# dafyomi

lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  One cannot force his wife to move from a city to a big 
          city, or vice-versa;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  One can force his wife to move from a bad place to a nice 
          place, but not from a nice place to a bad place;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one cannot force her even 
          from a bad place to a nice place, because living in a 
          nice place tests (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Granted, one cannot force his wife to 
          move from a big city to a city, for everything is found 
          in a big city, but not in a city;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why can't he force her to move from a city to a big 
               city?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is like R. Yosi bar Chanina taught;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> Living in a large city is 
               hard - 'They blessed all the people who volunteered 
               to live in Yerushalayim.' (It is crowded and there 
               is little air.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> (...Living in a nice 
          place tests.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does 'tests' mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is like Shmuel taught;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> Change in one's routine brings stomach 
               sickness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Sefer Ben Sira):</font></b> All days of a poor person are hard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shabbos and Yom Tov are enjoyable!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel taught that a change in one's routine 
          brings stomach sickness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Sefer Ben Sira):</font></b> Even nights (of a poor person are 
          hard). His roof is lowest of the roofs, his vineyard is 
          at the top of the hill.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rain from other roofs falls on his. The soil of his 
               vineyard falls to others.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>FORCING ONE'S HOUSEHOLD TO MOVE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone can force (his household) to move to 
          Eretz Yisrael. Anyone cannot force them to leave Eretz 
          Yisrael. Anyone can force (his household) to move to 
          Yerushalayim. Anyone cannot force them to leave 
          Yerushalayim. This applies to men and women equally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a man married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced 
          her in Eretz Yisrael, he pays the Kesuvah in coins of 
          Eretz Yisrael. If he married her in Eretz Yisrael and 
          divorced her in Kaputkiya, he pays the Kesuvah in coins 
          of Eretz Yisrael;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he married her in Kaputkiya, and divorced her in Eretz 
          Yisrael, he pays the Kesuvah in coins of Eretz Yisrael;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he pays coins of Kaputkiya 
          (which are larger);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If he married her in Kaputkiya, and divorced her in 
          Kaputkiya, he pays the Kesuvah in coins of Kaputkiya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does 'anyone can force' come to 
          include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It includes slaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (There is an opinion that the Mishnah 
          explicitly lists slaves.) According to this opinion, what 
          does 'anyone' include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> It includes even from a nice place to a bad 
          place.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does 'anyone cannot force them to leave' 
          include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It includes slaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to the opinion that the Mishnah 
          explicitly lists slaves, what does it include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> It includes a slave who fled from Chutz 
          la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The master must sell the slave to one who lives in 
               Eretz Yisrael, to promote settlement of Eretz 
               Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does 'anyone can force to move to 
          Yerushalayim' include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It includes even from a nice place to a bad 
          place.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does 'anyone cannot force them to leave' 
          include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It includes even from a bad place to a nice 
          place.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (This is not a Chidush, for we taught that anyone 
               cannot force them to go to Yerushalayim, even from a 
               nice place to a bad place!) This is taught for 
               parallel structure with the Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If he wants to go to Eretz Yisrael, and his 
          wife does not, she must go, or else he may divorce her 
          without paying her Kesuvah. If she wants to go to Eretz 
          Yisrael and he does not, he must go, or else he must 
          divorce her and pay her Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  If she wants to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he does not, she 
          must stay, or else he may divorce her without paying her 
          Kesuvah. If he wants to leave Eretz Yisrael and she does 
          not, he must stay, or else he must divorce her and pay 
          her Kesuvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THE DEBTS ARE PAID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he married a woman...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah contradicts itself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he married her in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her 
               in Kaputkiya, he pays the Kesuvah in coins of Eretz 
               Yisrael. This shows that he pays coins of the place 
               where he obligated himself;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he married her in Kaputkiya, and divorced her in 
               Eretz Yisrael, he pays the Kesuvah in coins of Eretz 
               Yisrael. This shows that he pays coins of where she 
               collects!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> The Tana holds that Kesuvah is 
          mid'Rabanan, therefore, he is lenient to allow payment of 
          the smaller coins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> He pays coins of 
          Kaputkiya.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a loan document says (that it was written 
          in) Bavel, it must be paid in coins of Bavel. If it says 
          Eretz Yisrael, it must be paid in coins of Eretz Yisrael;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the place is not written, it is paid in coins of 
               the place of collection.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If it says only 'Kesef' - the borrower pays him whatever 
          he wants;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This does not apply to a Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which law does not apply to a Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> The first law (that it is paid 
          in the coins of the place it was written) does not apply. 
          The Tana does not hold like R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
          (rather, he pays smaller coins).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If it only says 'Kesef', the borrower pays him 
          whatever he wants.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He should pay him chunks of silver!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> The case is, the document says 'coins 
          of Kesef'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> He can pay him Prutos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> No one makes Prutos of silver.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ATTRIBUTES OF LIVING IN 'ERETZ YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A person should live in Eretz Yisrael, even in 
          a city that is mostly Nochrim. He should not live in 
          Chutz la'Aretz, even in a city that is mostly Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because anyone who lives in Eretz Yisrael is 
               like one who that has a G-d, but anyone who lives in 
               Chutz la'Aretz is like one who does not, like it 
               says 'To give to you Eretz Kena'an, to be to you 
               l'Eilokim.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> You cannot say that one who does not live in 
          Eretz Yisrael is like one who does not have a G-d!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, anyone who lives in Chutz la'Aretz is 
          like one who serves idolatry (Rashi (Devarim 4:28 and 
          28:64) - because he serves idolators or pays taxes that 
          support idolatry).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'I was expelled from (Eretz Yisrael)... I 
               was told to go serve idolatry' - did anyone tell 
               David to serve idolatry?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, this teaches that anyone who lives 
               in Chutz la'Aretz is like one who serves idolatry.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) ONE WHO LIVES IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ IS LIKE ONE WHO WORSHIPS IDOLS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa states that anyone who lives in Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he has a G-d. Anyone who lives in Chutz la'Aretz is considered as though he worships idols.
</p><p>
What does the Beraisa mean?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> cites the <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos #134) who explains that Eretz Yisrael is called 'Nachalas Hash-m' (Shmuel I 26:19) because Hash-m provides direct supervision over Eretz Yisrael, in contrast to all other lands which He supervises only though intermediaries. One who lives in Chutz la'Aretz relies on those intermediaries to carry out the will of Hash-m, and in that way he is considered to worship Avodah Zarah.
</p><p>
The Rashba's explanation needs further elucidation, because as long as a person knows that Hash-m provides him with all of his needs and supervises all of his affairs, why should the fact that the supervision comes through intermediaries be considered Avodah Zarah?
</p><p>
It must be that with all the good intentions one has, the Emunah he has when in a state of being supervised by intermediaries will never reach the level of Emunah of one whose affairs are supervised directly by Hash-m. This lack of Emunah is equated to worship of Avodah Zarah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> adds that since the supervision of Hash-m in Chutz la'Aretz comes through intermediaries, one who lives there tends to rely on those intermediaries themselves and forgets that Hash-m is the One truly in charge. In contrast, one who lives in Eretz Yisrael always remembers that Hash-m is in charge.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Igeres Kidush Hash-m) writes that one who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael is like one who serves Avodah Zarah because of his choice to live among heretics. One must loathe Resha'im and distance himself from them.
</p><p>
The <b>ME'IRI</b> similarly writes that the benefit of living in Eretz Yisrael is the Chochmah and Yir'as Shamayim which one will attain there. (This is why Rav Yehudah (111a) says that one who lives in Bavel is like one who lives in Eretz Yisrael -- because of the Yeshivos there that spread Torah and Yir'as Shamayim, as Rashi explains.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>REBBE</b> of <b>SATMAR</b> (in <b>VA'YOEL MOSHE</b>, Ma'amar Shalosh Shevuos) infers from the words of Rashi (DH v'Chi Mi Amar) that the Gemara's warning against leaving Eretz Yisrael applies only when doing so will put a person under the dominion of idolatrous rulers. Rashi writes that David ha'Melech 'was forced to flee and leave Eretz Yisrael, and go to the king of Moav and to Achish.' Rashi does not need to mention that David ha'Melech went to the king of Moav and Achish; it would suffice to say that he was forced to leave Eretz Yisrael. It must be that the problem involved with leaving Eretz Yisrael is subjecting oneself to the dominion of idolatrous rulers in Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>AYELES AHAVIM</b> explains that one who lives in Chutz la'Aretz is vulnerable to acquire the bad character traits which characterize the various foreign nations. Acquiring such traits is akin to serving Avodah Zarah.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Kidushin (49b) says that the traits of 'Chanufah' (flattery) and 'Gasos ha'Ru'ach' (haughtiness) descended to the nation of Bavel. The Gemara in Sotah (4b and 5a) equates haughtiness with Avodah Zarah when it says that 'one who is haughty is considered as though he serves Avodah Zarah' and 'one who is haughty should be cut down like an Asheirah tree.'
</p><p>
The Gemara in Nedarim (22a) infers from a verse that one who lives in Bavel is prone to anger, and the Gemara there says that one who gets angry pushes away the Shechinah. Similarly, the Gemara in Shabbos (105b) says that one who breaks objects in anger is akin to one who serves Avodah Zarah.
</p><p>
It is because of these bad character traits that one is prone to acquire in Chutz la'Aretz that one who lives there is considered as though he serves Avodah Zarah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ATTRIBUTES OF LIVING IN 'ERETZ YISRAEL' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira wanted to go to Eretz Yisrael, so he was 
          avoiding Rav Yehudah (his Rebbi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Anyone who goes from Bavel to Eretz 
               Yisrael transgresses an Aseh - 'They will be brought 
               to Bavel, and there they will be until I redeem 
               them'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira explains that the verse discusses the Kelim of 
          the Mikdash.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah holds that another verse forbids people to 
          return - 'I put an oath upon you, daughters of 
          Yerushalayim, with deer or wild goats'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira holds that this oath forbids Yisrael to return 
          together, by force.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah derives another oath from another verse, to 
          forbid an individual to return.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira learns that verse like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> The verses recount three 
               oaths Hash-m imposed: Yisrael should not return 
               together, by force; Yisrael should not rebel against 
               the other nations; and the nations should not 
               subjugate Yisrael too harshly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> 'If you will awaken, if you will arouse' 
          shows that there were more oaths!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira learns the additional oaths like R. Levi:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Levi):</font></b> The three additional oaths forbid us to 
               reveal the time to redemption, to push off the 
               redemption (alternatively - to demand redemption too 
               strongly), and to reveal the secret (of the 
               calculation of leap years and months, or of the 
               reasons for Mitzvos) to the nations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'With deer or wild goats' - if we do not 
          keep the oaths, Hash-m will make our flesh prey for 
          others, like flesh of deer or wild goats.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Anyone who lives in Eretz Yisrael dwells 
          without sin - 'the neighbors should not say that I struck 
          the inhabitants, whose sin is borne'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> We learned that the verse refers to those 
               who suffer intestinal sicknesses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Anan):</font></b> If one is buried in Eretz Yisrael, it is as 
          if he is buried under the Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'A Mizbe'ach of earth', and it says 'Its 
               earth atones for its people.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Ula frequently came to Eretz Yisrael. He died in Chutz 
          la'Aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar lamented 'On Tamei ground you will die'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bearers of the news:</font></b> His coffin is coming for burial 
               here.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> This is not the same as dying here.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  A Yavam asked if he should go to Chutz la'Aretz to do 
          Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chanina:</font></b> His brother died for marrying a Nochris 
               (i.e. a resident of Chutz la'Aretz), blessed be 
               Hash-m, Who killed him for that. Will the Yavam do 
               the same?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> Just like it is forbidden to 
          go from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, it is forbidden to go 
          from Bavel (which has Yeshivos that spread Torah) to 
          other lands.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> One may not even go from 
               Pumbedisa (Rav Yehudah, Rabah, Rav Yosef, Abaye and 
               Rava were successive Roshei Yeshiva there) to Bei 
               Kuvi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A man went from Pumbedisa to Bei Kuvi, and Rav Yosef 
               excommunicated him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A man went from Pumbedisa to Astonya, and he died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> Had this Chacham wanted to live, he could 
               have lived (by staying in Pumbedisa)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> Eretz Yisrael absorbs the best of 
          Bavel; Bavel absorbs the best of other lands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To what does this refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It refers to lineage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> It was taught that we consider people of 
               other lands to be of doubtful lineage relative to 
               Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael has doubtful 
               lineage compared to Bavel! (Ezra took all people of 
               bad lineage with him to Eretz Yisrael.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it refers to burial.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One who dwells in Bavel is as if he dwells 
          in Eretz Yisrael - 'Take refuge in Tziyon, dwellers of 
          Bavel'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> We have a tradition that Bavel will not see the 
          birthpangs of Mashi'ach. This refers to Hutzal of 
          Binyamin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Then it will be called 'The horn of salvation.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>REVIVAL OF THE DEAD IN 'CHUTZ LA'ARETZ'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The dead in Chutz la'Aretz will not live - 
          'I will put Tzvi (glory) in the land of the living.' The 
          dead will live only in the land in which is Tzivyoni (My 
          desire).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Beraisa):</font></b> 'Your dead will 
          live' refers to those who die in Eretz Yisrael. 'the 
          Mesim of My nation will rise' are those who die in Chutz 
          la'Aretz;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'I will put Tzvi in the land of the living' refers 
               to Nevuchadnetzar, a king as fast as a deer, who was 
               sent to ravage Eretz Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> Another verse supports me - 'He gives 
          a soul to the nation on it (Eretz Yisrael) and spirit to 
          those who walk in it';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The Mesim of My nation' refers to stillborn babies 
               (of Eretz Yisrael).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Aba explains 'He gives a soul to the nation on it' 
          like R. Avahu:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Avahu):</font></b> Even a Kena'ani slave in Eretz Yisrael 
               is guaranteed a share in the world to come.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It says 'He gives a soul l'Am (to the nation) on 
               it', and it says 'Wait here Im (with) the donkey' - 
               we read 'Im' like 'Am', a nation that resembles a 
               donkey.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmiyah bar Aba):</font></b> 'And spirit to those who walk in 
          it' - anyone who walks four Amos in Eretz Yisrael is 
          guaranteed a share in the world to come.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Elazar really hold that the dead 
          outside of Eretz Yisrael will not live?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ila):</font></b> Their bones roll to Eretz Yisrael, and 
          come to life in Eretz Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba Sala Rava):</font></b> Surely, Tzadikim should not 
          endure such pain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Underground tunnels are made for 
          Tzadikim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Karna):</font></b> Yakov Avinu knew that he was a total 
          Tzadik. If the dead of Chutz la'Aretz live, why did he 
          trouble his children to bury him in Eretz Yisrael?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He was concerned lest he not merit tunnels.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Chanina asked similarly about Yosef ha'Tzadik, 
               and gave the same answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Rabah's brothers sent Karna's teaching to Rabah, to try 
          to persuade him to come to Eretz Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ilfa added:</font></b> There was a case of a man that was 
               pained by his great desire for a woman who lived in 
               Chutz la'Aretz. He was about to go; when he heard 
               Karna's teaching, he held himself back, and stayed 
               in Eretz Yisrael the rest of his life.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even though you (Rabah) are great, one who learns 
               from a Rav is incomparably better.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Don't say that you do not have a Rav here. 
                    There is R. Yochanan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If you will not come, beware of three things:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Do not sit too much, for this causes 
                    Tachtoniyos (hemorrhoids);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Do not stand too much, since this is bad for 
                    the heart;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Do not walk too much, since this is bad for the 
                    eyes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Rather, one should sit a third, stand a third, and 
               walk a third.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  It is better to stand than to sit unsupported.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But he said that standing is bad for the heart!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it is better to stand with support than 
          to sit unsupported.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE THREE OATHS OF HASH-M</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara infers from the verse in Shir ha'Shirim (2:7) that Hash-m made two oaths with the Jewish people and one with the nations of the world. The first oath He made with the Jewish people was that the Jewish people will not rebel against the nations of the world. The second oath He made with the Jewish people was that they will not band together and come to Eretz Yisrael by force, like a fortifying wall ('she'Lo Ya'alu Yisrael b'Chomah'). The oath He made with the nations was that they will not subjugate the Jewish people excessively. The Gemara infers from the verse that the consequence of transgressing the oath is that the flesh of the people will become Hefker like the flesh of animals.
</p><p>
If failure to abide by the oaths is punishable, then there must have been an acceptance of the oath by both sides. Where, though, do we find that the Jewish people (or the nations of the world) accepted these oaths?
</p><p>
Moreover, do the warnings contained in these oaths appear anywhere in the Torah? Since a prophet is not permitted to add anything to the Torah (Megilah 3a), it must be that the Torah already prohibits the actions proscribed by the oaths. The Jewish people may not rebel against the nations of the world because the Torah states that only Mashi'ach will have the prerogative to do this. For the same reason, they may not forcefully come to Eretz Yisrael (see following Insight). The nations of the world certainly do not have any right to oppress the Jewish people, even without the oath.
</p><p>
The question remains, however, what is the purpose of these oaths, and in what way is the punishment for their transgression a logical consequence measure for measure?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SEFER HA'AKEIDAH</b> says that the oath that Hash-m made with the Jewish people in the Midbar (see Parshas Netzavim) established an interminable covenant between Hash-m and the Jewish people. By telling the Jewish people that their continued existence depends on their fulfillment of these warnings, Hash-m ensured that at least some part of the Jewish people will always observe these warnings and the nation will not suffer total annihilation.
</p><p>
The Sefer ha'Akeidah explains that this potential annihilation is not a punishment for transgressing the oath, for such a punishment certainly would need mutual consent. Rather, Hash-m told the Jewish people that He will protect them from the nations of the world only if they fulfill the oath. If they do not fulfill the oath, Chas v'Shalom, then Hash-m will leave the Jewish people unprotected, and consequently they will be like Hefker, like animals being hunted (as the Gemara says). This does not need the consent of the Jewish people; Hash-m protects us, and if we are unworthy of His protection He will no longer provide it. In this manner, we may be assured that the Jewish people will always merit Hashem's protection.
</p><p>
The Sefer ha'Akeidah's explanation may be applied to the Gemara here as well. The Torah forbids the Jewish people from transgressing these oaths even without an actual acceptance of them. The point of the oaths is to show the Jewish people that their very existence depends on fulfilling the conditions of the oaths, for if they fail to do so they will forfeit the Divine protection on which their existence depends. This knowledge certainly will stop them from going astray.
</p><p>
The oath made with the nations of the world may also be explained in this way. Although the nations constantly attempt to destroy the Jewish people, there often exist elements among the nations which unexplainably seek to give the Jewish people a respite, because they are aware on some level that without the Jewish people in the world, the world itself would cease to exist.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> (YD 444) explains that the Shevu'ah of the nations was actually made with their governing counterparts ('Sarim') in Shamayim who accepted the Shevu'ah and accepted not to incite their nations against the Jewish people. If they fail to abide by the oath, they are duly punished, for 'when Hash-m punishes the nations, He punishes their heavenly governors first' (Mechilta, as quoted by Rashi to Shemos 4:9 and 11:5). When the nation's 'Sar' is destroyed, the nation itself is destroyed as well.
</p><p>
Similarly, the oaths of the Jewish people were made with their Neshamos which accepted upon themselves to teach the bodies not to transgress. If the body fails to listen and transgresses, the body is not punished because it did not accept the oath. However, the connection to its Neshamah is broken because it did not listen to its Neshamah and no longer deserves that connection. Hash-m protects the Jewish people only because of their Neshamos. Accordingly, if they do not listen to their Neshamos, Hash-m removes His protection from them and they become Hefker to the forces of the world.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>REBBE</b> of <b>SATMAR</b> (in <b>VA'YOEL MOSHE</b>, Ma'amar Shalosh Shevuos) explains that these oaths were not intended to add any warnings or prohibitions to the laws of the Torah. Rather, one who violates these oaths is considered one who denies the Torah, since the Torah specifies exactly how the Ge'ulah is meant to come about and thus one who attempts to bring it about differently is considered a heretic. (This is similar to the punishment which the members of the tribe of Binyamin suffered when they left Mitzrayim prematurely. They were killed because the time of the redemption had not yet arrived, and thus they were considered heretics.)
</p><p>
The objective of the Shevu'ah is to inform the people of the severity of the punishment, even more than the Shevu'ah which the Jewish people took at Matan Torah itself. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MAHARAL</b> (in <b>CHIDUSHEI AGADOS</b>) explains that these oaths are decrees (Gezeiros) which Hash-m enacted in order to ensure continuity of the exile which Hash-m decreed. The ability of a distinct nation to be in exile and to remain distinct is an inexplicable phenomenon which cannot be explained according to the natural laws of historical progression. Accordingly, Hash-m established three new requirements: that the nations of the world not strengthen the exile by excessive oppression of the Jewish people, that the Jewish people not weaken the exile by banding together to force their way into Eretz Yisrael, and that the Jewish people not attempt to end the exile by rebelling entirely against the nations of the world. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) LIVING SINLESS IN ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Elazar states that one who lives in Eretz Yisrael 'dwells without sin' ('Nesu Avon'), as the verse says, 'One who lives there will not say, 'I am sick;' the nation that dwells there will be forgiven of sin' (Yeshayah 33:24).
</p><p>
How is it possible that every person in Eretz Yisrael lives there without sin? How can this be true if the Jewish people were punished and exiled from Eretz Yisrael for their sins? On the contrary, the <b>RAMBAN</b> (end of Parshas Acharei Mos) writes that only when the Jewish people are in Eretz Yisrael are they punished with exile for sinning, because sins committed in Eretz Yisrael are punished much more severely than sins committed in Chutz la'Aretz. (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b> (in Hagahos Ya'avetz) and the <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> explain that living in Eretz Yisrael atones only for less serious sins, and not for serious ones (like Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos, and Shefichus Damim, or rebellious sins, 'Pesha'im'). The Iyun Yakov also suggests that living in Eretz Yisrael forgives only the sins of individuals who sin in private but not the sins committed collectively by an entire community. The Iyun Yakov adds (in the name of his father) that living in Eretz Yisrael only lessens the sin, making an intentional sin like an unintentional one. This explains why the verse says that they are 'Nesu <i>Avon</i>' -- 'forgiven of <i>sin</i>,' which is the word that refers to intentional sin (as opposed to 'Chet' which refers to unintentional sin, which they <i>do</i> have). 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> and <b>ETZ YOSEF</b> (in the Ein Yakov) explain that Eretz Yisrael alone does not grant pardon for sins. Rather, one's Teshuvah is accepted more readily in Eretz Yisrael. Alternatively, it is easier to do Teshuvah in Eretz Yisrael because of the Kedushah that exists there.
</p><p>
We may add that the Gemara in Berachos (7a) states that a person is punished for the sins of his fathers when he commits the same acts. The reason for this might be that when a person sins, his acts become such a part of the person that he is able to pass the trait on to his children, who either learn it from him or inherit it from him (see Insights to Shabbos 55:4). A person who lives in Eretz Yisrael, however, is awakened to do Teshuvah so often that any evil traits of his father are not transmitted to him. He is influenced more by the Kedushah of the land than by those evil traits of his father. Therefore, he is free of the 'Avon' of his father. When the verse says 'Nesu Avon' -- 'forgiven of sin,' it refers to the 'Avon' in the verse, 'Poked Avon Avos Al Banim' -- 'He remembers (and punishes) the sin of the fathers upon the children' (Shemos 34:7). (M. Kornfeld. The Iyun Yakov also hints to this on 110b, DH Kol, and 111b, DH v'Ken Amru.)
</p><p>
In what way does living in Eretz Yisrael prompt a person to do Teshuvah, more so than living in Chutz la'Aretz? Perhaps the Gemara refers to the teaching of the Sifri cited by Tosfos in Bava Basra (21a, DH Ki mi'Tziyon). The Sifri states that when the people would come to Yerushalayim from all parts of Eretz Yisrael at the time of the festival and witness the immense Kedushah there and the Kohanim as they performed the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, 'their hearts would turn towards the fear of G-d and to the study of Torah.' (Even after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, Yerushalayim remained a city of holiness, where great Tzadikim dwelled to be near the place of the Shechinah.)
</p><p>
This approach answers another apparent problem with this Gemara, which the <b>RIF</b> on the Ein Yakov poses. The verse in Yeshayah clearly refers to <i>Yerushalayim</i> and not to all of Eretz Yisrael, as is evident from the other verses in that chapter. Why, then, does Rebbi Elazar say that the verse refers to people who live in <i>Eretz Yisrael</i>?
</p><p>
The simple answer is that Yerushalayim, which sits at the center of Eretz Yisrael, refers to all of Eretz Yisrael. According to the above explanation, however, the answer is that one who lives anywhere in Eretz Yisrael must come to Yerushalayim for the Shalosh Regalim, and by being in Yerushalayim and seeing the great Kedushah he is aroused to do Teshuvah! Hence, although the verse indeed refers only to the people of Yerushalayim, Rebbi Elazar says that anyone who lives in Eretz Yisrael would also go to Yerushalayim for the festivals and be aroused to do Teshuvah.
</p><p>
(The Pnei Yehoshua adds if a person chooses to live in Eretz Yisrael not because of its Kedushah but simply because he was born there or because he was attracted by its produce, he certainly will not be aroused to do Teshuvah by the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael, which he does not even feel. The Gemara does not refer to such a person.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIF</b> on the Ein Yakov explains that Rebbi Elazar's statement -- that those who live in Eretz Yisrael dwell without sin -- should be understood in the context of the Gemara which follows, in which Rava (or Ravina) says that the verse refers to people who suffer from illness.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (110b, DH Hu Omer) writes in the name of <b>RABEINU CHAIM HA'KOHEN</b> that it is very difficult to travel to Eretz Yisrael and properly observe the Mitzvos of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara in Berachos (5a) teaches that Eretz Yisrael is one of three things which are acquired only through Yisurim, physical affliction. The Yisurim of traveling to and living in Eretz Yisrael serve as atonement for one's sins. (The Ya'avetz and Iyun Yakov give similar explanations.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE PROHIBITION AGAINST LEAVING BAVEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (end of 110b until the beginning of 111a) records the view of Rav Yehudah who rules that one who goes from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael transgresses an Isur Aseh, because the verse says, 'To Bavel they will be brought, and there they will stay until the day that I remember them, says Hash-m, when I shall bring them up and return them to this place' (Yirmeyahu 27:22). This verse commands the Jews not to return from Galus until Hash-m redeems them.
</p><p>
The Gemara later quotes Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel who says that 'just as one is forbidden from leaving Eretz Yisrael to go to Bavel, so, too, one is forbidden from leaving Bavel to go to other lands.' Why does Rav Yehudah now express the prohibition against leaving Bavel differently? Earlier he says that the prohibition is to go only from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, as he derives from the verse in Yirmeyahu, which implies that he maintains that one is permitted to go from Bavel to other lands. Here, however, he says that the prohibition is to go from Bavel to <i>any</i> land and not only to Eretz Yisrael. In fact, the wording of his second statement implies that one is only prohibited only from going from Bavel to other lands, but one is <i>not</i> prohibited from going from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael! Moreover, in his second statement he does not relate the prohibition against leaving Bavel to the verse that says that Hash-m wants the Jews to stay in Galus until the time of the redemption, but rather he attributes the prohibition to the high level of Torah scholarship in Bavel which makes it comparable to Eretz Yisrael (as Rashi points out)! (<b>MAHARIT</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that the two statements of Rav Yehudah were said with regard to two different categories of people. The verse in Yirmeyahu refers to the time of the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash. Accordingly, the Isur Aseh against going from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael applies only to the people who actually left Eretz Yisrael during the exile to Bavel and to their descendants who still live there as a result of the exile. (Even after Koresh (Cyrus) granted permission to the Jews to return and build the second Beis ha'Mikdash, the prohibition against returning from Bavel still applied, since the time had not yet come for <i>all</i> of the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael. The Pnei Yehoshua asserts that proof for this is the fact that the Klei Shares did not return with the Jews who built the second Beis ha'Mikdash.)
</p><p>
Rav Yehudah's second statement teaches that if one happens to live in Bavel after he moved there from another country (but not as a result of the first exile from Eretz Yisrael), although he is permitted to go to Eretz Yisrael he is not permitted to leave Bavel to go to other lands, because Bavel is a place of Torah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> also explains that the first statement refers only to one who travels from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited by an Isur Aseh. From the time of the exile, Hash-m does not want the Jews to return before the designated time. That prohibition, however, applies only to one who goes to Eretz Yisrael but not to one who goes from Bavel to other countries.
</p><p>
In his second statement, Rav Yehudah says that since Bavel is a place of Torah one is not allowed to leave Bavel to go to any other place in Chutz la'Aretz. This act, however, is not prohibited by the abovementioned Isur Aseh, since by going to any other place in Chutz la'Aretz one does not return to Eretz Yisrael from the exile. However, the fact that Bavel is a place of Torah does not prevent a person from going to Eretz Yisrael, because Eretz Yisrael is a place of Kedushah and Shechinah, even more so than Bavel. Hence, the prohibition against returning to Eretz Yisrael is <i>only</i> due to the Mitzvas Aseh, and only according to Rebbi Yehudah (and not necessarily according to Shmuel, his rebbi, in whose name the second statement is quoted).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Melachim 5:12) quotes the statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel and writes that just as one is forbidden from leaving Eretz Yisrael to go to Chutz la'Aretz, one is forbidden from leaving Bavel to go to other lands. However, he concludes with the verse in Yirmeyahu, 'As it says, 'To Bavel they will be brought, and there they will stay.''
</p><p>
The Rambam's words are very difficult to understand. The Gemara says that the verse in Yirmeyahu teaches that one may not go from Bavel to <i>Eretz Yisrael</i>. Why does the Rambam write that the verse teaches that one may not go from Bavel to <i>other</i> lands? Moreover, the Rambam implies that one is forbidden from going <i>only</i> from Bavel to other lands, but one is not forbidden from going from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael! Why, then, does he quote the verse in Yirmeyahu which teaches that one may not go from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael? (The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> writes that the Rambam intends to include Eretz Yisrael among the 'other lands' to which one may not go from Bavel, and he rules like Rebbi Yehudah's first statement. However, this is not the straightforward meaning of the Rambam's words, and it is also not logical that the Rambam would rule like Rav Yehudah whose opinion is a minority opinion.)
</p><p>
Also, if the verse may be interpreted as a reference to going to other lands and not to Eretz Yisrael, why does Rebbi Zeira say that the verse refers to the Klei Shares, the utensils used in the Beis ha'Mikdash? He should answer simply that the verse 'Bavelah Yuva'u...' indeed refers to the people, but it refers to going from Bavel to <i>other lands</i> and not to Eretz Yisrael! (<b>MAHARIT</b>)
</p><p>
<b>RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK</b> (Chidushei ha'Shas 'stencils,' #286) points out that the verse in Yirmeyahu discusses the situation only after the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash. Tosfos here explains that Rav Yehudah learns from that time period that the same Isur Aseh should apply after the Churban of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Rav Chaim states that Rav Yehudah may extrapolate from the first exile to the second only if the status of Eretz Yisrael after the first Galus and after the second Galus are identical: in both cases the land either lost its Kedushah or retained its Kedushah.
</p><p>
The Rambam (Hilchos Terumos 1:5), however, rules that after the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash Eretz Yisrael lost its Kedushah, but after the Churban of the second Beis ha'Mikdash it retained its Kedushah. According to the Rambam, even if we accept Rav Yehudah's explanation of the verse as teaching an Isur Aseh against returning to Eretz Yisrael after the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash, there should be no Isur after the second Churban. After the second Churban Eretz Yisrael retained its Kedushah and there remained a Mitzvah of Yishuv ha'Aretz, of settling the land, which should override any concern about prematurely returning from Galus. The prophet would not have said not to return under such circumstances! That is why the Rambam learns from the verse in Yirmeyahu that one may not go to <i>other</i> lands, but one may go to Eretz Yisrael. (It could be that Rebbi Zeira does not explain the verse in such a manner because he prefers to avoid the Machlokes about whether or not Eretz Yisrael has Kedushah after the Churban of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.)
</p><p>
An alternate possibility is that the Rambam has a different Girsa in the second line of the Gemara. According to his Girsa, Rebbi Zeira answers that the verse in Yirmeyahu refers to 'Kol ha'She'ar,' or 'all other [lands],' and not to 'Kli Shares.' Accordingly, the Rambam is simply quoting the Gemara and ruling like Rebbi Zeira when he writes that the verse refers to going from Bavel to other lands!
</p><p>
This also answers the original contradiction between Rav Yehudah's first statement and his statement in the name of Shmuel. Shmuel maintains, like Rebbi Zeira, that the verse refers only to one who leaves Bavel for other lands, but not for Eretz Yisrael. (The Maharit also concludes that Rav Yehudah disagrees with Shmuel.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Melachim 5:9, 12) rules that one may not leave Eretz Yisrael to live in other lands. However, the Rambam does not mention that it is a Mitzvah for one who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael to <i>go</i> to Eretz Yisrael to live. Although the <b>RAMBAN</b>, in his list of Mitzvos Aseh which the Rambam omitted, counts this as a Mitzvas Aseh, the Rambam makes no mention of this Mitzvah, neither in Mishnah Torah nor in Sefer ha'Mitzvos. The Ramban wonders why the Rambam does not count living in Eretz Yisrael in his list of Mitzvos since, after all, the Chachamim speak so highly of the importance of living in Eretz Yisrael, as the Gemara here teaches.
</p><p>
Apparently, the Rambam maintains that there is no Mitzvah at all to go to live in Eretz Yisrael. The Isur against leaving Eretz Yisrael is not counted among his list of Mitzvos because it is an Isur d'Rabanan (or perhaps mi'Divrei Kabalah), similar to the Isur against leaving Bavel. If one may not leave Bavel because it is a place where there is Kedushah because of the Jews who live and learn Torah there, then certainly one may not leave Eretz Yisrael where there is even more Kedushah and a higher level of Hashra'as ha'Shechinah.
</p><p>
However, even if there is no Mitzvah d'Oraisa to go to live in Eretz Yisrael according to the Rambam, it is clear from the Gemara here and from many other sources (which the Rambam himself cites in Mishneh Torah) that Eretz Yisrael should be very dear to every Jew, who should long to dwell in its midst because of its Kedushah and the closeness with Hash-m which is attained there. (See Insights to 110b.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Yitzchak, Shimon and Oshaya):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
          Yehudah regarding mules.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If a mule (it is a 
               crossbreed of a horse and donkey) desires to mate, 
               we may not mate it with a horse or donkey, only with 
               a mule as itself (i.e. both of their mothers were 
               horses, or both were donkeys. R. Yehudah is unsure 
               whether or not we are concerned also for the 
               father's seed, or if it is considered to be just 
               like its mother.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Yitzchak (above) is R. 
          Yitzchak Nafcha; Shimon is R. Shimon ben Pazi 
          (alternatively - R. Shimon ben Lakish); Oshaya is R. 
          Oshaya b'Rebbi.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO WILL BE REVIVED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Ignoramuses will not be revived - 'The dead 
          will not live'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support#1 (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'the dead will 
          not live' applies to everyone!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Refa'im will not rise' - it discusses 
               only those who Rifu (slackened) from Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (R. Yochanan):</font></b> No, the verse refers to those 
          who served idolatry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #2 (R. Elazar, for himself):</font></b> 'The dew of lights 
          is Your dew, and You will cause Refa'im to fall to the 
          ground' - the light of Torah revives only those who use 
          the light of Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar saw that R. Yochanan was pained. He comforted 
          him by showing that there is hope for ignoramuses:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'You who cling to Hash-m are all alive 
               today' - is it possible to cling to Hash-m?! 'Hash-m 
               is a consuming fire'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, if one who marries his daughter to a 
               Chacham, does business for and benefits Chachamim 
               from his property, the Torah considers him to cling 
               to the Divine presence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'You will love Hash-m and cling to Him' - is it 
          possible to cling to Hash-m?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, if one marries his daughter to a Chacham, 
          does business for and benefits Chachamim from his 
          property, the Torah considers him to cling to the 
          Shechinah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Rav Yosef):</font></b> In the future, Tzadikim will 
          rise from the ground in Yerushalayim - 'They will sprout 
          from the city like herbs'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The city' is Yerushalayim - 'I will protect this 
               city'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Rav Yosef):</font></b> A Kal v'Chomer teaches that 
          Tzadikim will return to life clothed:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Wheat is planted bare, and it rises with many 
               covers. Tzadikim are buried clothed, all the more so 
               they will rise clothed!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PRODUCE OF 'ERETZ YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Rav Yosef):</font></b> In the future, buns and silk 
          garments will grow in Eretz Yisrael - 'Yehi <i>Pisas</i> Bar 
          ba'Aretz' (alludes to something of grain as big as a palm 
          (Pas), and also to Kesones Pasim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Yehi Pisas Bar ba'Aretz b'Rosh Harim' - in 
          the future, wheat will grow like palm trees on the 
          mountaintops.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it will be hard to harvest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Its fruit will rustle like (trees of) 
               Levanon' - Hash-m will bring a wind from His 
               storehouse, causing the produce to fall. A person 
               will take a handful from the field to feed his 
               household.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  'With choice Kilyos of wheat' - in the future, wheat will 
          be like big like the two kidneys of a large ox.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do not be surprised at this. A fox made its den in a 
               turnip, and the remains of the turnip weighed 60 
               Litra (60 pounds).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> In Sichin, a man inherited three 
          branches of mustard. One split open; it contained nine 
          Kavim of mustard, and the wood covered a potter's shack.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Shimon ben Tachlifa:</font></b> My father left us a head of 
          cabbage; we used a ladder to climb onto it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  'You will drink wine, the blood of the grape' - the world 
          to come will be unlike this world;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In this world, it is a toil to harvest and press 
               grapes. In the world to come, a man will bring a 
               grape in a wagon or boat, put it in a corner of his 
               house, and it will supply him like a fattened ox;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The vine branch will be used as fuel for cooking.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Each grape will contain 30 Sa'im of wine. We read 
               'you will drink <i>Cheimar</i>' like Chomer (30 Sa'im).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> 'He will tie his foal to the vine' - every 
          vine in Eretz Yisrael will require a foal to harvest it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  'And his donkey's children to the Serekah (vine branch)' 
          - every Serak (barren tree) will produce what two donkeys 
          can bear.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps there will be no moisture in it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'He will wash his garment in wine'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it will not be red?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'The blood of the grape...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it will not intoxicate?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Susah' (this connotes seducing).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it will have no taste?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ha'Chlili (red) eyed from wine' - any 
               palate that tastes it will say(give) 'Li Li (to me, 
               to me)'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it is good for youths only?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ul'Ven Shinayim' can be read 'ul'Ven 
               Shanim' (a man of years).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the simple meaning of the verse?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Dimi):</font></b> The congregation of Yisrael asks 
          Hash-m 'Hint with Your eyes that are sweeter than wine, 
          and show me Your teeth, that are better than milk'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  This supports R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One who whitens his teeth (smiles) at 
               his friend is better than one who gives him milk. We 
               read the verse 'Libun (whitening) teeth (is better) 
               than milk'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Ada was the teacher of Reish Lakish's 
          children. He did not come for three days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reish Lakish:</font></b> Why didn't you come?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chiya bar Ada:</font></b> My father left me a vineyard of 
               vines on poles. The first day I harvested 300 
               clusters; each produced a Se'ah. The second day I 
               harvested 300 clusters; each produced half a Se'ah. 
               The third day I harvested 300 clusters, each 
               produced a third of a Se'ah, and I made the majority 
               of the vineyard ownerless!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reish Lakish:</font></b> Had you not neglected your job, it 
               would have produced more.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Rami bar Yechezkel saw goats eating under fig trees in 
          Bnei Berak. Honey was dripping from the figs, and milk 
          from the goats, and they mixed. This is 'flowing with 
          milk and honey'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yakov ben Dostai):</font></b> It is three Mil (a Mil is about a 
          kilometer) from Lud to Ono. I once went before dawn, and 
          I was up to my ankles in date honey.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> I saw the (region flowing with) milk and 
          honey of Tzipori. It was 16 Mil by 16 Mil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> I saw the milk and honey of all 
          of Eretz Yisrael. It was 88 Mil by 24 Mil.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) THE TORAH PROVIDES 'TECHIYAS HA'MESIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that the Torah gives life to the one who uses ('Mishtamesh') the light of the Torah, and it does not give life to one who does not use the light of the Torah. Accordingly, an Am ha'Aretz will not be revived at Techiyas ha'Mesim unless he attaches himself to a Talmid Chacham in this world, in the ways which the Gemara describes.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara use the phrase 'one who <i>uses</i> (Mishtamesh) the light of Torah'? It should say simply 'one who <i>learns</i> Torah.'
</p><p>
Moreover, why does Techiyas ha'Mesim depend on one's use of the Torah? One who fulfills any Mitzvah deserves reward. Why is the reward for any Mitzvah not given in the form of Techiyas ha'Mesim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The <b>CHAFETZ CHAYIM</b> (in <b>SHEMIRAS HA'LASHON</b>, Chovas ha'Shemirah) explains that although for all other Mitzvos one certainly deserves reward, that reward can be given to one's Neshamah in Olam ha'Ba. Once a person's body turns to dust, it cannot become alive again merely to receive reward for the Mitzvos which he fulfilled. The only person who deserves to have his body rewarded, so that his body is revived at Techiyas ha'Mesim, is the one who learns Torah.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELIYAHU DESSLER</b> (in <b>MICHTAV ME'ELIYAHU</b>, vol. 1, p. 107, and vol. 3, p. 60) explains that one who 'uses the light of Torah' illuminates his heart (i.e. his desires) with the Torah and consequently performs all of his actions according to the Torah. (The heart symbolizes the a person's desires, which his actions naturally follow.) When one 'uses the light of Torah' his heart follows the ways of the Torah.
</p><p>
Learning Torah differs from the other Mitzvos in an essential way. One may perform Mitzvos because he knows intellectually that they are the correct thing to do, or because he has naturally good character traits. However, his performance of the Mitzvos are not rooted in the desire of his heart. Mitzvos done with such a motivation are praiseworthy, but their reward is reserved for the Neshamah alone because his body, represented by his heart and its desires, remained void of Torah.
</p><p>
In contrast, when a person learns Torah, the Torah illuminates his heart and engenders a desire to come close to Hash-m and His Torah. Such a heart will become alive again at Techiyas ha'Mesim in order to receive the reward it deserves. 
</p><p>
Rav Dessler adds that the Gemara here refers not to one who merely fulfills the Mitzvah of learning Torah. The Gemara refers to one who attaches himself to Torah will all of his heart in such a way that his only desire is Torah.
</p><p>
Similarly, the person who supports Torah, as described by the Gemara here, is not one who merely gives his money to support Torah. Rather, he is the one who marries off his daughter to a Talmid Chacham, who provides a business opportunity for a Talmid Chacham, and who hopes that a Talmid Chacham will visit his home and benefit from his possessions. Such a person attaches himself to the Torah, and thus he, too, will merit Techiyas ha'Mesim. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PRODUCE OF 'ERETZ YISRAEL' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Avira and R. Yosi bar Chanina came to a certain place. 
          They were served peaches measuring eight Sa'im. They ate 
          a third, declared a third ownerless, and gave a third to 
          their animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The next year R. Elazar went there. Upon seeing the 
          fruit, he cited 'The fruitful land has become a salty 
          (unfertile) land, from the evil of its inhabitants.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua ben Levi went to Gavla. He saw grape clusters 
          the size of calves. He bewailed, 'Eretz (Yisrael), take 
          in your fruit! For whom are you producing? For those who 
          stand against us because of our sins?!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya went there the next year; the clusters were like 
          goats. The inhabitants asked him to leave, lest he make a 
          similar request.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> When Eretz Yisrael was blessed, the area in 
          which one sows one Se'ah of seed produced 50,000 Korin (a 
          Kor is about 300 liters). When Tzo'an was settled such an 
          area produced 70 Kor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> I saw that in Beis She'an such an 
          area produced 70 Korin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  The best land in Chutz la'Aretz is Mitzrayim - 'Like the 
          garden of Hash-m, like Mitzrayim.' The best area in 
          Mitzrayim is Tzo'an. 'Ki Hayu b'Tzo'an Sarav', there they 
          raised kings;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The worst part of Eretz Yisrael is Chevron; it was 
               used for a burial site. Still, it was seven times 
               better than Tzo'an - 'Chevron was built seven years 
               before Tzo'an'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> It was built seven years earlier.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A person (Cham) would not build a 
                    residence for his younger son (Kena'an) before 
                    building for his older son (Mitzrayim)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, it was seven times better.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  This applies to the muddy parts of Eretz Yisrael. The 
          other parts produced 500 Korin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  In times of Berachah, it produces 100 times more.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> One Se'ah of grain in Yehudah used 
          to produce five Sa'im: one Se'ah of flour, one Se'ah of 
          fine flour, one Se'ah of bran, one Se'ah Morsan (bran 
          that leaves the sifter later), and one Se'ah of inferior 
          flour.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  A Kara'ite praised Eretz Yisrael:</font></b> I inherited an area for 
          seeding one Se'ah. I get from it oil, wine, grain, 
          legumes and pasture for my cattle.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  An Emori (of the seven nations originally in Eretz 
          Yisrael) was boasting to a Yisrael that he used to 
          harvest 120 Korin from a date tree on the bank of the 
          Jordan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He mistakenly thought that the Yisrael harvested 
               less.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Eretz Yisrael is compared to a deer. Just 
          like the skin of a deer cannot hold the flesh (after 
          flaying), also Eretz Yisrael cannot hold its abundance of 
          produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Also, just like a deer is the quickest animal, Eretz 
          Yisrael is the quickest land to ripen its produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps just like a deer is swift but not 
          fatty, also Eretz Yisrael is quick to ripen produce, but 
          they are not fat!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Flowing with milk and honey' - they are 
          fatter than milk and sweeter than honey.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DEARNESS OF 'ERETZ YISRAEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  When R. Elazar came to Eretz Yisrael, he said 'I was 
          saved from one curse.' When he was ordained, he said 'I 
          was saved from a second.' When he was taught the secret 
          of declaring leap months, he said 'I was saved from a 
          third.' (We now explain the curses.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  'In the secret of My nation they will not sit' is the 
          secret of declaring leap months. 'They will not be 
          written among Beis Yisrael' is ordination. 'To the land 
          of Yisrael they will not come' is understood simply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  When R. Zeira was coming to Eretz Yisrael, he did not 
          find a ferry. He crossed on a narrow beam with a rope 
          above for support.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A Kara'ite:</font></b> You are a hasty nation. You put your 
               mouths before your ears (Na'aseh v'Nishma), and you 
               are still in your haste!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Zeira:</font></b> Moshe and Aharon did not merit to enter 
               this land. Who says that I will merit to enter it?! 
               (Surely, I must seize the chance!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Aba used to kiss the rocks of Ako. R. Chanina would 
          level places where one might stumble (lest people 
          disparage the roads). R. Ami and R. Asi would go to a 
          shady or sunny area, according to the weather (to prevent 
          complaints).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE PLENTIFUL PRODUCE OF ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara states that Eretz Yisrael produces 500 Kur from one Se'ah (1/30th of a Kur) of seed in the areas that are fertile and not rocky. This is the amount produced when the land is blessed with the average degree of blessing, but when it is blessed with the ultimate degree of blessing (in the times of the Mashi'ach) it will produce 50,000 Kur from each Se'ah of seed.
</p><p>
The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> finds an allusion in the verse that the number 500 represents the Berachah of Eretz Yisrael. The verse says, 'Shabechi Yerushalayim Es Hash-m...' -- 'Yerushalayim, praise Hash-m, exalt your G-d, o' Tziyon -- for He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst (b'Kirbech)' (Tehilim 147:12-13). This means that Hash-m blesses the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael with the number hinted to 'in the midst' of the word 'Yerushalayim.' When the letters of the word 'Yerushalayim' are each spelled-out (for example, the letter Yud is spelled 'Yud-Vav-Dalet'), the 'hidden' letters (for example, the 'Vav' and 'Dalet' of Yud) are considered the letters that are 'in the midst' of the word 'Yerushalayim.' The Gematriya of the letters 'in the midst' of 'Yerushalayim' (including the unwritten Yud before the final Mem, when Vav is spelled as 'Vav-Yud-Vav' and Mem as 'Mem-Yud-Mem') equals 500.
</p><p>
The <b>HAFLA'AH</b> explains that the reason Hash-m sends so much blessing to Eretz Yisrael is because the Gemara (Taanis 7a) says that all of the other lands receive their flow of rain from the rain that Hash-m sends to Eretz Yisrael; it is as if they receive the 'leftovers,' so to speak. Hence, what comes to Eretz Yisrael must suffice for all of the other lands as well. 
</p><p>
He points out, as an allusion, that the amount of rain that passes through Eretz Yisrael is actually 225 times what Eretz Yisrael needs for itself, because the area of the rest of the world is 225 times larger than the area of Eretz Yisrael. The Chachamim teach that the area of Eretz Yisrael is 400 by 400 Parsah (Megilah 3a), and the area of the whole world is 6000 by 6000 Parsah (Pesachim 94a). Through simple mathematical calculation it is clear that the area of the whole world is 225 times greater than the area of Eretz Yisrael. 
</p><p>
This is alluded to in the verses (Tehilim 85:12-14) which state, 'Emes me'Eretz Titzmach...' -- 'Truth from the earth will sprout forth, and righteousness from the heavens will gaze down. Hash-m also will give what is good, and our land will give forth its produce; righteousness will walk before Him, and he will set his footsteps on the way (v'Yasem l'Derech Pe'amav),' as follows:
</p><p>
'Truth from the earth will sprout forth' refers to the Torah, which will come from the 'Eretz,' referring to Eretz Yisrael (see Berachos 63a, Bava Basra 158b). 'Righteousness from the heavens will gaze down' means that Hash-m punishes evildoers from the heavenly Eretz Yisrael (Eretz Yisrael Shel Ma'aleh). The verse continues, 'Hash-m also will give what is good, and our land will give forth its produce; righteousness will walk before Him' -- when Hash-m gives blessing to all of the nations; 'v'Yasem l'Derech Pe'amav' -- Hash-m will bestow (v'Yasem) blessing upon the world which is 224 times (the Gematriya of Derech being 224) that which Eretz Yisrael needs, so that the other nations should also have blessing!
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Gamda would roll in the dirt - 'Your 
          servants love its stones and its dirt.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> In the generation in which Mashi'ach ben 
          David will come, there will be accusations against the 
          Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> There will be decrees upon decrees.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There will be looters upon looters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> In the future, all barren trees in 
          Eretz Yisrael will bear fruit - 'The tree will bear its 
          fruit, the date tree and vine will give their strength'.
<br>
<br><b>TAM V'NISHLAM</b>, <b>B'EZRAS HA'TZUR</b>
<br>


