Ketubot 98a (צח.) — the Talmud in English

And the verse added and said:

“with her virginity”

to teach: until

all her signs of virginity remain

with regard to intercourse, that she had not had intercourse at all,

whether in the usual manner or not in the usual manner;

and a woman who had intercourse not in the usual manner is disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

There was an incident involving

a certain woman who seized a silver cup

[she seized a silver cup]

as

part of

her marriage contract,

and came and

demanded sustenance

[she demanded her sustenance].

She came before Rava

[the woman came before Rava]!

Rava said to them

Rava

to the orphans:

Go and give her sustenance

[give her sustenance, for by seizing part of her marriage contract she did not forfeit it]—

for

there is no one who is concerned about the position of Rabbi Shimon

[there is no one who follows Rabbi Shimon’s position],

who said: “We do not say: ‘part of the money is like all the money’;

rather, since she seized only part of her marriage contract, and part of her marriage-contract debt still remained owed to her by the orphans, it is as though the entire marriage-contract debt still remained owed to her by the orphans, and she did not forfeit her sustenance.”

Rabba, son of Rava, sent

a question

to Rav Yosef:

A widow

who sells without a court

—does she

need

a

to take an oath?

That is, can the orphans make her swear that she did not sell for more than the appraisers valued the land, since if she sold it for more, the added amount belongs to the orphans,

or does she not need to take an oath?

Rav Yosef said to Rabba, son of Rava:

And should you not also ask yourself

whether she needs

a public announcement

for thirty days, saying, “Anyone who wishes to purchase, let him come and purchase,” as the court does when it sells the orphans’ land

!? Rabba, son of Rava, said

to Rav Yosef:

The matter of a public announcement is not a question for me

[I have no doubt about it; it is obvious to me that she does not need a public announcement]!

Because of

what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

A widow who appraised property for herself

[she took the orphans’ land for herself against the value of her marriage contract and did not sell it to someone else]

has accomplished nothing,

and if the orphans wish to give her money later and return the land to their possession, they may do so.

But

what are the circumstances

in which Rav Naḥman spoke!?

If she made a public announcement

and the widow found no one who would purchase the land at the price for which she “purchased” the land—

why has she accomplished nothing?

Why should she be worse than other purchasers?

Rather, is it not that she did not make a public announcement,

the widow?

And

we learn that if she appraised the property

for herself, it is that she has accomplished nothing; but

if she sold it

to someone else, what she did is valid,

even though she made no public announcement.

And we reject this:

Actually, she made a public announcement.

And

nevertheless, if she appraised the property for herself, she accomplished nothing, since

they said to her: “Who appraised it for you?”

From whom did you receive this sale!? You did not receive it from a court, nor from the orphans; therefore, the land did not leave the orphans’ possession.

As in the case of a certain man to whom they entrusted the fodder of orphans

[and as in the incident involving a man to whom they entrusted fodder of orphans], to sell it to others. [According to the Ran, Bava Metzia 32a].

He went

the trustee went and

appraised it for himself,

purchasing the fodder for himself

for four hundred zuz

[for four hundred zuz].

Afterward,

it became more expensive

[the fodder became more expensive] and

rose to six hundred

[the fodder became more expensive and was worth six hundred zuz].

He came

the trustee

before Rabbi Ami, who said to him

Rabbi Ami:

“Who appraised it for you!?”

And the halakha is:

a widow

must take an oath, but does not need a public announcement.

Mishna:

If a widow’s marriage contract was two hundred zuz, and she sold

the orphans’ land

worth one hundred, for two hundred

zuz,

or

the land was

worth two hundred

zuz, and she sold it

for one hundred—

this is

considered payment of her marriage contract.

Even when she received less than the amount of her marriage contract, for we say to her: You are the one who caused the loss!

But if

her marriage contract was one hundred,

and she sold

a single portion of the orphans’ land

worth one hundred and one—

which is more than the debt owed to her—

for one hundred—

then

the sale is void.

Since she had no authority to sell the extra dinar, the entire sale is found to have been made in error, since it was sold all at once.

And

even

if

she says, “I will return

the

dinar

that I lost

to the heirs,”

nevertheless

the sale is void.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The sale always remains valid,

and she returns the excess to the heirs,

until the amount is sufficient to leave in the field

nine kavs

[an area of nine kavs], which is the measure of a field,

and in a garden, an area of half a kav,

which is the measure of a garden.

That is, the amount of the overcharge must be so great that, had she not sold at a discount, an area of nine kavs would have remained in the field, and an area of half a kav in the garden.

And

so too according to

the words of Rabbi Akiva,

who, as we heard elsewhere, maintains that the measure of a garden is “an area of a quarter-kav.” Here too, the measure of a “garden” is

a quarter of an area.

If her marriage contract was four hundred zuz, and she sold

the orphans’ land to several people,

to this one,

the first purchaser, she sold property worth one hundred

for one hundred, and to that one,

the second purchaser, she sold property worth one hundred

for one hundred,

and likewise to a third,

and to the last one

she sold land

worth one hundred and one—

for one hundred,

then:

The sale of

the last one,

to whom she sold at a discount,

is void

[according to the Sages],

whereas

the sales

of all the others,

the first three to whom she sold land at its proper value,

remain valid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If a widow’s marriage contract was two hundred, and she sold property worth one hundred for two hundred, or property worth two hundred for one hundred, she has received payment of her marriage contract:

The Gemara asks:

What is different

when she sold property

worth two hundred for one hundred,

that you say the sale remains valid, since

the orphans say to her

the orphans

“You caused the loss”

[you caused the loss]! When she sold property

worth one hundred for two hundred, should she not likewise say

to the heirs:

“I made the profit”

[I am the one who made the profit], since I sold it at a high price? But you did not pay me more than one hundred, and a debt of one hundred from the marriage contract remains owed by you

!? Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha

he answered:

Rabba bar Avuha explained: