Ketubot 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

He saw

Rav Pappa with Yehuda

who did not want

to enter with him.

He said to him

Rav Pappa:

What is your reasoning,

why do you not want to enter? Is it

because of

what

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: “Sharp one, 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, 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,

as we do not know what offspring will emerge from the bad son, and perhaps he will have worthy offspring who should receive a share of the inheritance?

And all the more so

that one should not participate in transferring an inheritance

from a son to a daughter.

But here too this is a transfer of an inheritance, since he is writing to his daughter what he would have been fit to bequeath to his sons!

You have nothing to be concerned about this, since

this too is a rabbinic ordinance,

because of

what

Rabbi Yohanan said above

in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

so that a person will be eager to give to his daughter; and this matter is learned from the verse.

He said to him

Yehuda:

That applies—

when he does so willingly,

what the father gives of his own accord. But

to force him

[to compel him] to give

as well?

He said to him

Rav Pappa:

Did I say to you, “Enter and force him”? I said, “Enter, but do not force him”!

He said to him

Yehuda:

My entering

[my entering the house]

would itself constitute coercion,

because on account of the honor he accords me, he will increase the amount of the dowry he assigns her.

In the end,

he compelled him

[Rav Pappa compelled him verbally]—

and he entered

[and Yehuda entered with him].

Yehuda fell silent

Yehuda

and sat down.

That man thought that he was enraged,

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

he wrote her everything that he possessed

[he wrote all his property to her].

Ultimately he said to him

the father of the daughter said to Yehuda:

“Even now, too, my master does not speak,”

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

“By the life of my master, I have left nothing for myself”

[I have left nothing for myself]!

He said to him: “Had you taken my advice,

if you had sought my counsel,

even this that you wrote

at the outset—

I would not have approved.”

He said to him: “Even now I will retract”

[I will retract now]!

He said to him: “You have made yourself a retracting party”—

“I did not say that.”

Rav Yemar the Elder asked Rav Naḥman:

If

she sells

the woman

her ketuba to her husband,

does

she have a ketubat benei dikhrin

as with every ketuba,

or

since she sold her ketuba to her husband, perhaps the legal status of her father’s inheritance has lapsed with regard to bequeathing his dowry to his daughter’s sons, since she sold it, and now the inheritance comes only by virtue of the husband, and therefore

she does not have a ketubat

benei dikhrin,

and all his sons divide the inheritance equally?

Rava said to him: You should have asked me

about

a woman who relinquishes

her ketuba to her husband, which is more common than selling a ketuba to one’s husband [and although she received no benefit, nevertheless her right lapsed during her lifetime]!

Rav Yemar said to him: Do not think that because she received a benefit, it is reasonable to say that she does not have a ketubat benei dikhrin.

Rather,

on the contrary,

now

with regard to

a woman who sells

her ketuba to her husband,

I am asking

whether she has the status of a ketubat benei dikhrin,

for although one might say that money compelled her,

since she needed money, she sold her ketuba,

I say

that she is

as though she had been struck with a hundred blows by a weighted strap

[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 relinquishes

her ketuba, when she was not compelled to relinquish it,

is it necessary to ask?!

On the contrary, it is even more reasonable that she does not have the status of a ketubat benei dikhrin!

Rava said: It is obvious to me

that a

woman who sells her ketuba to others

for a nominal immediate benefit, so that if she is widowed or divorced, the purchasers will take her ketuba, while if she dies, her husband will inherit it—and she ultimately dies and her husband inherits it—

has a ketubat benei 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 lapse.

And we do not say that she forfeits it because she considered it easy to sell her ketuba, despite the fact that by doing so she causes her sons to lose it if she is widowed or divorced.

What is the reason?

Because she did not sell it willingly; rather,

money compelled her,

as she was compelled by her need for money.

And furthermore, it is obvious to me that a

woman who relinquishes her ketuba to her husband—

does not have a ketubat benei dikhrin.

What is the reason?

