Ketubot 55a — the Talmud in English

G.

For appreciation

of a widow, who does not collect the addition from the appreciation by which the properties appreciated after her husband’s death, just as she does not collect the principal of the ketuba from it.

H.

For an oath,

if she is collecting without him present, or if one witness testifies that she has already been paid, or if she comes to collect from the property of orphans or from encumbered property—in all these cases she may not collect even the addition except by oath, as for the principal.

And

for the remission of debts of

the Sabbatical year,

which does not remit the addition, just as it does not remit the principal.

J.

And for one who writes all his property to his sons,

and writes for his wife any amount of land, so that she loses the addition as she loses the principal. XI. And her law is not

to collect

the addition except

from land,

as the principal of the ketuba.

XII.

And she does not collect it except

from the

inferior

land

[poor-quality], as the principal of the ketuba.

XIII.

And as long as she is

the widow

in her father’s house,

when the orphans did not attend to her and did not support her, she collects her ketuba for up to twenty-five years; and if she remained silent longer than this, she has waived it. In all this, the law of the addition is like that of the principal.

XIV.

And for the ketubat benin dikhrin,

the male children that she has from her husband take, after their father’s death, the addition from their father’s inheritance, and the sons of another wife have no share in it; and in all this its law is like the one maneh and two hundred of the principal of her ketuba, and like the dowry that she brought to her husband.

It was stated: The ketubat benin dikhrin,

the sons of Pumbedita and the sons of Mata Mehasia disputed its law:

The sons of Pumbedita say: They do not seize

the ketuba, the male children,

from encumbered property

[they collect it only from property that was in the father’s possession at the time of his death, and not from property that he sold to others], because “the male children that will be yours from me, they

will inherit

[“will inherit”] the money of your ketuba, beyond their share with their brothers”—

we learned

[it], and an inheritance is not collected from encumbered property.

The sons of Mata Mehasia

[a place name]

say: They seize

also

from encumbered property

[from land that the father sold after his marriage to their mother], because “they will

take

”

we learned

, in the language of a creditor, who seizes even from encumbered property.

And the halakha: They do not seize from encumbered property,

because

“they will inherit” we learned.

The Gemara brings two additional disputes between the sons of Pumbedita and the sons of Mata Mehasia concerning ketuba:

If the husband designated

movable property

for her collection of her ketuba,

and

they

are present as they are

[they exist and remain], she collects them from the orphans

without an oath—

For although the Sages said concerning a woman who comes to collect from the property of orphans that she may collect only by oath, the reason is only that we are concerned lest the husband gave her bundles of money from which she should collect her ketuba [“he handed her bundles”]; but here these are the bundles that he handed over to her.

And if

they are not present as they are,

those movable properties that he designated for her ketuba are not found, in this the sons of Pumbedita and the sons of Mata Mehasia disputed:

The sons of

Pumbedita say: The woman collects her ketuba from the land

without an oath,

because once these movable properties were lost, presumably the husband did not hand her other bundles of money, and she collects her ketuba from the land like any other ketuba, without an oath.

And

the sons of Mata Mehasia say:

She may not collect except

by an oath.

And the halakha:

She may not collect

without an oath.

And if

he designated for her

the husband for his wife

land

and made it an apotiki for her ketuba:

If he defined it

by its four boundaries

[within its four boundaries], she may collect

without an oath,

because certainly he did not hand her other bundles.

And if he did not define it, but only

by one boundary:

Pumbedita says:

This one too may collect

without an oath.

The sons of Mata Mehasia say:

This one may not collect except

by an oath,

because since he did not define it clearly, she does not rely upon this, and there is concern that the husband handed her other bundles.

because since he did not define it clearly, she does not rely on it, and there is concern that the husband handed her other bundles of money.

And the halakha is: without an oath.

By way of the dispute between the people of Pumbedita and the people of Mata Meḥasya concerning the marriage contract, the Gemara brings another dispute between them concerning a different matter:

said

a person

to the witnesses: Write and sign

a deed of gift of land for so-and-so

and give it to him [

give it to him]:

If

the witnesses acquired

the property from

from him [

from the donor, through a kinyan sudar, the land for the buyer], then

there is no need to consult him again [

to consult the donor again] whether he stands by his statement to write a deed, because an unspecified kinyan is intended for writing a deed.

And

if they did not acquire from him:

The people of

Pumbedita said: There is no need to consult him [

there is no need to consult the donor before the writing].

And

the people of Mata Meḥasya said: It is necessary to consult him.

And the halakha is: It is necessary to consult him.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

says: From the marriage

she collects everything;

from the betrothal, a virgin collects two hundred, and a widow one hundred, for he wrote for her only on the condition that he marry her:

it was stated:

They disputed the halakhic ruling,

Rav and Rabbi Natan:

One said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

And one said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

The Gemara thought that the dispute between Rav and Natan concerned whether one follows “an estimation”

that he wrote for her only on the condition that he marry her, and therefore the Gemara says:

Let it be established: It is Rabbi Natan who said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya!

Since

we have heard from Rabbi Natan

elsewhere

that he follows an estimation!

For

thus

said Rabbi Natan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri:

a.

In the case of one dangerously ill

who said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,” for although he did not say, “Give it,” these shall write and give it, because we follow an estimation; surely the dangerously ill man did not intend to mock his wife, but his intention was to write and give it.