors will not become accustomed to raising the price of the captives.

And we object: It is implied from the beraita that, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, specifically when it is more than their value, captives are not redeemed.

But when it is according to their value—

they are redeemed

them,

even though her redemption is more than

the value of

her ketuba!

And we raise a contradiction: If she was taken captive, and they were asking from him up to ten times her ketuba, the first time—

he redeems her. From then onward, if he wishes—

he redeems her; if he wishes—

he does not redeem her.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If her redemption was equal to her ketuba—

he redeems her. If not—

he does not redeem her!

And it is proven that even though the captors do not demand more than her value, if they demand more than her ketuba, he is not obligated to redeem her!

And we answer:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds two leniencies [

he maintains two leniencies concerning redemption]:

a. He does not redeem her for more than the value for which she is worth on the market.

b. Even if it is not a matter of more than her value, he is not obligated to redeem her for more than her ketuba.

We learned in our Mishna:

If she became ill, he is obligated to heal her.

The Sages taught: A widow

who

is sustained from the property of the orphans and requires medical treatment—

it is

the medical treatment

like sustenance,

and she takes the cost of her medical treatment. Since these two matters, sustenance and medical treatment, are the needs of her life.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Medical treatment that has a fixed cost—

she is healed from

the money of

her ketuba,

and it is not included in sustenance, since sustenance has no fixed cost.

But medical treatment

that has no fixed cost—

it is

like sustenance.

For it resembles sustenance, since sustenance too has no fixed cost.

Rabbi Yohanan said: They made bloodletting in the Land of Israel—

like medical treatment that has no fixed cost.

The relatives of Rabbi Yohanan had a father’s wife [

his father’s wife],

who required medical treatment every day,

and it was incumbent upon them to pay for her medical treatment, since it is like sustenance, which has no fixed cost.

They came

the relatives

before Rabbi Yohanan

to ask how they should act.

He said to them: Go, set a fixed amount for her with a physician,

that is, set for the physician a sum that he will accept for providing her medical treatment forever. Through this, her medical treatment will be considered something that has a fixed cost, and she collects it from her ketuba, and it is not like sustenance!

Rabbi Yohanan said: We have made ourselves like advocates for litigants [

that is, one who loves one of the litigants, presents his words favorably to the judge, and arranges the case before him in order to vindicate him. And he is called “an advocate for litigants,” because he arranges the judges to turn their hearts in favor of this one]. For I too gave my relatives advice about how to exempt themselves from paying the cost of her medical treatment.

And we question:

At first,

at the beginning, when he gave them the advice—

what did he think, and in the end,

when he regretted it and said, “We have made ourselves like advocates for litigants”—

what did he think?

And we explain:

At first he thought

that he needed to give them advice because of what is written:

“And from your flesh

from your relative

do not conceal yourself.”

And in the end he thought: An important person

am I

[ different], and therefore I should have been careful not to give advice even to my relatives.

Mishna:

If he

did not write for her

for his wife in her ketuba:

“Male children that you will have from me, they shall inherit the money

of your ketuba in addition to their portion that they will share with their brothers,”

that is, he writes for her that if she dies during his lifetime and he inherits her, then male children that she will have from him will inherit the money of her ketuba and her dowry apart from the portion that they will divide with their brothers from another woman, and the sons of the other woman will also inherit their mother’s ketuba. The practical difference is if this woman’s ketuba is larger than the second woman’s, or if the second woman will have more sons, in which case it is better for them to take their mother’s ketuba, even though the two ketubot are equal], nevertheless

he is obligated

to fulfill this matter, because

it is a condition of the court.

And likewise, if he did not write for her:

“Female children that you will have from me, they shall sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men”—

he is obligated, for it is a condition of the court.

And likewise, if he did not write for her:

“You shall sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days of the duration of

your widowhood in my house

[all the days of the duration of your widowhood]”—

he is obligated, for it is a condition of the court.

Thus the people of Jerusalem used to write.

And likewise

the people of the Galilee—

used to write like the people of Jerusalem.

But

the people of Judea used to write

in the ketuba as follows: “You shall sit in my house, etc.

until the heirs wish to give you your ketuba. Therefore, if the heirs wish, they give her her ketuba—

and exempt her.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Since the husband inherits his wife,

why did

the Sages

institute the ketuba of male children,

so that he would bequeath to her sons the dowry that he inherited from her?

So that a person will quickly write for his daughter

a fine dowry—

like

what he leaves for

his son

as an inheritance. For now, since her father knows that her sons will receive what he gives her, he will give her generously!

And we question:

Is there anything concerning which the Merciful One said: A son—

to inherit; a daughter—

shall not inherit,

for by Torah law only a son inherits and a daughter does not inherit,

and the Sages came and instituted that a daughter shall inherit

and the Sages came and instituted that even a daughter should inherit, so that he would give her his property that was fitting for his sons to inherit?

And we explain:

This too,

that the father should give his daughter a generous dowry—

is by Torah law, as it is written: “Take wives and beget sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men.”

And now,

granted, sons—

are in his hands,

it is in his power to seek a wife for him, since it is the way of a man to pursue a woman.

But his daughters—

are they in his hands,

and is it the way of a woman to pursue a man?

Rather,

this teaches us

this verse,

that he should dress her, cover her, and give her something

that her father should dress her and cover her, and give her a dowry,

so that they will leap toward her—

and they will marry her

[so that they will hasten to marry her].

And how much

should he give her as a dowry?

Abaye and Rava both said: Up to one tenth of the property

[up to one tenth of his property].

And we object:

And say

that the dowry

of the father

[that the father gave her]—

should be inherited,

indeed her sons should inherit it, since this is why they instituted the ketuba of male children, so that her father would give her a fine dowry and they would hasten to marry her. But the ketuba and the additional payment

of the husband—

should not be inherited!

And we explain:

If so,

if they would not also inherit the husband’s ketuba, we are concerned that the

father too will refrain

from refraining

and will not write for his daughter,

for the father will say: If the husband is particular about his own [money], not to bequeath it to my daughter’s sons, I too will refrain from increasing her dowry.

And we object: Since the entire institution of the ketuba of male children is in order that the father should write a dowry for his daughter, if so,

let us say

that only

where the father wrote

a dowry for his daughter—

let the

husband

write

the ketuba of male children. But

where the father did not write—

let the husband not write

the ketuba of male children!

And we answer: Since dowry exists in most ketubot,

the Sages did not distinguish

between one ketuba and another, and instituted that in every ketuba they should write the ketuba of male children.

And we object: Since the entire institution is in order that the father should give his daughter a dowry, if so, why did they institute this institution only for male sons? Let us say that

a daughter among the sons,

that is, if this woman has only a daughter, while he has sons from another woman,

should also inherit

her mother’s dowry and ketuba, since even in such a case the reason for the institution applies!

And we explain: This institution

the Sages made like an inheritance,

for they write in the ketuba the expression “they shall inherit,” and a daughter does not inherit among the sons.

And we object: And still,

a daughter among the daughters,

that is, if he has only daughters from his two wives—

should inherit

the ketuba of her mother, since when there are only daughters, they have the law of inheritance!

And we say:

The Sages did not distinguish

concerning the ketuba of male children, to say that a daughter among the sons will not inherit, but among the daughters she will inherit.

And we consider the matter: Since the reason for the ketuba of male children is because of the dowry that the woman’s father brought,

and should she collect

even

from movable property

[and above, on page 50, we said that the heirs of the ketuba of male children inherit only from land]!

And we say: The ketuba of male children—

the Sages made like a ketuba ,

and the movable property of the orphans is not liened to the ketuba document.

And we object: If the Sages made it like a ketuba,

should it collect from mortgaged property

[and below there is a dispute about this]!

And we answer:

“They shall inherit,” we learned ,

for this ketuba is like an inheritance, and an inheritance does not collect from mortgaged property.

The law of the ketuba of male children applies specifically if in the inheritance, in addition to the amount of the mother’s ketuba, there are also assets worth a dinar, with which they can fulfill the division of inheritance as stated in the Torah.

And we consider the matter:

And let us say

that

even though there is no surplus of a dinar

in the inheritance beyond the mother’s ketuba, the law of the ketuba of male children should apply!?

And we answer:

In a place where

the law of

inheritance by Torah law is uprooted—

the Sages did not institute

the ketuba of male children. Therefore, only where there is a surplus of a dinar, by which inheritance by Torah law can be fulfilled, do we say that these take their mother’s ketuba and those take their mother’s ketuba.

Rav Pappa became occupied with arranging his son’s marriage

to marry him to a daughter from the house of

Abba Sura

[he was his father-in-law, and Rav Pappa married his wife’s sister to his son].

He went

Rav Pappa to the house of the girl’s father,

to write her ketuba,

and there her father would determine and write how much he would give as her dowry.

Judah bar Marimar heard

that Rav Pappa had come,

he went out and came to show himself to him.

When they reached the entrance

of the house of Abba Sura,

Judah was taking leave

from

him

of Rav Pappa.

Rav Pappa said to him

to Judah:

Let the master enter with me [enter together with me]!

[enter together with me]!