Ketubot 81b (פא:) — the Talmud in English

And Rava analyzes:

And if it enters your mind that

the ketubah

was given to be collected during the lifetime of the yavam, why does the yavam need to divorce her in order to pay her ketubah and sell the remainder?

Let him designate the amount of her ketubah, and sell the remainder

[having designated the amount of her ketubah for her now and selling the remainder]?

And we challenge this:

But according to your reasoning

[if that is how you challenged him],

why did he not challenge him from our Mishna

[why did he not challenge him from our Mishna itself], where we learned:

“He may not say to her: ‘Here is your ketubah, placed for you on the table’; rather, all his property is responsible for her ketubah,”

which indicates that he may not designate the amount of her ketubah for her and sell the remainder. Why, then, did Rava need to raise an objection from a beraita rather than from the Mishna?

And we answer: There is no basis for a challenge from our Mishna, since the Mishna is not stating a law, but

there it is teaching us good advice,

so that she will not lose her ketubah . But as a matter of law, the husband may designate the amount of her ketubah for her. Therefore, Rava did not challenge him from the Mishna, but from the beraita.

The Gemara proves that the Mishna is not stating an absolute law:

For if you do not say so

[if you do not say this], how will you explain the

conclusion, where it teaches: “And similarly, a man may not say to his wife: ‘Here is your ketubah, placed for you on the table’; rather, all his property is responsible for his wife’s ketubah,”

If he wishes to sell, here too, is he unable to sell

[does every husband truly have no ability to sell all his property until he divorces his wife]

?! Rather,

certainly, only

good advice is being taught,

that he should not designate the amount of her ketubah for her, but he may sell his property.

Here too,

with regard to the yavam, only

good advice is being taught,

that he should not designate the amount of her ketubah for her. Therefore, Rava did not challenge him from the Mishna.

Rather, the

beraita

of Rabbi Abba is difficult,

as above .

And we answer: The beraita

of Rabbi Abba is also not difficult,

and it cannot be proven from it that “a ketubah was not given to be collected during the lifetime of the yavam,” since we may always say that “a ketubah was given to be collected during the lifetime of the yavam.” Rather, they enacted that he should not give her the ketubah while they are still married

because of animosity.

This is so that they will not come to quarrel, because she might say: “He has set his eyes on divorce, and that is why he is giving me my ketubah” .

a. If a man dies without children and leaves a wife subject to levirate marriage, and he had several brothers, it is a mitzva for the eldest to perform levirate marriage with her; and if he performs levirate marriage, he acquires all his brother’s property.

b. If he performs halitza rather than levirate marriage, all the brothers divide the property of their deceased brother equally.

c. If one of the brothers gives her a get, they can no longer perform levirate marriage with her; they perform halitza with her, and divide their brother’s property.

There was an incident involving

a certain man whose yevama fell before him in Pumbedita

[his brother died without children in Pumbedita, and his wife fell before him for levirate marriage, since he was the eldest brother].

His brother wanted to disqualify her to him by means of a get

[one of the brothers wanted to give her a get, so that the eldest would no longer be able to perform levirate marriage with her, and they would divide their brother’s property].

He said to him,

the eldest brother:

“What is your intention? Is it because of the property? I will divide the property with you.”

[If your desire is to divide the property, allow me to perform levirate marriage with her, and I will divide it with you as though I had performed halitza] .

Rav Yosef said:

“Since the Sages said that he may not sell, even if he sold, his sale is not a sale.”

[Since the Sages said that the yavam is not permitted to sell property belonging to his deceased brother, even if he sold it, the sale is ineffective.] Therefore, he is not obligated to give his brother a share of the property if he performs levirate marriage with her.

And where did they say this?

As it was taught:

“If a man died and left a yevama, and left property worth one hundred maneh, although her ketubah is only one maneh, he may not sell it.”

Since

“all his property is responsible for her ketubah.”

Abaye said to him:

“And

is it true that

whenever the Sages said that one may not sell, even if he sold, his sale is not a sale

[is it true that in every place where they said that one may not sell, the sale is ineffective]?!

But

we

learned

at the beginning of this chapter: “

The woman who came into possession of property” ...

Beit Shammai say: She may sell, and Beit Hillel say: She may not sell,

but

both these

and those agree that if she sold or gave it away, the transaction stands,”

which proves that even where the Sages said, “She may not sell,” if she sold it, the sale is effective?

They sent

the

question

this

to Rabbi Hanina bar Papi.

He sent back:

“In accordance with Rav Yosef.”

[He replied to them that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Yosef.]

Abaye said: “What, did Rabbi Hanina bar Papi hang earrings on it?!”

[Did Rabbi Hanina hang earrings to adorn his answer]—that is, what did he add by his words to Rav Yosef’s statement? Is my challenge from the Mishna not still standing?

Again

they sent

the

question

this

to Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Nahumi.

He sent back:

“In accordance with Abaye. And if Rav Yosef gives another reason for it, send it to me.”

[He sent them word: It seems to me that the law is in accordance with Abaye; but if Rav Yosef finds a reason for his statement, send it to me.]

Rav Yosef went out, examined the matter, and found

[Rav Yosef went out, studied the matter, and found a beraita supporting his position].

As it was taught:

“If one was a creditor of his brother

[his brother owed him money]

and died,

the creditor,

and left a yevama

before his brother, the debtor,

he may not say,

the debtor:

‘Since I am an heir, I have seized it.’

And my debt is thereby canceled .

Rather, they remove

the property

from

the

yavam, and purchase land with it,

so that his yevama will be able to collect her ketubah from it,

and he consumes the produce.”

This proves that his seizure of the debt was ineffective, since they said: “Land should be purchased with it.”

Abaye said to him:

“Perhaps they did what was good for him?”

Perhaps the intention of the beraita is not that they compel him to purchase land with the money, but only that they gave him good advice so that he would not lose the money through expenditure ?

Rav Yosef said to him:

“The tanna teaches ‘they remove,’ and you say, ‘They did what was good for him’?!

[The beraita uses the expression “they remove,” which implies against his will, while you wish to say that it refers only to good advice]?!

They sent it again before

[they again sent this response before]

Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Nahumi.

He said to them: “So said Rav Yosef bar Minyumi in the name of Rav Naḥman:

The

beraita

that Rav Yosef found in support of his position

is not a Mishna

[it is not authoritative enough to rely upon].

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason

that it is not a Mishna?

If you say that it is because they were movable property, and movable property is not encumbered for a ketubah,

that is, if we say that the statement of the beraita—that the brother cannot seize his debt after his brother’s death—is incorrect because the debt is movable property, and movable property is not encumbered for a ketubah; and therefore, since he inherits his brother, he also acquires his movable property, namely, his debt, and is not obligated to encumber the money for payment of the woman’s ketubah.

This can be rejected:

Perhaps

the Mishna

is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says that movable propert

y

i

s

subjugate

d

to a ketubah .

Rather, let us say that the statement of the Mishna is incorrect

because he said to her,

the yavam:

“You are not a litigant of mine,”

and I assumed no obligation to you, but only to my brother; therefore, I will not pay my debt at all.