Ketubot 53a — the Talmud in English

He saw

Rav Pappa [with] Yehuda

that he was not pleased

to enter with him.

He said to him

Rav Pappa:

What is your thinking,

why do you not wish to enter? Is it

because of

what

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: “Shinana, do not participate in the transfer of an inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son” [do not participate in transferring an inheritance, that is, that he should write, during his lifetime, his property to him, even from a bad son to a good son], because

[do not participate in transferring an inheritance, meaning that he should write over his property during his lifetime, even from a bad son to a good son], because

it is not known what offspring will emerge from him,

for we do not know what offspring will emerge from the bad son, and perhaps he will have worthy offspring, and it is proper that he receive a portion of the inheritance]!

And all the more so

that there should not be participation in the transfer of an inheritance

from a son to a daughter.

But here too this is the transfer of an inheritance, for he is writing to his daughter what would have been proper to bequeath to his sons!

You have nothing to fear from this, for

this too is a rabbinic ordinance,

because of

what

above

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

so that a person will leap forward and give to his daughter, and this matter is learned from Scripture!

He said to him

Yehuda:

These words—

of his own accord,

what the father gives willingly. But

to force him [to compel him] to give

to give,

also?

He said to him

Rav Pappa:

Am I saying to you: “Enter and force”? “Enter, but do not force,” I am saying!

He said to him

Yehuda:

My entering [my entering the house]

[my going into the house]

is forcing,

because on account of my honor he will increase the amount of the dowry that he assigns to her.

In the end,

he forced him [Rav Pappa forced him with words]—

—and

and he entered [and Yehuda entered with him].

[and Yehuda entered with him].

Yehuda was silent

and

and sat.

That man thought: “He is angry,”

the father of the daughter thought that Yehuda was angry because he had assigned his daughter a small amount, and therefore

he wrote to her everything that he had [he wrote all his property to her].

[he wrote all his property to her].

In the end he said to him

the father of the daughter to Yehuda:

“Now too my master does not speak,”

even now, when I have given her so much, do you say nothing

? “By the life of my master, I have left nothing for myself” [I have left nothing for myself]!

[I have left nothing for myself]!

He said to him: “If it were my advice,”

if you had taken advice from me,

even this also that you wrote

at the beginning—

I would not have been pleased.

He said to him: “Now too I shall retract” [I shall retract now]! [I shall retract now]!

[I will retract now]!

He said to him: “You have made yourself one who retracts”—

“I am not saying [that].”

Rav Yemar the Elder asked Rav Naḥman:

If

she sold

the woman

her ketuba to her husband,

does she

have the ketubat benin dikhrin

as with every ketuba,

or

should it be said that since she sold her ketuba to her husband, the status of her father’s inheritance has ceased with regard to bequeathing his dowry to his daughter’s sons, for she sold it, and now the inheritance comes only by virtue of the husband, and therefore

she does not have the ketubat

benin dikhrin,

and all his sons will divide the inheritance equally?

Rava said to him: And let your question concern you regarding a

about a woman who

woman who remits

her ketuba to her husband, which is more common than selling a ketuba to the husband [and although no benefit came into her possession, nevertheless her right ceased during her lifetime]!

Rav Yemar said to him: Do not infer that because benefit came into her possession it is reasonable that she does not have the ketubat benin dikhrin.

Rather,

On the contrary,

now regarding

with a woman who

one who sells

her ketuba to her husband,

I am asking

whether she has the law of ketubat benin dikhrin,

for although it may be said that money forced her,

because she needed money, she sold her ketuba,

I say that she is

that she is

as though one were striking her with a hundred uklei with a pestle [as though they struck her one hundred blows with a strap whose head contained iron, like a small weight called an ukla, in order that she sell her ketuba], and nevertheless there is room to say that she lost the law of ketubat benin dikhrin,

[as though she had been given a hundred lashes with a strap whose head contained a small iron weight called an ukhla, in order to make her sell her ketuba], and nevertheless there is room to say that she forfeited the status of a ketubat benei dikhrin,

a woman who remits,

whom they did not compel to remit,

is it necessary [to ask]?

On the contrary, it is more reasonable that she does not have the law of ketubat benin dikhrin!

Rava said: It is obvious to me that

that a woman who

one who sells her ketuba to others

for usufruct, so that if she is widowed or divorced, the purchasers will take her ketuba, and if she dies, her husband will inherit it—and she ultimately died and her husband inherited it—

has the ketubat benin dikhrin.

For even if she had not sold it, her husband would have inherited it, and her sons would have received her ketuba; therefore, even when she sold it, her right did not cease.

And we do not say that she should lose it because she found it easy to sell her ketuba, even though through this she causes her sons to lose it if she is widowed or divorced.

What is the reason?

Because she did not sell it willingly, but

money forced her,

for she was compelled on account of her need for money.

And furthermore, it is obvious to me that

one who remits her ketuba to her husband—

does not have the ketubat benin dikhrin.

What is the reason?

Because

she remitted her ketuba to her husband

her ketuba , and it was easy in her eyes to cause her sons to lose it for nothing .