# snc

lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k53a_1:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to sharpen'); (i) 'keen witted', (ii) 'man of iron endurance', (iii) 'long toothed' (cf. [H] 'tooth') V. B.B. Sonc. ed. vol. II, p. 561, n. 14."
,k53a_2:" Lit., 'be not among'."
,k53a_3:" From persons who are legally entitled to be heirs."
,k53a_4:" Though the son himself is wicked his children may be righteous."
,k53a_5:" By giving his daughter a dowry he deprives his sons from a portion of their inheritance. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 307, n. 2)."
,k53a_6:" Allowing one's daughter a dowry."
,k53a_7:" <i>Supra</i> 52b."
,k53a_8:" Lit., 'from his (own) mind'."
,k53a_9:" The father of the bride would be ashamed to offer a small dowry in the presence of a distinguished guest."
,k53a_10:" While R. Papa was discussing the amount of the dowry with the bride's father."
,k53a_11:" Judah b. Meremar who looked on in silence."
,k53a_12:" At the smallness of the dowry he was offering."
,k53a_13:" Lit., 'wrote it'."
,k53a_14:" Lit., 'if from me'."
,k53a_15:" Lit., 'that also that you wrote'."
,k53a_16:" Lit., 'now also'."
,k53a_17:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to return') a retractor."
,k53a_18:" V. our Mishnah and <i>supra</i> p. 305, n. 15."
,k53a_19:" Sc. are her sons still entitled to inherit her <i>kethubah</i> as they are entitled to inherit their share in the estate of their father, or do they lose the former right on account of their mother's sale which had transferred her rights to their father from whose estate they can inherit no bigger shares than those to which his other sons are entitled?"
,k53a_20:" Which is a more common occurrence than a sale."
,k53a_21:" Believing that even in such a case it is possible that the woman irrevocably loses her rights."
,k53a_22:" V. Golds. who compares [H] with Syr. [H] 'a hammer', and renders [H], 'hammer blows'. Aliter. They inflicted upon her a hundred strokes with a lash to which a small weight named <i>'ukla</i> was attached (Rashi). Aliter: I may adopt the opinion of him who said, they struck (defeated) that opinion with a hundred measures against one (a hundred arguments against, for one in favour of it). <i>'Ukla</i> (cf. [H]) is a small measure of capacity and also of a weight (Jast.)."
,k53a_23:" Obviously not. If she might lose her rights even when she acted under the stress of circumstances, there can be no question that she loses them when she willingly surrenders them."
,k53a_24:" Lit.,'it is plain to me'."
,k53a_25:" For a mere trifle, since, to the buyers the transaction is of a highly speculative and doubtful value. v. <i>infra</i> n. 10."
,k53a_26:" Who recover it only if she is divorced or if she survives her husband, but lose it completely if she predeceases him and he inherits it."
,k53a_27:" Not her indifference to the welfare of her sons. On this account, therefore (v. <i>infra</i> n. 1), she does not lose her rights on behalf of her sons."
,k53a_28:" And, having thereby shewn her complete indifference to the interests of her sons, her surrender is deemed to be final and irrevocable."
,k53a_29:" Since in both cases she sells it for a mere trifle, the husband's purchase being no less of a speculation than that of strangers (cf. p. 310, nn. 9-10). For should she predecease him, her <i>kethubah</i> would in any case be inherited by him; and the only advantage he might possibly derive from his purchase is the knowledge that his sons would benefit from it if he predeceased his wife. As, in fact, he did not predecease her his purchase fully assumes the same nature as that of strangers, and her male children inherit her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k53a_30:" Since the <i>kethubah</i> is actually in his possession (which is not the case with strangers) and she consented to sell him all her rights."
,k53a_31:" A woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and who, on being told by one witness that her husband was dead, contracted a marriage, and her first husband subsequently returned."
,k53a_32:" Yeb. 87b."
,k53a_33:" Lit., 'what is its doing?' How could her children submit any claim to her <i>kethubah</i> when she herself, as stated earlier in the Mishnah cited (Yeb. l.c.), is not entitled to one?"
,k53a_34:" Yeb. 91a; sc. if the woman predeceased her two husbands, who in consequence inherited her estate, her children have no claim to her <i>kethubah</i> and receive shares equal to those of their paternal brothers."
,k53a_35:" Should her children be deprived of the <i>kethubah</i> of their mothers"
,k53a_36:" Since it has been said above that the reason why the woman does not lose her right to the <i>kethubah</i> for her male children is because it was her need that compelled her to sell it."
,k53a_37:" In the case of the woman who married a second husband on the evidence of one witness."
,k53a_38:" And this compelled her to marry again. Now since she acted under compulsion her children should not be deprived of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k53a_39:" V. p. 311, n. 10."
,k53a_40:" For marrying again on insufficient evidence (that of one witness) before instituting further inquiries to verify his evidence."
,k53a_41:" During her widowhood. As she surrendered her <i>kethubah</i> she surrendered thereby all her rights, including that of maintenance, that are contained therein."
,k53a_42:" R. Hisda."
,k53a_43:" Prov. XVII, 13."
,k53a_44:" Before her marriage."
,k53a_45:" [The reference is to the statutory amount of the <i>kethubah</i>, these Rabbis being of the opinion that the husband has been allowed to retain the <i>kethubah</i> of his deceased wife for the expenses he incurred in the burial.]"
,k53a_46:" A Baraitha. Cf. <i>infra</i> p. 313, n. 1."
,k53a_47:" Before her marriage."
,k53a_48:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Unlike an onan whose married wife died, he may Partake of holy food."
,k53a_49:" If he is a priest (cf. Lev. XXI, 1f)."
,k53a_50:" If he died."
,k53a_51:" She also is permitted to partake of holy food."
,k53a_52:" During a festival when not only priests but also Israelites and women are forbidden to attend on the corpses of those who are not their near relatives (v. R.H. 16b). Aliter: Nor is she under an obligation to defile herself for him. (Cf. Rashi a.l. and Yeb. 29b. s.v. [H] and Tosaf. <i>loc. cit</i>. s.v. [H])."
,k53a_53:" To the dowry her father gave her."
,k53a_54:" Yeb. 29b, 43b, <i>infra</i> 89b. Both the statutory amount and any additional jointure, if he provided her with a <i>kethubah</i> on betrothal (cf. <i>infra</i> 89b."
,k53a_55:" Contrary to the ruling <i>supra</i> that the man must either bury his betrothed wife or pay to her account the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k53a_56:" For the man's exemption from the duty of burying his wife despite the statutory amount of her <i>kethubah</i> which he inherits."
,k53a_57:" This is one of the clauses of a <i>kethubah</i> (v. Yeb. 117a). Since this clause can obviously have no effect except when a husband predeceases his wife or when she is divorced by him, the <i>kethubah</i> cannot be regarded as the wife's property whenever she predeceases her husband, and he, consequently, cannot be regarded as inheriting it from her. [As to the teaching <i>supra</i> 47b that the husband inherits the <i>kethubah</i> in return for her burial, the reference is to the dowry, v. <i>supra</i> p. 272, n. 7 and cf. p. 312, n. 8."
,k53a_58:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k53a_59:" Those present at the college. "
}

txt:
<p>
Observing, however, that it was distasteful to him [to enter], he addressed him thus: 'What is it that you have on your mind? [Are you reluctant to enter] because Samuel said to Rab Judah, "Shinena,<a id="k53a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; keep away from<a id="k53a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; transfers of inheritance<a id="k53a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; even though they be from a bad son to a good son, because one never knows what issue will come forth from him,<a id="k53a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and much more so [when the transfer is] from a son to a daughter",<a id="k53a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; this<a id="k53a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; also [I may point out] is an enactment of the Rabbis; as R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai',<a id="k53a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The other replied, 'This enactment applies only [to one who acts] willingly;<a id="k53a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; does it also imply that one should be compelled so to act?' &mdash; 'Did I tell you' said [R. Papa] to him, 'to come in and coerce him? What I meant was: Come in but exercise no pressure upon him'. 'My entrance', the other replied, 'would amount to compulsion'.<a id="k53a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [As R. Papa, however,] urged him, he entered but, having sat down, remained silent.<a id="k53a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [Abba] thought that he<a id="k53a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; was vexed<a id="k53a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and consequently assigned<a id="k53a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [to his daughter as dowry] all that he possessed. Finally, however, he said to him,<a id="k53a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Will not the Master speak even now? By the life of the Master, I have left nothing for myself!' &mdash; 'As far as I am concerned',<a id="k53a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the other replied, 'even the amount you have assigned<a id="k53a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; has given me no pleasure'. 'This being the case',<a id="k53a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the first said, 'I will withdraw'. 'l did not suggest', the other said, 'that you should make a rogue<a id="k53a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; of yourself'. 
</p><p>
	R. Yemar the Elder enquired of R. Nahman: Does a woman who sold her <i>kethubah</i> to her husband retain the right to the <i>kethubah</i> for her male children<a id="k53a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k53a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Raba to him: Why do you not raise the same question in the case of a woman who surrendered her claim [to her <i>kethubah</i>]?<a id="k53a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Now', the other replied, 'that I [found it necessary to] enquire [concerning a woman] who sold [her <i>kethubah</i>],<a id="k53a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; though [in that case] it might well be assumed [that her need for] money compelled her [to the sale; and, furthermore,] it might be said [that she is] like a person who was struck a hundred blows with a hammer,<a id="k53a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was it then necessary [to raise the same question in respect of] a woman who [voluntarily] surrendered her claim [to her <i>kethubah</i>]?<a id="k53a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba stated: I have no doubt<a id="k53a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; that a woman who sells<a id="k53a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; her <i>kethubah</i> to strangers<a id="k53a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; retains the right to the male children's <i>kethubah</i>.' What is the reason? [It is her need for] money that has compelled her [to sell].<a id="k53a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; A woman [on the other hand] who surrenders her claim [to her <i>kethubah</i>] in favour of her husband does not retain the right to the male children's <i>kethubah</i>. What is the reason? She has lightheartedly surrendered her claims.<a id="k53a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is, however, a woman,] Raba enquired, who sells her <i>kethubah</i> to her husband treated as one who sells it to strangers,<a id="k53a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; or as one who renounces it in favour of her husband?<a id="k53a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; After he raised the question he himself solved it: [The law concerning] a Woman who sells her <i>kethubah</i> to her husband is the same as that of one who sells it to strangers.<a id="k53a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Idi b. Abin raised an objection: [We learned]: If she<a id="k53a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; died, neither the heirs of the one husband nor the heirs of the other are entitled to inherit her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k53a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; And in considering the difficulty, 'How does the question of a <i>kethubah</i> at all arise?'<a id="k53a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa replied, 'The <i>kethubah</i> of the male children [was meant]'.<a id="k53a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; But why?<a id="k53a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Could not one<a id="k53a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; argue here also:<a id="k53a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Her passion has overpowered her'?<a id="k53a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k53a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [the loss of her <i>kethubah</i>] is a penalty that the Rabbis have imposed upon her.<a id="k53a_40"><sup>40</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	Rabin b. Hanina once sat [at his studies] before R. Hisda and in the course of the session he laid down in the name of R. Eleazar: A woman who surrenders her <i>kethubah</i> to her husband is not entitled to maintenance.<a id="k53a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; The other<a id="k53a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; said to him: Had you not spoken to me in the name of a great man I would have told you: Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.<a id="k53a_43"><sup>43</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	R. Nahman and 'Ulla and Abimi son of R. Papi once sat at their studies, and R. Hiyya b. Ammi was sitting with them when there came before them a man whose betrothed wife had died.<a id="k53a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Go and bury her', they said to him, 'or pay her <i>kethubah</i> on her account',<a id="k53a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hiyya to them, We have a teaching:<a id="k53a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of a betrothed wife<a id="k53a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [the husband] is subject neither to the laws of onan,<a id="k53a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may he defile himself for her;<a id="k53a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; and she likewise<a id="k53a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; is not subject to the laws of onan,<a id="k53a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may she defile herself for him;<a id="k53a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; if she dies he is not her heir,<a id="k53a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he dies she collects her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k53a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; Now the reason [why she collects her <i>kethubah</i> is] because it was he who died; had she, however, died she would not have been entitled to any <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k53a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason?<a id="k53a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hoshaia replied: Because one cannot apply to her: 'If you will be married to another man you will receive what is prescribed for you'.<a id="k53a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	When Rabin came<a id="k53a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of Resh Lakish: If a betrothed woman died, she is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. Said Abaye to them:<a id="k53a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; Go and tell him:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k53b_1:" Or 'recognition' (v. Rashi)."
,k53b_2:" [H], a proverb. The information whereby he intended to benefit the students was of no use to them. Aliter: Your good-natured information is taken and thrown over the hedge (slight adaptation from fast.). Aliter: Take your favours and throw them in the bush, v. B.M. Sonc. ed. p. 377."
,k53b_3:" Which included the one reported by Rabin."
,k53b_4:" They were in no need, therefore, to wait for the Palestinian report of Rabin."
,k53b_5:" In dealing with this clause in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k53b_6:" Lit., 'to men'. Cf. our Mishnah which agrees with Rab's ruling."
,k53b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. bogereth."
,k53b_8:" So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'and Levi'."
,k53b_9:" Surely not; since either of these conditions liberates a daughter from her father's control and she must in consequence lose her claim to maintenance (cf. <i>infra</i> 68b)."
,k53b_10:" Lit., 'all the world'. V. <i>infra</i> n. 2."
,k53b_11:" Rab and Levi."
,k53b_12:" According to Rab she is maintained only until betrothal though by that time she may still be under age, and according to Levi, either adolescence or marriage deprives her of her rights to maintenance."
,k53b_13:" Levi, like R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia, was the compiler of six orders of Baraithoth corresponding to the six orders of the Mishnah compiled by R. Judah the Patriarch."
,k53b_14:" Cf. p. 313, n. 14."
,k53b_15:" Lit., 'but'."
,k53b_16:" The '<i>Waw</i>' in [H] may be rendered, 'and' as well as 'or'."
,k53b_17:" A period of twelve months from the time her intended husband had claimed her, in the case of a virgin, and one of thirty days in the case of a widow (v. Mishnah <i>infra</i> 57a)."
,k53b_18:" Rab and Levi."
,k53b_19:" The expression 'become (wives)' in R. Joseph's statement."
,k53b_20:" Teku, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k53b_21:" By her brothers, out of their deceased father's estate."
,k53b_22:" [He wished to know according to which of the two Tannaim, whose views have just been cited, was the law to be fixed (Tosaf.)]"
,k53b_23:" Lit., 'it would not be pleasing to him'."
,k53b_24:" As the maintenance of an orphan daughter by her brothers was ordained in order to prevent her degradation (v. <i>supra</i> 49a) it cannot be enforced in this case where no degradation is to be expected."
,k53b_25:" A betrothal does not always lead to marriage."
,k53b_26:" As he would not maintain her, the duty (for the reason stated <i>supra</i> p. 314, n. 15) devolves upon her brothers."
,k53b_27:" Reversing the respective views of R. Joseph and R. Hisda."
,k53b_28:" R. Joseph."
,k53b_29:" R. Hisda."
,k53b_30:" Who raised the following questions."
,k53b_31:" SHesheth, LaKish, ElaZar, Raba, Papa."
,k53b_32:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>."
,k53b_33:" By her brothers, out of their deceased father's estate."
,k53b_34:" The point of the question is whether (a) the declaration of refusal to live with her husband dissolved her marriage retrospectively and she resumes in consequence the status of one who was never married and is, therefore, entitled to maintenance until she reaches her adolescence; or (b) since her marriage had once removed her from her father's control, in consequence of which she has lost her right to maintenance, her subsequent declaration of refusal cannot again restore to her the right she had once lost."
,k53b_35:" Who had been only betrothed but had never married."
,k53b_36:" Shomereth yabam. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k53b_37:" Who also spoke only of a woman 'in her father's house'. Wherein, then, do they differ?"
,k53b_38:" Lit., 'what, not?'"
,k53b_39:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>."
,k53b_40:" Cf. p. 315, n. 10. By mentioning a 'widow (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 11) in her father's house' the first Tanna meant to include also the minor who exercised her right of refusal who is thereby restored to the status of one who had never been married and had always been 'in her father's house'."
,k53b_41:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 315. n. 10. He ruled, 'who is still in her father's house', sc. who has never left it to be married, is entitled to maintenance; not, however, one who had once been married though that marriage bad taken place during minority."
,k53b_42:" Whom the levir married in fulfilment of the law of the levirate marriage (v. Deut. XXV, 5)."
,k53b_43:" By her brothers, out of their deceased father's estate."
,k53b_44:" Yeb. 85a."
,k53b_45:" This refers to the sister-in-law. That is to say the mother of the daughter in question. As her <i>kethubah</i> cannot be made a charge upon the estate of her second husband (her original brother-in-law), so cannot the maintenance of her daughter, which is one of the obligations undertaken in the same document."
,k53b_46:" The sister-in-law."
,k53b_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8 mutatis mutandis."
,k53b_48:" Teku, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k53b_49:" V. Yeb. 20a, 213."
,k53b_50:" Out of the estate of her deceased father. "
}

txt:
<p>
'You are deprived of your benefaction;<a id="k53b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is cast upon the thorns',<a id="k53b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Hoshaia has already expounded his traditional teachings<a id="k53b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in Babylon.<a id="k53b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE FEMALE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE BORN FROM OUR MARRIAGE etc. Rab<a id="k53b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; taught: Until they shall be taken in marriage;<a id="k53b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but Levi taught: Until they shall attain adolescence.<a id="k53b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [Would daughters then be maintained] according to Rab although they attained adolescence, and according<a id="k53b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to Levi even though they married?<a id="k53b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact, however, [is that where a daughter] attained adolescence though she was not married or where she was married though she did not attain adolescence no one<a id="k53b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; disputes [the ruling that she is not entitled to maintenance]. They<a id="k53b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; differ only on the question of a [daughter who was] betrothed but did not attain adolescence.<a id="k53b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	So also did Levi teach in his Baraitha:<a id="k53b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Until they shall attain adolescence and the time for their marriages arrives. Both?<a id="k53b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What was meant is this:<a id="k53b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Either they shall attain adolescence or<a id="k53b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the time for their marriage<a id="k53b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; shall arrive. 
</p><p>
	[They<a id="k53b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the same principles] as the following Tannaim: How long is a daughter to be maintained? Until she is betrothed. In the name of R. Eleazar it was stated: Until she attains adolescence. 
</p><p>
	R. Joseph learnt: [Daughters must be maintained] until they become [wives]. The question was raised: Does this<a id="k53b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; mean becoming [wives] at marriage or becoming [wives] at betrothal? &mdash; The question must stand unanswered.<a id="k53b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Hisda to R. Joseph: Did you ever hear from Rab Judah whether a betrothed [orphan] is entitled to maintenance<a id="k53b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k53b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; The other replied: I have not actually heard it, but it may logically be concluded that she is not entitled, because [her future husband], having betrothed her, would not allow<a id="k53b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; her to be degraded.<a id="k53b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If you have not actually heard this', [R. Hisda] retorted 'it may logically be concluded that she is entitled, for [her intended husband], not being sure of her,<a id="k53b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; would not throw his money away for nothing'.<a id="k53b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	Another reading:<a id="k53b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k53b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: I have not actually heard it, but it may logically be concluded that she is entitled [to maintenance]; for [her intended husband], not being sure of her, would not throw his money away for nothing. The other<a id="k53b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; retorted: If you have not actually heard this it may logically be concluded that she is not entitled to maintenance; because [her future husband], having betrothed her, would not allow her to be degraded. (Mnemonic of the men:<a id="k53b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; SHaK ZaRaP.<a id="k53b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [Subjects:] She refused and a sister-in-law of the second degree is betrothed and he outraged her.) 
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth was asked: Is a minor who exercised her right of refusal<a id="k53b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; entitled to maintenance<a id="k53b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k53b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You, replied R. Shesheth, have learned this: A widow<a id="k53b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; in her father's house, a divorced woman<a id="k53b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; in her father's house or a woman<a id="k53b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; who was awaiting the decision of a levir<a id="k53b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; in her father's house is entitled to maintenance. R. Judah ruled: [Only a woman who] is still in her father's house is entitled to maintenance but [a woman who] is no longer in her father's house is not entitled to maintenance. [Now is not] R. Judah's ruling exactly the same as that of the first Tanna?<a id="k53b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it may be concluded that<a id="k53b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; the difference between them is the case of a minor who had exercised her right of refusal,<a id="k53b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the first Tanna being of the opinion that she is entitled [to maintenance]<a id="k53b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Judah upholds the view that she is not entitled to it.<a id="k53b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish enquired: Is the daughter of a sister-in-law<a id="k53b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; entitled to maintenance<a id="k53b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? Has she no claim to it, since the Master said,<a id="k53b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Her <i>kethubah</i> is a charge on the estate of her first husband<a id="k53b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it possible that she is entitled to it since the Rabbis have enacted that whenever she<a id="k53b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is unable to collect her <i>kethubah</i> from [the estate of] the first, she may recover it from that of the second?<a id="k53b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The question must remain unanswered.<a id="k53b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar enquired: Is the daughter of a forbidden relative of the second degree of incest<a id="k53b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; entitled to maintenance<a id="k53b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k2a_1:" Lit., 'is taken' as wife."
,k2a_2:" Lit., 'houses of judgment (law, justice)'."
,k2a_3:" V. <i>infra</i> 57a."
,k2a_4:" The maiden or the widow."
,k2a_5:" The marriage did not take place through the man's fault."
,k2a_6:" The man has to maintain them."
,k2a_7:" If the man (the bridegroom) is a priest."
,k2a_8:" The priest's share of the crop. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k2a_9:" And thus to teach that it is not his fault that he does not marry her on the first day in the week, because the Rabbis ordained that he has to wait with the marriage till the fourth day (in the case of a maiden), or the fifth day (in the case of a widow)."
,k2a_10:" An exclamation, like 'O, God!' (v. Rashi ad loc.)."
,k2a_11:" Our Mishnah: So THAT&nbsp;&hellip; HE COULD GO EARLY TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE."
,k2a_12:" V. <i>infra</i> 57a."
,k2a_13:" The saying of Samuel."
,k2a_14:" Lit., 'ordinance', 'improvement."
,k2a_15:" 'They (the Sages) watched', etc. &mdash; the principle just stated."
,k2a_16:" Since ye find that the bride has no claim to maintenance where he is not to blame [or the delay in the marriage."
,k2a_17:" After the time for the marriage had arrived and the marriage cannot take place through one of these causes."
,k2a_18:" Lit., 'how is it?'"
,k2a_19:" When the appointed date of the marriage falls on the first day of the week, v. <i>infra</i> 57a."
,k2a_20:" By the ordinance of the scholars, according to which he must wait till the fourth day of the week ([H])."
,k2a_21:" By his illness to postpone the marriage."
,k2a_22:" When the appointed date of the marriage falls on the first day of the week."
,k2a_23:" To postpone the marriage."
,k2a_24:" And therefore he need not support her."
,k2a_25:" I.e., in this case he would have to support her since the postponement of the marriage is due to his illness."
,k2a_26:" Lit., 'And if you may be able (or, find it possible) to say.'"
,k2a_27:" Another reading is 'thy field'. The sense is, of course, the same."
,k2a_28:" I.e., it is his bad luck that she became ill, and consequently he must support her.>"
}

txt:
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_i">CHAPTER I</A>
      </H2>
<p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAIDEN IS MARRIED<a id="k2a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; ON THE FOURTH DAY [OF THE WEEK] AND A WIDOW ON THE FIFTH DAY, FOR TWICE IN THE WEEK THE COURTS OF JUSTICE<a id="k2a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; SIT IN THE TOWNS, ON THE SECOND DAY [OF THE WEEK] AND ON THE FIFTH DAY, SO THAT IF HE [THE HUSBAND] HAD A CLAIM AS TO THE VIRGINITY [OF THE MAIDEN-BRIDE] HE COULD GO EARLY [ON THE MORNING OF THE FIFTH DAY OF THE WEEK] TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Joseph said: Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: Why did they [the Rabbis] Say. A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY? Because we have learned:<a id="k2a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If the time [appointed for the marriage] arrived and they<a id="k2a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; were not married,<a id="k2a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k2a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; eat of his [food]<a id="k2a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and they eat<a id="k2a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; of terumah'<a id="k2a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; you might think that if the time arrived on the first day in the week he would have to supply her with food, therefore have we learned, A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY.<a id="k2a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Joseph: Lord of Abraham!<a id="k2a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He [Samuel] attaches a Mishnah which was taught, to a Mishnah which was not taught! Which was taught and which was not taught? This was taught and this was taught! &mdash; But [put it this way]: he attaches a Mishnah, the reason of which was explained,<a id="k2a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; to a Mishnah, the reason of which was not explained.<a id="k2a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it was said,<a id="k2a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it was said thus; Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: Why did they say, A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY? Because IF HE HAD A Claim AS TO THE VIRGINITY HE COULD GO EARLY [NEXT MORNING] TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE &mdash; well, let her be married on the first day in the week, so that if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [on the morning of the second day of the week] to the court of justice! [The answer is:] The Sages watched over the interests<a id="k2a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; of the daughters of Israel so that [the bridegroom] should prepare for the [wedding.] feast three days, [namely] on the first day in the week, the second day in the week, and the third day in the week, and on the fourth day he marries her. And now that we have learned 'shakedu',<a id="k2a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; that [Mishnah] which we have learned: If the time arrived and they were not married, they eat of his [food] and they eat of <i>terumah</i>, [is to be understood as implying that if] the time arrived on the first day in the week, since he cannot marry [her, on the first day of the week, on account of the ordinance], he does not give her food [on the three days, from the first day of the week to the fourth day]. Therefore<a id="k2a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [R. Joseph concludes], if he became ill or she became ill, or she became menstruous,<a id="k2a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he does not give her food.
</p><p>
	Some [scholars] there are who put this as a question: If he became ill, what is [the law]?<a id="k2a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [Shall I say:] There.<a id="k2a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the reason [he need not support her,] is because he is forced,<a id="k2a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and here, he is also forced?<a id="k2a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Or shall I say] perhaps, there.<a id="k2a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he is forced<a id="k2a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; by an ordinance which the Rabbis ordained,<a id="k2a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] here, [he is] not?<a id="k2a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you will say:<a id="k2a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; If he became ill he supplies her with food, [then the question would still be:] if she became ill, what is [the law]? Can he say unto her, 'I am here ready to marry you'? Or, perhaps, she can say unto him, 'His field<a id="k2a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; has been flooded'?<a id="k2a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you will say [that] she can say to him [when she falls ill], 'His field has been flooded.' [then the question is,] if she became menstrous, what is [the law]? During her regular time there is no question
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k2b_1:" I.e., 'answered'."
,k2b_2:" Mishnah 57a: v. <i>supra</i>."
,k2b_3:" If the women cause the hindrance to the marriage taking place now.."
,k2b_4:" Lit., 'but is it not'."
,k2b_5:" Lit., as in this manner', that is, when menstruation appeared outside the regular time."
,k2b_6:" Lit., 'always I say unto thee'."
,k2b_7:" As irregular menstruation (v. n. 10). The accident is a mishap that comes from the woman."
,k2b_8:" Lit., 'every accident, she does not eat."
,k2b_9:" In the Mishnah quoted by R. Ahai."
,k2b_10:" The marriage from taking place now'."
,k2b_11:" And not 'they (the women) Here not married'."
,k2b_12:" Of the Mishnah, quoted by R. Ahai: V. <i>infra</i> 57a."
,k2b_13:" I.e., since that Mishnah speaks in the first clause of 'maiden' and 'widow', it uses in the clause that follows the passive 'they were not married' the subjects of which are the 'maiden and the 'widow' to use the active 'they did not marry', referring to the men, would have required more words in that clause."
,k2b_14:" Lit., 'deeds (of divorce).'"
,k2b_15:" I.e., an accident, as explained <i>infra</i>, does not invalidate a divorce."
,k2b_16:" Lit., 'there is no accident with divorce'."
,k2b_17:" These words the husband says to the wife. 'From now until twelve months' means 'within twelve months'."
,k2b_18:" Lit., 'it is not a Get,' (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) that is, the divorce does not take effect: v. Git. 76b."
,k2b_19:" Because there can be no divorce after death."
,k2b_20:" And he could not come back within the twelve months through his illness."
,k2b_21:" Which proves that we do not admit a plea of force majeure to invalidate a Get."
,k2b_22:" For the plea of accident does apply to divorce."
,k2b_23:" Git. 76b."
,k2b_24:" And no other deduction, e.g.. as to illness, is to be made from that Mishnah."
,k2b_25:" Git. 72a. Lit., 'beginning', 'first clause', denoting here a previous Mishnah."
,k2b_26:" This phrase is not clear. V. Rashi here and Git. 72a. The phrase seems to mean, 'If I die from this illness.' v. Tosaf. a.l."
,k2b_27:" I.e., his words have no effect."
,k2b_28:" I.e., the Mishnah of Git. 76b quoted above."
,k2b_29:" I.e., from the view of our teachers. If this is the object of (the first clause of) the Mishnah of Cit. 76b, Raba cannot deduce from this Mishnah that if he (the husband) became ill the divorce took effect: v. <i>supra</i>, also note 9."
,k2b_30:" 'Our teachers' regard her as divorced (against the Mishnah) and allow her to marry again without <i>halizah</i>. If she is regarded as a widow and she has no children she requires <i>halizah</i> before she can re-marry. As to <i>halizah</i> v. Deut. XXV. 5-10. and <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k2b_31:" V. A.Z. 36a and 37a."
,k2b_32:" I.e., the members of the court of justice."
,k2b_33:" [B.B. 136a: and so here the date inserted for the Get is intended to make it effective from the time of the delivery thereof. For further notes v. Git. (Sonc. ed.) p. 136]."
,k2b_34:" I.e., Raba deduces the rule that the plea of accident does not apply to divorce from the second clause of the Mishnah, cf. Git. 76b."
,k2b_35:" v. Git. 76b."
,k2b_36:" And he could not come back on account of his illness."
,k2b_37:" Lit., 'that she should fall before' (the yabam)."
,k2b_38:" The husband's brother, who, if she was regarded as a widow (and not as divorced), would have to marry her or let her perform <i>halizah</i>."
,k2b_39:" A husband."
,k2b_40:" Certain persons who might be witnesses."
,k2b_41:" I.e., the bill of divorce given now shall become effective."
,k2b_42:" The ferry was on the other side of the river and he could not get across, and he was thus prevented (by this accident) from arriving in his town within the thirty days."
,k2b_43:" To persons standing near by."
,k2b_44:" The divorce should therefore not take effect."
,k2b_45:" Lit., 'Its name is not \"come back\"' &mdash; the divorce, therefore, takes effect. This proves that <i>force majeure</i> is no plea in regard to Get."
,k2b_46:" I.e., an accident which is likely to occur, as the ferry being on the other side of the river."
,k2b_47:" Does not bar the divorce from becoming effective."
,k2b_48:" That if the ferry should be on the other side of the river and he could not get across and come into his town, it should be regarded as if he had arrived in the town and come hack within the meaning of his condition, which would thus be regarded as not fulfilled, and the divorce would, consequently, not take effect."
,k2b_49:" He has himself to blame. The attempted deduction from the ferry case is therefore refuted."
,k2b_50:" Since the rule of Raba, that an accident is no bar to the effectiveness of the divorce, cannot be derived from any Mishnah or from the ferry case, it is attributed to himself that is to his own reasoning."
,k2b_51:" By 'loose women' are meant women who would not be particular about marrying again even if the validity of the divorce was not established."
,k2b_52:" The divorce should be effective."
,k2b_53:" That the divorce should not become effective because of the accident. "
}

