Ketubot 98a — 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, who has not had intercourse at all,

whether in the usual manner or not in the usual manner,

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

An incident involving

a certain woman who seized a silver cup [

seized a silver cup]

from

part of

her marriage settlement,

and came and

claimed maintenance [

claimed maintenance].

She came before Rava [

the woman came before Rava]!

He said to them

Rava

to the orphans:

Go and give her maintenance [

give her maintenance, for she did not forfeit it by seizing part of the marriage settlement]—

For

there is no one who is concerned with the view of Rabbi Shimon [

there is no one who is concerned with 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 settlement, and part of her marriage settlement still remained a debt upon the orphans, it is as though the entire debt of the marriage settlement still remained upon the orphans, and she did not forfeit her maintenance.

Rabba son of Rava sent

a question

to Rav Yosef:

A widow who

sells without a court

—does she

need

a

oath?

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

or does she not need an oath?

Rav Yosef said to Rabba son of Rava:

And let your question concern

whether she needs

a proclamation

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

; and see their words at the end of the chapter “ The one who sells” according to their position that the oath is that she did not undervalue the property, and unlike Rashi, they explained: “Since you ask about an oath, it follows that it is obvious to you that a proclamation is not required; for if a proclamation were required, all the more so would she need an oath.” That is, the proclamation and the oath are because she must not undervalue the property, as explained in their words at the end of the chapter “The one who sells.” Rabba son of Rava said

to Rav Yosef:

The proclamation is not my question [

I have no doubt about this], and it is obvious to me that she does not need a proclamation!

Because

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Naḥman said:

A widow who appraised property for herself [

she took the orphans’ land for herself against the value of the marriage settlement and did not sell it to another]

has done nothing,

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

But

what are the circumstances,

in what manner did Rav Naḥman speak!?

If she proclaimed

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

why has she done nothing,

why should she be worse than other purchasers?

Rather, is it not that she did not proclaim,

the widow.

And

we learned that if she appraised it

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

if she sold it

to another, what she did is done,

even though she did not proclaim it.

And we reject this:

Actually, she proclaimed it.

And

nevertheless, if she appraised it for herself she has done nothing, since

they say 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 possession of the orphans.

As in the case of a certain man whose orphans’ fodder was deposited with him [

and as there was an incident involving a man with whom the fodder of orphans had been deposited], on the condition that he sell it to others. [According to the Ran in Bava Metzia 32a].

He went

the depositary went and

appraised it for himself

he purchased the fodder for himself

for four hundred zuz [

for four hundred zuz].

Afterward

it became more expensive [

it became more expensive] the fodder and

stood at six hundred [

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

He came

the depositary

before Rabbi Ami, who said to him

Rabbi Ami:

“Who appraised it for you!?”

And the halakha:

a widow

needs an oath, but does not need a proclamation.

Mishna:

A widow whose marriage settlement was two hundred, and who sold

the orphans’ land that was

worth one hundred, for two hundred

zuz.

Or

the land was

worth two hundred

zuz, and she sold it

for one hundred—

This is

regarded as having received her marriage settlement.

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

But if

her marriage settlement was one hundred,

and she sold

some of the orphans’ land at one time

worth one hundred and one dinars—

which is more than the debt owed to her—

for one hundred—

then

the sale is void.

For she had no authority to sell the extra dinar, and it follows that the entire sale was in error, since it was done at one time.

And

even

if

she says, “I will return

the

dinar

that I caused to be lost

to the heirs”,

nevertheless

the sale is void.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The sale always stands

and she returns the addition to the heirs,

until there is enough there that she leaves in the field

nine kav

a house of nine kav, which is the measure of a field,

and in a garden, a house of half a kav

which is the measure of a garden.

That is, the measure of the overreaching must be so great that, had she not sold cheaply, a house of nine kav would have remained in the field, and in a garden, a house of half a kav.

And

as for

the words of Rabbi Akiva, who, as we heard elsewhere, holds that the measure of a garden is “a house of a quarter-kav.”

And here too, the measure of a “garden” is a

house of a quarter-kav.

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

the orphans’ land to several people,

to this one,

to the first purchaser she sold property worth one hundred

for one hundred, and to this one,

to 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 dinars—

for one hundred,

then:

the sale

of the last one

to whom she sold cheaply

is void [

according to the Sages],

but

those

of all of them,

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

their sales stand.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A widow whose marriage settlement was two hundred, and who sold property worth one hundred for two hundred, or property worth two hundred for one hundred—she has received her marriage settlement:

And the Gemara wondered:

What is different

when she sold

property worth two hundred for one hundred,

that you say her sale stands, since

they say to her

the orphans,

“You caused the loss” [

you lost]! When she sold

property worth one hundred for two hundred, likewise, say [

say] to the heirs:

“I made the profit” [

I am the one who made the profit]: I sold it at a high price, but you did not pay me more than one hundred, and a debt of one hundred of the marriage settlement still remains upon you!?

Rav Naḥman said

he answered:

Rabba bar Avuha: