Ketubot 81b — the Talmud in English

And Rava infers:

and if it should enter your mind

that

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

?

Let him designate for her the amount of the ketuba, and let him sell the remainder

[namely, let him designate for her the amount of her ketuba now, and sell the remainder]?

And we challenge this:

But according to your reasoning

[if this is how he challenged him],

let him challenge him from the Mishna

[why did he not challenge him directly from our Mishna], for we learned:

“He may not say to her, ‘Here, your ketuba is placed before you on the table,’ but rather, all his property is security for her ketuba,”

and it is explained that he cannot designate for her the amount of her ketuba and sell the remainder; why, then, did Rava need to challenge from a beraita rather than from the Mishna?

And we answer: There is no challenge from our Mishna, since the Mishna does not state a law, but rather

there it teaches us good advice,

so that she should not lose her ketuba . But according to the law, the husband can designate her ketuba for her. Therefore Rava challenged not from the Mishna, but from the beraita.

And the Gemara proves that the Mishna does not state an absolute law—

for if you do not say so

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

conclusion, for it teaches: “And likewise, a man may not say to his wife, ‘Here, your ketuba is placed before you on the table,’ but rather, all his property is security for his wife’s ketuba,”

If he wishes to sell, here too, is it the case that he cannot sell

[and is every husband unable to sell all his property until he divorces his wife]

?! Rather

certainly, only

good advice it teaches us,

that he should not designate her ketuba for her, but he can sell his property.

Here too,

with regard to the yavam, only

good advice it teaches us,

that he should not designate her ketuba for her. And therefore Rava did not challenge 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 one cannot prove from it that “the ketuba was not given to be collected during the lifetime of the yavam,” since we can always say that “the ketuba was given to be collected during the lifetime of the yavam”; rather, they enacted that he should not give her her ketuba while they are still married

because of enmity.

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

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

B. And if he performs halitza and does not perform yibum, all the brothers divide equally the property of their deceased brother.

C. And if one of the brothers gives her a divorce, they can no longer perform yibum with her; they perform halitza for her and divide their brother’s property.

An incident involving

a certain man, whose yevama fell before him in Pumbedita

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

His brother wished to disqualify her from him with a divorce

[one of the brothers wanted to give her a divorce, so that the eldest would not be able to perform yibum with her, and they would divide their brother’s property].

He said to him—

his elder brother—

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

[If your wish is to divide the property, let me perform yibum 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 the property of his deceased brother, even if he sold, the sale does not take effect], and therefore he is not obligated to give his brother a share of the property if he performs yibum with her.

And where did they say this?

For it was taught—

“If a man died and left a shomeret yavam, and he left property worth one hundred maneh, even though her ketuba is only one maneh, he may not sell.”

Since

“all his property is security for her ketuba.”

Abaye said to him—

“And

is it the case that

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

[and is it the case that in every place where they said not to sell, if he sold, the sale does not take effect]?!

And

indeed

we learned

at the beginning of our 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, it remains valid,”

and it is proven that even in a place where the Sages said, “She may not sell,” if she sold, it is effective?

They sent

the question

to

this

Rabbi Hanina bar Papi.

He sent back—

“In accordance with Rav Yosef”

[he answered them that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Yosef].

Abaye said: Is Rabbi Hanina bar Papi hanging earrings for it?!

[Is Rav Hanina hanging earrings to adorn his answer], meaning: What did he add by his words to Rav Yosef’s words? Does my challenge from the Mishna not remain in place?

Again

they sent

the question

to

this

Rav Minyomi, son of Rav Nahumi.

He sent back—

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

[He sent them: It appears to me to be in accordance with Abaye’s words, but if Rav Yosef finds a reason for his words, please send it to me].

Rav Yosef went out, examined, and found

[Rav Yosef went out, examined, and found a beraita in accordance with his words].

For it was taught—

“If he was a creditor of his brother

[his brother owed him money]

and died,

the creditor

and left a shomeret yavam

before his debtor-brother,

the debtor may not say

the debtor—

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

And my debt has been canceled .

Rather, they take out

the property

from

the

yavam, and purchase land with it

so that his yevama can collect her ketuba from it,

“and he consumes the produce.”

And it is proven that his seizure of the debt was not effective, since they said: “Land should be purchased with it.”

Abaye said to him—

“Perhaps they did for him what is beneficial for him?”

Perhaps the meaning of the Mishna 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 ?

He said to him

Rav Yosef:

“A tanna teaches ‘they take out,’ and you say, ‘They did for him what is beneficial for him’?!

[The beraita uses the expression “they take out,” which implies against his will, and you want to say that its intention is only good advice]?!

They again sent it before

[again they sent this answer before]

Rav Minyomi, son of Rav Nahumi.

He said to them: Thus said Rav Yosef bar Minyomi in the name of Rav Nahman:

the beraita

this

that Rav Yosef found in accordance with his words

is not a Mishna

[it is not authoritative enough to rely upon],

and the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

that it is not a Mishna?

If you say it is because they were movable property, and movable property is not pledged for a ketuba,

meaning: If we say that the words of the Mishna—that the brother cannot seize his debt after his brother’s death—are not correct because the debt is movable property, and movable property is not pledged for a ketuba, then, since he inherits his brother, he also acquires his movable property, namely, his debt, and he is not obligated to pledge the money for payment of the woman’s ketuba.

This can be rejected:

Perhaps

the Mishna is like

Rabbi Meir, who says that movable property

y

is

s

pledged

d

for a ketuba .

But rather

let us say that the words of the Mishna are not correct

because he said to her

the yavam—

“You are not a litigant of mine,”

and I undertook nothing to you, but only to my brother; therefore, I will not pay my debt at all.