txt:
<p>
that she cannot say to him, 'His field has been flooded'. When is the question asked? [If she became menstruous] not during her regular time, what is [the law]? Since it is not during her regular time, she can say unto him, 'His field has been flooded'? Or, perhaps, since there are women who change their periods. It is as if it was her regular time? R. Ahai explained:<a id="k2b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [We learnt:] When the time came and they were not married, they eat of his food and they eat of <i>terumah</i>.'<a id="k2b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; It does not state. 'They [the men] did not marry them [the women]' but [it says] 'They [the women] were not married.' In what case? If they prevent,<a id="k2b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; why do they eat of his food and eat of the <i>terumah</i>? Hence, you must say [must you not].<a id="k2b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; that they were forced as in this case,<a id="k2b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and it states 'they eat of his food and they eat of terumah'? &mdash; R. Ashi said: Indeed I can say<a id="k2b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] in the case of an accident<a id="k2b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; she does not eat [of his].<a id="k2b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And [here]<a id="k2b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; they [the men] prevented.<a id="k2b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And by right he ought to have stated, 'they [the men] did not marry [the women].'<a id="k2b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the first clause<a id="k2b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; speaks of them [the women] the latter clause also speaks of them [the women]?<a id="k2b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: And with regard to divorce<a id="k2b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not so.<a id="k2b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Accordingly Raba holds [that] accident is no plea in regard to divorce.<a id="k2b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence does Raba get this [rule]? Shall I say, from what we have learned: 'Behold this is thy bill of divorce if I come not [back] from now until twelve months,'<a id="k2b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and he died within the twelve months, there is no divorce.<a id="k2b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [And we would conclude from this that only if] he died there is no divorce,<a id="k2b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he became ill<a id="k2b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; there is a divorce!<a id="k2b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps indeed I might say [that] if he became ill there would also he no divorce.<a id="k2b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the Mishnah]<a id="k2b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; lets us hear just this [rule], that there is no divorce after death.<a id="k2b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [That] there is no divorce after death, a previous Mishnah<a id="k2b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches: 'Behold, this is thy bill of divorce if I die,' [or] 'behold, this is thy bill of divorce from this illness,'<a id="k2b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [or] 'behold, this is thy bill of divorce after [my] death,' he has not said anything.<a id="k2b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] perhaps [that<a id="k2b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is] to exclude from that<a id="k2b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; of our teachers, for it has been taught: Our teachers allowed her to marry again.<a id="k2b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; And we said: Who are 'our teachers'? Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: The court that allowed the oil [of the heathen]:<a id="k2b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k2b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; hold like R. Jose who said, 'the date of the document shows it.'<a id="k2b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; But from the later clause:<a id="k2b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; '[This is thy bill of divorce]<a id="k2b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; from now if I come not [back] from now [and] until twelve months', and he died within the twelve months, it is a divorce. [And we may deduce] 'if he died', and the same rule applies if he became ill.<a id="k2b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] perhaps [the divorce is effective] only when he died, because it was not pleasing to him that she should become subject to<a id="k2b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; the yabam!<a id="k2b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the deduction can be made] from this: There was a certain [man]<a id="k2b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; who said unto them:<a id="k2b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If I do not come [back] from now until thirty days it shall be a divorce.'<a id="k2b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; He came [back] at the end of thirty days but the ferry stopped him.<a id="k2b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; He said unto them,<a id="k2b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Look, I have come [back]; look, I have come [back]!'<a id="k2b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Samuel: This is not regarded as having come back.<a id="k2b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps an accident which is frequent<a id="k2b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is different,<a id="k2b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; for since he ought to have stipulated it<a id="k2b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and he did not stipulate it, he injured himself!<a id="k2b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [we must say] Raba expressed an opinion of his own:<a id="k2b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; On account of the chaste women and on account of the loose women.<a id="k2b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; On account of the chaste women,<a id="k2b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; because if you will say that it should not be a divorce.<a id="k2b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k15a_1:" Related in our Mishnah."
,k15a_2:" [H] <i>var. lec</i>. ([H]) 'spring', so Levy. V. also Krauss, TA. I 212. Jast.: 'Caravan', 'Station'."
,k15a_3:" [So that there were two majorities of fit persons &mdash; the majority of local inhabitants and the majority of visitors from outside]."
,k15a_4:" Lit., 'separated himself'."
,k15a_5:" V. <i>supra</i> 13b and <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k15a_6:" To Palestine.]"
,k15a_7:" Leaving out R. Dimi."
,k15a_8:" The people of the passing company."
,k15a_9:" The inhabitants of the town."
,k15a_10:" Lit., 'and these are fixed and stand'. &mdash; As to the point of the question, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k15a_11:" I.e., there must be two majorities."
,k15a_12:" That we do not go after the majority of the (passing) company."
,k15a_13:" Lit., 'a prohibition'"
,k15a_14:" Lit., 'on account of'."
,k15a_15:" Lit., 'if they went', that is to say one of the inhabitants of the town."
,k15a_16:" I.e., he who comes away from a crowd, or a community is regarded as having come away from those who constitute the majority of the crowd or community. And if the majority of the town consists of fit people, we ought to assume that the man who had intercourse with the woman was one of the majority and did not disqualify her from marrying a priest, and that no blemish attaches to the child."
,k15a_17:" Lit., 'no, necessarily'."
,k15a_18:" Lit., 'to them'."
,k15a_19:" I.e., fixed in one place."
,k15a_20:" The rule of majority does not apply, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k15a_21:" Out of the ten meat-shops that are in the market"
,k15a_22:" Lit., 'from'."
,k15a_23:" Lit., 'its doubt is prohibited'. [Because the prohibited minority is in a fixed, settled place (kabu'a), v. <i>infra</i>.]"
,k15a_24:" In the market-place, in which the ten shops are situated."
,k15a_25:" And the majority of the shops sell ritually killed meat. Thus we see that one single majority is sufficient."
,k15a_26:" [And meat is admitted from the outside.]"
,k15a_27:" Of butchers selling ritually killed meal."
,k15a_28:" Lit., 'from the world'. [So that there are two majorities &mdash; the majority of local Jewish butchers and the majority of Jewish butchers from outside.]"
,k15a_29:" Lit., 'although'."
,k15a_30:" The Sages."
,k15a_31:" And therefore two majorities are required, cf. <i>supra</i> 13a."
,k15a_32:" I.e., whether the result of this rule is lenient or strict, that is, to allow or to prohibit (whichever it may be)."
,k15a_33:" This illustrates the principle of kabu'a, a fixed, stationary prohibition."
,k15a_34:" And you cannot derive from this for leniency."
,k15a_35:" Dead reptiles make ritually unclean, but not frogs, v. Lev, XI, 29."
,k15a_36:" And you cannot derive from this for leniency."
,k15a_37:" [On the principle that a doubtful ease of uncleanness is clean if it arises in a public place but unclean if in private ground v. Sot. p. 140.]"
,k15a_38:" From this Baraitha you can derive both for strictness and for leniency."
,k15a_39:" The rule: what is stationary is considered half to half."
,k15a_40:" V. Deut. XIX, 11."
,k15a_41:" Lit., 'let it be deduced by him'."
,k15a_42:" For full notes on this passage v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 531, n. 4 and B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 253."
,k15a_43:" In our Mishnah."
,k15a_44:" A special decision for the occasion, regard having been had to certain circumstances, which is not to be taken as a precedent, for elsewhere two majorities are required. "
}

txt:
<p>
The incident<a id="k15a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; happened at the springs<a id="k15a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of Zepphoris, and the ruling followed R. Ammi, for R. Ammi said: and that is when a company of unfit men passed by there,<a id="k15a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and also R. Jannai. for R. Jannai said: if she had intercourse at the springs she is fit for the priesthood. &mdash; Do you really mean to say at the springs? &mdash; But rather [say]: If she had intercourse at the time of [the people visiting] the springs she is fit for the priesthood. But if someone went<a id="k15a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; from Zepphoris and had intercourse [with her], the child is a shethuki.<a id="k15a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; This is according to the following: When R. Dimi came<a id="k15a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he said that Ze'iri said [in the name of] R. Hanina, and some say: Ze'iri said [in the name of] R. Hanina:<a id="k15a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; One goes after the majority of [the inhabitants of] the town and one does not go after the majority of the [passing] company. &mdash; Just the reverse! These<a id="k15a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; move about and those<a id="k15a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; are stationary!<a id="k15a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [say thus]: One goes after the majority of the [inhabitants of the] town, but only when there is [also] the majority of the [passing] company with it, but one does not go after the majority of the [inhabitants of the] town alone, nor after the majority of the [passing] company alone.<a id="k15a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What is the reason?<a id="k15a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is prohibited<a id="k15a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [to go after] the majority of the [passing] company in order to prevent<a id="k15a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [going after] the majority of [the inhabitants of] the town. But even [in the case of] the majority of [the inhabitants of] the town, if he, went<a id="k15a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; to her, [let us say that] he who separates himself separates himself from the majority?<a id="k15a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It speaks of a case<a id="k15a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; when she went to him.<a id="k15a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; so that he was stationary,<a id="k15a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Zera said: All that is stationary is considered as half to half.<a id="k15a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But do we require two majorities? Has it not been taught: if nine [meat] shops.<a id="k15a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; all of them, sell ritually killed meat. and one [shop sells] meat not ritually slaughtered and he bought in<a id="k15a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; one of them and he does not know in which of them he bought. it is prohibited because of the doubt;<a id="k15a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but if [meat] was found,<a id="k15a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; one goes after the majority?<a id="k15a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you will say that [it speaks of a case] when the gates of the city are not closed,<a id="k15a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; so that a majority<a id="k15a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; came [also] from outside,<a id="k15a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; did not R. Zera say: even when<a id="k15a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; the gates of the city are closed? &mdash; Where purity of descent is concerned they<a id="k15a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; put up a higher standard.<a id="k15a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The text says: 'R. Zera said: All that is stationary is considered as half to half.' [This apparently means] whether it is for leniency or for strictness.<a id="k15a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence does R. Zera take it? Shall I say from [the Baraitha which teaches that] if nine [meat] shops, all of them, sell ritually killed meat and one [shop sells] meat not ritually slaughtered and he bought in one of them<a id="k15a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and he does not know in which of them he bought, it is prohibited because of the doubt; but if [meat] was found, one goes after the majority? There it is for strictness!<a id="k15a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; But [he derives it] from [the following]: If there were [in a certain place] nine frogs and one reptile<a id="k15a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and he touches one of them and he does not know which of them he touched he is unclean because of the doubt? &mdash; There also it is for strictness!<a id="k15a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [rather] from [the following]: If there were [in a certain place] nine reptiles and one frog and he touches one of them and he does not know which of them he touched, [if this happened] on private ground he is unclean because of the doubt, [but] if this happened in a public place,<a id="k15a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; he is clean because of the doubt.<a id="k15a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And how do we know this<a id="k15a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; from the Bible? &mdash; The verse says: And if he lie in wait for him and rise up against him,<a id="k15a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [that is to say that he is not guilty of murder] until he intended [to kill] him. And the Rabbis? &mdash; They said in the school of R. Jannai: This excludes one who throws a stone into [a group of people]. What case do you mean? Do you mean a case when there are nine idolators and one Israelite? Let it be sufficient for him<a id="k15a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; that the majority are idolators, [and] even if [you will say that it is considered as] half to half, [the rule is that] when there is a doubt in capital cases one takes a lenient view! &mdash; It speaks of a case when there are nine Israelites and one idolator, so that the idolator is stationary, and whatever is stationary is considered as half to half.<a id="k15a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: R. Hiyya b. Ashi [said that] Rab said [that] the law is according to R. Jose.<a id="k15a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Hanan b. Raba [said that] Rab said [that] it was [only] a decision for the hour.<a id="k15a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah argued: And for pure descent we do not require two majorities? Have we not learned:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k15b_1:" In a town in which Israelites and non-Israelites live."
,k15b_2:" Lit., 'thrown away'."
,k15b_3:" Mak. VII, 2."
,k15b_4:" [Jews are in duty bound to support their own poor.]"
,k15b_5:" On Sabbath."
,k15b_6:" It would appear from this text with regard to pure descent that one majority' is not sufficient."
,k15b_7:" Lit., '(that) Rab said'."
,k15b_8:" So that there were two majorities, v. <i>supra</i> p. 81, n. 3."
,k15b_9:" R. Jeremiah."
,k15b_10:" Had R. Jeremiah not overlooked this he would not have asked his question, for indeed two majorities were required for pure descent."
,k15b_11:" It is now being assumed that R. Hanan also accepted the explanation that it occurred at the springs of Zepphoris, so that there were two majorities and he regards this ruling of R. Johanan b. Nuri only as a special decision, but elsewhere, two majorities are not required."
,k15b_12:" Why does Rab say in the case of the abandoned child 'but nor with regard to pure descent', which would shew that Rab requires two majorities also in other cases?"
,k15b_13:" That Rab said here 'but not with regard to pure descent'."
,k15b_14:" That R. Judah said in the name of Rab that the incident happened at the springs of Zepphoris. Indeed there was only one majority there, and therefore R. Hanan said, 'it was a decision for the hour', v. <i>supra</i>, p 83, n. 10 In all other cases two majorities are required."
,k15b_15:" Where it is a question of saving life the minority had to be equally taken into considerations."
,k15b_16:" Lit., but when that of Samuel was said, it was said with regard'."
,k15b_17:" One must remove the debris from the child in any case."
,k15b_18:" V. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 149, n. 6."
,k15b_19:" V. B.K. (Sonc. ed ) p. 211, n. 6."
,k15b_20:" Belonging to Israelites."
,k15b_21:" Cf. Ex. XXI, 35, 36."
,k15b_22:" Belonging to the erstwhile abandoned child."
,k15b_23:" The Israelite,"
,k15b_24:" To him who was an abandoned child."
,k15b_25:" The damages due to you."
,k15b_26:" Belonging to the erstwhile abandoned child."
,k15b_27:" Belonging to Israelites."
,k15b_28:" The erstwhile abandoned child."
,k15b_29:" To the Israelites."
,k15b_30:" Lit., 'give.'"
,k15b_31:" The other half as well, that is full damages, v. B.K. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k15b_32:" Lit., 'the woman who became a widow or was divorced.'"
,k15b_33:" And the <i>kethubah</i> is two hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k15b_34:" And the <i>kethubah</i> is one hundred sins."
,k15b_35:" If the woman became a widow the dispute is between her and the heir (or heirs) of the husband."
,k15b_36:" On her wedding day, from the house of her father to the house of her husband."
,k15b_37:" For the meaning of this word v. <i>infra</i> p. 95."
,k15b_38:" That is, her hair loosened; for the meaning of [H] cf. Num. V, 18."
,k15b_39:" Because only virgin-brides went out on their wedding day with a hinuma and with the hair of the head loosened."
,k15b_40:" That she was a virgin. They used to distribute roasted ears of corn to little children at the weddings of maidens, but not of widows or divorcees."
,k15b_41:" Lit., 'in (the case of) one (who) says.'"
,k15b_42:" I.e., to another man. "
}

txt:
<p>
[If] one found in it<a id="k15b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; an abandoned<a id="k15b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; child &mdash; if the majority [of the inhabitants of the town consist of] non-Israelites [the child is] a non-Israelite, if the majority [of the inhabitants of the town consist of] Israelites [the child is] an Israelite, [and if the inhabitants of the town are] half to half, [the child is] an Israelite.<a id="k15b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rab said: They have taught this only with regard to sustaining it,<a id="k15b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but not with regard to pure descent. And Samuel said: [They have taught this only] with regard to removing debris<a id="k15b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for its sake?<a id="k15b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That which Rab Judah said in the name of Rab<a id="k15b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [namely, that] the incident happened at the springs of Zepphoris,<a id="k15b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; escaped his<a id="k15b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; attention.<a id="k15b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to R. Hanan b. Raba who said [that] it was a decision for the hour,<a id="k15b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; it is difficult!<a id="k15b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; He who taught this<a id="k15b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; did not teach that.<a id="k15b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The [above] text [says]: '[If] one found in it an abandoned child &mdash; if the majorlty [of the inhabitants of the town consist of] non-Israelites [the child is] a non-Israelite. if the majority [of the inhabitants of the town consist of] Israelites [the child is] an Israelite, [and if the inhabitants of the town are) half to half [the child is] an Israelite. Rab said: They have taught this only with regard to sustaining it, but not with regard to pure descent. But Samuel said: [They have taught this only] with regard to removing debris for its sake.' But did Samuel say so? Did not R. Joseph say that R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: We do not go with regard to saving life after the majority?<a id="k15b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But the saying of Samuel referred<a id="k15b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to the first clause: 'If the majority [of the inhabitants of the town consist of] non-Israelites [the child is] a non-Israelite.' [Upon this] Samuel said: And with regard to removing debris it is not so,<a id="k15b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If the majority [of the inhabitants of the town consist of] non-Israelites [the child is] a non-Israelite' &mdash; for what practical purpose [is this taught]? &mdash; R. Papa said: To allow him to eat [meat of] animals not ritually slaughtered. &mdash; 'If the majority [of the inhabitants of the town consists of] Israelites [the child is] an Israelite,' &mdash; for what practical purpose [is this taught]? &mdash; R. Papa said: That one returns to him a lost object.<a id="k15b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the inhabitants of the town are] half to half [the child is] an Israelite' &mdash; for what practical purpose [is this taught]? Resh Lakish said: With regard to damages.<a id="k15b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; How shall we imagine this case? Shall we say that an ox of ours<a id="k15b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; gored<a id="k15b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; an ox of his?<a id="k15b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [In this case] let him<a id="k15b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; say to him.<a id="k15b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Bring evidence that you are an Israelite &mdash; and take!<a id="k15b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; It speaks of a case when an ox of his<a id="k15b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; gored an ox of ours<a id="k15b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; one half he<a id="k15b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; pays, and with regard to the other half he says to them,<a id="k15b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Bring evidence that I am not an Israelite and I will pay<a id="k15b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; you.<a id="k15b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ii">CHAPTER II</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A WOMAN BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED<a id="k15b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND] SHE SAYS, 'THOU DIDST MARRY ME [AS] A VIRGIN,'<a id="k15b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE SAYS, 'NOT SO, BUT I MARRIED THEE [AS] A WIDOW,'<sup><a id="k15b_34">34</a>-<a id="k15b_34">35</a></sup>&nbsp;&mdash; IF THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT SHE WENT OUT<a id="k15b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH A HINUMA<a id="k15b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HER HEAD UNCOVERED,<a id="k15b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; HER KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ.]<a id="k15b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOHANAN THE SON OF BEROKA SAYS: ALSO THE DISTRIBUTION OF ROASTED EARS OF CORN IS EVIDENCE.<a id="k15b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; AND R. JOSHUA ADMITS THAT, IF ONE SAYS<a id="k15b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; TO HIS FELLOW,<a id="k15b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS FIELD BELONGED TO YOUR FATHER AND I BOUGHT IT FROM HIM. HE IS BELIEVED,
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k29a_1:" Na'aroth pl. of na'arah, technically, a girl between twelve years and twelve and a half years of age."
,k29a_2:" If a man has violated any of these maidens mentioned in our Mishnah, he must pay the fine fixed in Deut. XXII, 29."
,k29a_3:" Fem. of mamzer, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29a_4:" Fem. of nathin, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29a_5:" A Samaritan, V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29a_6:" V. <i>supra</i> 11a."
,k29a_7:" A maiden."
,k29a_8:" In the text the word is in the plural, because it refers to a class and not to one person."
,k29a_9:" It is interesting to note that 'CONVERTED' comes before, although it should come after, 'FREED'. The reason is probably because it is, in Hebrew, a shorter word. Of the three words the first has three, the second four, and the fourth, five syllables, not counting the suffix '<i>waw</i>', ('and'). The sequence of the words chosen makes for symmetry."
,k29a_10:" Lit., 'less than'."
,k29a_11:" He has to pay the fine. For further notes v. <i>supra</i> 11a."
,k29a_12:" Whom the brother divorced after the betrothal."
,k29a_13:" And they are all maidens."
,k29a_14:" Lit., 'the fine is due to them'."
,k29a_15:" V. Lev. XVIII, 9ff"
,k29a_16:" From life, by premature or sudden death, <i>Kareth</i> V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Cf. Lev. XVIII, 29: For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people."
,k29a_17:" V. e.g., Lev. XX, 9ff. Only death penalty by the court releases from the money fine, v. Gemara."
,k29a_18:" The phrasing of the Mishnah seems to imply that only the following maidens which are enumerated are entitled to fines &mdash; namely, only of blemished descent. Surely that is impossible."
,k29a_19:" Although the fine has been fixed for unblemished maidens, whom the man could marry (V. Deut. XXII, 29), it is, the Mishnah tells us, due also to blemished maidens, whom he could not marry. That unblemished maidens get the fine need not be specially mentioned in the Mishnah."
,k29a_20:" He has to pay the fine."
,k29a_21:" Lit., 'a maiden, yes, a minor, no'."
,k29a_22:" A ketannah. A girl is so called until the age of twelve years. If a minor was violated, the fine, according to the Mishnah, is not due to her."
,k29a_23:" V. Tosef. Keth."
,k29a_24:" Tosef.: A small child from the age of three years and one day. This is, no doubt, the correct reading. In the text of the Talmud 'three years and' is missing."
,k29a_25:" The sign of beginning maturity."
,k29a_26:" The father may sell his daughter as a maid-servant; v. Ex. XXI, 7."
,k29a_27:" If she was violated; the word na'arah is used in Deut. XXII, 28, 29, excluding a minor."
,k29a_28:" A girl becomes mature when she is twelve and a half years old. She is then called bogereth, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29a_29:" When the girl is a na'arah the father has no more right to sell her."
,k29a_30:" Sale applies only when the girl is a ketannah, and the fine applies only when the girl is a na'arah."
,k29a_31:" According to the Sages, the fine is due to the girl both as a ketannah and a na'arah. In other words, the word na'arah in Deut. XXII, 28, 29 is not to be taken strictly."
,k29a_32:" Lit., 'fine, yes; sale, no'! "
}

txt:
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iii">CHAPTER III</A>
      </H2>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THESE ARE MAIDENS<a id="k29a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; TO WHOM THE FINE IS DUE.<a id="k29a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IF ANYONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A MAMZERETH,<a id="k29a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; A NETHINAH,<a id="k29a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; A CUTHEAN,<a id="k29a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH A PROSELYTE [MAIDEN].<a id="k29a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; A CAPTIVE, OR A SLAVE-WOMAN,<a id="k29a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO WAS REDEEMED,<a id="k29a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; CONVERTED,<a id="k29a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; OR FREED [WHEN SHE WAS] UNDER THE AGE OF<a id="k29a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY.<a id="k29a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS SISTER, WITH THE SISTER OF HIS FATHER, WITH THE SISTER OF HIS MOTHER, WITH THE SISTER OF HIS WIFE, WITH THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER,<a id="k29a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH THE WIFE OF THE BROTHER OF HIS FATHER, OR WITH A WOMAN DURING MENSTRUATION,<a id="k29a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; HE HAS TO PAY THE FINE,<a id="k29a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [FOR] ALTHOUGH THESE [TRANSGRESSIONS]<a id="k29a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE PUNISHED THROUGH [THE TRANSGRESSOR] BEING CUT OFF,<a id="k29a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; THERE IS NOT, WITH REGARD TO THEM, A DEATH [PENALTY] [INFLICTED] BY THE COURT.<a id="k29a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [Does it mean that only] these blemished maidens get the fine, [but] unblemished ones [do] not?<a id="k29a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He means it thus: These are blemished maidens who get the fine:<a id="k29a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; IF ANYONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A MAMZERETH, A NETHINAH, A CUTHEAN,<a id="k29a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; etc.
</p><p>
	[Only] [the Mishnah states] a maiden [receives a fine],<a id="k29a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [but not] a small girl.<a id="k29a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is the Tanna [who taught this]? Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It is R. Meir, for it has been taught:<a id="k29a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; A small child from the age of one day<a id="k29a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; until [the time that] she grows two hairs<a id="k29a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; sale applies to her,<a id="k29a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but not the fine;<a id="k29a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; from [the time that] she grows two hairs until she becomes mature,<a id="k29a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the fine applies to her, but not sale.<a id="k29a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the view of R. Meir; for R. Meir said: Wherever sale applies,<a id="k29a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; the fine does not apply, and wherever the fine applies, sale does not apply. But the Sages say: A small child from the age of three years and one day until [the time that] she becomes mature &mdash; the fine applies to her.<a id="k29a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [Does that mean] only the fine [and] not sale!<a id="k29a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Say:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k29b_1:" During the whole period that sale applies to a girl, the fine also applies to her, extending however beyond that period, till her stage of bogereth."
,k29b_2:" Mentioned in our Mishnah."
,k29b_3:" Lit., 'a woman who is fit for him'. From the words of the Bible one would infer that the fine is payable only if he violated a maiden whom, in law, he could marry. But as to the maidens mentioned in the Mishnah, who are either generally prohibited to an Israelite for marriage, or there is <i>kareth</i> barring their way to marriage, (as in the case of the maidens enumerated in the second clause of the Mishnah), there should be no fine due to them."
,k29b_4:" In Deut. XXII, 28 'maiden'; verse 29: 'the maiden', and 'the' in 'the maiden' is reckoned as a separate word representing the word 'maiden', so that we have the word 'maiden' written three times. To each of the three words a function is assigned in the Talmudic exposition. One 'maiden' refers to the ordinary unblemished maidens, one 'maiden' refers to the blemished maidens as mentioned in the first clause of the Mishnah, and one 'maiden' refers to the maidens enumerated in the second clause of the Mishnah. &mdash; The maidens mentioned in the second part of the first clause of the Mishnah seem to occupy a position of their own. V. Tosaf 29a, s.v. [H]."
,k29b_5:" Lit., 'one (\"maiden\")'."
,k29b_6:" For the ordinary maiden, v. note 3."
,k29b_7:" Lit., 'those guilty of a negative prohibition', which carries with it the punishment of flagellation only."
,k29b_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29b_9:" Ex. XXII, 15, 16. There it speaks of seduction. R. Papa, apparently, puts seduction and violation on one level."
,k29b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> nn. 3 and 5."
,k29b_11:" Deut. XXII, 29."
,k29b_12:" By force."
,k29b_13:" From paying the fine."
,k29b_14:" The full half-verse is: 'And the man that lay with her shall give unto the father of the maiden fifty silver pieces'. (Deut. XXII, 29.)"
,k29b_15:" I.e., of maiden that lives."
,k29b_16:" If the maiden is dead, the father cannot be called any more the father of the maiden'. He can only be called the father of the dead maiden, and to such the fine is not payable."
,k29b_17:" Ex. XXII, 16."
,k29b_18:" <i>Gezerah shawah</i>; an analogy based on similarity of expressions. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29b_19:" Ex. XXII, 16."
,k29b_20:" The money to be pact in the case of seduction. (Ex. XXII, 16.)"
,k29b_21:" By 'the dowry of virgins' is meant, according to this teaching, the sum of money to be paid as a fine in Deut. XXII, 29, which is fifty; so here (Ex. XXII, 16) it has to be fifty."
,k29b_22:" As in Ex. XXII, 16 the money consists of <i>shekels</i>, (this is derived from the special word [H], employed for 'pay')' so in Deut. XXII, 29, the fifty have to be <i>shekels</i>."
,k29b_23:" The word 'the maiden'."
,k29b_24:" The word 'the virgin'."
,k29b_25:" Both the teaching of Abaye and the analogy are important to Resh Lakish and P. Papa."
,k29b_26:" Lit., 'but six verses are written'. &mdash; Make your expositions from all the six words taken together."
,k29b_27:" For the ordinary cases of seduction and violation."
,k29b_28:" Our Mishnah, in which it is taught that the fine is due also in the case of the violation of maidens, the marriage with whom is prohibited, as a mamzereth or his sister."
,k29b_29:" I.e., the author of the Baraitha. As to the Tannaim mentioned in the Baraitha, the views of both of them are excluded, v. Tosaf a.l."
,k29b_30:" Deut. XXII, 29."
,k29b_31:" Lit., 'to whom there is \"becoming\".' But his sister cannot 'become' his wife. The very act of marriage is impossible. No marriage, no betrothal, can take effect. V. Kid. 66b. Therefore the law of the fine would not apply to his sister or to any of the other five maidens mentioned in the second clause of the Mishnah."
,k29b_32:" Lit., 'who is fitting to be retained'. He takes the word 'be', [H], in the sense of 'remaining'. This excludes a mamzereth, for although marriage with a mamzereth takes effect, there is 'prohibitory law' attached to it. (v. Kid. 66b). The marriage ought therefore to be discontinued. The mamzereth is thus a woman who cannot remain his wife. Therefore, according to R. Simeon the son of Menassia, the law of fine does not apply to her. &mdash; We thus see that our Mishnah excludes both the view of Simeon the Temanite and the view of R. Simeon the son of Menassia."
,k29b_33:" Between Simeon the Temanite and R. Simeon b. Menassia (Rashi)."
,k29b_34:" In the case of mamzereth and nethinah."
,k29b_35:" The marriage with a mamzereth or nethinah takes effect although there is a 'prohibitory law' against it. The mamzereth or nethinah can therefore become his wife, although she should not remain his wife. In the view of Simeon the Temanite it is the possibility of her becoming his wife that matters, and therefore they are entitled to the fine."
,k29b_36:" In the case of mamzereth and nethinah."
,k29b_37:" In the view of R. Simeon b. Menassia, it is the possibility of her remaining his wife that matters. And since a mamzereth or nethinah cannot remain his wife, they are not entitled to the fine."
,k29b_38:" V. Yeb. 44a and 49a and v. ibid. 10b and 52b."
,k29b_39:" Between Simeon the Temanite and R. Simeon the son of Menassia. A mamzereth or nethinah could not, on this view, become his wife even according to R. Simeon b. Menassia; what is then the difference between him and Simeon the Temanite?"
,k29b_40:" In a Baraitha; v. Yeb. 64a and 68a."
,k29b_41:" I.e., of all the issues of prohibited unions."
,k29b_42:" R. Akiba declares the offspring of all prohibited unions to be mamzerim, v. Yeb. 49a."
,k29b_43:" Lev. XXI, 14f. The two verses read: A widow or a divorced woman, or a profane woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctify him. Vv. 10-15 deal with the high priest."
,k29b_44:" The children are only unfit for the priesthood."
,k29b_45:" In this case R. Akiba admits that the marriage takes effect, although there is a prohibitory law against it, so that, in this case, according to Simeon b. Menassia, though the marriage would take effect, since he could not retain her owing to the prohibition, there is no fine, whereas according to Simeon the Temanite, there is a fine."
,k29b_46:" Lit., 'he who has no (permission of) union in Israel'."
,k29b_47:" This rule would include also the marriage of a widow and a high priest and would make also the child of such a marriage a mamzer."
,k29b_48:" What difference would there be now between Simeon the Temanite and R. Simeon b. Menassia? "
}

txt:
<p>
also the fine [applies] when sale [applies].<a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But are these [maidens]<a id="k29b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; entitled to the fine! Why? Read here: 'and she shall be his wife', [that means] one who is fit to be his wife?<a id="k29b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Resh Lakish: [It is written:] 'maiden', 'maiden', 'the maiden'<a id="k29b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; once<a id="k29b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [the word 'maiden' is necessary] for itself,<a id="k29b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; once to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves the transgression merely of] a plain prohibitory law,<a id="k29b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and once to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves] a transgression punishable with <i>kareth</i>.<a id="k29b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: [It is written:]<a id="k29b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'virgin','virgin', 'the virgins'; once [the word 'virgin' is necessary] for itself,<a id="k29b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; once to include [those virgins, the marrying of whom involves the transgression merely of] a plain prohibitory law, and once to include [those virgins, the marrying of whom involves] a transgression punishable with <i>kareth</i>. Why does R. Papa not agree with Resh Lakish? &mdash; That [verse]<a id="k29b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he requires for [the same teaching] as that of Abaye, for Abaye said: If he cohabited with her<a id="k29b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and she died, he is free,<a id="k29b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said: 'And he shall give unto the father of he maiden';<a id="k29b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [this means]: To the father of a maiden,<a id="k29b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to the father of a dead [person].<a id="k29b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And why did not Resh Lakish agree with R. Papa? &mdash; That [verse]<a id="k29b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he requires for an analogy<a id="k29b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is taught: [[t is written:] &mdash; 'he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins,<a id="k29b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [this means that] this<a id="k29b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; shall be like the dowry of virgins,<a id="k29b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and the dowry of virgins shall be like this.<a id="k29b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But Resh Lakish also requires it<a id="k29b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for [the same teaching] as that of Abaye, and R. Papa also requires it<a id="k29b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; for the analogy?<a id="k29b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Take therefore six words:<a id="k29b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'maiden', 'maiden', 'the maiden', 'virgin', 'virgins', 'the virgins': Two [are necessary] for themselves,<a id="k29b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; one for the teaching of Abaye, and one for the analogy, [and] two remain over: one to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves the transgression] of a plain prohibitory law, and one to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves] a transgression punishable with <i>kareth</i>.
</p><p>
	This<a id="k29b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [Mishnah] is to exclude [the view of] that Tanna.<a id="k29b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; For it has been taught: [It is written:] and she shall be his wife.<a id="k29b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Simeon the Temanite says: [This means:] a woman who can become his wife;<a id="k29b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Menassia says: [This means:] a woman who can remain his wife.<a id="k29b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; What difference is there between them?<a id="k29b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Zera said: The difference between them is with regard to a mamzereth and a nethinah. According to him who says that there must be the possibility of her 'becoming' his wife, here<a id="k29b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; also there is the possibility of her 'becoming' his wife.<a id="k29b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; And according to him who says that there must be the possibility of her remaining his wife, here<a id="k29b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; there is not the possibility of her remaining his wife.<a id="k29b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to R. Akiba, who says: Marriage takes no effect when there is a prohibitory law against<a id="k29b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; it, what is the difference between them?<a id="k29b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a difference between them in the case of a widow who marries a high priest, and this according to R. Simai, for it is taught:<a id="k29b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simai says: Of all<a id="k29b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba makes mamzerim,<a id="k29b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; except [the issue of] a widow and a high priest, for the Torah says: 'he shall not take', and 'he shall not profane',<a id="k29b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [this teaches that] he makes [his issue] profane,<a id="k29b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; but not mamzerim,<a id="k29b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; And according to R. Yeshebab, who says: Come and let us cry out against Akiba b. Joseph, who says: Whenever the marriage is forbidden in Israel<a id="k29b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; the child [of such marriage] is a mamzer,<a id="k29b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the difference between them?<a id="k29b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The difference between them is
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k41a_1:" Prescribed in Ex. XXII, 16, because one's own admission to having committed an act for which a fine is prescribed cannot tender one liable to pay it (v. B.K. 75a)."
,k41a_2:" V. Ex. XXII, 3."
,k41a_3:" V. ibid. XXI, 37."
,k41a_4:" V. ibid. XXI, 30, 35."
,k41a_5:" The fine for which is (v. ibid. 32) thirty <i>shekels</i>."
,k41a_6:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4."
,k41a_7:" When evidence against him is available."
,k41a_8:" The Tanna of our Mishnah."
,k41a_9:" In addition to 'I have seduced'."
,k41a_10:" Since the outrage was not her fault but her misfortune."
,k41a_11:" As the girl's character is not called in question the man's admission may well be regarded as a true confession to satisfy his conscience and as a desire to make amends."
,k41a_12:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 3 mutatis mutandis."
,k41a_13:" I. e., his compensation is to be refused on the ground that his word which casts a reflection on the girl's reputation cannot be accepted without valid proof."
,k41a_14:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k41a_15:" In the absence of other valid evidence."
,k41a_16:" Lit., 'not all from him'."
,k41a_17:" To put up with the reflection in order to gain her compensation."
,k41a_18:" Lit., 'in a province of the sea', 'a country beyond the sea'."
,k41a_19:" Restitution made for damage done by the 'Born' (v. B.K. 2b) of a <i>tam</i> (v. Glos)."
,k41a_20:" And is consequently payable on one's own evidence."
,k41a_21:" Lit., 'fine', and is payable only where valid evidence, other than the admission of the offender, is available (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 228, n. 5)."
,k41a_22:" Unless their owner takes special care to check them."
,k41a_23:" They might at any moment do some damage. Hence it is the duty of their owner to hold them under control."
,k41a_24:" For any damage done by his cattle, since such damage is the result of his carelessness (v. <i>supra</i> n. 2)."
,k41a_25:" By releasing him from half of the payment."
,k41a_26:" 'Cautioned' (v. Glos). But whatever he does pay is a civil liability (v. <i>supra</i> p. 229. n. 13)."
,k41a_27:" And no special care on the part of the owner is called for."
,k41a_28:" Since it was not his fault that his cattle had done the damage."
,k41a_29:" By ordering him to pay half damages."
,k41a_30:" Cf. B.K. 15a."
,k41a_31:" Containing key words occurring in the following four citations from which objections are raised against the ruling of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua."
,k41a_32:" Lit., 'he who suffered, and he who caused the damage'."
,k41a_33:" This is now assumed to imply 'loss'."
,k41a_34:" B.K. 14b."
,k41a_35:" And that the plaintiff should in strict justice be entitled to full compensation."
,k41a_36:" Since he loses (v. <i>supra</i> n. 14) a half of which is really his due."
,k41a_37:" Cf <i>supra</i> n. 12."
,k41a_38:" This an objection arises against R. Huna the son if R. Joshua."
,k41a_39:" The statement that the plaintiff also is 'involved in the payment'."
,k41a_40:" Lit., 'is required'."
,k41a_41:" Between the date on which the animal was killed and that on which the action was tried. Such loss is borne By the plaintiff, the defendant paying only half the difference between the value of the live animal and the carcass as it was on the day of the accident."
,k41a_42:" B.K. 9b."
,k41a_43:" Of the animal that was killed, i.e., the plaintiff."
,k41a_44:" I. e., he must take it in part payment of his compensation, and if its value decreases it is obvious that he must beat the loss (cf. p. 230, n. 20). What need then was there to state the same ruling twice?"
,k41a_45:" V. Glos,"
,k41a_46:" And, therefore, no further liability is imposed upon him."
,k41a_47:" Where the defendant pays only half of the damages and may, therefore, be expected to beat the loss whenever the value of the carcass had decreased."
,k41a_48:" I. e., of the tort-feasant animal. The defendant's estate remains exempt from all liability."
,k41a_49:" Mishnah, B.K. 26b."
,k41a_50:" So according to Rashal and the parallel passages in B.K. 15a. Cur. edd. omit 'if&nbsp;&hellip; case'."
,k41a_51:" In the case of a <i>tam</i> (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 229, n. 22)."
,k41a_52:" As another distinction between a <i>tam</i> and a <i>mu'ad</i>."
,k41a_53:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 229, n. 14."
,k41a_54:" Where the liability is civil."
,k41a_55:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 229, n. 13 and text."
,k41a_56:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 230, n. 17."
,k41a_57:" The Tanna of this Mishnah."
,k41a_58:" Between a <i>tam</i> and a <i>mu'ad</i>,"
,k41a_59:" In an enumeration the Tanna would not have omitted just one point."
,k41a_60:" 'Ransom' (v. Ex. XXI, 30) V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> In the case of manslaughter a <i>mu'ad</i> pays full compensation while a <i>tam</i> does not pay even half (cf. B.K. 41a)."
,k41a_61:" Lit., 'on account of'."
}

txt:
<p>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE WHO DECLARES, 'I HAVE SEDUCED THE DAUGHTER OF SO-AND-SO' MUST PAY COMPENSATION FOR INDIGNITY AND BLEMISH ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE BUT NEED NOT PAY THE STATUTORY FINE.<a id="k41a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE WHO DECLARES, 'I HAVE STOLEN' MUST MAKE RESTITUTION FOR THE PRINCIPAL ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE BUT NEED NOT REPAY DOUBLE,<a id="k41a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; FOURFOLD<a id="k41a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; OR FIVEFOLD.<a id="k41a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[HE WHO STATES,] 'MY OX HAS KILLED SO-AND-SO' OR 'THE OX OF SO-AND-SO' MUST MAKE RESTITUTION<a id="k41a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE. [IF HE, HOWEVER, SAID.] 'MY OX HAS KILLED THE BONDMAN OF SO-AND-SO'<a id="k41a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; HE NEED NOT MAKE RESTITUTION ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE.<a id="k41a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHOEVER PAYS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE DAMAGE HE HAS DONE<a id="k41a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; NEED NOT PAY IT ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE.