But this matter

Rava asked: One who sells her ketuba

to her husband,

whether

is considered like one who sells to others,

for this too is a sale for a small usufruct, since if she dies first, her husband will inherit her, and the right that he takes from her is only that if he dies first, she will not collect her ketuba. And in the end she died, therefore she has the ketubat benin dikhrin,

or

perhaps

is considered like one who remits to her husband,

since she found it easy to sell it to him, and therefore she does not have it?

After he asked the question, he then resolved it: One who sells a ketuba to her husband—

is considered like one who sells to others.

Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection from the Mishna that we learned in tractate Yevamot [87b]: A woman whose husband went to an overseas country, and one witness said to her, “Your husband died,” and they permitted her to marry on his testimony—and she married, and afterward her husband came—she must leave this one and that one, and she has no ketuba, neither from this one nor from that one. And if

from the Mishna that we learned in tractate Yevamot, page 87b: If a woman’s husband went overseas, and one witness said to her, “Your husband died,” and they permitted her to marry on the basis of his testimony, and she married, and afterward her husband came, she must leave both men, and she has no marriage contract from either one. And if

she dies, neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one

inherit her ketuba.

And we raised this question concerning it:

what is this that we learned: “Neither the heirs of this one, and so on, inherit her ketuba”?

What does her ketuba have to do here?

For we already learned in the first clause of the Mishna that she has no ketuba!

And Rav Pappa said:

the reference is to the

ketubat benin dikhrin. And this is the meaning of our Mishna:

if she died during the lifetimes of both of them, and they inherited her, the sons that she has from this one and from that one do not take their mother’s ketuba as benin dikhrin when they come to divide their fathers’ property; rather, they divide equally.

And why

is there no law of ketubat benin dikhrin here?

Here too, let us say: Desire forced her,

for she desired a husband!

And we answer:

There it is a penalty that the Sages imposed upon her,

because she did not carefully ascertain whether indeed her husband had died before she remarried.

Ravin bar Hanina sat before Rav Hisda, and sat and said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One who remits her ketuba to her husband—

does not have sustenance

in her widowhood , because the conditions of the ketuba are like the ketuba, and just as she remitted her ketuba, so she also remitted the conditions of her ketuba.

He said to him: If you had not told me

this matter

in the name of a great man, I would have said to you

concerning this halakha:

“He who repays evil for good—evil shall not depart from his house.”

For this is repaying evil for good: she did him a favor by remitting her ketuba to him, and he repays her with evil, so that she will not receive sustenance in her widowhood.

Rav Naḥman, and Ulla, and Avimi bar Rav Pappi sat, and Rav Hiyya bar Ami sat with them.

A certain man whose betrothed had died came [who had died]

fiancée

his betrothed.

They said to him [they said to him]:

[they said to him]:

“Go bury

her,

or give her her ketuba [her dowry], for they instituted her burial in exchange for her ketuba!

[her dowry], since they enacted that he must bury her in exchange for her ketuba!

Rav Hiyya said to them: We learned

that she has no law of a ketuba, that is—burial [which is in exchange for her ketuba]:

His betrothed wife,

if she dies,

he does not observe mourning

for her by becoming forbidden to sacred things,

and he does not become impure for her

if he is a koen, because she is not considered his kin.

And likewise she,

if he dies,

does not

become

a mourner

to become forbidden to sacred things,

and she does not become impure for him.

That is, although it is a mitzva to attend to the seven dead for whom there is a mitzva mentioned in the section concerning kohanim, as it is written, “For her he shall become impure”—a mitzva—she is not obligated to become impure for him, because he is not her kin.

But if she wishes to become impure for him, she is permitted, because it is written in the warning concerning impurity, “the sons of Aaron,” and they derive from this that the daughters of Aaron are not warned.

If she died—

he does not inherit her.

That is, he does not inherit the dowry of her father’s household. For the ordinance of inheritance of the dowry applies only from the time of entering the bridal canopy, or of her being delivered to the husband’s agents.

If he died

during her lifetime—

she collects

her

ketuba,

one hundred dinars, two hundred, and the additional amount.

The reason—

that he died,

then she has a ketuba.

But if she died—

she does not have a ketuba,

for we do not say that her burial is incumbent upon him in exchange for her ketuba. For specifically with a married woman, whom, if she dies, her husband inherits, he became obligated in exchange for this to bury her. But a betrothed woman, whom he does not inherit, he is not obligated to bury.

What is the reason?

Why should we not say that there is imposed upon him an obligation of burial in exchange for the one hundred and two hundred that he inherits?

Rav Hoshaya said:

Because

I cannot apply to her

what they write in a ketuba:

“When you marry another [whether because of the husband’s death or because she is divorced]—

[if because of the husband’s death or because he divorces you]—

you shall take what is written for you.”

And therefore, here, where the husband did not die and she was not divorced, he did not become obligated to her through her ketuba, and he does not inherit from her anything on account of which he would become obligated in her burial.

When Ravin came, Reish Lakish said: A betrothed woman who died—

does not have a ketuba.