Ketubot 54a — the Talmud in English

And the sides of the doubt are:

Whether we should say that

since she does not have

for the mother

a ketuba, she does not have

for her daughter

sustenance,

for it is a condition of the ketuba,

or perhaps, the mother committed a transgression

[she committed a transgression] —

the Sages penalized her

so that she should not receive a ketuba, but

she,

the daughter,

who did not commit a transgression, did the Sages not penalize her?

And we conclude:

teyku.

Rava inquired: A daughter of a betrothed woman,

that is, he had intercourse with his betrothed and she bore him a daughter, and he died, and he has sons: whether

she has sustenance, or whether she does not have sustenance?

And the sides of the doubt are: whether we should say that

since she has

the betrothed woman

a ketuba,

such as when he wrote her a ketuba from the betrothal , or because of the enactment of the Sages that a betrothed woman has a ketuba, although it is not written for her until the time of marriage —

she has

for the daughter sustenance,

or perhaps, since the Sages did not enact

to write

a ketuba until the time of marriage,

even the conditions of the ketuba do not take effect until the time of marriage, and therefore

she does not have it?

And we conclude:

teyku.

Rav Pappa inquired: A daughter

of a woman who was raped,

that is, he raped a young woman, and afterward married her, as it is written: “And she shall be his wife,” and she bore him a daughter, and he died: whether

she has sustenance

from the brothers,

or whether she does not have sustenance?

According to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, you need not ask, for he said

that if the husband dies,

she has a ketuba of one hundred zuz

from his property, even though he had already given the young woman’s father one hundred silver coins after he raped her; therefore, certainly the daughter has sustenance, for she has all the laws of a ketuba.

When you need to ask, it is according to the Rabbis, who say: The money of her penalty takes the place —

of her ketuba,

and he is no longer obligated by her ketuba.

What?

Whether we should say that

since she does not have a ketuba,

even the conditions of the ketuba she does not have, and therefore

she does not have

for the daughter

sustenance,

or perhaps,

it is specifically

the ketuba

itself that she does not have, for

what is the reason

they enacted a ketuba for her?

So that she should not be easy in his eyes to divorce! But he cannot divorce her

the raped woman, as it is written: “He may not send her away all his days”; therefore she does not have a ketuba. But the other conditions of the ketuba, which were not enacted on account of this reason — she has them,

And we conclude:

teyku.

We learned in our Mishna:

“You shall remain dwelling in my house, etc.”

Rav Yosef taught:

From what is written in the ketuba, “You shall remain dwelling in my house and be sustained from my property all the days of your widowhood in my house,” “in my house” twice, they infer that

“in my house”

is specifically intended: if the father had a house, the sons cannot say to her, “Go to your father’s house, and we will sustain you there”; rather, they provide her housing according to her dignity in the house their father bequeathed.

But

not in my hut ,

that is, if their father bequeathed them a hut , a narrow and small house, they can say to her, “Go away from us,” for “You shall remain dwelling in my house” is written in the ketuba, but not in my hut.

But she has sustenance

in her father’s house from the father’s property. And we do not say that since what is written in the ketuba, “You shall remain dwelling in my house,” is not fulfilled, what is written, “and be sustained from my property,” is also not fulfilled.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even sustenance too she does not have.

And the halakha is not according to Mar bar Rav Ashi.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

A widow who

was proposed to for marriage and agreed,

it is no longer considered “the days of your widowhood,” and

she does not have

any further

sustenance.

And we raised an objection:

If she did not agree,

even though the reason she delays marrying is not out of respect for her husband, but because the one who proposed to her is not suitable for her —

does she have sustenance?

Rav Anan said: For me, it was explained to me by Mar Shmuel himself:

If

she said

the widow, “I do not wish to marry”

because of my certain husband —

she has sustenance.

But if she said that she does not wish to marry

because of people who are not suitable for her —

she does not have sustenance.

Rav Ḥisda said: If she committed adultery

while she was sitting as a widow —

she does not have sustenance.

Rav Yosef said: If she applied blue eye makeup and adorned herself —

she does not have sustenance,

for she revealed her position that she does not delay marrying out of respect for her husband.

The one who says

that if

she committed adultery

she does not have sustenance —

all the more so

with

applying blue eye makeup and adorning herself,

that she does not have sustenance.

But

the one who says

that if

she applied blue eye makeup and adorned herself

she does not have sustenance,

but if she committed adultery —

she has

sustenance.

What is the reason?

Because they say that the fact that she committed adultery was because

the inclination compelled her,

and not because her husband’s honor is not important to her.

And the halakha is not according to all these statements ,

but rather like that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A woman who claims

her ketuba in court does not have sustenance.

And we wondered:

Is that so? But it was taught in a beraita: If she sold her ketuba, pledged her ketuba, or made

the land designated for her

ketuba an apotiki for another

[for her creditor] —

she does not have sustenance.

It follows:

these, yes,

in these cases she indeed does not have sustenance, because this is considered as though she had already collected her ketuba.

But

if she only

claims

her ketuba in court —

no,

she has not lost her sustenance!

And we explain:

these, whether

she did it

in court,

or

whether not in court,

she lost her sustenance.

But

one who claims

her ketuba: if she claimed it

in court —

no,

indeed she does not have sustenance. But if she claimed it

not in court —

not.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And so were the people of Jerusalem, etc.”

It was stated: Rav said: The halakha is according to the people of Judea.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is according to the people of the Galilee .

Babylonia and all its surrounding towns

[the cities adjacent to it]

followed Rav.

Nehardea and all its surrounding towns followed Shmuel.

There was a certain daughter of Meḥoza

[Meḥoza is among the surrounding towns of Babylonia]

who was married to a

son of

Nehardea. They came before Rav Naḥman. He heard her voice

[Rav Naḥman recognized from her voice]

that she was a daughter of Meḥoza. He said to them: Babylonia and all its surrounding towns follow Rav!

They said to him: But she was married to a man from Nehardea

[she is married to a son of Nehardea]!

He said to them: If so,

then

Nehardea and all its surrounding towns follow Shmuel!

And as far as where

is

Nehardea considered to extend?

As far as where the Nehardean kav measure is used.

That is, in every place where grain is measured with the Nehardean kav measure.

It was stated: A widow, Rav said:

When the court collects the ketuba for her,

they appraise

the

clothing she is wearing,

that is, the clothing upon her, as payment of her ketuba.

And Shmuel said: They do not appraise the clothing she is wearing.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said: And the reverse,

that is, they disagree in the opposite manner —

with regard to a hired worker.

That is, a hired worker who lives in the homeowner’s house, and the homeowner purchased clothing for him: according to Shmuel, they appraise the clothing as part of his wages, and according to Rav, they do not appraise it.

Rav Kahana taught: And likewise with regard to a hired worker.

For Rav and Shmuel also disagreed with regard to a hired worker as they disagreed with regard to a widow.

And Rav placed in it

a

sign

in his words:

orphan

[a hired worker]

and a widow —

strip and go out

[strip off their garments — and go out].

Rav Naḥman said: Even though we learned in the Mishna according to Shmuel,

nevertheless

the halakha is according to Rav.

For we learned: Whether one who consecrates his property, or one who appraises

himself,

and the treasurer comes to take the property, or comes to take the value of the appraisal of the one who appraised himself,

he does not have

for the treasurer

the clothing of his wife, nor the clothing of his children

of the one who consecrated and the one who appraised himself,

nor the dye with which he dyed

the one who appraised himself

for their sake,

that is, clothing that he dyed for the sake of his wife and children, even though they had not yet used it,

nor new sandals that he bought for their sake.

We see from here that they do not appraise the clothing she is wearing, in accordance with Shmuel!

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But since we learned in the Mishna according to Shmuel, why is the halakha according to Rav?

He said to him: At first glance —

it runs like Shmuel.

That is, the straightforward meaning of the Mishna is according to Shmuel. But

when you examine it —

the halakha is according to Rav.

What is the reason?

When he granted it to her

the husband the clothing —

with the intention that she remain before him,

that is, all the time that she remains under him. But

with the intention that she take it and leave

[that she take the clothing and leave] —

he did not grant it to her.

And this is not comparable to the Mishna concerning one who consecrates and one who appraises himself.

The daughter-in-law of the house of bar Elisha was claiming her ketuba from the orphans.

The orphans were bringing her

the

to the court

[the orphans brought her to the court].

They said

to her:

It is humiliating for us that you should go like this

[it is not our honor that you should go in these garments].

She went, put them on, and covered herself with all the garments

[she went and put on all her garments].

They came before Ravina. He said to them: The halakha is according to Rav, who said: A widow’s clothing is appraised,

and here too, they appraise what she wore as part of the payment of her ketuba.

There was a certain man who said to them

in the will of a person dangerously ill:

“A dowry for my daughter”

[and the daughters’ dowries were a fixed matter, such and such garments].

In the end,

the value of

the

dowry decreased.

Rav Idi bar Avin said: The decrease is for the benefit of the orphans,

the gain

belongs to the orphans,

and we do not say that they must give her the value of the dowry according to the value it had on the day of the will.