<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why did not he<a id="k41a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; include 'I have violated'?<a id="k41a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He implied that this was unnecessary: It was unnecessary [to state that if a man declared,] 'I have violated', in which case he casts no reflection on the girl's character,<a id="k41a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; that he must pay compensation for indignity and blemish on his own evidence,<a id="k41a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but [if a man declared.] 'I HAVE SEDUCED', in which case he does cast a reflection on her character,<a id="k41a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that he does not pay [such compensation] on his own evidence,<a id="k41a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; hence he informs us [that he does].
</p><p>
	Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Judah stated in the name of R. Simeon, [Compensation for] indignity and blemish also a man does not pay on his own evidence<a id="k41a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; because he<a id="k41a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be trusted<a id="k41a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to tarnish the character of another man's daughter.
</p><p>
	Said R. Papa to Abaye: What [is the ruling if] she is satisfied?<a id="k41a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is possible that her father might not be satisfied. And what if her father also is satisfied? &mdash; It is possible that the members of her family might not be satisfied. What if the members of her family are also satisfied? &mdash; It is impossible that there should not be one somewhere<a id="k41a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; who is not satisfied.
</p><p>
	HE WHO DECLARES, 'I HAVE STOLEN' MUST MAKE RESTITUTION FOR THE PRINCIPAL etc. It was stated: [In respect of liability for] half damages.<a id="k41a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa ruled: It is a civil obligation,<a id="k41a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: It is penal.<a id="k41a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Papa ruled: It is a civil obligation', for he is of the opinion that cattle as a rule<a id="k41a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be presumed to be safe.<a id="k41a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Justice, therefore, demands that the owner should make full restitution,<a id="k41a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but the All-Merciful has shown mercy towards him<a id="k41a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; because his cattle have not yet become <i>mu'ad</i>.<a id="k41a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: It is penal', for he is of the opinion that cattle as a rule are presumed to be safe.<a id="k41a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Justice. therefore, demands that the owner should make no restitution at all,<a id="k41a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; but it was Divine Law<a id="k41a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; that imposed a fine upon him in order that he should exercise special care over his cattle.<a id="k41a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic:<a id="k41a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; He damaged what, and killed a general rule.)
</p><p>
	We have learned: The plaintiff and the defendant<a id="k41a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; are involved<a id="k41a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; in the payment.<a id="k41a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Now according to him who holds that liability for half damages is a civil obligation<a id="k41a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; it is perfectly correct [to say] that the plaintiff is involved in the payment,<a id="k41a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; but according to him who maintains that liability for half damages is penal [it may well be asked:] If he receives that which [in strict justice] is not his due how can he be involved<a id="k41a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; in the payment?<a id="k41a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It<a id="k41a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; may apply<a id="k41a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; only to [a loss caused by] a decrease in the value of the carcass.<a id="k41a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [But have we not] already learned elsewhere [about] the decrease in the value of the carcass? 'To compensate for the damage'<a id="k41a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; means that the owner<a id="k41a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; must dispose of the carcass?<a id="k41a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; One [of the statements deals] with a <i>tam</i><a id="k41a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other with a <i>mu'ad</i>.<a id="k41a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; And [both statements are] required. For if [that relating to] a <i>tam</i> only had been made it might have been presumed [to apply to that alone] because the animal has not yet become <i>mu'ad</i> but not to a <i>mu'ad</i> since [in the latter case the owner] has been duly warned. And if [only the statement relating to] a <i>mu'ad</i> had been made it might have been assumed [to apply to that case alone] because the owner pays full compensation<a id="k41a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; but not [to that of] a <i>tam</i>.<a id="k41a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [Both rulings were consequently] required.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: What is the difference [in the case of compensation for damages] between a <i>tam</i><a id="k41a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and a <i>mu'ad</i>?<a id="k41a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the case of a <i>tam</i> half damages are paid out of its own body,<a id="k41a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; while in the case of a <i>mu'ad</i> full compensation is paid out of the best of the [defendant's] estate.<a id="k41a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if<a id="k41a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; it were the case [that liability for half damage<a id="k41a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; is penal] why was it not also stated<a id="k41a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; that in the case of a <i>tam</i> no compensation is paid merely on one's own evidence<a id="k41a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas in the case of a <i>mu'ad</i><a id="k41a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; compensation is paid even on one's own<a id="k41a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; evidence?<a id="k41a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k41a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; recorded [some distinctions]<a id="k41a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; and omitted others. What [else, however], did he omit [that should justify the assumption] that he omitted this distinction also.<a id="k41a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He omitted [also the payment of] half <i>kofer</i>.<a id="k41a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the only point not mentioned] is that of<a id="k41a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; half <i>kofer</i> it is no omission,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k41b_1:" Lit., 'this (is) according to whom?'"
,k41b_2:" V. B.K. 26a. The distinction mentioned (v. <i>supra</i> n. 1) does not, therefore, apply. The other distinction also, viz, that between full <i>kofer</i> for a <i>mu'ad</i> and half <i>kofer</i> for a <i>tam</i>, cannot be regarded as an omission, since it is included in the first clause which lays down that in the case of a <i>tam</i> half damages are paid and in that of a <i>mu'ad</i> full compensation is paid, a ruling which applies to <i>kofer</i> as well as to damages. Since there is no other omission, this Mishnah proves that the liability for half damage is civil as <i>supra</i>."
,k41b_3:" And since liability is established by one's own evidence such liability cannot be penal but civil. Cf. <i>supra</i> 230. n, 17."
,k41b_4:" That liability is established by one's own admission."
,k41b_5:" To shew that even in respect of a <i>mu'ad</i> there is a case where no liability is incurred By one's own evidence."
,k41b_6:" Lit., 'but'."
,k41b_7:" Such as half damage payable in the case of a <i>tam</i>."
,k41b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> note 5."
,k41b_9:" V. p. 232. n. 9,"
,k41b_10:" Instead of laying down a rule from which a wrong inference might be drawn."
,k41b_11:" Than the actual cost of the damage."
,k41b_12:" Since, however, the rule was not stated in this form it follows that liability for less than the actual cost of the damage (v. <i>supra</i> n. 1). is not payable on one's own admission. An objection thus arises against R. Huna the son of R. Joshua (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 231, n. 5),"
,k41b_13:" The ruling, therefore, that half damages payable in the case of a tom is penal, stands refuted."
,k41b_14:" Cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 4 and 5."
,k41b_15:" Lit., 'what is the reason that it was refuted?'"
,k41b_16:" Lit., 'because',"
,k41b_17:" In out Mishnah."
,k41b_18:" Which would have excluded all cases of payment for half damages."
,k41b_19:" The Tanna of this Mishnah,"
,k41b_20:" Kicked up by an animal (v. B.K. 17a and cf, 3b)."
,k41b_21:" Despite the fact that the compensation is less than the actual damage."
,k41b_22:" And thus coming under the category of damage by the 'horn' (v. B.K. 2b) which is also one of unusual occurrence."
,k41b_23:" Since penal liabilities may be imposed in Palestine only by a judge who is specially ordained for the purpose (mumhe, v. Glos). No such judges lived in Babylon."
,k41b_24:" The lambs or the hens."
,k41b_25:" Falling under the category of damage by the 'tooth' (cf. B.K. 2b) which is also one of usual occurrence and compensation in which case is a civil liability."
,k41b_26:" Even in Babylon."
,k41b_27:" [So Rashi. R. <i>Tam</i>: the animal that caused the damage (Tosaf)]."
,k41b_28:" And he retains an amount corresponding to half the damage."
,k41b_29:" Where no chattels were seized."
,k41b_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 233. n. 15."
,k41b_31:" Whether the plaintiff wishes the case to be tried in the Land of Israel or not."
,k41b_32:" 'Until he abates the nuisance'. (So B.K. 15b)."
,k41b_33:" B.K. 15b, 46a."
,k41b_34:" Deut. XXII, 8, referring to the duty of removing a cause of danger though one is not directly responsible for any fatal result."
,k41b_35:" Na'Arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k41b_36:" Cf. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 39a and notes."
,k41b_37:" Lit.,'she stood before the law."
,k41b_38:" In accordance with Deut. XXII. 20."
,k41b_39:" As heirs of their father. Once the court had ordered payment, the amount in question is considered as the 'actual property' of the father which is inherited by his sons, v. <i>infra</i> 43a."
,k41b_40:" Being still penal liabilities."
,k41b_41:" V. <i>infra</i> 43a. <i>Var. lec</i>. adds, 'R. Simeon ruled: If her father died before she could collect (the dues) they belong to her'."
,k41b_42:" A bogereth (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k41b_43:" Wether before or after she became adolescent."
,k41b_44:" Because at that age she is no longer under her father's control."
,k41b_45:" <i>Var. lec</i>.; 'If she became adolescent'."
,k41b_46:" Because the fine does not become the 'actual property' of the father by mere decision of the court, (cf. <i>supra</i> notes 5 and 7)."
}

txt:
<p>
since that [Mishnah] may represent the view of<a id="k41b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose the Galilean who ruled that [in the case of] a <i>tam</i> half <i>kofer</i> is paid.<a id="k41b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: [A MAN WHO SAID.] 'MY OX KILLED SO-AND-SO' OR 'THE OX OF SO-AND-SO MUST PAY COMPENSATION ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE. Now does not [this statement deal] with a <i>tam</i>?<a id="k41b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; with a <i>mu'ad</i>. What, however, [would be the law] in the case of a <i>tam</i>? Would no liability be established by one's own evidence? Then instead of stating in the final clause, '&hellip; THE BONDMAN OF SO-AND-SO HE NEED NOT MAKE RESTITUTION ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE, could not a distinction have been drawn in the very same case, thus: 'This<a id="k41b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to a <i>mu'ad</i> but in respect of a <i>tam</i> no liability is incurred by one's own evidence'? &mdash; The entire [Mishnah prefers to] deal with a <i>mu'ad</i>.<a id="k41b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHOSOEVER PAYS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE DAMAGE HE HAS DONE NEED NOT PAY ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE, from which it follows,<a id="k41b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [does it not, that if the payment is] less than the cost of the damage,<a id="k41b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; one must pay compensation even on one's own evidence?<a id="k41b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Do not infer: '[But if payment is] less than the cost of the damage [one must pay&nbsp;&hellip; on one's own evidence]',<a id="k41b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but infer: '[If payment] corresponds to the actual amount of the damage one must pay compensation even on one's own evidence'. What, however, [would be the law if payment were] less than the amount of the damage?<a id="k41b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Would no liability be established by one's own evidence? Then<a id="k41b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; why was it not stated, 'This is the general rule: Whoever does not pay an amount corresponding to the actual cost of the damage he has done pays no compensation on his own evidence', which would imply [that where compensation is] less or more<a id="k41b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is to be paid on one's own evidence]?<a id="k41b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is indeed a refutation.<a id="k41b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The law, however, [is that the liability for] half damage is penal. 'A refutation' [of a ruling]<a id="k41b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and [yet it is] the law? &mdash; Yes; for the sole basis of the refutation<a id="k41b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; was that<a id="k41b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the statement<a id="k41b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; did not run, '[whoever does not pay an amount] corresponding to the actual cost of the damage he has done'; [but such a principle]<a id="k41b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; was not regarded by him<a id="k41b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; as exactly accurate, since there is the liability for half damages [in the case of the damage done by] pebbles<a id="k41b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Concerning which there is an halachic tradition that the liability is civil.<a id="k41b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; On account of this consideration he did not adopt [the form of the expression suggested].
</p><p>
	Now that you have laid down that liability for half damage is penal, the case of a dog that devoured lambs or that of a cat that devoured big hens is one of unusual occurrence<a id="k41b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and no distress is executed in Babylon.<a id="k41b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, they<a id="k41b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; were small the occurrence is a usual<a id="k41b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; one and distress is executed.<a id="k41b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Should the plaintiff,<a id="k41b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; however, seize [the chattels of the defendant]<a id="k41b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; they are not to be taken away from him.<a id="k41b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, if<a id="k41b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; he pleads. 'Fix for me a date [by which the defendant must come with me] to the Land of Israel,'<a id="k41b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; such date must be fixed for him, and if [the defendant] does not go with him he must be placed under the ban. In any case,<a id="k41b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; however, [the defendant] is to be placed under the ban;<a id="k41b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; for he is told, 'Abate your nuisance', in accordance with a dictum of R. Nathan. For it was taught:<a id="k41b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nathan said, Whence is it derived that a man may not breed a bad dog in his house nor place a shaking ladder in his house? [From Scripture] where it is said, That thou bring not blood upon thine house.<a id="k41b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iv">CHAPTER IV</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A GIRL<a id="k41b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS SEDUCED [THE COMPENSATION FOR] HER INDIGNITY AND BLEMISH AS WELL AS THE STATUTORY FINE BELONG TO HER FATHER<a id="k41b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [TO WHOM BELONGS ALSO THE COMPENSATION FOR] PAIN IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO WAS VIOLATED. 
</p><p>
	IF THE GIRL'S ACTION WAS TRIED<a id="k41b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; BEFORE HER FATHER DIED [ALL THE FORMS OF COMPENSATION] ARE DUE TO HER FATHER,<a id="k41b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HER FATHER [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED THEY ARE DUE TO HER BROTHERS.<a id="k41b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HER FATHER, HOWEVER, DIED BEFORE HER ACTION WAS TRIED THEY<a id="k41b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE DUE TO HER.<a id="k41b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HER ACTION WAS TRIED BEFORE SHE BECAME ADOLESCENT<a id="k41b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [ALL FORMS OF COMPENSATION] ARE DUE TO HER FATHER; IF HER FATHER [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED<a id="k41b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY ARE DUE TO HER BROTHERS.<a id="k41b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; IF, HOWEVER, SHE BECAME ADOLESCENT BEFORE HER ACTION COULD BE TRIED THEY ARE DUE TO HER.<a id="k41b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON RULED.' IF HER FATHER DIED,<a id="k41b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; BEFORE SHE COULD COLLECT [THE DUES] THEY BELONG TO HER.<a id="k41b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k54a_1:" Which is only one of the obligations a man undertakes in the <i>kethubah</i> he gives to his wife."
,k54a_2:" Out of her deceased father's estate if he had sons from another wife."
,k54a_3:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 316, n. 13."
,k54a_4:" If her father had written one for her on betrothal. As he is responsible for the <i>kethubah</i> of his wife so should he be responsible for the maintenance of his daughter (v. <i>supra</i> p. 316, n. 13)."
,k54a_5:" As the obligation of the <i>kethubah</i> does not begin before marriage, that of maintenance also does not begin earlier."
,k54a_6:" Whom the offender has subsequently married (v. Deut. XXII, 28f)."
,k54a_7:" <i>Supra</i> 39b."
,k54a_8:" Out of the man's estate, though he had already paid to her father the fine prescribed in Deut. XXII, 29. v. <i>supra</i> 39b."
,k54a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k54a_10:" As the <i>kethubah</i> is recoverable from the man's estate so is the daughter's maintenance (v. <i>supra</i> p. 316, n. 13)."
,k54a_11:" That is paid to her father (Deut. XXII, 29)."
,k54a_12:" As regards the daughter's maintenance."
,k54a_13:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 316, n. 13)."
,k54a_14:" As the <i>kethubah</i> cannot be recovered so cannot the daughter's maintenance."
,k54a_15:" Lit., 'that she shall not be easy in his eyes'."
,k54a_16:" He cannot easily divorce her if his act involves him in the payment of the amount specified in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k54a_17:" Who committed outrage."
,k54a_18:" V. Deut. XXII, 29."
,k54a_19:" Hence the ruling that the woman is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. As this argument, however, does not apply to her daughter the latter may well be entitled to maintenance."
,k54a_20:" Sc. only if the deceased left a proper house must his sons provide living accommodation for his widow. (Cf. however, fast. <i>infra</i> n. 20.)"
,k54a_21:" [H], M.S.M [H] = [H] (v. Shab. 77b), 'a house of distress', 'a poor man's house' (Rashi). If the house is too small the orphans may ask her to live elsewhere. <i>Aliter</i>. [H] = [H], 'valley', 'group of fields', estate'; the widow 'must be 'content to live in her late husband's house with his heirs, hut she cannot claim a separate residence' (Jast.)."
,k54a_22:" Though she is in residence in her paternal home, she does not forfeit her claim to maintenance from her late husband's estate. Though the first part of the clause of her <i>kethubah</i>, DWELL IN MY HOUSE, is not carried out, the second part, BE MAINTAINED OUT OF MY ESTATE, nevertheless remains valid."
,k54a_23:" As one part of the clause is inapplicable the other part also becomes void."
,k54a_24:" The widow."
,k54a_25:" Her WIDOWHOOD is deemed to have terminated thereby, and in consequence she loses the rights attached to it."
,k54a_26:" Whatever the reason."
,k54a_27:" Lit., 'on account of'."
,k54a_28:" The heirs cannot be compelled to continue her maintenance once she has had an offer from a man who is willing to provide for her."
,k54a_29:" The widow."
,k54a_30:" Rt. [H], (denom. of [H], stibium, a powder applied to the eyelids), 'to paint the eyelids', cosmetically or medically (v. Jast.)."
,k54a_31:" Rt. [H] (denom. of [G] with inserted [H], 'to adorn with paint or dye' (v. Levy). Jast. derives it from [H], 'to rub', 'to rub with paint' (s.v. [H]); 'dyeing the hair' (Jast. s.v. [H])."
,k54a_32:" Since it is apparent that she is not much concerned for the memory of her late husband."
,k54a_33:" 'She is not entitled to maintenance'."
,k54a_34:" Lit., 'she has'."
,k54a_35:" The widow."
,k54a_36:" V. Rashi."
,k54a_37:" Lit., 'these, yes'."
,k54a_38:" Whereby the widow actually recovers her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k54a_39:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k54a_40:" [Stands here for Sura which was in the neighbourhood of the old great city of Babylon, v. Git. Sonc. ed. p. 17, n. 3.]"
,k54a_41:" So Rashi, 'her dependencies', sc. places following her usages (Jast.); 'seine Nachbarorte' (Golds)."
,k54a_42:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 222. n. 8."
,k54a_43:" A Jewish trading centre. One of the 'neighbouring towns' or 'dependencies' of Babylon."
,k54a_44:" In connection with a dispute concerning the fulfilment of the terms of the <i>kethubah</i> (v. the final clauses of our Mishnah)."
,k54a_45:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Here a term for a dry measure in general, not the specific <i>kab</i> (Obermeyer p. 242)."
,k54a_46:" Lit., 'spreads'."
,k54a_47:" Sc. the value of her clothes is deducted from the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k54a_48:" Those of Rab and Samuel."
,k54a_49:" Samuel ruling that the value of clothes is, and Rab maintaining that it is not to be deducted from the man's wages."
,k54a_50:" Or 'client' (v. Jast.), when he leaves the employ of his master who, during the period of his service, had been supplying him with his clothes. [H] (rt. [H] 'to gather') 'gleaner', 'field labourer'."
,k54a_51:" As in the case of a widow."
,k54a_52:" Sc. the retainer or client."
,k54a_53:" Viz. that a wife's clothes are the property of her husband."
,k54a_54:" V. Lev. XXVII, 1ff."
,k54a_55:" Who comes to collect such offerings."
,k54a_56:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 9."
,k54a_57:" Though they have not yet used them (cf. Rashi). This shews that the raiments are the property of the wife."
,k54a_58:" 'Ar. 24a, B.K. 102b."
,k54a_59:" [H], adv., Lamed and Kaf. prefixed to the noun [H], 'light'."
,k54a_60:" Lit., 'what'."
,k54a_61:" Why the Temple treasurer has no claim upon a wife's clothes though their value is rightly to be deducted from the amount she is paid in settlement of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k54a_62:" The husband."
,k54a_63:" Or, 'transferred possession'."
,k54a_64:" Consequently, so long as she lives with him, they are her absolute property and no one can take them away from her. Hence the ruling of the Mishnah of 'Ar. that the Temple treasurer cannot claim them."
,k54a_65:" When he died."
,k54a_66:" Hence the ruling of Rab that their value is to be deducted from her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k54a_67:" On his death bed. The instructions of a person in such a condition have the force of a legally written document."
,k54a_68:" The cost of which was well known, all brides being similarly provided for (Rashi)."
,k54a_69:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to cut', hence 'to endow') 'endowment', hence 'good luck' (v. fast.); 'surplus' (Colds.)."
,k54a_70:" It is their duty to provide the outfit, and since they can obtain it at a reduced price the balance is theirs. "
}

txt:
<p>
Has she no claim to maintenance<a id="k54a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; since [her mother] is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>, or is it likely that the Rabbis have imposed a penalty only upon her mother who had committed a transgression but not upon her who had committed no transgression? &mdash; This remains unanswered.
</p><p>
	Raba asked: Is the daughter of a betrothed wife entitled to maintenance<a id="k54a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? Is she entitled to maintenance<a id="k54a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; since [her mother] is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i><a id="k54a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it possible that she is not entitled [to maintenance],<a id="k54a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; since the Rabbis have not ordained [the writing of] the <i>kethubah</i> until the time of the marriage?<a id="k54a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The question must stand unanswered.
</p><p>
	R. Papa asked: Is the daughter of an outraged woman<a id="k54a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; entitled to maintenance<a id="k54a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? According to the ruling of R. Jose the son of R. Judah, who has laid down<a id="k54a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that [her mother] is entitled to recover<a id="k54a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>kethubah</i> for one <i>maneh</i>,<a id="k54a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the question does not arise.<a id="k54a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; It arises only according to the ruling of the Rabbis who have laid down that the fine<a id="k54a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as a quittance for her <i>kethubah</i>. What, [it may be asked, is the decision]?<a id="k54a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Has she no claim to maintenance<a id="k54a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; since [her mother] is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>,<a id="k54a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; or might it possibly [be argued thus:] What is the reason why a <i>kethubah</i> [has been instituted for a wife]? In order that the man might not find it easy<a id="k54a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; to divorce her;<a id="k54a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but [this man],<a id="k54a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, cannot<a id="k54a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; divorce her?<a id="k54a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This must stand unanswered.
</p><p>
	YOU SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE etc. R. Joseph learnt: IN MY HOUSE<a id="k54a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in my hovel.<a id="k54a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; She is entitled, however, to maintenance.<a id="k54a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar son of R. Ashi ruled: She is not entitled even to maintenance.<a id="k54a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; The law, however, is not in agreement with Mar son of R. Ashi.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: If marriage was proposed to her<a id="k54a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and she accepted, she is no longer entitled to maintenance.<a id="k54a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [This is to imply that] if she did not accept,<a id="k54a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; she would not be entitled to maintenance! &mdash; R. Anan replied: This was explained to me by Mar Samuel: If she said, '[l cannot accept the proposal] out of respect for the memory of<a id="k54a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; So-and-so, my husband', she is entitled to maintenance; [but if she said], 'Because the men are not suitable for me,' she is not entitled to maintenance.<a id="k54a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda ruled: If she<a id="k54a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; played the harlot she is not entitled to maintenance. R. Joseph ruled: If she painted her eyes<a id="k54a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; or dyed her hair<a id="k54a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; she is not entitled to maintenance.<a id="k54a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; He who ruled: 'If she played the harlot'<a id="k54a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; would even more so deprive her of maintenance if she paints her eyes or dyes her hair. He, however, who ruled: 'If she painted her eyes or dyed her hair'<a id="k54a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; would allow her maintenance<a id="k54a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; if she played the harlot. What is the reason? &mdash; Her passions have overpowered her.
</p><p>
	The law, however, is not in agreement with any of these reported rulings but with that which Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: She<a id="k54a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; who claims her <i>kethubah</i> at court is not entitled to maintenance. But is she not entitled? Surely it was taught: If she sold her <i>kethubah</i>, pledged it, or mortgaged [the land that was pledged<a id="k54a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; for] her <i>kethubah</i> to a stranger, she is not entitled to maintenance. [Does not this imply] that only such<a id="k54a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [acts deprive a widow of her maintenance] but not [the act of] claiming [her <i>kethubah</i> at court]? &mdash; These [acts<a id="k54a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; deprive her of her maintenance] whether she appeared at court or not, but the act of claiming [her <i>kethubah</i> deprives her of maintenance] only if she appeared<a id="k54a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; in court but does not [deprive her of it] if she did not appear at court.
</p><p>
	SO DID THE MEN OF JERUSALEM etc. It was stated: Rab ruled, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with [the practice of] the MEN OF JUDAEA', but Samuel ruled, 'The <i>halachah</i> agrees with [the practice of] the MEN OF GALILEE'. 
</p><p>
	Babylon<a id="k54a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; and all its neighbouring towns<a id="k54a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; followed a usage in agreement with the ruling of Rab; Nehardea<a id="k54a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; and all its neighbouring towns<a id="k54a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; followed a usage agreeing with the ruling of Samuel.
</p><p>
	A woman of Mahuza<a id="k54a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; was once married to [a man of] Nehardea. When they came to R. Nahman,<a id="k54a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; and he observed from her voice that she was a native of Mahuza, he said to them, '[The decision must be in agreement with Rab, for] Babylon and all its neighbouring towns have adopted a usage in agreement with the ruling of Rab'. When, however, they pointed out to him, 'But, surely, she is married to [a man of] Nehardea,' he said to them, 'If that is the case, [the decision will be in agreement with Samuel for] Nehardea and all its neighbouring towns followed a usage agreeing with the ruling of Samuel. How far does [the usage of] Nehardea extend? &mdash; As far afield as the Nehardean <i>kab</i><a id="k54a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; is in use.<a id="k54a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: [When a <i>kethubah</i> is being paid to] a widow, said Rab, assessment is made of what she wears,<a id="k54a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; but Samuel said: That which she wears is not assessed. Said R. Hiyya b. Abin: [Their opinions<a id="k54a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; are] reversed<a id="k54a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case off retainer.<a id="k54a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Kahana taught: And so<a id="k54a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; [are their opinions]<a id="k54a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of a retainer;<a id="k54a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; and [Rab] had laid down this mnemonic, 'Strip the widow and the orphan<a id="k54a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and go out'.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: Although we have learned in a Mishnah in agreement with the view of Samuel<a id="k54a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; the law is in agreement with that of Rab. For we learned: Whether a man has consecrated his estate, or whether he has consecrated the valuation of himself<a id="k54a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; [the Temple treasurer]<a id="k54a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; has no claim either upon the clothes of that man's wife,<a id="k54a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; or upon the clothes of his children, or the coloured articles that were dyed for them,<a id="k54a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; or any new sandals that [their father] may have bought<a id="k54a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; for them.<a id="k54a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Raba to R. Nahman: Since, however, we have learned in a Mishnah in agreement with the view of Samuel, why does the law agree with that of Rab? The other replied: At first sight it might appear<a id="k54a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; to run parallel to the principle of Samuel, but if you examine it carefully [you will find that] the law, in fact, must be in agreement with [the view of] Rab. For this<a id="k54a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; is the reason:<a id="k54a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; When he<a id="k54a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; bought<a id="k54a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; [the clothes] for her [he did so] on the assumption that she would live with him.<a id="k54a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; He did not, however, buy<a id="k54a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; them for her on the assumption that she should take them<a id="k54a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; and depart.<a id="k54a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A daughter-in-law of the house of Bar Eliashib was claiming her <i>kethubah</i> from orphans. When she summoned them to court and they said, 'It is degrading for us that you should come with us in such [clothes]', she went home and dressed and wrapped herself in all her garments. When they came before Rabina he told them: The law is in agreement with the ruling of Rab who laid down [that when a <i>kethubah</i> is being paid to] a widow, assessment is made of what she wears.
</p><p>
	A man<a id="k54a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; once said, 'Let a bride's outfit<a id="k54a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; be provided for my daughter', and the price of an outfit was subsequently reduced. 'The benefit',<a id="k54a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled R. Idi b. Abin, 'belongs to the orphans'.<a id="k54a_70"><sup>70</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A man<a id="k54a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; once said,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k54b_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k54b_2:" Since the bequest was not a quantity of wine but a specified sum of money."
,k54b_3:" Lit., 'spoilt', or 'caused to diminish, (Af. of [H])."
,k54b_4:" During their father's lifetime. He was on the point of dying and disposing of his property (cf. p. 322, n. i)."
,k54b_5:" To consult him as to how they could reduce their liability."
,k54b_6:" So that the liability of the heirs would thereby be limited to the value of that plot of land only. Such an assignment, of course, is valid only if it was made on one's death bed and is subject in addition to the woman s consent (V. <i>Pe'ah</i>, III, 7 and Rashi a.l.). The efficacy of R. Johanan's advice being dependent on the consent of the woman explains also why R. Johanan, despite his regrets for giving advice to relatives (<i>supra</i> 52b), proceeded to advise them again (v. Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H]). In the other case his advice was effective despite the woman's wish."
,k54b_7:" His assignment of the land cannot deprive the widow of her right to proper maintenance, and can only be regarded as the provision of an additional source of income from which she might draw in case the maintenance the heirs provided was not on a liberal scale."
,k54b_8:" Lit., 'and if not'."
,k54b_9:" Lit., 'who is corresponding to me'."
,k54b_10:" When he assigned a particular plot of land for his wife's maintenance."
,k54b_11:" 'Towards' implying an addition to what is already due to her."
,k54b_12:" 'For maintenance' implying 'in return' or compensation for the maintenance to which she is entitled."
,k54b_13:" As her statutory <i>kethubah</i>."
,k54b_14:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k54b_15:" Sc. her statutory <i>kethubah</i> as well as any additional jointure her husband may have settled upon her."
,k54b_16:" Lit., 'wrote'."
,k54b_17:" And since he died before marrying her she can have no claim to it."
,k54b_18:" Though she has received nothing."
,k54b_19:" Lit., 'behold this'."
,k54b_20:" That A HUSBAND MAY ADD, IF HE WISHES etc."
,k54b_21:" Which might have implied a mere gift."
,k54b_22:" Sc. to the <i>kethubah</i>, implying that the additional jointure assumes the same designation as the statutory <i>kethubah</i> itself."
,k54b_23:" Such as additional jointure, maintenance, or any other of the terms mentioned in the previous chapter."
,k54b_24:" <i>Infra</i> 104b."
,k54b_25:" The treatment of the additional jointure as the statutory kethuhah."
,k54b_26:" Lit., 'it goes out (results) from it'."
,k54b_27:" By such an act she sells her additional jointure as well as her statutory <i>kethubah</i> though only '<i>kethubah</i>' was mentioned when the transaction took place."
,k54b_28:" Against her husband, by refusing conjugal rights or work (v. <i>infra</i> 63a). If, in consequence, reductions are made from her <i>kethubah</i> (v. <i>loc. cit</i>.) her additional jointure, like her statutory <i>kethubah</i>, is subject to these deductions."
,k54b_29:" By admitting that she had already been paid a part of her <i>kethubah</i> (<i>infra</i> 87a). In such a case she cannot recover the balance of the additional jointure even though that part of the <i>kethubah</i> had been left unimpaired. (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k54b_30:" V. <i>supra</i> 54a. As she loses her maintenance by claiming her statutory <i>kethubah</i> so she loses it by claiming only her additional jointures (Rashi)."
,k54b_31:" A woman who transgresses the Mosaic law or traditional Jewish practice may be divorced without receiving her kethuhah (<i>infra</i> 72a). This applies to her additional jointure also. "
}

txt:
<p>
'Four hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k54b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the value of this] wine shall be given to my daughter', and the price of wine rose. 'The profit', ruled R. Joseph, 'belongs to the orphans'.<a id="k54b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Relatives of R. Johanan had [the responsibility of maintaining their] father's wife who was in the habit of consuming much<a id="k54b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; food. When<a id="k54b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; they came to R. Johanan<a id="k54b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; she told them, 'Go and ask your father that he should assign a plot of land for her maintenance'.<a id="k54b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; When they subsequently came before Resh Lakish, he said to them, '[By such an assignment] he has increased all the more [the allowance for] her maintenance'.<a id="k54b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But', they said to him, 'R. Johanan did not say so?' &mdash; 'Go', he told them, 'and give her [proper maintenance], otherwise<a id="k54b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; I shall pull R. Johanan out of your ears'. R. Johanan, when they came to him again, said to them, 'What can I do when one of equal standing<a id="k54b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; differs from me?' R. Abbahu stated: This was explained to me by R. Johanan: [If the husband] said,<a id="k54b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'towards maintenance' he has thereby increased [the allowance for] her maintenance;<a id="k54b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he said,<a id="k54b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'for maintenance' he has thereby limited the allowance for her maintenance.<a id="k54b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_v">CHAPTER V</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALTHOUGH [THE SAGES] HAVE ENACTED THAT A VIRGIN COLLECTS<a id="k54b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A WIDOW ONE <I>MANEH</I>,<a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE [THE HUSBAND] WISHES TO ADD, EVEN A HUNDRED <I>MANEH</I>, HE MAY DO SO.
</p><p>
	[A WOMAN] WHO WAS WIDOWED OR DIVORCED, EITHER AFTER BETROTHAL OR AFTER MARRIAGE, IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT ALL [THAT IS DUE TO HER].<a id="k54b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH RULED: [ONLY A WOMAN WIDOWED] AFTER HER MARRIAGE RECEIVES ALL [THAT IS DUE TO HER], BUT IF AFTER A BETROTHAL, A VIRGIN RECOVERS ONLY TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A WIDOW ONLY ONE <I>MANEH</I>,<a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR THE MAN PROMISED<a id="k54b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; HER [THE ADDITIONAL JOINTURE] WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF MARRYING HER.<a id="k54b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH RULED: IF [A HUSBAND] WISHES HE MAY WRITE OUT FOR A VIRGIN<a id="k54b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; A DEED FOR TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> AND SHE WRITES [A QUITTANCE],<a id="k54b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I HAVE RECEIVED FROM YOU A MANEH', AND FOR A WIDOW [HE MAY WRITE OUT A DEED FOR] A <I>MANEH</I> AND SHE WRITES [A QUITTANCE]. 'I HAVE RECEIVED FROM YOU FIFTY ZUZ'. R. MEIR RULED: [THE INTERCOURSE OF] ANY MAN WHO UNDERTAKES TO GIVE A VIRGIN LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A WIDOW LESS THAN A <I>MANEH</I><a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; IS<a id="k54b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; AN ACT OF PROSTITUTION.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [Is not this]<a id="k54b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; obvious? &mdash; It might have been presumed that the Rabbis have fixed a limit in order that the man who has no means might not be put to shame; hence we were taught [that there was no limit].
</p><p>
	IF HE WISHES TO ADD etc. It was not stated, 'If he wishes to write',<a id="k54b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but 'WISHES TO ADD'.<a id="k54b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This then provides support for [a ruling which] R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Jannai. For R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Jannai: The supplementary provisions<a id="k54b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [that are included] in a <i>kethubah</i> are subject to the same regulations as the statutory <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k54b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [In what respect] can this<a id="k54b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; matter?<a id="k54b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In respect of a woman who sells or surrenders [her <i>kethubah</i>],<a id="k54b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or one who rebels,<a id="k54b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; one who impairs,<a id="k54b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; or claims [her <i>kethubah</i>],<a id="k54b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; or one who transgresses the Law;<a id="k54b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k65a_1:" Alcoholic drinks might lead her to unchastity (v. Rashi)."
,k65a_2:" Hos. II, 7. And my drink, [H], presumably including wine."
,k65a_3:" [H] (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9) being derived from the rt. [H] 'to long'. 'desire'."
,k65a_4:" MS.M., [H]. [Neburja. identified with en-Nebraten in upper Galilee]."
,k65a_5:" [H] MS.M. [H]; marg., [H]."
,k65a_6:" [H]. This is taken as perfect 3rd pers. fem; according to the accentuation of M.T. it is the inf. estr. with fem.termination."
,k65a_7:" I Sam. I, 9. E.V., They had drunk. M.T. [H], Inf. is taken as the equivalent of [H] (3rd masc. sing.), 'he (Elkanah) had drunk'."
,k65a_8:" The word [H] (ibid.) instead of [H], [H] or [H]"
,k65a_9:" From the finite to the infinite."
,k65a_10:" [H] (v. Jast.). Others, 'as an ingredient or seasoning of a dish' (v. Rashi and Golds.)."
,k65a_11:" Or 'Nicodemon', 'Nicodemus', one of the three wealthiest men in Jerusalem in the days of the siege by Vespasian and Titus (v. Git. 58a)."
,k65a_12:" Lit., 'from the eve of the Sabbath to the eve of the Sabbath'."
,k65a_13:" In her annoyance at what she considered to be too small an allowance."
,k65a_14:" Shomereth yabam. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k65a_15:" They did not wish their daughters ever to be placed in the position of a widow who is, moreover, subject to the decision of the levir."
,k65a_16:" Of wine."
,k65a_17:" Lit., 'with the mouth'."
,k65a_18:" Lit., 'we have not (anything) against it'."
,k65a_19:" And she nevertheless, as stated <i>supra</i>. abstained from drink."
,k65a_20:" [H] (Cf. Gr. [G]). 'stranger', 'lodger', 'guest'."
,k65a_21:" Hannah at the time was not in her own home but at Shiloh."
,k65a_22:" I Sam. I, 19."
,k65a_23:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k65a_24:" When they had come to their own home."
,k65a_25:" After Abaye's death (cf. Yeb. 64b)."
,k65a_26:" Lit., 'my comforter', a name by which Abaye was often referred to, v. Git. Sonc. ed. p. 140, n. 6."
,k65a_27:" [H], MS.M. Cur. edd., [H] 'gave him to drink'."
,k65a_28:" Plural of [H], 'a drinking horn' (v. Jast.) or 'deep cups' (cf. Rashi and Levy)."
,k65a_29:" Pointing to her arm."
,k65a_30:" Lit., 'fell'."
,k65a_31:" His own wife."
,k65a_32:" Pl. of [H] (rt. [H], 'to peel') 'peeled or scrapped leather', 'a leather strap' (v. Jast.); 'a key' (Rashi)."
,k65a_33:" [H] Aruk, [H], 'silk'; [H] 'with a silken strap'. Rashi: 'With the key of a chest'."
,k65a_34:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 319. n. 9."
,k65a_35:" Homa had already thrice married and each of her husbands had died (v. Yeb. 64b)."
,k65a_36:" [Perhaps Debeile in the neighbourhood of Hille (near Sura). There is also a Dabil in Armenia, v. Funk, Monuments Talmudica, p. 291]."
,k65a_37:" To enable her to keep up her social standing in the company of her deceased husband's friends and associates."
,k65a_38:" Since beds were usually furnished with a skin girth (v. Rashi)."
,k65a_39:" Which are much less comfortable for lying on than a skin girth. R. <i>Tam</i> (Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.) deletes MATTRESS since on account of its softness it is useful even where the bed is furnished with a skin spread."
,k65a_40:" Instead of the skin girth."
,k65a_41:" [H] (Af. of [H]) lit., 'which produce a roughness' (v. Jast.). According to Rashi [H] is to be taken in the sense of 'age'. The ropes cause her pain and 'age her' prematurely."
,k65a_42:" The wife spoken of to Our Mishnah."
,k65a_43:" By her husband."
,k65a_44:" To sleep on a cushion and a bolster."
,k65a_45:" Who ruled that she is not to be allowed these comforts."
,k65a_46:" Why should her husband be expected to provide for her more comforts than she habitually requires."
,k65a_47:" V. p. 394. n. 10."
,k65a_48:" [Yet on the principle that 'she rises with him' <i>supra</i> 61a, she is entitled to them when she is with him (Rashi)]."
,k65a_49:" V. p. 394. n. 11."
,k65a_50:" From you."
,k65a_51:" Since she is not in the habit of using them she does not require them in his absence."
,k65a_52:" On Sabbath eve."
,k65a_53:" The carrying of objects is forbidden on the Sabbath, the prohibition beginning at twilight on the Friday evening."
,k65a_54:" The other bed clothes that he had given her or that she herself had purchased. (V. however, next note)."
,k65a_55:" Hence R. Nathan's ruling that a husband must in all cases provide his wife with cushion and bolster. [Var. lec. (v. Tosaf.) omit 'so you will take mine'. On that reading the woman will argue that she would be made to sleep on the ground, even in his presence, when she is entitled to all the comfort to which he is accustomed, v. <i>supra</i> note 2]. >"
}

txt:
<p>
No allowance for wine is made for a woman.<a id="k65a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you point out the Scriptural text, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax. mine oil and my drink,<a id="k65a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be replied that the reference is to] things which a woman desires.<a id="k65a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And what are they? Jewellery. 
</p><p>
	R. Judah of Kefar Nabirya<a id="k65a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; (others say: of Kefar Napor<a id="k65a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Hayil) made the following exposition: Whence is it derived that no allowance for wines is made for a woman? &mdash; [From Scripture in] which it is said, So Hannah rose up after she had eaten<a id="k65a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in Shiloh, and after drinking.<a id="k65a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; only 'he had drunk' but she did not drink. Now, then, would you also [interpret:] 'She had eaten'<a id="k65a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k65a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; did not eat? &mdash; What we say is [that the deduction may be made] because the text has deliberately been changed. For consider: It was dealing with her, why did it change [the form]?<a id="k65a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it may be deduced that it was 'he who drank' and that she did not drink. 
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: If [a woman] is accustomed [to drink] she is given [an allowance of drink]! &mdash; Where she is accustomed to drink the case is different. For R. Hinena b. Kahana stated in the name of Samuel, 'If she was accustomed [to drink] she is given an allowance of one cup; if she was not accustomed [to it] she is given an allowance of two cups'. What does he mean? &mdash; Abaye replied: It is this that he means: If she was in the habit [of drinking] two cups in the presence of her husband she is given one cup in his absence; if she is used [to drink] in the presence of her husband only one cup, she is given none at all in his absence. And if you prefer I might say: If she is used [to drink] she is allowed some wine for her puddings<a id="k65a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; only. For R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan: It happened that when the Sages granted the daughterin-law of Nakdimon<a id="k65a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; b. Gorion a weekly<a id="k65a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; allowance of two se'ahs of wine for her puddings she<a id="k65a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said to them, 'May you grant such allowances to your daughters'. A Tanna taught: She was a woman awaiting the decision of the levir.<a id="k65a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence they did not reply Amen after her.<a id="k65a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A Tanna taught: One cup<a id="k65a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is becoming to a woman; two are degrading. [and if she has] three she solicits publicly.<a id="k65a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [but if she has] four she solicits even an ass in the street and cares not. Raba said: This was taught only [in respect of a woman] whose husband is not with her; but if her husband is with her [the objection to her drinks] does not arise.<a id="k65a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But, Surely. [there is the case of] Hannah whose husband was with her!<a id="k65a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; With a guest<a id="k65a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; it is different,<a id="k65a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Huna stated Whence is it inferred that a guest is forbidden marital union? [From Scripture in] which it is said, And they rose up in the morning early and worshipped before the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah; and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her,<a id="k65a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; only<a id="k65a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; then<a id="k65a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but not before. 
</p><p>
	Homa, Abaye's wife, came to Raba<a id="k65a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and asked him, 'Grant me an allowance of board', and he granted her the allowance. 'Grant me [she again demanded] an allowance of wine'. 'I know', he said to her, 'that Nahmani<a id="k65a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; did not drink wine'. 'By the life of the Master [I swear]'. she replied. 'that he gave me to drink<a id="k65a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; from horns<a id="k65a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; like this'.<a id="k65a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; As she was showing it to him her arm was uncovered and a light shone<a id="k65a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; upon the court. Raba rose, went home and solicited R. Hisda's daughter.<a id="k65a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Who has been to-day at the court?' enquired R. Hisda's daughter. 'Homa the wife of Abaye'. he replied. Thereupon she followed her, striking her with the straps<a id="k65a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of a chest<a id="k65a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; until she chased her out of all Mahuza.<a id="k65a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You have', she said to her, 'already killed three [men].<a id="k65a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and now you come to kill another [man]!' 
</p><p>
	The wife of R. Joseph the son of Raba came before R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph and said to him, 'Grant me an allowance of board', and he granted her. 'Grant me also an allowance of wine' [she demanded], and he granted her. 'I know', he said to her, 'that the people of Mahuza drink wine'. The wife of R. Joseph the son of R. Menashya of Dewil<a id="k65a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; came before R. Joseph and said to him, 'Grant me an allowance of board', and he granted her. 'Grant me', she said, 'an allowance of wine', and he granted her. 'Grant me', she said again. 'an allowance of silks'. 'Why silks?' he asked. 'For your sake', she replied. 'and for the sake of your friend and for the sake of your associates'.<a id="k65a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE MUST ALSO PROVIDE HER WITH A BED, A MATTRESS etc. Why<a id="k65a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; should he give her A MATTRESS AND A RUSH MAT?<a id="k65a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa replied: [This is done only] in a place where it is the practice to girth the bed with ropes.<a id="k65a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; which would hurt<a id="k65a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; her. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: She<a id="k65a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; is not given<a id="k65a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; a cushion and a bolster. In the name of R. Nathan it was stated: She is given a cushion and a bolster. How is this to be understood? If it is a case where she is used to it,<a id="k65a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; what [it may be objected] is the reason of the first Tanna?<a id="k65a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it is a case where she is not used to it,<a id="k65a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; what [it may be asked] is the reason of R. Nathan?<a id="k65a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The statement was] necessary only in the case where it<a id="k65a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; was his habit but not her habit.<a id="k65a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; The first Tanna<a id="k65a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that [her husband] may say to her, 'When I go away<a id="k65a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; I take them and when I return I bring them back with me',<a id="k65a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Nathan holds the opinion that she can tell him, 'It might sometimes happen [that you will return] at twilight<a id="k65a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; when you will be unable to bring them<a id="k65a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; and so you will take mine<a id="k65a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; and make me sleep on the ground'.<a id="k65a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER [ONCE A YEAR] A CAP. Said R. Papa to Abaye:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k65b_1:" Who imposes upon a husband the duty of giving his wife shoes three times a year and clothing only once a year."
,k65b_2:" Proverb. By the time the woman will receive her second or third pair of shoes her clothes will be worn to tatters and yet she would be wearing new shoes; a toilet more ludicrous than one uniformly shabby and worn out."
,k65b_3:" Lit., 'stands'."
,k65b_4:" Though clothes may conveniently last for the same period."
,k65b_5:" Provincial <i>zuz</i> (Rashi). A provincial, or country <i>zuz</i> was equal in value to an eighth of the town, Or Tyrian <i>zuz</i>."
,k65b_6:" Lit., 'since it was taught'."
,k65b_7:" I.e., of the Tyrian standard (ef. p. 395, n. 14)."
,k65b_8:" I.e., if the woman did not consume all her allowance of food prescribed in our Mishnah."
,k65b_9:" During her clean and unclean periods."
,k65b_10:" Whose allowance for clothes is made by her deceased husband's heirs."
,k65b_11:" Lit., 'there'."
,k65b_12:" Lit., 'in his presence'."
,k65b_13:" Lit., 'here'."
,k65b_14:" R. Nahman."
,k65b_15:" R. Ashi."
,k65b_16:" Cf. BaH. a.l."
,k65b_17:" [H], lit., 'a perfect or appropriate expression'. MS.M. adds, [H], 'he took up (used)'."
,k65b_18:" The adulterous woman."
,k65b_19:" Prov. XXX, 20."
,k65b_20:" R. Nahman."
,k65b_21:" Since one has to eat in the day time also."
,k65b_22:" R. Ashi."
,k65b_23:" Shab. 86a, Nid. 17a."
,k65b_24:" V. Ibid."
,k65b_25:" The Exlarch."
,k65b_26:" Lit., 'that they (sc. the Rabbis) said'."
,k65b_27:" Lit., 'the small of the small'."
,k65b_28:" Must he maintain them."
,k65b_29:" [H], i.e., he does not require one specially prepared for himself (v. Golds.). Rashi takes [H] in the literal sense, 'he goes out'. i.e., should his father place an 'erub in one direction and his mother to the opposite direction he would be allowed to move only in the direction his mother had chosen. In any case it follows that a child of the age of six is entirely attached to and dependent upon his mother and, consequently, just as a man must provide for his wife so must he provide for the child who is entirely dependent upon her."
,k65b_30:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k65b_31:" That a father is at all liable to maintain his young children,"
,k65b_32:" For the increase of the maintenance."
,k65b_33:" The child."
,k65b_34:" During lactation."
,k65b_35:" The conclusion, therefore, must be that she was not ailing."
,k65b_36:" By the use of the expression. NURSING, and not 'ailing'."
,k65b_37:" As this is quite possible no positive proof is available that it is a father's legal duty to maintain his young children."
,k65b_38:" For the Increase of the maintenance."
,k65b_39:" So BaH. Cur. edd. omit."
,k65b_40:" Which she inherited from a relative (Rashi's first interpretation supported by R. <i>Tam</i>., Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.)."
,k65b_41:" The capital, however, remains hers."
,k65b_42:" I.e., if the indignity was imposed in the absence of onlookers or the blemish inflicted upon a concealed part of her body."
,k65b_43:" Her husband."
,k65b_44:" I.e., if people witnessed the indignity or if the blemish was inflicted on a part of the body that is exposed."
,k65b_45:" Since he not only shares her indignity and degradation but, in addition, must also put up with a woman who has become disfigured. V. Rashi."
,k65b_46:" As is the case with all property that comes into a wife's possession after her marriage. The capital remains hers and after his death or on divorce she recovers also the right of usufruct."
,k65b_47:" The author of our Mishnah."
,k65b_48:" V. <i>supra</i> 46b, notes, from which it follows that a husband is entitled to all his wife's possessions enumerated in our Mishnah. Why then were the same rulings repeated here?"
,k65b_49:" The author of our Mishnah."
,k65b_50:" Our Mishnah."
,k65b_51:" And could not have been inferred from the statement quoted."
,k65b_52:" Raba."
,k65b_53:" Of a woman's work above the amount required for her maintenance. "
}

txt:
<p>
This Tanna<a id="k65b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [expects a person to be] 'stripped naked and to wear shoes'!<a id="k65b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The Tanna,' the other replied. 'was dealing<a id="k65b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; with a mountainous region where one cannot possibly manage with less than three pairs of shoes [a year].<a id="k65b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and indirectly he informed us that these should be given to her on the occasion of a major festival so that she might derive joy from them. 
</p><p>
	AND CLOTHING [OF THE VALUE] OF FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I>. Abaye said: Fifty small <i>zuz</i>.<a id="k65b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence is this deduced? &mdash; From the statement:<a id="k65b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; ALL THIS APPLIES TO THE POOREST IN ISRAEL, BUT IN THE CASE OF A MEMBER OF THE BETTER CLASSES ALL IS FIXED ACCORDING TO THE DIGNITY OF HIS POSITION. Now, should one imagine [that the reference is to] fifty real <i>zuz</i>,<a id="k65b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; whence [it could be objected] would a poor man obtain fifty <i>zuz</i>? Consequently it must be concluded [that the meaning is] fifty small <i>zuz</i>. 
</p><p>
	SHE IS NOT TO BE GIVEN NEW etc. Our Rabbis taught: Any surplus of food<a id="k65b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; belongs to the husband, while any Surplus of worn out clothes belongs to the woman. [You said:] 'Any surplus of worn out clothes belongs to the woman'; of what use are they to her? &mdash; Rehaba replied: For putting on during the days of her menstruation so that she may not [by the constant wearing<a id="k65b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; of the same clothes] become repulsive to her husband. Abaye stated: We have a tradition that the surplus of the worn out clothes of a widow<a id="k65b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; belongs to her husband's heirs. For the reason in the former case<a id="k65b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is that she shall not become repulsive to her husband<a id="k65b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but in this case<a id="k65b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; let her be ever so repulsive. 
</p><p>
	HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER [EVERY WEEK] A SILVER <I>MA'AH</I> etc. What [is meant by] SHE IS TO EAT? &mdash; R. Nahman replied: Actual eating. R. Ashi replied: Intercourse. We have learned: SHE IS TO EAT WITH HIM ON THE NIGHT OF EVERY SABBATH. Now, according to him<a id="k65b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; who said, '[actual] eating' it is quite correct to use the expression SHE IS TO EAT. According to him,<a id="k65b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; however, who said, 'intercourse', why [it may be asked] was the expression SHE IS TO EAT used?<a id="k65b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is a euphemism.<a id="k65b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is written in Scripture. She<a id="k65b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: 'I have done no wickedness'.<a id="k65b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, 'She is to eat with him on the night of the Sabbath and on the Sabbath [day]'. Now, according to him<a id="k65b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; who said, '[actual] eating', it is correct to state, 'and on the Sabbath [day]'.<a id="k65b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; According to him,<a id="k65b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; however, who said, 'intercourse', is there any intercourse on the Sabbath day? Did not R. Huna state, The Israelites are holy and do not have intercourse in the day-time'?<a id="k65b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, Surely, Raba stated: It is permitted in a dark room.<a id="k65b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF SHE WAS NURSING [HER CHILD]. R. 'Ulla the Great made at the Prince's<a id="k65b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; door the following exposition: Although it was said:<a id="k65b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A man is under no obligation to maintain his sons and daughters when they are minors', he must maintain them while they are very young.<a id="k65b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; How long?<a id="k65b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Until the age of six; in accordance [with the view of] R. Assi, for R. Assi stated: A child of the age of six is exempt<a id="k65b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; by the 'erub<a id="k65b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; of his mother. Whence [is this<a id="k65b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; derived]? &mdash; From the Statement: IF SHE WAS NURSING [HER CHILD] HER HANDIWORK IS REDUCED AND HER MAINTENANCE IS INCREASED. What can be the reason?<a id="k65b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely because he<a id="k65b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; must eat together with her. But is it not possible [that the reason<a id="k65b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; is] because she<a id="k65b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; ailing? &mdash; If that were the case it should have been stated, 'If she was ailing', why then [was it stated]. IF SHE WAS NURSING?<a id="k65b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it not possible that it was this that we were taught:<a id="k65b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; That nursing mothers are commonly ailing?<a id="k65b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	It was stated: What is the addition<a id="k65b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; that he makes for her?<a id="k65b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Levi said: She is given an additional allowance for wine, because wine is beneficial for lactation.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vi">CHAPTER VI</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WIFE'S FIND AND HER HANDIWORK BELONG TO HER HUSBAND. AND [OF] HER INHERITANCE<a id="k65b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; HE HAS THE USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME.<a id="k65b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [ANY COMPENSATION FOR] AN INDIGNITY OR BLEMISH [THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UPON] HER BELONGS TO HER. R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA RULED: WHEN IN PRIVACY<a id="k65b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE RECEIVES TWO-THIRDS [OF THE COMPENSATION] WHILE HE<a id="k65b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; RECEIVES ONE-THIRD, BUT WHEN IN PUBLIC<a id="k65b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; HE RECEIVES TWO-THIRDS<a id="k65b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SHE RECEIVES ONE-THIRD. HIS SHARE IS TO BE GIVEN TO HIM FORTHWITH, BUT WITH HERS LAND IS TO BE BOUGHT AND HE<a id="k65b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; ENJOYS THE USUFRUCT.<a id="k65b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What does he<a id="k65b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; teach us? This surely was already learnt: A father has authority over his daughter in respect of her betrothal [whether it was effected] by money, by deed or by intercourse; he is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork; [he has the right] of invalidating her vows, and he receives her letter of divorce; but he has no usufruct during her lifetime. When she marries, the husband surpasses him [in his rights] in that he has usufruct during her lifetime!<a id="k65b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k65b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; regarded this<a id="k65b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; as necessary [on account of the law relating to] INDIGNITY OR BLEMISH [THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UPON] HER, [which is the subject of] a dispute between R. Judah b. Bathyra and the Rabbis.<a id="k65b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A tanna recited in the presence of Raba: A wife's find belongs to herself; but R. Akiba ruled: [It belongs] to her husband. The other<a id="k65b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; said to him: Now that [in respect of the] surplus<a id="k65b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k70a_1:" Expressed in our Mishnah by the ruling that despite the request of the daughter the trustee must carry out the instructions of her deceased father."
,k70a_2:" Cf. Git. 14b, 15a and 40a."
,k70a_3:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 69b ad fin."
,k70a_4:" Lit., 'and (as to) that which be said thus'."
,k70a_5:" Lit., 'he came'."
,k70a_6:" To lead a thrifty life and to make an effort to earn their livelihood."
,k70a_7:" Of the ages of nine and eight' (Rashi. a.l. s.v. [H].). 'six and seven' (Rashb. B.B. 155b, s.v. [H])."
,k70a_8:" Transactions in landed estate, however, may be made by such only as have produced signs of puberty or have attained the age of twenty, v. Git. 59a, 65a, B.B. l.e."
,k70a_9:" By a father or the court."
,k70a_10:" With definite instructions as to the use he was to make of the trust money."
,k70a_11:" From an ordinary guardian who is expected to use his own discretion in the best interests of the orphans. In the latter case the orphan's transaction might be deemed valid because it is not against their father's instructions and, being in the interest of the orphans, the guardian might well be presumed to have acquiesced."
,k70a_12:" That a distinction is to be drawn between a trustee with special instructions and an ordinary guardian."
,k70a_13:" Where there is a guardian, whose charge is somewhat similar to that of a trustee. Lit., 'even in the world'."
,k70a_14:" Lit., 'until'."
,k70a_15:" To supply his wife's maintenance."
,k70a_16:" I.e., if the woman demands her freedom."
,k70a_17:" Who, unlike a priest (v. Lev. XXI, 7), may remarry his divorced wife."
,k70a_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4."
,k70a_19:" A priest was allowed more time in order to afford him a longer period of retracting before his divorce separates her from him for ever."
,k70a_20:" He confirmed a vow she had made to that effect (Rashi). Though he has no right to forbid his wife the eating or tasting of any foodstuffs he may, by keeping silent when she herself makes such a vow, confirm it; v. Num. XXX, 7ff. Others: He vowed to abstain from his wife should she taste a certain fruit; v. Isaiah Trani."
,k70a_21:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7 mutatis mutandis."
,k70a_22:" That in the case of a vow against a wife's adornments, the husband must DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>."
,k70a_23:" To the duration of the vow."
,k70a_24:" A husband."
,k70a_25:" His wife."
,k70a_26:" Lit., 'all (power) as if from him?'"
,k70a_27:" <i>Supra</i> 59a and notes."
,k70a_28:" Since no annulment is required."
,k70a_29:" A wife's handiwork belongs to her husband."
,k70a_30:" In consequence of which her vow is null and void and requires no annulment."
,k70a_31:" And his vow also should, therefore, be null and void."
,k70a_32:" A husband."
,k70a_33:" His wife."
,k70a_34:" I.e., he would neither maintain her nor expect her to give him her handiwork (v. <i>supra</i> n. 8). "
}

txt:
<p>
It is that of R. Meir<a id="k70a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; who laid down that it is a religious obligation to carry out the instructions of a dying man.<a id="k70a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda stated in the name of Mar 'Ukba: The law is that whether [the dying man] said, 'Give' or 'give no more',<a id="k70a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; his children are to he given all that they require. But have we not, however, an established principle that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Meir who laid down that it is a religious obligation to carry out the instructions of a dying man? &mdash; This applies to other matters, but in this case [the father] is quite satisfied [that his children should be provided with all they need]; and in limiting their allowance,<a id="k70a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; his object was<a id="k70a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to encourage them.<a id="k70a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learned elsewhere: With regard to little children,<a id="k70a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; their purchase is a valid purchase and their sale is a valid sale in the case of movable objects.<a id="k70a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rafram explained: This has been taught in the case only where no guardian had been appointed,<a id="k70a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but where a guardian had been appointed neither their purchase nor their sale has any legal validity. Whence is this inferred? From the expression, THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR. But might not the case where a trustee<a id="k70a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; had been appointed be different?<a id="k70a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so,<a id="k70a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it should have been stated, 'IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HOWEVER, a trustee must act in accordance with the conditions of his trust' what [then was the purpose of the expression,] THERE IS NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE ACT OF A MINOR? Hence it may be inferred [that the same law is applicable] in all cases.<a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vii">CHAPTER VII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE BY VOW TO HAVE ANY BENEFIT FROM HIM HE MAY, [IF THE PROHIBITION IS TO LAST] NOT MORE<a id="k70a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; THAN THIRTY DAYS, APPOINT A STEWARD,<a id="k70a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF FOR A LONGER PERIOD HE MUST DIVORCE HER<a id="k70a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>. R. JUDAH RULED: IF HE WAS AN ISRAELITE<a id="k70a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY KEEP HER [AS HIS WIFE IF THE PROHIBITION WAS FOR] ONE MONTH, BUT MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> [IF IT WAS FOR] TWO MONTHS. IF HE WAS A PRIEST<a id="k70a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY KEEP HER [AS HIS WIFE, IF THE PROHIBITION WAS FOR] TWO MONTHS,<a id="k70a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> [IF IT WAS FOR] THREE.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE BY VOW THAT SHE SHOULD NOT TASTE A CERTAIN FRUIT<a id="k70a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>. R. JUDAH RULED: IF HE WAS AN ISRAELITE<a id="k70a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY KEEP HER [AS HIS WIFE, IF THE VOW WAS FOR] ONE DAY, [BUT IF FOR] TWO DAYS HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>. IF, HOWEVER, HE WAS A PRIEST<a id="k70a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY KEEP HER [AS HIS WIFE, IF THE VOW WAS FOR] TWO DAYS [BUT IF FOR] THREE HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE BY VOW THAT SHE SHOULD NOT MAKE USE OF A CERTAIN ADORNMENT<a id="k70a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>. R. JOSE RULED: [THIS<a id="k70a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; APPLIES] TO POOR WOMEN IF NO TIME LIMIT<a id="k70a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; IS GIVEN, AND TO RICH WOMEN [IF THE TIME LIMIT<a id="k70a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; IS] THIRTY DAYS.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Since, however, he<a id="k70a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is under an obligation to [maintain] her<a id="k70a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; how can he forbid her by a vow [to have any benefit from him]? Has he then the power<a id="k70a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; to cancel his obligation? Surely we have learned: [If a woman said to her husband] 'Konam, if I do aught for your mouth' he need not annul her vow;<a id="k70a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; from which<a id="k70a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; it is evident that, as she is under an obligation to him,<a id="k70a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; she has no right to cancel her obligation,<a id="k70a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; similarly here, since he is under an obligation to [maintain] her he should have no right to cancel his obligation!<a id="k70a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This,] however, [is the right explanation:] As he<a id="k70a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; is entitled to say to her,<a id="k70a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Deduct [the proceeds of] your handiwork for your maintenance'<a id="k70a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k70b_1:" Lit., 'is made'."
,k70b_2:" And her vow should be valid. Why then has it been said that her husband 'need not annul her vow'?"
,k70b_3:" Lit., 'do not say; be is made'."
,k70b_4:" That her handiwork is not taken away from her."
,k70b_5:" The proceeds of her handiwork could be spent on her maintenance."
,k70b_6:" To make up the legally prescribed sum (v. <i>supra</i> 64b)."
,k70b_7:" And it is, therefore, still her husband's duty to maintain her in part."
,k70b_8:" How can he by his vow cancel an obligation that is incumbent upon him?"
,k70b_9:" Lit., 'she is used to them'."
,k70b_10:" Being mere luxuries."
,k70b_11:" The husband, surely, is not expected to provide for such luxuries."
,k70b_12:" Lit., 'roll' with him', i.e., to put up with his mode of living."
,k70b_13:" Lit., 'more'."
,k70b_14:" That his wife shall not HAVE ANY BENEFIT FROM HIM."
,k70b_15:" When he is under no obligation to maintain her."
,k70b_16:" Certainly not (v. <i>supra</i> n. 13). What need then was there to state the obvious?"
,k70b_17:" Lit., 'they were'. V. n. 2."
,k70b_18:" Lit., 'the time (for the respective marriages referred to <i>supra</i> 57a) arrived'."
,k70b_19:" Through the man's delay."
,k70b_20:" The women mentioned."
,k70b_21:" In accordance with a Rabbinical ordinance."
,k70b_22:" Mishnah <i>supra</i> 57a. Since in such circumstances the man is Pentateuchally under no obligation to maintain his betrothed his vow forbidding her to have any benefit is valid; and as he is obliged to maintain her in accordance with Rabbinic law he must appoint a steward to look after her maintenance."
,k70b_23:" The steward appointed (v. our Mishnah)."
,k70b_24:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 435, n. 12."
,k70b_25:" What claim then could she advance?"
,k70b_26:" Mistaken judgment."
,k70b_27:" Lit., 'that we say so'."
,k70b_28:" Though a woman at first consented to live with the man who suffered from such defects she may subsequently plead that she under-estimated her feeling and that now she cannot bear them (v. <i>infra</i> 77a). A woman may well be excused her first error of judgment in such circumstances."
,k70b_29:" No woman, surely, could plead that she was not aware that a person could live without food. As she has once accepted the disability she should not be entitled to change her mind."
,k70b_30:" The husband's."
,k70b_31:" Lit., 'do his mission'. The answer being in the affirmative, the question arises why his agent should be allowed to do on his behalf what he himself is not allowed to do."
,k70b_32:" He would reimburse him."
,k70b_33:" Though they have received no direct instructions."
,k70b_34:" Lit., 'behold these'."
,k70b_35:" Git. 66a; as if they had been agents who had received direct instructions from him. Similarly the steward spoken of in our Mishnah should be regarded as the husband's agent (v. <i>supra</i> p. 436, n. 15)."
,k70b_36:" The case of divorce."
,k70b_37:" A definite instruction."
,k70b_38:" In the matter of maintenance."
,k70b_39:" This is not even an indirect instruction but a mere intimation. Anyone acting on such an intimation only cannot be regarded as agent."
,k70b_40:" When a Jew is forbidden to do any work himself or to instruct someone else, even a Gentile, to do it for him."
,k70b_41:" Shab. 121a."
,k70b_42:" Implying a fire only and not other cases."
,k70b_43:" A person's announcement concerning compensation for the maintenance of his wife whom he himself is forbidden to maintain, or any similar announcements which might lead someone to perform on behalf of that person what he himself is forbidden to do."
,k70b_44:" The sanctity of the Sabbath demands greater restrictions which need not he applied to other prohibitions such as those of vows for instance."
,k70b_45:" Ned. 43a. Lit., 'gives to him and comes and takes from this'."
,k70b_46:" Which is rather vague and non-committal."
,k70b_47:" Which is more explicit and a committal undertaking. An objection against R. Huna."
,k70b_48:" Lit., 'be (the Tanna of that Mishnah) said'."
,k70b_49:" Lit., 'to the world'."
,k70b_50:" The shopkeeper."
,k70b_51:" And, thereby becoming his virtual agent, be should, like himself, be forbidden to supply any provisions."
,k70b_52:" Of the citation from Ned. 43a."
,k70b_53:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 437, n. 14."
,k70b_54:" The man who is forbidden to have benefit from the other by a vow."
,k70b_55:" Lit., 'and come and take'."
,k70b_56:" Benefit from whom he is forbidden to derive."
,k70b_57:" Lit., 'another'."
,k70b_58:" Cf. <i>infra</i> n. 16."
,k70b_59:" Lit., 'they are ownerless property'."
,k70b_60:" V. <i>supra</i> note 9."
,k70b_61:" MS.M. omits [H] ('and it is permitted') which seems superfluous here as well as <i>supra</i>. V. <i>supra</i> n. 13."
,k70b_62:" V. Ned. 43a. >"
}

txt:
<p>
he [in making his vow] is regarded<a id="k70b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as having said to her, 'Deduct [the proceeds of] your handiwork for your maintenance'.
</p><p>
	If, however, one is to adopt the ruling R. Huna gave in the name of Rab, for R. Huna stated in the name of Rab: A wife may say to her husband, 'I would neither be maintained by, nor work [for you]', why should there be no need to annul [her vow] when she said 'Konam, if I do aught for your mouth'? Let it rather be said that as she is entitled to say, 'I would neither be maintained by nor work [for you]' she [in making her vow] might be regarded<a id="k70b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as having said, 'I would neither be maintained by, nor work [for you]'?<a id="k70b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The fact,] however, [is that] the explanation is not that 'he is regarded'<a id="k70b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but that he actually said to her, 'Deduct your handiwork for your maintenance.' If so,<a id="k70b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; what need has she of a steward?<a id="k70b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [She needs one] where [the proceeds of her handiwork] do not suffice.<a id="k70b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If, [however, her handiwork] does not suffice,<a id="k70b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; our original question arises again!<a id="k70b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi replied: [This is a case] where [her handiwork] suffices for major requirements but does not suffice for minor requirements.
</p><p>
	How is one to understand these 'minor requirements'? If the woman is in the habit of having them, they are, surely, a part of her regular requirements,<a id="k70b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and if she is not used to them<a id="k70b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; what need has she for a steward?<a id="k70b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The law concerning a steward] is required only where she was used [to them] in her father's house but consented to dispense with them when with her husband.<a id="k70b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; In such a case she can say to him, 'Hitherto, before you forbade me by a vow [to have any benefit from you], I was willing to put up with your [mode of living], but now that you have forbidden me [to enjoy any benefit from you] I am not able to put up [any longer] with your [mode of living]'. And wherein lies the difference [between a vow for more, and one for] NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS? &mdash; [Within a period of] NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS people would not become aware of it, and the matter would be no degradation to her; but after a longer period<a id="k70b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; people would hear of it, and the matter would be degrading to her.
</p><p>
	If you prefer I might reply: [His vow<a id="k70b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is valid] only if he vowed while she was merely betrothed to him.<a id="k70b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But has a betrothed woman, however, any claim to maintenance?<a id="k70b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Yes], if the time [for the celebration of the marriage] arrived and she was<a id="k70b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; not married. For we have learned: If the respective periods expired<a id="k70b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and they were not married,<a id="k70b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k70b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; are entitled to maintenance<a id="k70b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; out of the man's estate, and [if he is a priest] may also eat <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k70b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein then lies the difference [between a vow for more, and one for] NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS? &mdash; [During a period of] NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS an agent<a id="k70b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; performs his mission; for a longer period no agent performs his mission.
</p><p>
	And if you prefer I might reply: [The husband's vow<a id="k70b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is valid] when he made it while she was betrothed to him and she was [afterwards] married.
</p><p>
	But if she was married [afterwards] she must obviously have understood her position and accepted it!<a id="k70b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [It is a case] where she pleaded, 'I thought I shall be able to bear it but now I cannot bear it'.
</p><p>
	But granted that such a plea<a id="k70b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is properly admissible<a id="k70b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of bodily defects;<a id="k70b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is it admissible, however, in respect of maintenance?<a id="k70b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Clearly, then, we can only explain as we explained at first.
</p><p>
	HE MAY, [IF THE PROHIBITION IS TO LAST] NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS, APPOINT A STEWARD. Does not the steward, however, act on his<a id="k70b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; behalf?<a id="k70b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna replied: [Our Mishnah refers] to one who declared, 'Whoever will maintain [my wife] will not suffer any loss'.<a id="k70b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; But, even if be spoke in such a manner, is not the steward acting on his behalf? Have we not learned: If a man who was thrown into a pit cried that whosoever should hear his voice should write a letter of divorce for his wife, [the hearers]<a id="k70b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; may lawfully<a id="k70b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; write, and deliver [it to his wife]?<a id="k70b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; How now! there<a id="k70b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; the man said, 'should write';<a id="k70b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but did the man here<a id="k70b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; say, 'should maintain'? All he said was, 'whoever will maintain'.<a id="k70b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But surely R. Ammi said: In [the case of] a fire [breaking] out on the Sabbath]<a id="k70b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; permission was given to make the announcement 'Whosoever shall extinguish it will suffer no loss'.<a id="k70b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Now what does [the expression] 'In a fire'<a id="k70b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; exclude? Does it not exclude a case of this kind?<a id="k70b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [it was meant] to exclude other acts that are forbidden on the Sabbath.<a id="k70b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah raised an objection: If a man is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from another man, and he has nothing to eat [the other] may go to a shopkeeper with whom he is familiar and say to him, 'So-and-so is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from me, and I do not know what to do for him'. [The shopkeeper] may then give to the one and recover the cost from the other.<a id="k70b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Only such [a suggestion]<a id="k70b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted but not that of 'whoever will maintain [my wife] will not suffer any loss'?<a id="k70b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The formula,] 'There is no question' is here implied:<a id="k70b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no question [that a man may announce,] 'whoever will maintain [my wife] will not suffer any loss', since he is speaking to no one in particular;<a id="k70b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; but even in this case where, since he is familiar with him<a id="k70b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; and goes and speaks to him directly, [it might have been thought that his mere suggestion is] the same as if he had expressly told him,<a id="k70b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You go and give him',<a id="k70b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we were taught [that this also is permitted].
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text.<a id="k70b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from another man, and he has nothing to eat, [the other] may go to a shopkeeper with whom he is familiar and say to him, 'So-and-so is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from me, and I do not know what to do for him'. [The shopkeeper] may then give to the one and recover the cost from the other.<a id="k70b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; If his<a id="k70b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; house is to be built, his wall to be put up or his field to be harvested [the other] may go to labourers with whom he is familiar and say to them, 'So-and-so is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from me, and I do not know what to do for him'. They may then work for him and recover<a id="k70b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; their wages from the other. If they were going on the same journey and the one had with him nothing to eat, [the other]<a id="k70b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; may give [some food] to a third<a id="k70b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; person as a gift and the first may take it [from that person] and eat it.<a id="k70b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; If no third person<a id="k70b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; is available, he<a id="k70b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; may put the food upon a stone or a wall, and say, 'Behold this is free<a id="k70b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; for all who desire [to take it]', and the other<a id="k70b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; may take it and eat it.<a id="k70b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose, however, forbids this.<a id="k70b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: What is R. Jose's reason? &mdash; [It is forbidden as] a preventive measure against
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k78a_1:" Lit., 'to whom there fell'."
,k78a_2:" After her betrothal and before her marriage. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k78a_3:" Through betrothal."
,k78a_4:" The application of this argument is explained in the Gemara."
,k78a_5:" Lit., 'ashamed'."
,k78a_6:" In failing to discover a reason why a husband (as stated <i>infra</i>) is entitled to seize the property which his wife had sold or given away even though she obtained it after marriage."
,k78a_7:" Property into the possession of which she came while she was only betrothed."
,k78a_8:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel."
,k78a_9:" [I.e., either before or after she was betrothed (Rashi), v. Tosaf.]."
,k78a_10:" After her marriage."
,k78a_11:" By marriage."
,k78a_12:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 490, on. 5-7."
,k78a_13:" This is explained in the Gemara."
,k78a_14:" Of our MISHNAH."
,k78a_15:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel,"
,k78a_16:" Property obtained AFTER SHE WAS BETROTHED."
,k78a_17:" In both cases surely, she sells or gives away after betrothal when her property presumably belongs to the man who betrothed her. Cf. <i>infra</i> note 10."
,k78a_18:" Before betrothal she is the legal possessor of whatever is given to her."
,k78a_19:" Because, as it is assumed at present, after betrothal the man is the legal owner of all that the woman may have."
,k78a_20:" The <i>kinyan</i> of betrothal being regarded as that of a doubtful marriage, since it is uncertain whether marriage will follow."
,k78a_21:" According to Beth Hillel."
,k78a_22:" In the argument he reported in the name of the Sages to invalidate her sale."
,k78a_23:" I.e., the ruling of Beth Shammai that if she obtained property after she was betrothed she is fully entitled to sell it or to give it away."
,k78a_24:" Where it is the unanimous opinion of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel THAT IF SHE HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_viii">CHAPTER VIII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A WOMAN CAME INTO THE POSSESSION<a id="k78a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; OF PROPERTY BEFORE SHE WAS BETROTHED, BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL AGREE THAT SHE MAY<a id="k78a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY AND HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. IF SHE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AFTER SHE WAS BETROTHED, BETH SHAMMAI SAID: SHE MAY SELL IT,<a id="k78a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BETH HILLEL SAID: SHE MAY NOT SELL IT;<a id="k78a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BOTH AGREE THAT IF SHE HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. R. JUDAH STATED: THE SAGES ARGUED BEFORE R. GAMALIEL, 'SINCE THE MAN<a id="k78a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; GAINS POSSESSION OF THE WOMAN DOES HE NOT ALSO GAIN POSSESSION OF HER PROPERTY?'<a id="k78a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; HE REPLIED, 'WE ARE EMBARRASSED<a id="k78a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH REGARD TO [THE PROBLEM OF] HER NEW POSSESSIONS<a id="k78a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND DO YOU WISH TO INVOLVE US [IN THE PROBLEM OF] HER OLD ONES<a id="k78a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; ALSO?' IF SHE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY AFTER SHE WAS MARRIED, BOTH<a id="k78a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AGREE THAT, EVEN IF SHE HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY, THE HUSBAND MAY SEIZE IT FROM THE BUYERS. [IF SHE CAME INTO POSSESSION] BEFORE SHE MARRIED.<a id="k78a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED, R. GAMALIEL SAID: IF SHE<a id="k78a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. R. HANINA B. AKABIA STATED: THEY ARGUED BEFORE R. GAMALIEL, SINCE THE MAN<a id="k78a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; GAINED POSSESSION OF THE WOMAN SHOULD HE NOT ALSO GAIN POSSESSION OF HER PROPERTY?' HE REPLIED, 'WE ARE EMBARRASSED WITH REGARD TO [THE PROBLEM OF] HER NEW POSSESSIONS AND DO YOU WISH TO INVOLVE US [IN THE PROBLEM OF] HER OLD ONES ALSO?<a id="k78a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ONE KIND OF PROPERTY AND ANOTHER: PROPERTY THAT IS KNOWN<a id="k78a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THE HUSBAND [THE WIFE] MAY NOT SELL, AND IF SHE HAS SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS VOID; [PROPERTY, HOWEVER,] WHICH IS UNKNOWN TO THE HUSBAND SHE MAY NOT SELL, BUT IF SHE HAS SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the essential difference between the first clause<a id="k78a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; in which they<a id="k78a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; do not differ and the succeeding clause<a id="k78a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in which they differ?<a id="k78a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The school of R. Jannai replied: In the first clause it was into her possession that the property had come;<a id="k78a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in the succeeding clause<a id="k78a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the property came into his possession.<a id="k78a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, [it is maintained] that the property 'came into his possession' why is HER ACT LEGALLY VALID when SHE HAD SOLD [THE PROPERTY] OR GIVEN IT AWAY? &mdash; This then [is the explanation:] In the first clause the property has beyond all doubt come into her possession.<a id="k78a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; In the succeeding clause, [however, the property] might be said [to have come either] into her, or into his possession;<a id="k78a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [hence,]<a id="k78a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; she may not properly sell [the property, but] IF SHE HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH STATED: [THE SAGES] ARGUED BEFORE R. GAMALIEL. The question was raised: Does R. Judah<a id="k78a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; refer to the case of direct permissibility<a id="k78a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; or also to one of ex post facto?<a id="k78a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k78b_1:" Lit., 'this one', &mdash; whom he married."
,k78b_2:" Whom he betrothed."
,k78b_3:" Of any property that came into her possession after marriage."
,k78b_4:" Of property she obtained after betrothal."
,k78b_5:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 490, nn. 5-7. Tosef. Keth. VIII."
,k78b_6:" Since this Baraitha speaks explicitly of a sale that had already taken place."
,k78b_7:" Lit., 'hear or infer from it."
,k78b_8:" As the one contained in our Mishnah."
,k78b_9:" Who compared a betrothed to a married woman."
,k78b_10:" 'EVEN IF SHE HAD SOLD IT&nbsp;&hellip; THE HUSBAND MAY SEIZE IT FROM THE BUYERS'."
,k78b_11:" Only a husband and a father, acting together, may annul the vows of a betrothed woman as a na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k78b_12:" While she was only betrothed."
,k78b_13:" Of property that came into her possession before her marriage."
,k78b_14:" By the <i>kinyan</i> of marriage."
,k78b_15:" I.e., the right to her finds and handiwork and to the invalidation of her vows."
,k78b_16:" To the usufruct of which a husband is entitled during her lifetime. If her sale is valid her husband would inevitably be deprived of his right to the usufruct."
,k78b_17:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 490, nn. 5-7."
,k78b_18:" I.e., a case ex post facto."
,k78b_19:" From which it follows that such a sale or gift is not permitted in the first instance, a ruling which is in contradiction to that reported by R. Hanina in the name of R. Gamaliel."
,k78b_20:" [On this reading the amendment is made in the text of our Mishnah; <i>var. lec</i>., 'Read: if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid', the change being made in the Baraitha, v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k78b_21:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 5."
,k78b_22:" Our Mishnah (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5)."
,k78b_23:" That even during betrothal a woman is not permitted in the first instance to sell or to give away, much less may she do so after marriage."
,k78b_24:" The quoted Baraitha."
,k78b_25:" That even a married woman may sell or give away property that came into her possession before she married. This view which R. Hanina did not state specifically in our Mishnah he elucidated in the Baraitha."
,k78b_26:" And not with Beth Hillel who ruled that even after a betrothal a woman is not permitted in the first instance to sell or give away; much less may she do so after marriage. Would then R. Hanina deviate from the accepted <i>halachah</i> which is in agreement with Beth Hillel?"
,k78b_27:" But both agreed that the woman is fully entitled to sell or to give away."
,k78b_28:" Tosef. Keth. VIII."
,k78b_29:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 283. n. 12."
,k78b_30:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k78b_31:" The capital of which belongs to the woman, while its usufruct is enjoyed by the husband."
,k78b_32:" Who is heir to his wife and has the status of a 'prior purchaser'."
,k78b_33:" <i>Supra</i> 50a, B.K. 88b, E.M. 35a, 96b. B.B. 50a, 139b. The difficulty then arises: What need was there for the enactment of Usha in view of the ruling in our Mishnah on the enactment of Usha v. Epstein. L. The Jewish Marriage Contract, pp. 110ff."
,k78b_34:" After the woman's death, however, even if she predeceased her husband, the capital would, according to our Mishnah, revert to the buyer."
,k78b_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5. [Tosaf. s.v. [H] states that the Gemara could have also explained the need of the enactment of Usha to provide for the case where she inherited the property whilst betrothed, whereas the Mishnah refers only to property which fell to her after marriage]."
,k78b_36:" It is to be assumed that the husband in marrying her expected such property to come into her possession."
,k78b_37:" A widow who was about to marry."
,k78b_38:" Intimating at the same time in the presence of witnesses that the transfer was only temporary, and that it was her wish that the estate shall revert to her on the death of her husband or on her being divorced by him."
,k78b_39:" And her daughter refusing to part with the gift. "
}

txt:
<p>
Come and hear what was taught in the following. R. Judah stated: They argued before R. Gamaliel, 'Since the one woman<a id="k78b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is his wife and the other<a id="k78b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is his wife, just as a sale by the former<a id="k78b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is invalid so also should a sale by the latter<a id="k78b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; be invalid'. He replied, 'We are in an embarrassed condition with regard to [the problem of] her new possessions and you wish to involve us [in the problem of] her old ones also?'<a id="k78b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus<a id="k78b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be inferred that he referred to a case of ex post facto also. This is conclusive.<a id="k78b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Hanina b. Akabia said, It was not such a reply<a id="k78b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that R. Gamaliel gave to the Sages,<a id="k78b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but it was this that he replied, '[There is] no [comparison]; if you say [the ruling]<a id="k78b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is to apply to a married woman whose husband is entitled to her finds, to her handiwork and to the annulment of her vows, will you say it also applies to a betrothed woman whose husband is not entitled either to her finds or to her handiwork or to the annulment of her vows?'<a id="k78b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Master', they said to him, '[this is quite feasible if] she effected a sale before she married;<a id="k78b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; what, [however, will be your ruling where] she was married and effected the sale<a id="k78b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; subsequently?' &mdash; 'This woman also', he replied, 'may sell or give away, and her act is valid'. 'Since, however', they argued, 'he<a id="k78b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; gained possession of the woman<a id="k78b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; should he not also gain possession of her property?'<a id="k78b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'We are quite embarrassed', he replied, 'about [the problem of] her new possessions and you wish to involve us [in the problem of] her old ones<a id="k78b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; also!' But, surely, we learned, [IF SHE CAME INTO POSSESSION] BEFORE SHE MARRIED, AND SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED, R. GAMALIEL SAID: IF SHE HAD SOLD IT OR GAVE IT AWAY<a id="k78b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID!<a id="k78b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Zebid replied, Read: She may sell or give away, and her act is valid.<a id="k78b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa replied: There is no difficulty,<a id="k78b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for one<a id="k78b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is the view of R. Judah on R. Gamaliel's opinion<a id="k78b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst the other<a id="k78b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is the view of R. Hanina b. Akabia on R. Gamaliel's opinion.<a id="k78b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Is R. Hanina b. Akabia then in agreement with Beth Shammai?<a id="k78b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is this that he meant: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ at all on this point.<a id="k78b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Both Rab and Samuel stated: Whether a woman came into the possession of property before she was betrothed or whether she came into possession after she was betrothed her husband may, [if she sold it] after she married, take it away from the buyers. In agreement with whose view [is this ruling], which is neither in agreement with that of R. Judah nor with that of R. Hanina b. Akabia? &mdash; They adopted the ruling of our Masters; for it was taught: Our Masters took a recount [of votes, and decided that] whether a woman came into the possession [of property] before she was betrothed or whether she came into its possession after she was betrothed, her husband may, [if she sold it] after she married, take it away from the buyers.<a id="k78b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AFTER SHE WAS MARRIED, BOTH AGREE. May it be suggested that here we are learning Of the enactment of Usha,<a id="k78b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Jose the son of R. Hanina stated: It was enacted at Usha that if a woman sold during the lifetime of her husband <i>melog</i><a id="k78b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; property,<a id="k78b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and died, the husband<a id="k78b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; may seize it from the buyers!<a id="k78b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Our Mishnah [deals with the seizure] during the woman's lifetime for the purposes of usufruct [only];<a id="k78b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; the enactment of Usha [refers to the seizure] of the capital after her death.<a id="k78b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ONE KIND OF PROPERTY [etc.]. Which kind is regarded as KNOWN, and which as UNKNOWN? &mdash; R. Jose the son of R. Hanina replied: KNOWN means landed property;<a id="k78b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; UNKNOWN, movable property. But R. Johanan said: Both are regarded as KNOWN, but the following is classed as UNKNOWN. Whenever a woman lives in a certain place and comes into the possession of property in a country beyond the sea. So it was also taught elsewhere: The following is classed as unknown. Wherever a woman lives in a certain place and comes into the possession of property in a country beyond the sea.
</p><p>
	A certain woman<a id="k78b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; wishing to deprive her [intended] husband of her estate assigned it in writing to her daughter.<a id="k78b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; After she married and was divorced<a id="k78b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k83a_1:" Lit., 'no right nor claim'."
,k83a_2:" According to the Torah it is the husband who is the heir of his wife (v. B.B. 111b)."
,k83a_3:" It is only the produce which was granted to the husband by a Rabbinical measure, that he may renounce."
,k83a_4:" In reference to the rulings in our Mishnah."
,k83a_5:" Emphasis on said, sc. he can waive his rights by a mere verbal declaration."
,k83a_6:" <i>Infra</i> 102b."
,k83a_7:" Much less if it was only verbal."
,k83a_8:" Either verbally or in a written document (v. Rashi)."
,k83a_9:" Sc. to his partner."
,k83a_10:" Lit., 'and my hand is removed from it'."
,k83a_11:" <i>Infra</i> 95a. Git. 77a, B.B. 43a, 49a; because no man can renounce his rights by a mere verbal declaration unless by way of a gift or sale, but since there was no expression such as, 'I make the field over to you'. or words to the same effect denoting a gift, the waiver is ineffective. Now since a written undertaking that omitted such an expression is invalid, bow much more so would that be the case with a mere verbal utterance? An objection thus arises against R. Hiyya."
,k83a_12:" Lit., 'when he writes for her'."
,k83a_13:" When he has as yet no right to her property."
,k83a_14:" Which allows renunciation in such a case."
,k83a_15:" Lit., 'stipulate that he shall not inherit'."
,k83a_16:" Sc. from a stranger to whom he becomes next of kin through an act of his (such as marriage) and whose heir he becomes thereby in accordance with Rabbinic law. It is only an inheritance from a next-of-kin, or property that is already in one's possession, the rights of which cannot be waived by mere renunciation but requires (v. <i>supra</i> n. 8) the specific expressions of 'giving'. [This statement of R. Kahana is on the view that the law that the husband inherits his wife is a Rabbinic provision. v. <i>supra</i> p. 528, cf. <i>supra</i> p. 522, n. 2]."
,k83a_17:" Since the regulation was made for his benefit, he is at liberty to reject it."
,k83a_18:" Since her maintenance by her husband in return for her handiwork is a Rabbinic regulation made in favour of the woman, she is at liberty to reject it. A husband (cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 13 and 14) is similarly entitled to renounce his rights as heir to his wife, without any further formality."
,k83a_19:" That the husband's right to renounce his claim upon his wife's property is due to the fact that it was for his benefit that her property was assigned to him."
,k83a_20:" Of course it should. Why then was it necessary for the school of R. Jannai <i>supra</i> to explain the ruling as referring to an undertaking that was given 'while she was still only betrothed to him'?"
,k83a_21:" Lit., 'his hand is like her hand'. Since he is consequently legal possessor of the property he cannot (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 523, n. 13) waive his rights to it by mere renunciation."
,k83a_22:" The difference of opinion between Abaye and Raba, which does not in any way affect our present discussion since in either case a husband is regarded as the possessor of his wife's property and cannot, by a mere verbal renunciation, legally transfer it."
,k83a_23:" If such a woman died and left property which came into her possession either (a) while her husband was still alive or (b) after his death while she was awaiting the levir's decision, the respective rights of her heirs and her husband's heirs to such property depend on, and vary according to, the respective views of Abaye and Raba as fully discussed in Yeb. 39a, q.v."
,k83a_24:" Lit., 'they (sc. witnesses) acquired from him (on behalf of his partner)'. Cf. Rashi."
,k83a_25:" Of his share in his partner's property. spoken of in the Baraitha quoted <i>supra</i> in objection to R. Hiyya. Does, or does not such <i>kinyan</i>, it is asked, effect the legal transfer of the land despite. or because of the fact, that no expression of 'giving' (v. <i>supra</i> p. 523. n. 8) was used. [According to Tosaf. s.v. [H] the query refers to the waiving of rights by a husband to the property of his wife after marriage]."
,k83a_26:" Lit., 'they acquired from him (a mere verbal expression) of right and claim', which are not in his power to waive."
,k83a_27:" Lit., 'of the body of the land', which is, of course, a concrete object that may well be acquired by symbolic <i>kinyan</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ix">CHAPTER IX</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A HUSBAND GIVES TO HIS WIFE A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER<a id="k83a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; UPON YOUR ESTATES', HE MAY NEVERTHELESS ENJOY ITS USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME AND, WHEN SHE DIES, HE IS HER HEIR. IF SO, WHAT WAS HIS OBJECT IN GIVING HER THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOUR ESTATES'? THAT IF SHE SOLD THEM OR GAVE THEM AWAY HER ACT MIGHT BE VALID. IF HE WROTE, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOUR ESTATES AND UPON THEIR PRODUCE, HE MAY NOT ENJOY THEIR USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME BUT, WHEN SHE DIES, HE IS HER HEIR. R. JUDAH RULED: HE MAY IN ALL CASES ENJOY THE YIELD OF THE PRODUCE UNLESS HE WROTE OUT FOR HER [THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING]: 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOUR ESTATES AND UPON THEIR PRODUCE AND THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE AND SO ON WITHOUT END.
</p><p>
	IF HE WROTE, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM UPON YOUR ESTATES, THEIR PRODUCE AND THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE DURING YOUR LIFETIME AND AFTER YOUR DEATH', HE MAY NEITHER ENJOY THEIR PRODUCE DURING HER LIFETIME NOR CAN HE BE HER HEIR WHEN SHE DIES. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: WHEN SHE DIES HE IS HER HEIR BECAUSE [BY HIS DECLARATION] HE IS MAKING A CONDITION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS ENJOINED IN THE TORAH<a id="k83a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WHENEVER A MAN MAKES A CONDITION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH, HIS CONDITION IS NULL AND VOID.<a id="k83a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Hiyya taught:<a id="k83a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If a husband said<a id="k83a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to his wife.<a id="k83a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And if he gave her such an undertaking in writing,<a id="k83a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; what does It matter? Was it not taught: If a man says<a id="k83a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to another,<a id="k83a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have no claim whatsoever on this field, I have no concern in it and I entirely dissociate myself from it',<a id="k83a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; his statement is of no effect?<a id="k83a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; At the school of R. Jannai it was explained, [we are dealing here with the case] of a man who gave the undertaking to his wife<a id="k83a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; while she was still only betrothed to him,<a id="k83a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [the ruling<a id="k83a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; being] in agreement with that of R. Kahana, that a man is at liberty to renounce beforehand an inheritance<a id="k83a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; which is likely to accrue to him from another source;<a id="k83a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and [this ruling, furthermore, is] in agreement with a dictum of Raba, that if anyone says. 'I do not desire [to avail myself] of a regulation of the Rabbis of this kind', his desire is granted.<a id="k83a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What [is meant by the expression] 'of this kind'? As [that referred to in the statement made by] R. Huna in the name of Rab: A woman is entitled to say to her husband, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you'.<a id="k83a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k83a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; should not [the same ruling apply to] a married woman also?<a id="k83a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye replied: In the case of a married woman the husband's rights have the same force as the wife's.<a id="k83a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: His rights are superior to hers. This<a id="k83a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is of practical significance in the case of a woman who was awaiting the decision of the levir.<a id="k83a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: What is the ruling if symbolic <i>kinyan</i> was executed<a id="k83a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [at the time of the renunciation]?<a id="k83a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Joseph replied: [The <i>kinyan</i> is invalid since] it related to an abstract renunciation.<a id="k83a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman replied: [The <i>kinyan</i> is valid because] it related to land itself.<a id="k83a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: R. Joseph's statement is reasonable
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k83b_1:" Who waived his rights."
,k83b_2:" As soon as the partner came to take possession of the field, he declared that he never intended to give away his share and that his renunciation was merely a way of escape from a quarrel with his partner."
,k83b_3:" Lit., 'when standing', the protest being made sometime after his partner had taken possession of the field."
,k83b_4:" Cf. p. 524, n. 9; it being obvious that this belated protest was only the result of an afterthought, and that his original intention was to give away his share to his partner."
,k83b_5:" V. p. 524, n. 9."
,k83b_6:" <i>Supra</i> 83a ad fin."
,k83b_7:" The ruling of R. Joseph. Cf. MS.M."
,k83b_8:" If the husband's renunciation is sufficiently valid to confer legality on his wife's sale or gift."
,k83b_9:" I.e., even his rights to usufruct and heirship."
,k83b_10:" Should his claims ever conflict with those of the person in possession in whose favour the deed is always to be interpreted. In the case under discussion the wife is regarded as the 'holder of the deed' and the husband as the possessor of the rights of (i) usufruct, (ii) heirship and (iii) the seizure of any property she has sold or given away. Since his renunciation can be interpreted as referring to one of these rights only, the woman has no legal footing on which to claim 'You have renounced all your claims'."
,k83b_11:" And not upon his other rights (cf. note 7) including that of seizure of the property his wife has sold or given away."
,k83b_12:" Cf. 'a bird in hand is worth two in the bush' (Eng. prov.). The right to usufruct, which can be enjoyed at once, though it is of less value than the land itself, is more advantageous to a husband than the right of the seizure of property that his wife may possibly sell at some future time. The former is a certainty, the other is an eventuality."
,k83b_13:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9 mutatis mutandis."
,k83b_14:" A woman as a rule does not sell her ancestral possessions."
,k83b_15:" To the two objections just dealt with by Abaye."
,k83b_16:" Emphasis on ESTATES."
,k83b_17:" Emphasis on the pronoun."
,k83b_18:" When they are no longer hers."
,k83b_19:" On marriage."
,k83b_20:" And not that of WITHOUT END. (Rashi); cf. note 8 ad fin."
,k83b_21:" In the wording of the renunciation spoken of by R. Judah; and, if it was omitted, the renunciation, as far as the yield of produce is concerned, is invalid even though the expression 'without end' had been used. Aliter. And the renunciation is valid even though 'without end' was omitted (Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k83b_22:" And not 'the produce of the produce'."
,k83b_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7, mutatis mutandis."
,k83b_24:" And if one of them was omitted the renunciation is invalid."
,k83b_25:" V. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k83b_26:" In our Mishnah."
,k83b_27:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 5."
,k83b_28:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k83b_29:" Lit., 'not'."
,k83b_30:" In the renunciation."
,k83b_31:" That it is this produce, but not its yield, that he renounces for ever"
,k83b_32:" [All of which justifies the query as to which expression is regarded as essential according to R. Judah. The query is left unanswered, v. <i>infra</i> p. 528. n. 2]."
,k83b_33:" Obviously there could be none Hence it may be concluded that the husband renounced 'all his claims'."
,k83b_34:" The wife. Cf. Rashi. Cur. edd., [H]."
,k83b_35:" It had for some reason remained unconsumed and a produce-yielding object had been purchased with the proceeds. [Here, too, the question remains unanswered, v. <i>supra</i> p. 527. n. 5]."
,k83b_36:" If it relates to monetary matters."
,k83b_37:" In agreement with R. Judah, <i>supra</i> 56a."
,k83b_38:" Of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, that the condition is invalid in the case of the husband's heirship."
,k83b_39:" Not being Pentateuchal, people might be lax in their observance. Greater safeguards were, therefore, required. >"
}

txt:
<p>
where [the partner]<a id="k83b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; lodged his protest forthwith,<a id="k83b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he delayed,<a id="k83b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the <i>kinyan</i> must be regarded as relating to the land itself,<a id="k83b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Amemar said, the law is that the <i>kinyan</i> is taken to refer to the land itself.<a id="k83b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi to Amemar: [Do you speak] of one who lodged his protest forthwith or of one who delayed it? 'In what respect [the other asked] does this matter?' &mdash; In respect of [determining whether the law is] in agreement with the view of R. Joseph.<a id="k83b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I did not hear this',<a id="k83b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the other replied. 'by which I mean that I do not accept it.'
</p><p>
	IF SO, WHAT WAS HIS OBJECT IN GIVING HER THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING etc. But<a id="k83b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; why should she not be able to say to him, 'You have renounced all your claims'?<a id="k83b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: The holder of a deed is always at a disadvantage.<a id="k83b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But might it not be suggested [that he renounced his claim] upon the usufruct?<a id="k83b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full-grown one [in the field].<a id="k83b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But may it be suggested [that his renunciation related] to his heirship?<a id="k83b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye replied: Death is a common occurrence but the sale [of property by a wife] is not common;<a id="k83b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and whenever a person renounces his claims [he does so] in respect of what is not a common occurrence but he does not do it in respect Of that which is a common occurrence. R. Ashi replied:<a id="k83b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [The husband's renunciation was] 'UPON YOUR ESTATES',<a id="k83b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but not upon their produce; 'UPON YOUR<a id="k83b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; ESTATES', but not after your death.<a id="k83b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH RULED: HE MAY IN ALL CASES ENJOY THE YIELD OF THE PRODUCE [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: The following are regarded as produce and the following as the yield of the produce respectively. If a woman brought to her husband<a id="k83b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; a plot of land and it yielded produce, such yield is regarded as produce. If he sold the produce and purchased land with the proceeds and that land yielded produce, such yield is regarded as the yield of the produce. 
</p><p>
	The question was raised: According to R. Judah, [is the expression] THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE<a id="k83b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the essential element,<a id="k83b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; or is rather WITHOUT END<a id="k83b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; the essential element,<a id="k83b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it possible that both expressions are essential?<a id="k83b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; But should you find [some ground] for deciding [that the expression] THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE is the essential element,<a id="k83b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there [it might be asked, for the mention<a id="k83b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; of] 'WITHOUT END'? &mdash; It is this that we were taught: So long as he renounced in her favour, in writing, the yield of the produce it is as if he had expressly written in her favour, 'without end'. But should you find [some reason] for deciding that WITHOUT END is the essential element,<a id="k83b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there [it might be asked, for the mention<a id="k83b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; of] THE PRODUCE OF THEIR PRODUCE? &mdash; It is this that we were taught; Although he renounced in her favour, in writing, the yield of the produce [the renunciation] is valid only<a id="k83b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; if he also wrote 'without end' but is invalid<a id="k83b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; if he did not [write it]. But if you should find some argument for giving the decision that both expressions are essential [it could he asked]. what need is there for the specification<a id="k83b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; of both? Both are necessary. For if only the 'yield of the produce' had been written in her favour and 'without end' had been omitted, it might have been assumed that he loses thereby his right to the enjoyment of the yield of the produce only but that he is still entitled to enjoy the produce of the yield of that produce, hence it is necessary for the expression 'without end' [to be included in the renunciation]. And if only 'without end' had been written in her favour and the 'yield of the produce' had not been specified,<a id="k83b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that 'without end' referred to the first produce only,<a id="k83b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it is necessary to specify also the 'yield of the produce'.<a id="k83b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: May a husband who wrote, in favour of his wife, the renunciation 'I have no claim whatsoever upon your estates and upon the yield of their produce', enjoy the produce itself? Has he renounced the yield of their produce only but not the produce [itself] or is it possible that he renounced all his claim? But it is quite obvious that he has renounced all his claims. For should you suggest that he only renounced his claim upon the yield of the produce but not upon the produce itself, whence [it might be objected] would arise a yield of the produce if the man had consumed the produce itself?<a id="k83b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[No, for even] according to your view, [how will you explain] the statement in our Mishnah, R. JUDAH RULED: HE MAY IN ALL CASES ENJOY THE YIELD OF THE PRODUCE etc. [Where it may equally be objected,] whence would there be a yield of the produce if she<a id="k83b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; has consumed the produce itself? [Your explanation,] however, [would be that the reference is to a case] where the woman had allowed [the produce] to remain;<a id="k83b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; here also [it may be a case] where the husband has allowed the produce to remain.<a id="k83b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED etc. Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel but not because of the reason he gave. What is meant by 'the <i>halachah</i> is In agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel but not because of the reason he gave'? If it be suggested: 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel' in respect of his statement that WHEN SHE DIES HE IS HER HEIR, 'but not because of the reason he gave'.for whereas R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is of the opinion that if A MAN MAKES A CONDITION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH, HIS CONDITION IS NULL AND VOID, Rab holds that such a condition<a id="k83b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; is valid<a id="k83b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and [his acceptance of the ruling<a id="k83b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is solely due to] his opinion that a husband's right of inheritance is a Rabbinical enactment and that the Sages have imposed upon their enactments greater restrictions than upon those of the Torah;<a id="k83b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k90a_1:" Since in such a case it is evident that the <i>kethubah</i> was given to her in connection with her second marriage. Her first <i>kethubah</i> she collects on the evidence of her letter of divorce."
,k90a_2:" The sum of two hundred in which is assigned to a virgin."
,k90a_3:" Even when he becomes of age, though the woman at that time is no longer a virgin. (V. Tosaf. s.v [H]). The <i>kethubah</i> of a non-virgin is only one hundred in."
,k90a_4:" Though it was given to her before her husband became a proselyte."
,k90a_5:" That the wife of a minor is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> even when he becomes of age."
,k90a_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k90a_7:" I.e., the statutory <i>kethubah</i> (cf <i>supra</i> n. 3) which is a woman s due in accordance with a Rabbinical enactment and is entirely independent of the minor's will or consent."
,k90a_8:" The woman married to a minor."
,k90a_9:" Since a minor cannot legally be bound to any contract."
,k90a_10:" The woman who married a minor."
,k90a_11:" Lit., 'they renewed', sc. the monetary addition was undertaken by the minor after he came of age or by the intending proselyte after he had embraced Judaism."
,k90a_12:" Tosef. Keth. IX. It is now assumed that this refers to the additional sum only."
,k90a_13:" V. p. 571. n. 11."
,k90a_14:" Lit., 'yes'. Cf. p. 571, n. 12."
,k90a_15:" After the minor came of age or the idolater had embraced Judaism."
,k90a_16:" An objection against Rab Judah who allows a woman even the additional jointure that a minor or an idolater may have settled upon her."
,k90a_17:" To the additional jointure that had been settled upon her while her husband was still an idolater or in his minority."
,k90a_18:" Since here it was explicitly stated that only the statutory <i>kethubah</i> may be recovered (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4)."
,k90a_19:" That was mentioned in the <i>kethubah</i>, i.e., the statutory <i>kethubah</i> as well as the additional jointure."
,k90a_20:" In respect of her claim to her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k90a_21:" If the women, having survived their husband, died before they had collected the payments of their kethubahs."
,k90a_22:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1, mutatis mutandis."
,k90a_23:" And the sons of the first wife claim (a) their mother's <i>kethubah</i> to which they are entitled by virtue of the 'male children' clause (v. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 52b) which their father had entered in their mother's <i>kethubah</i>, or (b) their due share in their father's estate."
,k90a_24:" Who, unlike the first, has survived her husband and consequently has, in respect of her claim upon her <i>kethubah</i>, the same legal status as a creditor."
,k90a_25:" Who, like their mother, have the status of creditors."
,k90a_26:" Who predeceased her husband and consequently lost her claim to her <i>kethubah</i>, since a surviving husband is the heir of his wife, her sons' claim to her <i>kethubah</i> (v. n. 4) being treated as a claim for an inheritance (v. <i>supra</i> 55a) and as such must yield precedence to that of a creditor."
,k90a_27:" Lit., 'she has'."
,k90a_28:" Lit., 'has not'."
,k90a_29:" Since the expression of 'PRECEDENCE' only Implies priority of claim but not actual and inalienable right."
,k90a_30:" Lit., 'what he collected is collected'. But If this were the case there would have been no dispute on the subject <i>infra</i> 94a."
,k90a_31:" Lit., 'and what &hellip; he taught completely', i.e., the claim of the first wife to her <i>kethubah</i> is absolute; and, should there be no balance, the second wife would receive nothing."
,k90a_32:" B.B. 115a, where the meaning is that if there is a son he has full rights to the estate whilst a daughter has no claim of heirship upon it at all."
,k90a_33:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k90a_34:" Where the statement, 'If the heir's of the first forestalled the heirs of the second and seized payment it is not to be taken away from them' is inapplicable, since, in fact, it is taken away from then, the estate being mortgaged to the heirs of the second who have the status of creditors. "
}

txt:
<p>
she may. if the letter of divorce bears an earlier date than the <i>kethubah</i>, collect payment for two kethubahs,<a id="k90a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but if the <i>kethubah</i> bears an earlier date than the letter of divorce she may collect payment of one <i>kethubah</i> only, for any man who divorces his wife and then remarries her contracts his second marriage on the condition of the first <i>kethubah</i>.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE OF] A MINOR WHOM HIS FATHER HAD GIVEN IN MARRIAGE, THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> OF HIS WIFE<a id="k90a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; REMAINS VALID,<a id="k90a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; SINCE IT IS ON THIS CONDITION THAT HE KEPT HER AS HIS WIFE. [IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO BECAME] A PROSELYTE AND HIS WIFE WITH HIM, THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> REMAINS VALID,<a id="k90a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; SINCE IT IS ON THIS CONDITION THAT HE KEPT HER AS HIS WIFE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna stated: [The ruling of our Mishnah]<a id="k90a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; was given only in respect of the <i>maneh</i><a id="k90a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or the two hundred <i>zuz</i>;<a id="k90a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; to the additional jointure, however, she<a id="k90a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is not entitled.<a id="k90a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah, however, stated: She<a id="k90a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is entitled [to receive payment for] her additional jointure also.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: If an additional monetary obligation was undertaken<a id="k90a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the woman receives that which was added.<a id="k90a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thus it follows, does it not, that] only if an additional monetary obligation was undertaken<a id="k90a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is the woman to receive any addition<a id="k90a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but if no such addition was made<a id="k90a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [she does] not [receive any addition at all]?<a id="k90a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read: 'Also that which had been added'.<a id="k90a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely, [in the following Baraitha] it was not taught so: 'If an additional monetary obligation was undertaken<a id="k90a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the woman receives that which was added, and if no additional monetary obligation was undertaken a virgin receives two hundred <i>zuz</i> and a widow receives a maneh'. Is not this then an objection against Rab Judah?<a id="k90a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah was misled by the wording of our Mishnah. He thought that the rule, 'THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> OF HIS WIFE REMAINS VALID', applied to the full amount;<a id="k90a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but in fact it is not so. It applies to the statutory <i>kethubah</i> alone.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_x">CHAPTER X</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES AND DIED, THE FIRST [WIFE] TAXES PRECEDENCE<a id="k90a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; OVER THE SECOND, AND THE HEIRS<a id="k90a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; OF THE FIRST WIFE TAKE PRECEDENCE<a id="k90a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; OVER THE HEIRS OF THE SECOND. IF HE MARRIED A FIRST WIFE AND SHE DIED AND THEN HE MARRIED A SECOND WIFE AND HE HIMSELF DIED,<a id="k90a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SECOND WIFE<a id="k90a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HER HEIRS<a id="k90a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE.<a id="k90a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Since it was stated THE FIRST [WIFE] TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SECOND but not 'The first wife receives payment<a id="k90a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and the second does not',<a id="k90a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be implied that if the second wife forestalled [the first] and seized [the payment of her <i>kethubah</i>] it cannot be taken away from her.<a id="k90a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; May it then be inferred from this ruling that if a creditor of a later date has forestalled [one of an earlier date] and 'distrained [on the property of the debtor], his distraint is of legal Validity?<a id="k90a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; In fact it may be maintained that his distraint is of no legal validity, and as to [the phrase] TAKES PRECEDENCE, It means complete [right of seizure];<a id="k90a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; as we have learned: A son takes precedence over a daughter.<a id="k90a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Some there are who say: Since it was not stated, 'If the second wife forestalled [the first] and seized [the payment of her <i>kethubah</i>] it is not to he taken away from her', it may be implied that even if she has seized payment it may be taken away from her. May it then be concluded that if a creditor of a later date has forestalled [one of an earlier date] and distrained [on the property of a debtor] his distraint is of no legal Validity?<a id="k90a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact it may be maintained that his distraint is of legal validity, only because the Tanna stated, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE,<a id="k90a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k90b_1:" omitting here also an expression which is inapplicable in the other case."
,k90b_2:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 52b and <i>supra</i> p. 573' n. 4."
,k90b_3:" Between the heirs of the second, who claim their mother's <i>kethubah</i> as creditors (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 57. n. 6) and those of the first, who claim (cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 7) their 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> as heirs, the former disputing the right of the latter to have a larger share in the father's estate than they."
,k90b_4:" Which has the force of a debt."
,k90b_5:" V. Mishnah <i>infra</i> 91a. The kethubahs that wives heirs receive by virtue of the 'male children' clause (<i>supra</i> 52b) is subject to a surplus of one <i>denar</i>, at least, that must remain after the kethubahs have been paid in full, to safeguard the application of the Pentateuchal law of succession in regard to at least part if the estate. If no such minimum surplus remains the 'male children' kethubahs cannot he collected and the entire estate is divided in accordance with the Pentateuchal law of succession among all the sons."
,k90b_6:" The <i>kethubah</i> which the heirs of the first wife claim by virtue of the 'male childrens' clause. The <i>kethubah</i> of the second wife which has to he paid as a debt by all the heirs (cf. <i>infra</i> p. 573, n. 5) who first inherit that amount, provides for the application of the Pentateuchal law' of succession. The heirs the first wife consequently receive their 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> and no minimum surplus of a <i>denar</i> is required as would have been the case had the second <i>kethubah</i> also been dependent on the 'male children' clause."
,k90b_7:" Of the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> of the first wife."
,k90b_8:" I.e., it has the status of an inheritance and not that of a debt."
,k90b_9:" Whose claim is of an earlier date than that of the second."
,k90b_10:" Hence it may be inferred that their claim cannot be distrained on mortgaged property."
,k90b_11:" Lit., 'and what'."
,k90b_12:" Which implies that if there is any residue they also receive a share."
,k90b_13:" Lit., 'it was taught'."
,k90b_14:" Of their father's estate; and not to the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>."
,k90b_15:" Lit., 'wherefore to me'."
,k90b_16:" 'OF THE FIRST WIFE' in the final clause has no point if bet sons claim, not the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> by virtue of her rights, but their share in their fathers estate as his heirs."
,k90b_17:" A proper description, since it is by virtue of their mother's rights that their claim to her <i>kethubah</i> is established."
,k90b_18:" A mere balancing of expression which has no bearing in the latter case on the source from which their claim is derived."
,k90b_19:" If the PRECEDENCE spoken of refers even, as at first suggested, to the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>."
,k90b_20:" Though this fact was not specifically stated in our Mishnah it may have been taken for granted in view of the ruling laid down in the following Mishnah (<i>infra</i> 91a)."
,k90b_21:" As to whether the sons of the first wife are entitled to their mother's <i>kethubah</i> by virtue of the 'male children' clause."
,k90b_22:" Wherever the estate does not allow of a surplus of a <i>denar</i> above the amount of the two kethubahs."
,k90b_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p' 573, n. 5."
,k90b_24:" Which becomes due to her on the father's death, and which you inherit from her. This provides for the application of the Pentateuchal law of succession, all the heirs discharging a debt incurred by the father (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 575' n. 3)'"
,k90b_25:" The Pentateuchal law of succession having been fulfilled (v. <i>supra</i> n 10) the sons of the first wife are entitled to the full payment of their mother's 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> out of the residue of the estate."
,k90b_26:" Of the <i>kethubah</i> of the first wife who predeceased her husband."
,k90b_27:" Lit., 'jumped'. at the time the man died and was survived by his second wife."
,k90b_28:" Lit., 'and fell before'."
,k90b_29:" I.e., the residue of the estate, remaining after the deduction of the second wife's <i>kethubah</i>, is the common inheritance of all the sons of the deceased, those of the wife who predeceased him having no claim whatsoever in respect of the male children' <i>kethubah</i> which is payable only where both wives predeceased their husband."
,k90b_30:" Ben Nannus and R. Akiba."
,k90b_31:" Ben Nannus."
,k90b_32:" V. <i>supra</i> note I."
,k90b_33:" Lit., 'all the world' (v. <i>supra</i> note 2)."
,k90b_34:" V. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k90b_35:" The woman who survived her husband and whose claim has the same force as that of a creditor."
,k90b_36:" Where not even a <i>denar</i> remained after the claims of the two kethubahs had been met."
,k90b_37:" In the ease where both wives predeceased their husband and the sons of both claim the 'male children' kethubahs of their mothers while the creditor lays claim to the residue."
,k90b_38:" And the sons of the two wives are consequently entitled to their mother's 'male children' kethubahs respectively."
,k90b_39:" Ben Nannus holds the view that the <i>kethubah</i> of a wife, who had survived her husband, has the same status as a debt and consequently (v. <i>supra</i> P. 575. n. 3) enables the sons of the first wife to collect the payment of the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> of their mother; while R. Akiba maintains that the payment of a <i>kethubah</i> is not on a par with that of any other debt; for, whereas any other debt is paid by the heirs to another person after they had first inherited that sum (v. l.c ). the amount of a <i>kethubah</i> is received by the sons themselves, in the first instance, as debtors without it having first fallen into their possession as heirs. The sons not having inherited the <i>kethubah</i>, there is no application here of the Pentateuchal law of succession. In order, therefore. that the Pentateuchal law of succession might not be superseded by the Rabbinical enactment of the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>, it was ordained that in such a ease the sons of the first wife shall lose completely their rights to the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k90b_40:" That R. Akiba allows the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> where there is a surplus."
,k90b_41:" The expression. however, which he actually used implies that the sons never receive their mother's <i>kethubah</i>."
,k90b_42:" Ben Nannus and R. Akiba."
,k90b_43:" As has been assumed at first (cf <i>supra</i> p. 576. notes 7-14 and p. 577 nn. 1-4)."
,k90b_44:" This (according to Rashi) is at present assumed to refer to the second wife who survived him and whose <i>kethubah</i> has, therefore, the status of a debt. R. Han, however, reads explicitly 'the sons of the second' (v. Tosaf <i>infra</i> 91a s.v. [H])."
,k90b_45:" V. Tosaf. l.c."
,k90b_46:" While the sons of the wife who predeceased her husband, as at present assumed (v. <i>supra</i> n. 5), are not entitled to their mother's <i>kethubah</i>, in virtue of the 'male children' clause."
,k90b_47:" After the sum of the two kethubahs bad been deducted."
,k90b_48:" The sons of both wives."
,k90b_49:" The balance remaining after the <i>kethubah</i> of the second wife bad been paid."
,k90b_50:" R. Simeon and the first Tanna."
,k90b_51:" R. Simeon."
,k90b_52:" But since the principles are the same what need was there to record two disputes on the very same principles?"
,k90b_53:" R. Simeon and the first Tanna, "
}

txt:
<p>
he also taught. THE FIRST WIFE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SECOND.<a id="k90b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A MAN MARRIED A FIRST WIFE. Three rulings may be inferred from this statement. It may be inferred that if one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death, [the sons of the former] are entitled to the <i>kethubah</i> of 'male children'<a id="k90b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and we do not apprehend any quarrelling.<a id="k90b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence is this inferred? Since it was stated, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE [it follows that] they are only entitled to precedence but that if there is [a balance, the others also] take [their share]. It may also be inferred that the <i>kethubah</i> [of the second wife]<a id="k90b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; may be regarded as the surplus<a id="k90b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; over the other.<a id="k90b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence is this inferred? Since it was not stated [that payment<a id="k90b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is made only] if a surplus of a <i>denar</i> remained there. Furthermore It may be inferred that a <i>kethubah</i> [claimed by virtue] of the 'male children' [clause] may not be distrained on mortgaged property;<a id="k90b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for if it could be imagined that it may be distrained on mortgaged property, the sons of the first wife<a id="k90b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; should [be entitled to] come and distrain on [the property] of the sons of the second.<a id="k90b_10"><sup>10</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	To this R. Ashi demurred: Whence [these conclusions]? Might I not in fact maintain that if one [wife died] while her husband was alive, and the other after his death, [the sons of the former] are not entitled to the <i>kethubah</i> [that they claim by virtue] of the 'male children' clause, whilst the expression of<a id="k90b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; TAKE PRECEDENCE<a id="k90b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; might refer<a id="k90b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to the inheritance?<a id="k90b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And were you to retort: What was the object<a id="k90b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the description] THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE?<a id="k90b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [I might reply that] as the Tanna used the expression, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS<a id="k90b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he also spoke of THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE!<a id="k90b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And with reference to your conclusion that 'the <i>kethubah</i> [of the second wife] may be regarded as a surplus over the other', might I not in fact still maintain that no <i>kethubah</i> may be regarded as a surplus over the other, but here<a id="k90b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it is a case where there was a surplus of a <i>denar</i>!<a id="k90b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	[As to the case where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death, this is [a matter in dispute<a id="k90b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; between] Tannaim. For it was taught: [If a man's wives] died, one during his lifetime and the other after his death, the sons of the first wife, Ben Nannus ruled, can say to the sons of the second,<a id="k90b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You are the sons of a creditor;<a id="k90b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; take your mother's <i>kethubah</i><a id="k90b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and go'.<a id="k90b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said: The inheritance<a id="k90b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; has already been transferred<a id="k90b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; from [the sole right of inheritance by] the sons of the first wife<a id="k90b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [the joint right of inheritance by these and] the sons of the second.<a id="k90b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Do they<a id="k90b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; not differ on the following principle: One Master<a id="k90b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the Opinion that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the <i>kethubah</i> [of their mother by Virtue of the] 'male children' clause, and the other Master holds that where one [wife died] during a husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are not entitled to the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>?<a id="k90b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabbah: I found the young scholars of the academy while they were sitting [at their studies] and arguing: All<a id="k90b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [may hold the view that where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to [their mother's] 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>, but here they<a id="k90b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; differ [on the principle whether the second wife's]<a id="k90b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kethubah</i> may be regarded<a id="k90b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; as a surplus over the other; and the same dispute applies to [the debt] of a creditor.<a id="k90b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; One Master<a id="k90b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that the [second wife's]<a id="k90b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kethubah</i> is regarded as a surplus over the other,<a id="k90b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and the same law applies to [the debt] of a creditor, and the other Master holds that no one <i>kethubah</i> may be regarded as a surplus over the other, and the same law applies to [the debt] of a creditor. Thereupon I said to them: In respect of [a claim of] a creditor no ones disputes [the view] that [the debt] is regarded as a surplus;<a id="k90b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k90b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; only differ in respect of a <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k90b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	To this R. Joseph demurred: If so<a id="k90b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [instead of saying.] 'R. Akiba said: The inheritance has already been transferred' it should [have said.] 'If there is a surplus of a <i>denar</i> [the sons of the first wife receive their mother's <i>kethubah</i>].'<a id="k90b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [The fact]. however, is, said R. Joseph. that they<a id="k90b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; differ [on the question whether the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i> is payable where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death.<a id="k90b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	These Tannaim<a id="k90b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [differ on the same principle] as the following Tannaim. For it was taught: If a man married his first wife and she died and then he married his second wife and he himself died, the sons of this wife<a id="k90b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; may come after [her]<a id="k90b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; death and exact their mother's <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k90b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon ruled: If there is a surplus of one <i>denar</i><a id="k90b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; both<a id="k90b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; receive the kethubahs of their mothers but if no [such surplus remains] they<a id="k90b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; divide [the residue]<a id="k90b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; in equal portions. Do they<a id="k90b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; not differ on this principle: Whereas one Master<a id="k90b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>, the other Master holds that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the children of the former] are not entitled to the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>?<a id="k90b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; No; all<a id="k90b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; may agree that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are to receive the 'male children' <i>kethubah</i>,
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k95a_1:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 584, n. 8."
,k95a_2:" By the same vendor."
,k95a_3:" The month following Nisan. Lit., 'from Iyar onwards'. However late in Nisan the deed may have been written it could not have been later than the first of the following month, and the vendee should, therefore (v. <i>supra</i> p. 600, n. 9)' be entitled to distrain at least on those vendees who purchased their property from the same vendor after he had purchased his."
,k95a_4:" The vendees whose purchases were effected after the first of Iyar."
,k95a_5:" And since his deed was consequently of an earlier date than the one that was written on the 'fifth of Nisan', the holder of the latter deed was not entitled to the property which R. Joseph confirmed in his possession. 'Before distraining on our purchases', the vendees (v. <i>supra</i> n. 8) might well plead, 'claim the land which you have actually bought'."
,k95a_6:" The holder of the 'In Nisan' deed."
,k95a_7:" In view of the alternative pleadings. Should he make a claim against the holder of the deed written On the fifth of Nisan the latter could retort that 'In Nisan' meant the twenty-ninth of the month; and should he attempt to distrain on those who bought after the first of Iyar they could retort that 'In Nisan' meant the first of that month."
,k95a_8:" The holders of the 'In Nisan' and 'fifth of Nisan' deeds."
,k95a_9:" To distrain on subsequent buyers."
,k95a_10:" The holder of the 'In Nisan' deed is thus enabled to distrain on the subsequent vendees by virtue of his own deed or by virtue of that of the 'fifth of Nisan' held by the other. Since the vendor guaranteed to indemnify either of them he may distrain on behalf of the other if the later vendees plead that his deed was written as early as on the first of Nisan; or if, in reply to the claim of the holder of the 'fifth of Nisan' deed, they pleaded that the 'In Nisan' deed was written as late as on the twenty-ninth and that the holder of the earlier deed should consequently have distrained on him and not on them, who were later purchasers, he may distrain on them by virtue of his own deed."
,k95a_11:" Which was pledged for the kethubahs of the women,"
,k95a_12:" I.e., the woman who was married first and whose <i>kethubah</i> consequently bore the earlier date."
,k95a_13:" Whose claim upon the field was not in any way impaired."
,k95a_14:" When her husband dies."
,k95a_15:" Since she had renounced in his favour her claims upon that field."
,k95a_16:" Lit., 'and so',"
,k95a_17:" This is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k95a_18:" <i>Supra</i> 83a q.v. for notes, Git. 77a."
,k95a_19:" Lit., 'they (sc. witnesses) acquired from her (on behalf of the vendee)'. Such a <i>kinyan</i> (as was laid down by Amemar, <i>supra</i> 83b) is taken to refer to the land itself and not merely to the woman's abstract renunciation."
,k95a_20:" St. her <i>kinyan</i> was not meant to be taken seriously."
,k95a_21:" Which (a) her husband inserted in her <i>kethubah</i> as a special security for the sum of that <i>kethubah</i>, apart from the general security on all his estate, or (b) her husband assigned to her after their wedding as special security for her <i>kethubah</i>, or (c) she had brought to her husband as marriage dowry and for the money value of which he had made himself responsible to her (v. B.B. 49b ff)."
,k95a_22:" Cit. 55b, B.B. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k95a_23:" The ruling that the sale is invalid."
,k95a_24:" That of our Mishnah,"
,k95a_25:" The ruling that the sale is invalid."
,k95a_26:" Lit., 'he wrote'."
,k95a_27:" Lit., 'for the first'."
,k95a_28:" V, <i>supra</i> p. 602, n. 11."
,k95a_29:" If her husband has no free property left. She cannot recover her <i>kethubah</i> even from the first buyer since he might plead that when he had bought his field her husband was still left in the possession of that field which he subsequently sold to the second purchaser."
,k95a_30:" Because by refusing to endorse the first deed she made it clear that she had no desire to please her husband. Her action in endorsing the second deed may, therefore, be regarded as the true expression of her consent to the sale and her earnest renunciation of her claim upon the property."
,k95a_31:" In endorsing the second deed."
,k95a_32:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 602, n. 10,"
,k95a_33:" Surely none. She is, therefore, entitled to recover her <i>kethubah</i> from the second buyer."
,k95a_34:" R. Judah the Patriarch, the Redactor of the Mishnah."
,k95a_35:" Git, 55b just cited."
,k95a_36:" Since the <i>halachah</i> agrees as a rule with the anonymous Mishnah a contradiction would arise."
,k95a_37:" Who renounced her rights to the purchased field after she had been divorced, so that the plea of obliging her husband is clearly inadmissible."
,k95a_38:" Lit., 'all of it', our Mishnah as well as the one in Git. 55b."
,k95a_39:" Both dealing with a woman who was still living with her husband,"
,k95a_40:" That the woman loses her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k95a_41:" As was specifically mentioned in that Baraitha. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 7'"
,k95a_42:" As she had not done it she cannot now plead that her object was to oblige her husband."
,k95a_43:" Since she may plead that she merely wished to oblige her husband."
,k95a_44:" Which regards the woman's renunciation as valid."
,k95a_45:" Whose deed she refused to endorse. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 603, n. 7."
,k95a_46:" Git. 48b."
,k95a_47:" After the sale of the others."
,k95a_48:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p, 603 notes,"
,k95a_49:" On account of her endorsement of his purchase."
,k95a_50:" Since her first source of payment was no longer available,"
,k95a_51:" As in the case of free assets that were blasted."
,k95a_52:" Whose purchase corresponds to the 'mortgaged property' referred to in the enquiry. Since, however, she is not allowed to distrain on the first it follows, does it not, that even if the free assets were blasted, payment cannot be recovered from mortgaged property."
,k95a_53:" The Baraitha quoted provides no solution to the question."
,k95a_54:" Her right to recover her <i>kethubah</i> from the first buyer, however, remains unimpaired."
,k95a_55:" Which R. Nahman b. Isaac advanced."
,k95a_56:" 'When I purchased the first field'."
,k95a_57:" The field which the second buyer had subsequently purchased."
,k95a_58:" Similarly in the ease of the woman, her <i>kethubah</i> cannot be recovered from the first buyer who might well plead that he too had left her a source from which to collect her <i>kethubah</i>, R. Nahman h. Isaac's explanation thus stands refuted by two objections."
,k95a_59:" In the Baraitha cited by Raba."
,k95a_60:" In justification of R. Nahman b. Isaac's explanation. So according to R. <i>Tam</i> and R. Han (v. Tosaf, s.v. [H] a.l.), contrary to Rashi who regards what follows as the conclusion of Raba's arguments, v. <i>infra</i> n. 5."
,k95a_61:" The creditor."
,k95a_62:" By signing the declaration in favour of the second buyer though he was well aware that by this act he loses the only source available for the recovery of his debt. In the ease of a woman, however, whose <i>kethubah</i> does not fall due for payment until <i>after the death</i> of her husband, it may well be maintained that the renunciation of her rights in favour of the second buyer, during the lifetime of her husband, was not regarded by her as of any practical consequence, and the loss ultimately ensuing cannot, therefore, be said to have been deliberately caused by herself. As the two eases are not analogous R. Nahman b. Isaac's explanation stands unrefuted, The first objection raised by Raba remains unanswered as happens sometimes in such Talmudic discussions where only the second of two objections is dealt with. Moreover the first objection is rather feeble and may well be met by the reply that the expression 'she loses' need not necessarily imply <i>total</i> loss (so Tosaf. <i>loc. cit</i>.), According to Rashi 'There &hellip; himself', is taken by Raba as an argument against the solution of the problem that was attempted by inference from the first Baraitha, and might also be inferred from the last one quoted (cf. Golds.). 'There', i.e., in the eases dealt with in the last Baraithas, the argument runs, it was he', i.e., the claimant (the woman in the first case and the creditor in the second) 'who had caused the loss to himself'; and no inference can, therefore, be drawn from either of these cases in respect of the one referred to in the question where the claimant is in no way responsible for the loss of the free assets. "
}

txt:
<p>
a <i>tirpa</i><a id="k95a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [authorizing distraint on property sold]<a id="k95a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; after the first of Iyar?'<a id="k95a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'They',<a id="k95a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied, 'might tell you: You [are holding a deed] that was written on the first of Nisan'.<a id="k95a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; What means of redress [can he<a id="k95a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; have recourse to]?<a id="k95a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They<a id="k95a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; write out authorizations<a id="k95a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; to one another.<a id="k95a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES SOLD HIS FIELD,<a id="k95a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE FIRST WIFE<a id="k95a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD GIVEN A WRITTEN DECLARATION TO THE BUYER, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON YOU', THE SECOND WIFE<a id="k95a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY<a id="k95a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; DISTRAIN ON THE BUYER, AND THE FIRST WIFE<a id="k95a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; ON THE SECOND, AND THE BUYER ON THE FIRST WIFE,<a id="k95a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SO THEY GO ON IN TURN UNTIL THEY ARRANGE SOME COMPROMISE BETWEEN THEM, THE SAME LAW APPLIES ALSO TO<a id="k95a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A CREDITOR<a id="k95a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; AND TO<a id="k95a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN CREDITOR,<a id="k95a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What matters it even if she HAD GIVEN him A WRITTEN DECLARATION? Has it not been a man says to another, 'I have no claim whatsoever on this field, I have no concern in it and I entirely dissociate myself from it', his statement is of no effect?<a id="k95a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here we are dealing with a case where a <i>kinyan</i> was executed.<a id="k95a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But even if <i>kinyan</i> had been executed, what is the use? Could she not say, 'I merely wished to oblige my husband'?<a id="k95a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Have we not, in fact, learned: If a man bought [a married woman's property]<a id="k95a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; from her husband and then bought it also from the wife, his purchase is legally invalid.<a id="k95a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not this<a id="k95a_123"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; show clearly that the woman can plead, 'I merely wished to oblige my husband'?<a id="k95a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera replied in the name of R. Hisda: This is no difficulty. One ruling<a id="k95a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is that of R. Meir and the other<a id="k95a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is that of R. Judah. For it was taught: [If a husband] drew up a deed<a id="k95a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; for the buyer<a id="k95a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [of a field of his wife],<a id="k95a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and she did not endorse it, [and then he drew up a deed] for another buyer [of a field of hers]<a id="k95a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and that she did endorse, she loses thereby [her claim to] her <i>kethubah</i>,'<a id="k95a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; so R. Meir.<a id="k95a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah, however, said: She may plead, 'I<a id="k95a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; merely meant to oblige my husband;<a id="k95a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; what [claim] can you have against me?'<a id="k95a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As to Rabbi,<a id="k95a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; however, would he allow the anonymous Mishnah here to represent the view of R. Meir and the anonymous Mishnah there<a id="k95a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; to represent the view of R. Judah?<a id="k95a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa replied: [Our Mishnah deals] with the case of a divorced woman,<a id="k95a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and it represents the opinion of all. R. Ashi replied: Both Mishnahs<a id="k95a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; represent the views of R. Meir,<a id="k95a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Meir maintains his view<a id="k95a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; only there where two buyers are concerned,<a id="k95a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; since in such a case she may well be told, 'If you wished to oblige. you should have done so in the case of the first buyer',<a id="k95a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; but where Only one buyer [is concerned]. even R. Meir admits [that the sale is invalid].<a id="k95a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; while our Mishnah<a id="k95a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [refers to a case] where [the husband had first] written out a deed for another buyer.<a id="k95a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Elsewhere we learned: Payment cannot be recovered from mortgaged property where free assets are available, even if they are only of the poorest quality.<a id="k95a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; The question was raised: If the free assets were blasted<a id="k95a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; may the mortgaged property be distrained on? &mdash; Come and hear: [If a husband] drew up a deed for the buyer [of a field of his wife] and she did not endorse it [and then he drew up a deed] for another buyer [of a field of hers] and that she did endorse, she loses thereby [her claim to] her <i>kethubah</i>,' so R. Meir.<a id="k95a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it could be imagined that where the free assets were blasted the mortgaged property may be distrained on [the difficulty would arise:] Granted that she lost [her right to recover] her <i>kethubah</i> from the second buyer,<a id="k95a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; why<a id="k95a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; should she not be entitled<a id="k95a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; to recover it, at any rate, from the first buyer?<a id="k95a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac:<a id="k95a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; The meaning of 'she loses' is that she loses [her right to recover her due] from the second buyer.<a id="k95a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: Two objections may be raised against this explanation:<a id="k95a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; In the first place [it may be pointed out] that [the expression of] 'she loses' implies total loss. And, furthermore, it was taught: If a man borrowed from one person and sold his property to two others, and the creditor gave a written declaration to the second buyer, 'I have no claim whatever upon you', [this creditor] has no claim whatever upon the first buyer, since the latter can tell him, 'I have left you<a id="k95a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; a source<a id="k95a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; from which to recover your debt'!<a id="k95a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There,<a id="k95a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be argued<a id="k95a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; that] it was he<a id="k95a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; who had deliberately caused the loss to himself.<a id="k95a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k95b_1:" To allow creditors to distrain on mortgaged property wherever free assets are blasted."
,k95b_2:" Lit., 'and, surely, actions every day'."
,k95b_3:" The terms entered in the mortgage deed being that the creditor was to enjoy the usufruct of the vineyard during the ten years, in payment of his loan, while the vineyard itself was to return to the debtor at the end of that period without any further payment or obligation on his part."
,k95b_4:" I.e., ceased yielding produce before the creditor had recouped himself in full."
,k95b_5:" To claim the balance of the loan,"
,k95b_6:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 584, n. 8."
,k95b_7:" And thereby enabled him to distrain on all property which the debtor had sold after the date On which the mortgage deed was written. This being the regular practice in the administration of the law, why was the question, <i>supra</i> 95a, at all raised?"
,k95b_8:" The ease just cited."
,k95b_9:" Who purchased the lands from the debtor though they were well aware that these were already pledged to the mortgagee of the vineyard."
,k95b_10:" And that this might happen before the expiry of the ten years in consequence of which the creditor would naturally distrain on the debtor's remaining property."
,k95b_11:" Having bought it they have only themselves to blame for the consequences. The regular practice of the courts in such actions has, therefore, no bearing on the ease referred to in the question."
,k95b_12:" Who (as will be explained <i>Infra</i>) was feme sole."
,k95b_13:" Lit., 'and stood up'."
,k95b_14:" Lit., 'to after you'."
,k95b_15:" Lit., 'nothing'."
,k95b_16:" Lit., 'place'."
,k95b_17:" R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k95b_18:" After the death of the first donee who, by the terms of the gift, was entitled to the usufruct during his lifetime only but had no right to sell the estate itself"
,k95b_19:" B.B. 137a; and since the first has sold the estate the second his no rightful claim upon it."
,k95b_20:" So Rashb. (B. B. 137a). Aliter. Who lakes counsel with himself (R. Gersh.)."
,k95b_21:" And much more so one who sells (so according to Rashb. v. <i>supra</i> n. 15)."
,k95b_22:" Which was given to a person with the stipulation that after his death it shall pass over to another person."
,k95b_23:" Sotah 21b, B. B. <i>loc. cit</i>. Though such a sale is morally wrong, since the donor meant the second donee to have the estate after the death of the first, it is nevertheless quite legal on the basis of the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Now since Abaye condemns the person who acts on the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, would he himself base a ruling of his on this view' of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?"
,k95b_24:" Which would have implied approval."
,k95b_25:" A fait accompli. Her action, however, though legal, is nevertheless condemned by Abaye as morally wrong."
,k95b_26:" Who (v. <i>infra</i>) was married."
,k95b_27:" Who has the status of a first buyer."
,k95b_28:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 606, n. 9."
,k95b_29:" Because, unlike the previous ease where the woman of whom Abaye spoke was unmarried, the woman in this case (v. <i>supra</i> n. 4) was married at the time the estate was presented to her and her successor. Her husband who was not in any way mentioned by the donor is, therefore, deemed to have been Implicitly excluded by the donor from all rights to, or claim upon. the estate."
,k95b_30:" In agreement with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel that the first donee has the right to sell the estate."
,k95b_31:" It cannot again be taken away from him by the husband, since his present tenure of the estate is no longer based upon his rights as a buyer from the married woman but upon the rights derived from her successor. In the former ease the husband as 'first buyer' (v. <i>supra</i> note 5) would have had right of seizure. In the latter ease he has none."
,k95b_32:" The buyer loses some of his purchase money and the women lose portions of their <i>kethubah</i>."
,k95b_33:" The husband and the donees are only claiming a gift."
,k95b_34:" That all the estate is confirmed in the possession of the buyer."
,k95b_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 606, n. 7 and 9."
,k95b_36:" The donor."
,k95b_37:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 606, n. 7."
,k95b_38:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 607, n. 4."
,k95b_39:" Lit., 'what did he (mean) to say?'"
,k95b_40:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 607. n. 7."
,k95b_41:" In explanation of our Mishnah."
,k95b_42:" Lit., 'and so'."
,k95b_43:" The total value of whose purchases from the debtor represents the amount of the debt. The creditor, if he renounced his claim to the extent of that portion of the debt that was secured on the second buyer's purchase, may distrain on the purchases of the first buyer who in turn distrains on the second buyer (whose purchase was that of property that was already pledged to the first in security of his purchase) who in turn distrains on the creditor (by virtue of his renunciation); and so they go on in turn until a compromise is arranged."
,k95b_44:" Sc. who claims the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k95b_45:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n' 9 mutatis mutandis."
,k95b_46:" In our Mishnah."
,k95b_47:" [H] sc. the reading given <i>supra</i>."
,k95b_48:" [H] in which case the Mishnah means that only the handiwork of a widow, who is maintained by the orphans, belongs to them."
,k95b_49:" Who entered in the <i>kethubah</i> the clause. 'You shall dwell in my house and be maintained therein out of my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood' (v. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 52b)."
,k95b_50:" 'To go' (cf. fast.)."
,k95b_51:" Aliter. There is no possibility of avoiding (cf. Levy)."
,k95b_52:" Who added to the clause mentioned (<i>supra</i> n. 4), 'Until the heirs may consent to pay you your kethubah' (Mishnah. <i>supra</i> 52b)."
,k95b_53:" If they had paid her the <i>kethubah</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
This,<a id="k95b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely, is the regular practice<a id="k95b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the courts of law]? For did not a man once pledge a vineyard to his friend for ten years<a id="k95b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but it aged after five years,<a id="k95b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and [when the creditor] came to the Rabbis<a id="k95b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; they wrote out a tirpa<a id="k95b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; for him?<a id="k95b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k95b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; also it was they<a id="k95b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; who caused the loss to themselves. For, having been aware that it may happen that a Vineyard should age,<a id="k95b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; they should not have bought [any of the debtor's pledged land].<a id="k95b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The law, however, is that where free assets are blasted, mortgaged property may be distrained on.
</p><p>
	Abaye ruled: [If a man said to a woman]<a id="k95b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so', and then the woman<a id="k95b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; married, her husband has the Status of a vendee and her successor<a id="k95b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; has no legal claim<a id="k95b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; in face<a id="k95b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of her husband. In agreement with whose view [was Abaye's ruling laid down]? In agreement with the following Tanna.<a id="k95b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; For it has been taught: [If one man said to another,] 'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so' and the first recipient went down [into the estate] and sold it, the second may reclaim the estate<a id="k95b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; from those who bought it; so Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: The second may receive only that which the first has left.<a id="k95b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But could Abaye have laid down such a ruling? Did not Abaye in fact, Say, 'Who is a cunning rogue? He who counsels<a id="k95b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; to sell<a id="k95b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; an estate<a id="k95b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?<a id="k95b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Did he Say, 'She may marry'?<a id="k95b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; All he said was, 'The woman married'.<a id="k95b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye further stated: [If a man said to a woman.]<a id="k95b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so' and the woman sold [the estate] and died, her husband<a id="k95b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; may seize It from the buyer, the woman's successor<a id="k95b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [may seize it] from the husband,<a id="k95b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and the buyer from the successor,<a id="k95b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and all the estate is confirmed in the possession of the buyer.<a id="k95b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; But why should this case be different from the following where we learned: AND SO THEY GO ON IN TURN UNTIL THEY ARRANGE SOME COMPROMISE BETWEEN THEM? &mdash; There they are all suffering some loss<a id="k95b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but here it is only the buyer who suffers the loss.<a id="k95b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rafram went to R. Ashi and recited this argument to him: Could Abaye have laid down such a ruling?<a id="k95b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Did he not, in fact, lay down: [If a man said to a woman.] 'My estate shall be yours and after you [it shall be given] to So-and-so', and then the woman married, her husband has the status of a vendee, and her successor has no legal claim in face of her husband?<a id="k95b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: There [it is a woman] to whom he<a id="k95b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; spoke while she was feme sole,<a id="k95b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but here [we are dealing with one] to whom he<a id="k95b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; spoke when she was married.<a id="k95b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; For it is this that he meant to tell<a id="k95b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; her? 'Your successor only shall acquire Possession; your husband shall not'.<a id="k95b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE SAME LAW APPLIES ALSO TO A CREDITOR. A Tanna taught:<a id="k95b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; The same law applies to<a id="k95b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; a creditor and two buyers<a id="k95b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; and also to a woman, who was a creditor,<a id="k95b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; and two buyers.<a id="k95b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xi">CHAPTER XI</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WIDOW IS TO BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THE ESTATE OF [HER DECEASED HUSBAND'S] ORPHANS [AND] HER HANDIWORK BELONGS TO THEM. IT IS NOT THEIR DUTY, HOWEVER, TO BURY HER; IT IS THE DUTY OF HER HEIRS, EVEN THOSE WHO INHERIT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>, TO BURY HER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The question was asked: Have we learnt,<a id="k95b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; 'is to be maintained'<a id="k95b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; or 'one who is maintained'?<a id="k95b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; Have we learned, 'is to be maintained', in agreement with the men of Galilee,<a id="k95b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; so that there is no way<a id="k95b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; [by which the orphans] can avoid<a id="k95b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; maintaining her; or have we rather learned 'one who is maintained',<a id="k95b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; in agreement with the men of Judaea,<a id="k95b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; so that [the orphans,] if they wish it, need not<a id="k95b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; maintain her?
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k101a_1:" As any other woman (v. <i>supra</i> note 8)."
,k101a_2:" Samuel, in the statement cited."
,k101a_3:" In a Mishnah."
,k101a_4:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 639, n. 11."
,k101a_5:" Cf. note 5'"
,k101a_6:" Yeb. 1085."
,k101a_7:" in the Mishnah of Yeb. cited."
,k101a_8:" Rab and Samuel."
,k101a_9:" To which a lawful husband is entitled."
,k101a_10:" Which is the privilege of a husband (cf. Num. XXX, 7ff)."
,k101a_11:" If he is a priest. Only a lawful husband may (cf. Lev. XXI, 2)."
,k101a_12:" If she wishes to marry another man."
,k101a_13:" Rabbinic law has conferred upon him the same rights as those of a lawful husband. Cf. p. 640, n. 17."
,k101a_14:" Which is the privilege of a husband (cf. Num. XXX, 7ff)."
,k101a_15:" Even if he is a priest (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1). Since he inherits her she is regarded as a meth mizwah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) for whom he may defile himself though Pentateuchally she is not his proper wife; v. Rashi Yeb. 108a."
,k101a_16:" And no letter of divorce is required. Yeb. 89b, 108a."
,k101a_17:" Who does not allow a <i>kethubah</i> to a divorced minor."
,k101a_18:" Who ruled: 'There is no validity whatsoever in the act of a minor'."
,k101a_19:" Who allows to a minor her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k101a_20:" Who ruled that 'the act of a minor is valid'. Is it likely, however, that Rab and Samuel who were Amoraim would engage in a dispute which is practically a mere repetition of that of Tannaim?"
,k101a_21:" Lit., 'all the world', sc, Rab and Samuel."
,k101a_22:" Lit., 'according'."
,k101a_23:" I.e., even Samuel must admit that according to R. Eliezer, no <i>kethubah</i> is due to a minor <i>a minori ad majus</i> (cf. <i>infra</i> nn. 16 to 19 and text mutatis mutandis)."
,k101a_24:" Lit., 'up to here'."
,k101a_25:" In the case cited from Yeb."
,k101a_26:" Inheritance, handiwork and finds."
,k101a_27:" A husband may well be given such privileges in order to encourage men to undertake the responsibilities of married life."
,k101a_28:" Such as the <i>kethubah</i> and the other privileges contained therein."
,k101a_29:" There is no need to hold out inducements of marriage to a woman who is assumed to be always craving for marriage."
,k101a_30:" That the woman spoken of in our Mishnah is not entitled to compensation for the WORN OUT CLOTHES. It will be discussed anon to which of the three classes of woman mentioned Samuel referred."
,k101a_31:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k101a_32:" Whether they were <i>melog</i> or zon barzel."
,k101a_33:" Since, in the case of zon barzel, the husband might plead that what he used up was legally his, and in respect of <i>melog</i> also, though he had no right to use up the 'capital'. he might still plead justification on the ground that it would have become his by the right of heirship if he had survived her. In either case he would be justified in his claim that the minor's right to compensation does not come into force except on divorce."
,k101a_34:" And the husband, therefore, had no right to use it up."
,k101a_35:" But in that of the husband who was consequently entitled to use it up completely."
,k101a_36:" Since both husband and wife are guilty of a transgression."
,k101a_37:" Lit., 'fined her in respect of what is his'. Viz the <i>kethubah</i> and maintenance as well as for the wear of <i>melog</i> articles which he used up unlawfully and for which, in the case of a lawful marriage, he would have been liable to pay compensation to the woman."
,k101a_38:" Lit., 'fined him in respect of what is hers'. He must pay compensation for the wear of zon barzel articles which he used up, though a lawful wife cannot object to such use. [Although the woman is nor mally entitled to compensation for the wear of the <i>zon barzel</i> property, it is still considered a fine, as legally the husband should, in this case, not be made to pay since he does not divorce of his own free will (R. Nissim). <i>Var. lec</i>., they fined her in respect of what is hers (i.e..the <i>melog</i> property) and him in respect of what is his (i.e., the zon barzel property).]"
,k101a_39:" That in a forbidden marriage the woman is not entitled to compensation for worn out <i>melog</i> articles."
,k101a_40:" On marrying him."
,k101a_41:" As <i>melog</i>."
,k101a_42:" If he did so he must pay compensation."
,k101a_43:" <i>Supra</i> 79b."
,k101a_44:" R. Kahana."
,k101a_45:" The statutory <i>kethubah</i> that is due to one who married as a widow or divorcee."
,k101a_46:" Due to a virgin (cf. <i>supra</i> note 7 mutatis mutandis)."
,k101a_47:" Which a husband settles on his wife at his own pleasure."
,k101a_48:" Lit., 'they', sc, the classes of women mentioned in our Mishnah."
,k101a_49:" Lit., 'and her associates'."
,k101a_50:" V. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k101a_51:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 8."
,k101a_52:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 10 and v. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 72a."
,k101a_53:" Lit., 'on evil name', sc. of faithlessness."
,k101a_54:" MS.M. inserts, 'the worn out clothes'."
,k101a_55:" Lit., 'before her', sc. her 'melog property."
,k101a_56:" The last ruling in the cited Baraitha. "
}

txt:
<p>
but [a minor who] was released by a letter of divorce must wait three months.<a id="k101a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he<a id="k101a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; teach us when all these cases have already been taught:<a id="k101a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If [a minor] has exercised the right of <i>mi'un</i> against her husband he is permitted to marry her relatives<a id="k101a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and she is permitted to marry his relatives,<a id="k101a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and he does not disqualify her from marrying a priest;<a id="k101a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he gave her a letter of divorce he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives and he also disqualifies her from marrying a priest?<a id="k101a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He found it necessary [to restate these rulings in order to mention:] 'She must wait three months' which we did not learn.<a id="k101a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Must one assume [that they<a id="k101a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the same principles] as the following Tannaim: R. Eliezer stated, There is no validity whatsoever in the act of a minor, and her husband is entitled neither to anything she finds,<a id="k101a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; nor to the work of her hands,<a id="k101a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may he invalidate her vows;<a id="k101a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not her heir<a id="k101a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and he may not defile himself for her;<a id="k101a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; this being the general rule: She is in no respect regarded as his wife, except that it is necessary for her to make a declaration of refusal;<a id="k101a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Joshua stated, The act of a minor is valid, and her husband has the right to anything she finds<a id="k101a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and to the work of her hands,<a id="k101a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to invalidate her vows,<a id="k101a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; to be her heir,<a id="k101a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and to defile himself for her;<a id="k101a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the general principle being that she is regarded as his wife in every respect, except that she may leave him<a id="k101a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; by declaring her refusal against him?<a id="k101a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Must one then assume that Rab<a id="k101a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; has laid down the same principle as that of R. Eliezer<a id="k101a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and that Samuel<a id="k101a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; has laid down the same principle as that of R. Joshua?<a id="k101a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difference of opinion between them<a id="k101a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; as to what was the view<a id="k101a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Eliezer;<a id="k101a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; they differ only in respect of the view<a id="k101a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Joshua. Samuel [ruled] In agreement with R. Joshua; but Rab argued that<a id="k101a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua maintained his view only there<a id="k101a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [where the benefits<a id="k101a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; are transferred] from her to him<a id="k101a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but not [where the benefits<a id="k101a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; are to be transferred] from him to her.<a id="k101a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	OR TO HER WORN OUT ARTICLES. Said R. Huna b. Hiyya to R. Kahana: You have told us in the name of Samuel that this<a id="k101a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; was taught only in respect of <i>melog</i>,<a id="k101a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but that to zon barzel<a id="k101a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; property she is entitled. R. Papa, in considering this statement, raised the point: To which [class of women did Samuel refer]? If it be suggested: To [A MINOR] WHO EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF <I>MI'UN</I> [the difficulty would arise:] If [the articles] are still in existence she would be entitled to receive them in either case,<a id="k101a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and if they were no longer in existence she would in neither case<a id="k101a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; be entitled to receive them.<a id="k101a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is the reference], then, to A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION? [But here again, it may be objected:] If [the articles] were still in existence she would receive them in either case,<a id="k101a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and if they no longer existed [the ruling] should be reversed: She should receive <i>melog</i> property since [the capital] always remains in her legal possession<a id="k101a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; but should not receive zon barzel property since [the capital] does not remain in her possession.<a id="k101a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [The fact,] however, [is that the reference is] to A FORBIDDEN RELATIVE OF THE SECOND DEGREE, in whose case<a id="k101a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis have penalized the woman in respect of [what is due to her] from the man,<a id="k101a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and the man in respect of [what is due to him] from the woman.<a id="k101a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shimi b. Ashi remarked: From R. Kahana's statement<a id="k101a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be inferred [that if a lawful wife] brought to her husband<a id="k101a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; a cloak,<a id="k101a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; the article is [to be treated as] capital and the man may not continue to wear it until it is worn out.<a id="k101a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; But did not R. Nahman, however, rule that [a cloak must be treated as] produce?<a id="k101a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k101a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; differs from R. Nahman. 
</p><p>
	IS NOT ENTITLED [&hellip;] TO A <I>KETHUBAH</I>. Samuel stated: This was taught only in respect of the <i>maneh</i><a id="k101a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and the two hundred <i>zuz</i>,'<a id="k101a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; to the additional jointure,<a id="k101a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; however, she<a id="k101a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; is entitled. So it was also taught: The women concerning whom the Sages have ruled, 'They are not entitled to a kethubah' as, for instance, a minor who exercised the right of <i>mi'un</i><a id="k101a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and the others enumerated in the same context,<a id="k101a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; are not entitled to the <i>maneh</i><a id="k101a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; or to the two hundred <i>zuz</i>,<a id="k101a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; but are entitled to their additional jointures; women, however, concerning whom the Sages have ruled, 'They may be divorced without [receiving their] kethubah' as, for instance, [a wife who] transgresses the [Mosaic] law, and others enumerated in the same context,<a id="k101a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; are not entitled to their additional jointures<a id="k101a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and much less to [their statutory kethubahs of] a <i>maneh</i><a id="k101a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; or two hundred <i>zuz</i>;<a id="k101a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst a woman who is divorced on the ground of in repute<a id="k101a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; takes only<a id="k101a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; what is hers<a id="k101a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; and departs. This<a id="k101a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; provides support to R. Hunah who laid down: If she played the harlot [a wife] does not in consequence forfeit
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k101b_1:" Surely not."
,k101b_2:" The version recited by the Tanna in the presence of R. Nahman."
,k101b_3:" Sc. whose rulings were often quoted anonymously in the Mishnah and the Baraitha. [The reference is to R. Menahem b. R. Jose, v, Neg. 262.]"
,k101b_4:" Lit., 'and not a wife'."
,k101b_5:" Even if married to a High Priest (cf. Lev. XXI, 14)."
,k101b_6:" Before he married her."
,k101b_7:" He is assumed to have acquiesced."
,k101b_8:" MS.M., one incapable of procreation'."
,k101b_9:" 'A widow' (so MS.M.) who was married to a High Priest."
,k101b_10:" Lit., 'so'."
,k101b_11:" Lit., 'but'."
,k101b_12:" A case analogous to that where the High Priest was not aware of the woman's widowhood, <i>supra</i>."
,k101b_13:" An objection against R. Huna."
,k101b_14:" Lit., 'so'."
,k101b_15:" So BaH. Cur. edd. omit the last six words."
,k101b_16:" The woman's right to her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k101b_17:" Lit., 'that', where the High Priest actually presumed the woman's widowhood."
,k101b_18:" A High Priest."
,k101b_19:" [H] particip. pass. of [H] ('to know') with prefix."
,k101b_20:" 'IF THE MAN, HOWEVER, HAD MARRIED HER AT THE OUTSET&nbsp;&hellip; SHE IS ENTITLED etc.'."
,k101b_21:" Lit., 'stands on'."
,k101b_22:" Which immediately precedes it."
,k101b_23:" From another husband."
,k101b_24:" before the expiration of the five years."
,k101b_25:" Sc. refusing maintenance on the ground that her mother with whom she lives was no longer his wife."
,k101b_26:" <i>Var. lec</i>., 'to the place of her mother' (so according to the separate edd. of the Mishnah and Alfasi)."
,k101b_27:" The daughter."
,k101b_28:" Respectively; each one the full cost."
,k101b_29:" The two husbands (v. <i>supra</i> n. 2)."
,k101b_30:" Cf. 48b."
,k101b_31:" Whose rights are based on a written bond."
,k101b_32:" In any agreement to maintain a wife's daughter."
,k101b_33:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k101b_34:" Those who were present at the time of his admission of the debt."
,k101b_35:" Such a ruling, surely. is contrary to what has been laid down in Sanh. 29b."
,k101b_36:" This, surely, is also contrary to what was taught in Sanh. 29b, that the admission is valid only where the debtor explicitly stated, 'You are my witnesses'."
,k101b_37:" Lit., 'always'."
,k101b_38:" Lit., 'in what are we'."
,k101b_39:" In the presence of witnesses."
,k101b_40:" In which the debt is acknowledged in the man's handwriting but is not attested by his signature nor by that of witnesses."
,k101b_41:" Lit., 'thing'."
,k101b_42:" Delivered in the presence of witnesses."
,k101b_43:" Lit., 'what, not?'"
,k101b_44:" Where the husband had handed over the written agreement (cf. <i>supra</i> note 8 mutatis mutandis) in the presence of witnesses without specifically appointing them as such. Had the document been duly signed the ruling, being so obvious, would have been superfluous. Does this then present an objection against Resh Lakish?>"
}