Because she

relinquished to her husband

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

But this matter

Rava asked: A woman who

sells her ketuba

to her husband—does

she have the status of one who sells it to others,

since this too is a sale for a small nominal benefit, as if she dies first her husband will inherit her, and the right he acquires from her is only that if he dies first, she will not collect her ketuba? And she ultimately dies; therefore, she has a ketubat benei dikhrin,

or

perhaps she

has the status of one who relinquishes it to her husband,

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

After he asked the question, he resolved it: A woman who sells her ketuba to her husband—

has the status of one who sells it to others.

Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection

from the Mishna that we learned in tractate Yevamot (87b): A woman whose husband went overseas, and one witness said to her, “Your husband has died,” and they permitted her to marry on the basis of his testimony—and she married, and afterward her husband arrived—she must leave both this husband and that husband, and she has no ketuba, either from this one or from that one. And if

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

inherit her ketuba.

And we discussed it:

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

—what can her ketuba have to do with it?”

The first clause of the Mishna already taught that she has no ketuba!

And Rav Pappa said:

The reference is to a

ketubat benei dikhrin. And this is the meaning of our Mishna: If she dies during the lifetimes of both men, and they inherit her, the sons she has from each man do not receive their mother’s ketuba as benei dikhrin when they come to divide their fathers’ estates; rather, they divide equally.

And why

And why

is there no law of ketubat benei dikhrin here?

Here too, let us say: desire compelled her,

as she yearned for a husband!

And we answer:

There the Sages imposed a penalty upon her,

because she had not properly ascertained whether her husband had indeed died before she married a second time.

Ravin bar Ḥanina sat before Rav Ḥisda, and he sat and said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: A woman who relinquishes her ketuba to her husband—

does not have sustenance

during her widowhood , because the conditions of the ketuba are like the ketuba itself, and just as she relinquished her ketuba, so too she relinquished the conditions of her ketuba.

He said to him: Had you not told me

this matter

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

regarding this halakha:

“Evil shall not depart from his house who repays good with evil.”

For this is repaying good with evil: she did him a favor by relinquishing her ketuba to him, and he repays her with evil by not providing her sustenance during her widowhood.

Rav Naḥman, Ulla, and Avimi bar Rav Pappi were sitting, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami was sitting with them.

A certain man whose

[betrothed woman had died]

fiancée had died came.

They said to him

[they said to him]:

Go bury

her,

or give her her ketuba

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

Rav Ḥiyya said to them: We learned

that she does not have the legal status of a ketuba, meaning burial [which is in exchange for her ketuba]:

A betrothed wife,

if she dies,

he does not become an onen

and thereby become prohibited from eating sacrificial meat,

nor does he become impure for her

if he is a kohen, because she is not considered his relative.

And likewise she,

if he dies,

does not

become

an onenet

and thereby become prohibited from eating sacrificial meat,

nor does she become impure for him.

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

But if she wishes to become impure for him, she may, because the warning concerning impurity says “the sons of Aaron,” and it is inferred from this that the daughters of Aaron are not warned.

If she dies—

he does not inherit her.

That is, he does not inherit the dowry from her father’s household. The ordinance granting inheritance of the dowry applies only from the time of entry beneath the wedding canopy, or from the time she is handed over to the husband’s agents.

If he dies

during her lifetime—

she collects

her

ketuba,

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

The reason—

that he dies,

in that case she has a ketuba.

But if she dies—

she does not have a ketuba,

for we do not say that her burial is incumbent upon him in exchange for her ketuba. That applies specifically to a married woman: if she dies, her husband inherits her, and in exchange he becomes obligated to bury her. But a betrothed woman, whom he does not inherit, does not impose upon him an obligation to bury her.

What is the reason?

Why do we not say that he should bear an obligation to bury her in exchange for the one hundred or two hundred dinars that he inherits?

Rav Hoshaya said:

Because

I cannot apply to her

what they write in the ketuba:

“When you marry another

[whether because of the husband’s death or because she is divorced]—

you shall take what is written for you.”

Therefore, here, since the husband did not die and she was not divorced, he did not become obligated to her by virtue of her ketuba, and he does not inherit anything from her that would cause him to become obligated to bury her.

When Ravin came, he said that Reish Lakish said: A betrothed woman who dies—

does not have a ketuba.