Ketubot 68b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection: Why do they return and divide equally? And why should we not say that

each one takes her own share,

and the one earlier in her marriage receives her share?

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi said:

If

they all came to marry at once,

they divide equally.

But in a case where they did not marry at once, indeed each one takes her own share.

And this law

supports the

words of

Rav Matana,

for Rav Matana said: If they all came to marry at once, they take one tenth.

And we inquire about it: Do they all take only

one tenth

together?

Could it enter your mind?!

Rather,

certainly his intention is to say:

They take a tenth together.

An introduction:

The Sages instituted that when a man marries a woman, he becomes obligated to her in the ketuba that, after his death, her daughters [who will be born to him] will be sustained from his property until they mature or until they marry.

And this is what he writes for her: “Female children that you will have from me shall dwell in your house and be sustained from my property until they mature or until they are taken by men.”

And they likewise instituted that the orphans are obligated to give their sisters for their dowries according to the father’s assessment of דעת, and if he did not assess it, they shall give a tenth of the property.

The Sages taught:

If one died and left sons and daughters—

The daughters—

whether they matured before they married, or whether they married

before they matured, have lost their sustenance [if they married or matured, the sons are not obligated to sustain them], since the father’s obligation was to sustain them only until they matured or until they married.

But they have not lost their provision

[but they are still obligated to give them the dowry appropriate for them],

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

In every case in which they lose their sustenance,

they have also lost their provision.

Since they instituted provision for daughters only while they were still in their father’s house; but once they left their father’s house, they did not institute provision for them.

And

how do they act

so that they will not lose their provision upon maturity?

“They hire” husbands for themselves,

who will marry them before they mature,

and they collect their provision

from the brothers.

Rav Nahman said, Huna said to me: The halakha is according to Rabbi,

that they have not lost their provision.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman

from what we learned in the Mishna:

An orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off with her consent, and they wrote for her one hundred or fifty zuz, may, once she matures, collect from them what is appropriate to be given to her.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason

that she can collect what reaches her as the tenth of the property is

that she was a minor,

who married when she was

a minor.

But

if she married when she was

an adult

[that is, a maiden]—

she waived it.

And it is precise according to the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who said, regarding “they married before they matured” [they married during maidenhood], that they also lost their provision.

That is, if she did not marry while a minor, she cannot claim more than what is explicitly written in her ketuba as her dowry, because we say that she waived the full tenth of the property that reaches her.

This is difficult: surely the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna, and here the unattributed Mishna is according to Rabbi Shimon. Why, then, did Rav Nahman say that the halakha is according to Rabbi?

And we answer:

There is no difficulty!

This

that we say “the halakha is according to Rabbi” means

that she protested

[she protested and said, “I wish to take the full dowry”]; then she has a dowry of a tenth of the property.

And

this

[our Mishna, which said “she waived it”] speaks of

one who did not protest.

And then we say: certainly she waived what was due to her in her full dowry.

It is also more reasonable

that this is our answer.

For if

not

there would be a difficulty between one statement of Rabbi and another statement of Rabbi.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: A daughter who is sustained from the brothers takes a tenth of the property.

And we must infer: specifically a daughter who is

sustained

by the brothers [that is, before maturity],

yes,

she is the one who takes a tenth of the property.

But an adult daughter

who is not sustained

by the brothers—

no,

she does not take a tenth of the property!

And, on the other hand, Rabbi held in our sugya that she did not lose her dowry even after maturity.

Rather, is it not

necessarily

learn from this

that this is how we distinguished—

This refers to one who protested, and this refers to one who did not protest.

And we conclude: indeed,

learn from this.

Ravina said to Rava: Rav Adda bar Ahava said to us in your name,

that according to Rabbi, if she

matures, she need not protest.

And she has the provision appropriate for her even if she did not protest.

And likewise, if she

marries, she need not protest.

And only if she

matures and marries—

she must protest.

And we raise an objection:

Did Rava really say this?!

But Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman

from the law of our Mishna concerning

an orphan girl

[the Gemara’s objection above],

and he answered him—

“This refers to one who protested, and this refers to one who did not protest.”

And it is implied that even if she merely married and did not mature, she must protest. And we answer:

There is no difficulty!

And likewise, one can raise a difficulty from Rava’s words above (on 68a), where he ruled according to Rav, who said: “A daughter who is sustained from the brothers takes a tenth of the property,” implying specifically when she is sustained; but when she is not sustained, she does not. Tosafot. This

that we say she need not protest until she matures and marries refers to a case

where she is being sustained by them

[she is still being sustained by the brothers]. In that case she did not lose her provision even if she did not protest, since she is embarrassed to protest against them as long as she is being sustained by them.

This

that we say that a maiden who married and did not protest waived it refers to a case

where she is not being sustained by them.

In that case she should have protested. Since she did not protest, she waived it.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi: Provision

[dowry]

is not like a “condition of the ketuba”

[above, 52b: “Female children that you will have from me, they shall be sustained from my property until they mature or until they are taken by men”].

And the Gemara explains:

What does “it is not like a condition of the ketuba” mean?

If we say,

if we say that provision is not like a condition of the ketuba in that

whereas

the brothers did not give her

provision—

she collects from liened property

[she takes her dowry even from liened property, that is, from lands that the brothers sold after their father’s death],

and

whereas the condition of the

ketuba does not collect from liened property

[but for her sustenance she does not collect from property that the brothers sold].

And the reason that she does not collect her sustenance from liened property is that sustenance is not a fixed debt; the Sages instituted that they should not collect it from purchasers for the betterment of the world, as explained in Gittin (48b).

But a dowry is a fixed debt, and she collects it from liened property.

This cannot be said—

For if so,

what does it teach us? It is common practice every day

that they

collect

from liened property

for provision, but do not collect for sustenance,

as has been explained.

Rather, perhaps you will say that Rabbi’s intention was to distinguish as follows:

whereas provision is also collected from movable property, and a condition of the ketuba

only

from land is collected; from movable property

it

is not collected.

This is like the ketuba itself, which is collected only from land.

This, too, cannot be said.

For

according to

the view of

Rabbi, both this and that

[provision and sustenance]

are collected

from movable property.

For it was taught in a beraita: Both property that has responsibility

[that is, land, which can be collected from purchasers],

and property that does not have responsibility

[movable property]

are collected for the sustenance of the wife and daughters, the words of Rabbi.

взыскивают для содержания жены и дочерей; это слова רבי.

Rather, what is Rabbi’s intention when he said—

“Provision is not like a condition of the ketuba”?

It is like that which was taught in a beraita: One who says,

commanding at the time of his death that

his daughters should not be sustained from his property—

they do not heed him.

Since he became liable to them through the condition of the ketuba.

But one who says—

“His daughters should not receive provision from his property”—they heed him.

And the orphans are not obligated to provide for his daughters,

because provision is not like a condition of the ketuba,

since he himself did not become obligated regarding this; rather, it is a debt upon the orphans alone, as long as he himself did not command otherwise.

And Rabbi intended this law when he said: “Provision is not like a condition of the ketuba.”