txt:
<p>
her worn out articles that are still in existence.
</p><p>
	A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: [A wife who] played the harlot forfeits in consequence her worn out articles [though they are still] in existence. 'If she', the other said to him, 'has played the harlot, have her chattels also played the harlot?<a id="k101b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Recite rather: She does not forfeit her worn out articles [that are still] in existence' &mdash; Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: This<a id="k101b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is the view of the unnamed R. Menahem,<a id="k101b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages ruled: [A wife who] played the harlot does not thereby forfeit her worn out articles that are still in existence.
</p><p>
	IF THE MAN, HOWEVER, HAD MARRIED HER etc. Said R. Huna: A woman incapable of procreation [has sometimes the status of] a wife and [sometimes she has] no such status;<a id="k101b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; a widow<a id="k101b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [has always the status of] a proper wife. 'A woman incapable of procreation [has sometimes the status of] a wife and [sometimes she] has no such status'; if the husband knew of her [defect]<a id="k101b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; she is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i><a id="k101b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he did not know of her [defect] she is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. 'A widows [has always the status of] a proper wife', for, whether her husband was aware of her [widowhood] or whether he was not aware of it, she is always entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. Rab Judah, however, said: The one<a id="k101b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; as well as the other<a id="k101b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [has sometimes the status of] a wife and [sometimes she has] no such status,<a id="k101b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; for [in either case] if her husband was aware of her [condition or status] she is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i> and if he was not aware of it she is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. An objection was raised: If [a High Priest] married on the presumption that [the woman] was in her widowhood<a id="k101b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was found that she had been in such a condition,<a id="k101b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; she is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>. Does not this imply that if<a id="k101b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; there was no presumption<a id="k101b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; she is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>?<a id="k101b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Do not infer 'that<a id="k101b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; if there was no such presumption' but infer [this:] If he married her on the presumption that she was not in her widowhood<a id="k101b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was found that she had been in such a condition,<a id="k101b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; she is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. What, however, [is the ruling where he married her] with no assumption? Is she entitled [to a <i>kethubah</i>]? Then instead of stating, 'On the presumption that [the woman] was in her widowhood<a id="k101b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was found that she had been in such a condition,<a id="k101b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; she is entitled to her kethubah', should it not rather have been stated, 'With no assumption she is entitled to her kethubah'<a id="k101b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and [it would have been obvious that this<a id="k101b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; applied] with even greater force to the former?<a id="k101b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, it was explicitly taught: If he<a id="k101b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; married her in the belief<a id="k101b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [that she was a widow] and it was found that his belief was justified,<a id="k101b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; she is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>, but if he married her with no assumption she is not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>. [Does not this present] an 'objection against R. Huna? &mdash; It was our Mishnah that caused R. Huna to err. He thought that, since a distinction was drawn in the case of a woman incapable of procreation<a id="k101b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and no distinction was drawn in respect of a widow, it must be inferred that a widow is entitled [to a <i>kethubah</i> even if she was married] with no assumption of her status. [In fact, however] this is no [proper conclusion], for in stating the case of a widow the author intended to apply to it<a id="k101b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; the distinction drawn in the case of the woman who was incapable of procreation.<a id="k101b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xii">CHAPTER XII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN MARRIED A WIFE AND SHE MADE AN ARRANGEMENT WITH HIM THAT HE SHOULD MAINTAIN HER DAUGHTER<a id="k101b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR FIVE YEARS, HE MUST MAINTAIN HER FOR FIVE YEARS. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY]<a id="k101b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND ARRANGED WITH HIM ALSO THAT HE SHOULD MAINTAIN HER DAUGHTER<a id="k101b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR FIVE YEARS, HE, TOO, MUST MAINTAIN HER FOR FIVE YEARS. THE FIRST HUSBAND IS NOT ENTITLED TO PLEAD, 'IF SHE WILL. COME TO ME I WILL MAINTAIN HER',<a id="k101b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT HE MUST FORWARD HER MAINTENANCE TO HER AT THE PLACE WHERE HER MOTHER [LIVES].<a id="k101b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; SIMILARLY, THE TWO HUSBANDS CANNOT PLEAD, 'WE WILL MAINTAIN HER JOINTLY', BUT ONE MUST MAINTAIN HER AND THE OTHER ALLOW HER THE COST OF HER MAINTENANCE. IF SHE<a id="k101b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; MARRIED<a id="k101b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; HER HUSBAND MUST SUPPLY HER WITH MAINTENANCE AND THEY<a id="k101b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; ALLOW HER THE COST OF HER MAINTENANCE. SHOULD THEY<a id="k101b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; DIE, THEIR OWN DAUGHTERS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THEIR FREE ASSETS ONLY<a id="k101b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT SHE<a id="k101b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST BE MAINTAINED EVEN OUT OF ASSIGNED PROPERTY, BECAUSE SHE<a id="k101b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [HAS THE SAME LEGAL STATUS] AS A CREDITOR. PRUDENT MEN USED TO WRITE,<a id="k101b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'ON CONDITION THAT I SHALL MAINTAIN YOUR DAUGHTER FOR FIVE YEARS WHILE YOU [CONTINUE TO LIVE] WITH ME'. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was stated: A man who said to his fellow, 'I owe you a maneh'<a id="k101b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; is, R. Johanan ruled, liable; but Resh Lakish ruled: He is free. How is one to understand [this dispute]? If [it refers to a case] where the man said to them<a id="k101b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You are my witnesses', what [it might be objected] is the reason of Resh Lakish who holds him to be free?<a id="k101b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; If [it is a case] where he did not say to them,<a id="k101b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You are my witnesses, what [it might equally be objected] can be the reason of R. Johanan who holds him liable?<a id="k101b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; The fact is<a id="k101b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; that [the dispute relates to a case] where he did not tell them, 'You are my witnesses', but here we are<a id="k101b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; dealing [with the case of a person] who said to another, 'I owe you a maneh'<a id="k101b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; by [handing to him]<a id="k101b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; a note of indebtedness.<a id="k101b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan ruled: He is liable, because the contents<a id="k101b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; of a bond<a id="k101b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; has the same force as if the man [who delivered it] said, 'You are my witnesses'; but Resh Lakish ruled: He is free, because the contents<a id="k101b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; of a bond has no binding force.
</p><p>
	We learned: IF A MAN MARRIED A WIFE AND SHE MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH HIM THAT HE SHALL MAINTAIN HER DAUGHTER FOR FIVE YEARS, HE MUST MAINTAIN HER FOR FIVE YEARS. Does not this refer to,<a id="k101b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; a case like this?<a id="k101b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k104a_1:" Cf. Meg. 60: 'Why was it called Sepphoris ([H])? Because it was perched on the top of a hill like a bird' (rupm 'bird')."
,k104a_2:" A famous character, known for her sagacity and learning."
,k104a_3:" Lit., 'those above', 'the angels'."
,k104a_4:" Lit., 'those below', 'lower regions'."
,k104a_5:" He was suffering from acute and painful diarrhoea (cf. B.M. 85a)."
,k104a_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> These must not be worn when the body is not in a state of perfect cleanliness."
,k104a_7:" Lit., 'they were not silent'."
,k104a_8:" Lit., 'they remained silent'."
,k104a_9:" Lit., 'rested'."
,k104a_10:" Rabbi's condition."
,k104a_11:" [H] lit., 'messengers' (Jast.); cf. BaH. [H]. <i>Aliter</i>; 'God's lions' (Levy)."
,k104a_12:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to cast'). <i>Aliter</i>; 'The just' (Rashi)."
,k104a_13:" Metaph. Rabbi was known as 'our holy teacher'."
,k104a_14:" Lit., 'in an upward direction'."
,k104a_15:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k104a_16:" Isa. LVII, 2."
,k104a_17:" In harmony with the first part of the verse. [Strashun amends 'on his bed']."
,k104a_18:" The righteous who went out to welcome him."
,k104a_19:" Lit., 'go out to meet him'."
,k104a_20:" Var. 'He shall enter' ([H])."
,k104a_21:" Lit., 'and one'."
,k104a_22:" Isa. LVII, 2."
,k104a_23:" Lit., 'and one'."
,k104a_24:" Lit., 'go out to meet him'."
,k104a_25:" Isa. XLVIII, 22."
,k104a_26:" M.T. reads 'Ye' [H]. [This is also the reading of MS.M.]."
,k104a_27:" Isa. L, 11."
,k104a_28:" Ezek. XXXII, 19."
,k104a_29:" Who is maintained by her deceased husband's heirs."
,k104a_30:" Lit.,'for ever'."
,k104a_31:" Lit., 'until'."
,k104a_32:" Lit., 'there is (the opportunity)'."
,k104a_33:" At the expense of the heirs who maintain her."
,k104a_34:" To neighbours and friends, by giving them small gifts."
,k104a_35:" V. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k104a_36:" Lit., 'for ever'."
,k104a_37:" If a longer period has been allowed to pass she is presumed to have surrendered her claim. Such surrender cannot be assumed In the case of a widow who lives in her late husband's house, since the respect shewn to her by the heirs with whom she lives may well account for her bashfulness to advance a claim which might disturb the cordial relations between them."
,k104a_38:" Sc. claim."
,k104a_39:" Of her husband's death. They lose their claim if a longer period has been allowed to lapse."
,k104a_40:" According to R. Meir's ruling in our Mishnah."
,k104a_41:" One of the rich women of Jerusalem in the time of the Titus and Vespasian siege (cf. Git. 56a) whose <i>kethubah</i> amounted to a very high figure."
,k104a_42:" A <i>kethubah</i> like that of the latter, surely. could not be spent in small gifts in the same period as one for the minimum amount of a <i>kethubah</i>."
,k104a_43:" Proverb. The richer the woman the more she may be expected to spend."
,k104a_44:" A widow who claimed her <i>kethubah</i> within twenty-five years."
,k104a_45:" Sc. one twenty-fifth of her <i>kethubah</i> for each year that she has allowed to pass. Lit.,'divide into three'."
,k104a_46:" Teku v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k104a_47:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k104a_48:" Lit., 'which he said'."
,k104a_49:" Lit., 'goes out from under her hands'."
,k104a_50:" It is held that if she had surrendered her <i>kethubah</i> she would have destroyed the deed or given it up to the heirs."
,k104a_51:" For twenty-five years."
,k104a_52:" Who enjoyed the protection of the heirs for all those years and who, furthermore, is not actually 'out of pocket' when her <i>kethubah</i> is surrendered."
,k104a_53:" An objection against R. Eleazar."
,k104a_54:" R. Shesheth."
,k104a_55:" The Baraitha just cited."
,k104a_56:" Lit., 'always'."
,k104a_57:" The inference being: Only a creditor who holds no bond is not presumed to have surrendered his claim but that a widow who holds no <i>kethubah</i> is presumed to have surrendered her claim."
,k104a_58:" In reply to the objection: How could the claim be proved in the absence of a bond?"
,k104a_59:" Lit., 'in what?'"
,k104a_60:" Lit., 'he who is liable'."
,k104a_61:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k104a_62:" The authors of the Baraitha."
,k104a_63:" She may recover her <i>kethubah</i> even after twenty-five years."
,k104a_64:" V. <i>supra</i> notes 1 and 2."
,k104a_65:" Sc. that her <i>kethubah</i> had not yet been paid."
,k104a_66:" A widow (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 665, n. 8). "
}

txt:
<p>
because it was situated on higher ground<a id="k104a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and its air was salubrious.
</p><p>
	On the day when Rabbi died the Rabbis decreed a public fast and offered prayers for heavenly mercy. They. furthermore, announced that whoever said that Rabbi was dead would be stabbed with a sword.
</p><p>
	Rabbi's handmaid<a id="k104a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; ascended the roof and prayed: 'The immortals<a id="k104a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; desire Rabbi [to join them] and the mortals<a id="k104a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; desire Rabbi [to remain with them]; may it be the will [of God] that the mortals may overpower the immortals'. When, however, she saw how often he resorted to the privy,<a id="k104a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; painfully taking off his tefillin<a id="k104a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and putting them on again, she prayed: 'May it be the will [of the Almighty] that the immortals may overpower the mortals'. As the Rabbis incessantly continued<a id="k104a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; their prayers for [heavenly] mercy she took up a jar and threw it down from the roof to the ground. [For a moment] they ceased praying<a id="k104a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the soul of Rabbi departed to its eternal rest.<a id="k104a_9"><sup>9</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	'Go', said the Rabbis to Bar Kappara, 'and investigate'.<a id="k104a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He went and, finding that [Rabbi] was dead, he tore his cloak and turned the tear backwards. [On returning to the Rabbis] he began: 'The angels<a id="k104a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and the mortals<a id="k104a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; have taken hold of the holy ark.<a id="k104a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The angels overpowered the mortals and the holy ark has been captured'. 'Has he', they asked him, 'gone to his eternal rest?' &mdash; 'You', he replied, 'said it; I did not say it'.
</p><p>
	Rabbi, at the time of his passing, raised his ten fingers towards heaven<a id="k104a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and said: 'Sovereign of the Universe, it is revealed and known to you that I have laboured in the study of the Torah with my ten fingers and that I did not enjoy [any worldly] benefits even with my little finger. May it be Thy will that there be peace In my [Jast] resting place'. A <i>bath kol</i><a id="k104a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; echoed, announcing, He shall enter into peace; they shall rest on their beds.<a id="k104a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Does not] the context require [the singular pronoun:] 'On thy bed'?<a id="k104a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; This provides support for R. Hiyya b. Gamda. For he stated in the name of R. Jose b. Saul: When a righteous man departs from this world the ministering angels say to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe, the righteous man So-and-so is coming', and he answers them, 'Let the righteous men come [from their resting places], go forth to meet him, and say to him that he shall enter into peace [and then] they<a id="k104a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; shall rest on their beds'.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar stated: When a righteous man departs from the world he is welcomed by<a id="k104a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; three companies of ministering angels. One exclaims, 'Come<a id="k104a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; into peace'; the other<a id="k104a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; exclaims, He who walketh in his uprightness,<a id="k104a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; while the third<a id="k104a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; exclaims, 'He shall enter into peace; they shall rest on their beds'.<a id="k104a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; When a wicked man perishes from the world he is met<a id="k104a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; by three groups of angels of destruction. One announces, 'There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked';<a id="k104a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the other<a id="k104a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; tells him, 'He<a id="k104a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; shall lie down in sorrow',<a id="k104a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; while the third<a id="k104a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; tells him, 'Go down and be thou laid with the uncircumcised'.<a id="k104a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SO LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE [A WIDOW]<a id="k104a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> AT ANY TIME.<a id="k104a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; AS LONG, HOWEVER, AS SHE LIVES IN HER HUSBAND'S HOUSE SHE MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> ONLY WITHIN<a id="k104a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, BECAUSE IN THE COURSE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS SHE HAS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES<a id="k104a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; OF RENDERING<a id="k104a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; FAVOURS<a id="k104a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; CORRESPONDING [IN VALUE TO THE AMOUNT OF] HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>; SO R. MEIR WHO LAID DOWN THE RULING IN THE NAME OF R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: SO LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER HUSBAND'S HO USE [A WIDOW]<a id="k104a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> AT ANY TIME,<a id="k104a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT AS LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE SHE MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> ONLY WITHIN<a id="k104a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.<a id="k104a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; IF [THE WIDOW] DIED, HER HEIRS MUST MENTION<a id="k104a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> WITHIN<a id="k104a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.<a id="k104a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Said Abaye to R. Joseph. [Is it logical<a id="k104a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; that] the poorest woman in Israel [should be allowed to recover her <i>kethubah</i>] ONLY WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS and Martha the daughter of Boethus<a id="k104a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; also ONLY WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE As?<a id="k104a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: In accordance with the camel is the burden.<a id="k104a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Must she,<a id="k104a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Meir, lose in proportion?<a id="k104a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This must stand undecided.<a id="k104a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: SO LONG. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: [Is it reasonable that if] she comes before sunset she may recover her <i>kethubah</i> and that [if she came] after sunset she may not recover it? [Is it likely that] she has surrendered it in that short while? &mdash; 'Yes', the other replied. 'all the standards of the Sages are such. In [a bath of] forty <i>se'ah</i><a id="k104a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [for instance] one may perform ritual immersion; In [a bath of] forty <i>se'ah</i> minus one kortob<a id="k104a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; one may not perform ritual immersion
</p><p>
	Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: R. Ishmael son of R. Jose testified in the presence of Rabbi to a statement he made<a id="k104a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of his father that [the ruling in our Mishnah] was taught only [in respect of a woman] who produces<a id="k104a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; no deed of the <i>kethubah</i> but if she produces<a id="k104a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; the deed of the <i>kethubah</i> she may recover [the amount of] her <i>kethubah</i> at any time.<a id="k104a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar, however, ruled: Even if she produces<a id="k104a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; the deed of the <i>kethubah</i> she may recover the amount within twenty-five years only.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth raised an objection: 'A creditor may recover his debt [at any time]. even if there was no mention of it.'<a id="k104a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, how is this to be understood? If [it refers to a creditor] who holds no bond, whereby [it might be asked] could he recover his debt? Consequently [it must refer to one] who does hold a bond [from which it follows, does It not, that] only a creditor [may recover his due]. because he is not likely to have surrendered his claim, but that a widow<a id="k104a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; [is deemed to have] surrendered?<a id="k104a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k104a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; raised the objection and he also removed it: This<a id="k104a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; may, in fact, refer to<a id="k104a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; one who holds no bond,<a id="k104a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; but<a id="k104a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; here we are dealing with a case<a id="k104a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; where the debtor<a id="k104a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; admits [his liability].<a id="k104a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; But, Surely. R. Elai had stated: They<a id="k104a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; taught. 'A divorced woman has the very same rights as a creditor'.<a id="k104a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, how are We to understand [this ruling]? If [it refers to a divorcee] who holds no <i>kethubah</i>, whereby [it might be objected] could she recover her due? Consequently [it must refer to one] who does hold a <i>kethubah</i>, [from which it follows, does it not, that] only a divorcee [may recover her <i>kethubah</i>] because she is not likely to have surrendered it, but that a widow [is deemed to have] surrendered?<a id="k104a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here also [it is a case] where the defendant<a id="k104a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; admits [the claim].<a id="k104a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac stated: R. Judah b. Kaza learnt in the Baraitha of the school of Bar Kaza, If she<a id="k104a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; claimed her <i>kethubah</i>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k104b_1:" Of twenty-five years. Lit., 'behold she is as at first'."
,k104b_2:" Lit., 'goes out from under her hands'."
,k104b_3:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 12."
,k104b_4:" Between R. MEIR and THE SAGES."
,k104b_5:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 667. n. 12."
,k104b_6:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k104b_7:" That after a period of twenty-five years a widow is presumed to have surrendered her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k104b_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, sc. the statutory <i>kethubah</i> which is one <i>maneh</i> in the case of marriage with a widow and two hundred <i>zuz</i> in that with a virgin."
,k104b_9:" Since this may be regarded as a gift (and not as the legal <i>kethubah</i>) from the husband to his wife."
,k104b_10:" Lit., 'conditions', of which the additional jointure is one."
,k104b_11:" Lit., 'like'."
,k104b_12:" One who loses the statutory <i>kethubah</i> must also forfeit the additional jointure."
,k104b_13:" By Amoraim."
,k104b_14:" V. <i>supra</i> notes 4 to 6."
,k104b_15:" [MS.M. inserts, He (R. Huna) said he was silenced; cf. Ned. Sonc. ed. p. 242. notes.]"
,k104b_16:" I.e., was his question intended to imply incredulity?"
,k104b_17:" I.e., he wished in all earnestness to ascertain whether Rab had actually made that statement so that in return for the valuable information he might treat him to a cup of wine. [H] and [H], a play upon the similarity of the letters."
,k104b_18:" The tall."
,k104b_19:" Who died childless and whose estate was inherited by R. Hiyya."
,k104b_20:" In accordance with the ruling of the Sages in our Mishnah."
,k104b_21:" R. Hiyya."
,k104b_22:" Sc. THE SAGES."
,k104b_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 665. n. 16, second clause."
,k104b_24:" Where so much respect was shewn to her by R. Hiyya that he carried her foodstuffs to her on his shoulder."
,k104b_25:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to tread'). an authorization following that of another legal document called tirpa (cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p 738. n. 1) which a court issues to a claimant after he had traced the defendant's property. to seize it (to 'tread' on) for the purpose of having it offered for public sale and his recovering the proceeds or the land itself at the Price valued."
,k104b_26:" Lit., 'judged me'."
,k104b_27:" Raba."
,k104b_28:" R. Hiyya."
,k104b_29:" Of the land that was valued at a sum corresponding to that of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k104b_30:" On which she received the <i>adrakta</i> (according to the opinion of Rabbah). when it was signed (according to Abaye). or when the period of the announcement of the public sale terminated (according to Raba). From such date the land passes into the possession of the claimant and its produce also from that day onwards belongs to him (cf. B.M. 36b)."
,k104b_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 669. n. 7."
,k104b_32:" Lit., 'that it was not written in it'."
,k104b_33:" The <i>adrakta</i> referred to all R. Hiyya's landed property. while legally it should have been restricted to those which he inherited from his deceased brother. On his own lands the widow could have no claim whatsoever."
,k104b_34:" In agree. melt with the view of Raba (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 669. n. 12). After the claimant discovers a field that belonged to the defendant he reports to the court who value it, and arrange for a period of thirty days for the public announcement. at the end of which the claimant comes into possession (v. B.M. 35b)."
,k104b_35:" That the land passes into the possession of the claimant on one of the dates mentioned (<i>supra</i> p. 669. n. 12)."
,k104b_36:" Lit., 'these words'."
,k104b_37:" Lit., 'is written'."
,k104b_38:" Lit., we have not in it'; the land does not pass into the ownership of the claimant until he takes actual possession of it."
,k104b_39:" From a deed."
,k104b_40:" And is deemed to have been entered though the scribe had omitted it (B.M. 140. B.B. 169b). Why then should an error in the <i>adrakta</i> cause its invalidity?"
,k104b_41:" [Rightly omitted in MS.M.]"
,k104b_42:" Lit., 'in that'. In that he had an <i>adrakta</i> made out against R. Hiyya's own property."
,k104b_43:" R. Hiyya."
,k104b_44:" R. Hiyya's brother's or his own. Hence he drew up the <i>adrakta</i> on all R. Hiyya's lands."
,k104b_45:" Which did not belong to her husband but to his heir and which the court handed over to her in return for her claim."
,k104b_46:" And were legally pledged for her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k104b_47:" By the heir who is well aware that he can at any time re-claim his own land and transfer the property of the deceased to his widow."
,k104b_48:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 670, n. 16."
,k104b_49:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 670. n. 15."
,k104b_50:" Lit., 'murmur', 'reflection'."
,k104b_51:" Lit., 'and come to bring out'."
,k104b_52:" Who would be accused of carelessness or indifference in the provision they made for the widow."
,k104b_53:" [H] (plural of [H], 'decree', 'decision'). Var., [H] (plural of [H] 'robbery') v. <i>infra</i>. Cf. B.K. 58b, Sonc. ed. p. 340, n. 1."
,k104b_54:" From which the Sages differed."
,k104b_55:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 2. The rulings are enumerated in this Mishnah and in those following. "
}

txt:
<p>
she is again entitled to the original period.<a id="k104b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and if she produced<a id="k104b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the deed of the <i>kethubah</i> she may recover [the amount of] her <i>kethubah</i> at any time.<a id="k104b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. R. Hisda sent [the following message] to R. Nahman b. Jacob: Will our Master instruct us as to whether the dispute<a id="k104b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [refers to] one who produced a deed of the <i>kethubah</i> or to one who produced no deed of the <i>kethubah</i>,' and with whose ruling does the <i>halachah</i> agree? &mdash; The other replied: The dispute refers to one who produced no deed of the <i>kethubah</i>, but [a woman] who produced a deed of the <i>kethubah</i> may recover her <i>kethubah</i> at any time;<a id="k104b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling of the Sages.
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came<a id="k104b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he reported R. Simeon b. Pazzi who laid down in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara: This<a id="k104b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was taught only in respect of the <i>maneh</i><a id="k104b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the two hundred <i>zuz</i>.<a id="k104b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; To any additional jointure, however, the woman is always entitled.<a id="k104b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan, however, ruled: She is not entitled even to the additional jointure; for R. Aibu has laid down in the name of R. Jannai: The additional provisions<a id="k104b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; of a <i>kethubah</i> are subject to the same rules<a id="k104b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; as the <i>kethubah</i> itself.<a id="k104b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; So it was also said:<a id="k104b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abba laid down in the name of R. Huna who had it from Rab: This was taught only in respect of the <i>maneh</i> and the two hundred <i>zuz</i>. To any additional jointure, however, she is always entitled.<a id="k104b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abba to R. Huna: Did Rab really say this?<a id="k104b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Do you wish', the other replied, to silence me<a id="k104b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; or to stand me a drink?'<a id="k104b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'I', the other replied, 'wish to silence you!'
</p><p>
	The mother-in-law of R. Hiyya Arika<a id="k104b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; was the wife of his brother,<a id="k104b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and [when she became] a widow lived in her father's bouse. [R. Hiyya] maintained her for twenty.five years at her paternal home [but when] at the end [of the period] she said to him. 'Supply me with my maintenance' he told her, 'You have no [longer any claim to] maintenance'. 'pay me [then', she said'my] kethubah'. 'You have no claim,' he replied- 'either to maintenance or to the <i>kethubah'</i>,<a id="k104b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; She summoned him to law before Rabbah b. Shila. 'Tell me', [the judge] said to him,<a id="k104b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'what exactly were the circumstances. 'I maintained her', the other<a id="k104b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; replied. 'for twenty-five years at her paternal home and, by the life of the Master, I carried [the stuff] to her on my shoulder'. 'What is the reason', [the judge] said to him, 'that the Rabbis<a id="k104b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled, so LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER HUSBAND'S HOUSE [A WIDOW] MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> AT ANY TIME? Because we assume that she did not claim it in order [to save herself from] shame.<a id="k104b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly here also<a id="k104b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may well be assumed] that she did not [previously] submit her claim in order [to save herself from] shame.<a id="k104b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Go, and supply her [maintenance]'. [As R. Hiyya] disregarded [the ruling. the judge] wrote out for her an <i>adrakta</i><a id="k104b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; on his property. Thereupon he came to Raba and said to him, 'See, Master, how he treated my case',<a id="k104b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He has given you the proper ruling', the other replied. 'If that is the case', [the widow] said to him,<a id="k104b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; 'let him<a id="k104b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; proceed to refund me the produce<a id="k104b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [he has consumed] since that day<a id="k104b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; to date'. 'Shew me' he<a id="k104b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; said to her, 'your <i>adrakta</i>'.<a id="k104b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; As he observed that it did not contain the clause,<a id="k104b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And we have ascertained that this estate belonged to the deceased', he said to her, 'The <i>adrakta</i> is not properly drawn up'.<a id="k104b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Let the <i>adrakta</i> be dropped'. she said; 'and let me receive [the refund for the produce] from the day on which the period of the public announcement terminated<a id="k104b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; to date'. 'This',<a id="k104b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied. applies only to a case<a id="k104b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; where no error has crept<a id="k104b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; into the <i>adrakta</i>, but where an error occurs<a id="k104b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; in the <i>adrakta</i> the document possesses no validity'.<a id="k104b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But did not the Master himself lay down', she exclaimed, '[that the omission<a id="k104b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; of the clause] pledging property [is to be regarded as the] scribe's error?'<a id="k104b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'In this case', Raba told her, '[the omission] cannot be said to be a scribe's error, for even Rabbah b. Shila originally<a id="k104b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; overlooked the point'.<a id="k104b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; He thought: Since both belonged to him<a id="k104b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; what matters it [whether the widow distrains] on the one or the other.<a id="k104b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; But this is not [the proper view]. For sometimes [the widow] might go and improve those [lands]<a id="k104b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; while those belonging to her husband<a id="k104b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; would be allowed<a id="k104b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; to deteriorate and [the heir might eventually] tell her, 'Take yours<a id="k104b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and return to me mine',<a id="k104b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; and a stigma<a id="k104b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; would thus fall<a id="k104b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; upon the court.<a id="k104b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xiii">CHAPTER XIII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. TWO JUDGES OF CIVIL LAW<a id="k104b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; WERE [ADMINISTERING JUSTICE] IN JERUSALEM, ADMON AND HANAN B. ABISHALOM. HANAN LAID DOWN TWO RULINGS<a id="k104b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ADMON LAID DOWN SEVEN: &mdash; 55
</p><p>
	IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND HIS WIFE CLAIMED MAINTENANCE, HANAN RULED:
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k3a_1:" Lit. 'that he was not forced.' The divorce would therefore certainly be effective."
,k3a_2:" And the divorce would, in her view, not take effect (if the rule would have been that an accident is a bar to the divorce becoming effective)."
,k3a_3:" Lit., 'and she will be tied'. I.e., she would regard herself as tied to her absent husband and would not marry again. An 'agunah is a woman tied to an absent husband'. The Rabbis endeavoured to prevent the state of 'agunah; v. Git. 33a."
,k3a_4:" And the divorce would not take effect."
,k3a_5:" The use of 'she would say' here in contradistinction to 'she would think' in the case of the 'chaste women' is no doubt intentional. She (the loose woman) would say this, although she would not think so in her heart."
,k3a_6:" In which case the divorce would become effective."
,k3a_7:" Lit., 'and it is found.'"
,k3a_8:" If the divorce should not become effective because of an accident."
,k3a_9:" The children of a married woman and a man who is not her husband are bastards, mamzerim; v. Yeb. 49a. This would be the case if the divorce would not become effective because of an accident and the first husband should turn up and say that he was held back by an accident. To prevent such evil results Raba established the rule that an accident should not be a bar to the divorce taking effect."
,k3a_10:" Lit., 'and is there anything?'"
,k3a_11:" [The Plea of force majeure as recognized in the Bible, v. Deut. XXII, 26.]"
,k3a_12:" Lit., 'the wife of a man.'"
,k3a_13:" I.e., to marry another man."
,k3a_14:" Lit., 'he sanctifies.' 'he consecrates.' To sanctify, to consecrate a woman to oneself means to marry her. <i>Kiddushin</i> 'sanctifications' means 'betrothal,' 'marriage.' I.e., every one who marries a woman marries her on the basis that the marriage is sanctioned by the law of the Rabbis."
,k3a_15:" Lit., 'and the Rabbis have caused the betrothal to be released from him,' that is retrospectively. As the marriage is subject to the sanction of the Rabbis, the Rabbis can, if the necessity arises, annul the marriage. Such a necessity has arisen when an accident would be a bar to the divorce becoming effective."
,k3a_16:" The answer just given might be regarded as satisfactory."
,k3a_17:" V. Kid. 2a."
,k3a_18:" I.e., have declared it to be, or regard it."
,k3a_19:" Lit., 'an intercourse of prostitution.' The Rabbis have in either case the power to annul the marriage. The argument that Raba arrived at his views through his own reasoning stands."
,k3a_20:" Lit., 'There are some who say.'"
,k3a_21:" According to this version. Raba holds that an accident is a bar to the divorce becoming effective."
,k3a_22:" From here till 'he injured himself' the text is practically identical with the corresponding text on folio 2b. There are only one or two omissions and one or two slight variations. For interpretation, v. notes on the translation of 2b. The difference of the arguments is obvious."
,k3a_23:" That a maiden marries on the fourth day of the week."
,k3a_24:" V. B.K. 82a."
,k3a_25:" Lit., 'are fixed'."
,k3a_26:" Even a maiden."
,k3a_27:" That is past and does not matter!"
,k3a_28:" Every day."
,k3a_29:" Lit., 'we require \"they watched\"'. V. <i>supra</i> 2a."
,k3a_30:" The bridegroom."
,k3a_31:" Of preparing for the wedding. "
}

txt:
<p>
sometimes [it may happen] that he was not held back by an accident,<a id="k3a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and she would think that he was held back by an accident<a id="k3a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and she would be tied, and sit.<a id="k3a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And on account of the loose women, because if you will say [that] it should not be a divorce, sometimes [it may happen] that he was held back by an accident<a id="k3a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and she would say<a id="k3a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; that he was not held back by an accident<a id="k3a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and she would go and get married, and the result would be<a id="k3a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] the divorce was invalid<a id="k3a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and her children [from the second marriage] would be bastards.<a id="k3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it possible<a id="k3a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; that according to the law of the Bible it would not be a divorce<a id="k3a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and on account of 'the chaste women' and on account of the 'loose women' we should allow a married woman<a id="k3a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to the world?<a id="k3a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Yes, every one who betroths in accordance with the sense of the Rabbis he betroths,<a id="k3a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Rabbis have annulled his betrothal.<a id="k3a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabina to R. Ashi: This might be well<a id="k3a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] he betrothed her with money,<a id="k3a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [but if] he betrothed [her] by act of marriage, what can one say [then]? &mdash; The Rabbis have made<a id="k3a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; his act of marriage non-marital.<a id="k3a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Some, [however,] say<a id="k3a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [as follows]: Raba said: And so [also] with regard to divorce. Accordingly Raba holds [that the plea of] accident applies to divorce.<a id="k3a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was raised: 'Behold this is thy bill of divorce if I come not [back] from now [and] until twelve months,' and he died within the twelve months, there is no divorce. [Now] if he dies there is no divorce, but if he became ill there would be a divorce! &mdash; Indeed I might say [unto thee] that if he became ill there would be no divorce either, and [the Mishnah] lets us hear just this [rule]: that there is no divorce after death. [That] there is no divorce after death a previous Mishnah teaches! &mdash; Perhaps [that is] to exclude from that of our teachers. Come and hear:<a id="k3a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; From now if I have not come [back] from now [and] until twelve months,' and he died within the twelve months.it is a divorce. Would not the same rule apply if he became ill? No, Only if he died, because it was not pleasing to him that she should become subject to the yabam. Come and hear: A certain [man] said unto them: 'If I do not come [back] from now [and] until thirty days it shall be a divorce.' He came [back] at the end of thirty days but the ferry stopped him. And he said unto them, 'Look, I have come [back]; look, I have come [back]!' And Samuel said: This is not regarded as having come back! &mdash; An accident which is frequent is different, for since he ought to have stipulated it and he did not stipulate it, he injured himself.
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Isaac said: They have only taught<a id="k3a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; since the institution of Ezra<a id="k3a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and after, [according to which] the courts of justice sit<a id="k3a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; only on the second day and on the fifth day [of the week]. But before the institution of Ezra, when the courts of justice sat every day, a woman<a id="k3a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; could be married on any day. Before the institution of Ezra, what there was there was!<a id="k3a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He means it thus: If there are courts of justice that sit now as before the institution of Ezra,<a id="k3a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; a woman may be married on any day. But what of shakedu?<a id="k3a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [We suppose] that he<a id="k3a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; had [already] taken the trouble.<a id="k3a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k3b_1:" This will be explained anon."
,k3b_2:" If it is her first marital union."
,k3b_3:" By the first act of intercourse."
,k3b_4:" The Roman authorities."
,k3b_5:" jus primae noctis; v. J.E., VII, p. 395."
,k3b_6:" [And no woman is enjoined to sacrifice her life in resisting this assault: v. <i>supra</i> p. 7 n. 1, v. <i>infra</i> 51b.]"
,k3b_7:" The women."
,k3b_8:" V. n. 6."
,k3b_9:" Who might submit voluntarily."
,k3b_10:" Wives of priests who would be forbidden to their husbands even when submitting under constraint: v. <i>infra</i> 51b."
,k3b_11:" Marrying on Wednesday."
,k3b_12:" Of the Romans."
,k3b_13:" To come into town."
,k3b_14:" The fear of the exercise of jus primae noctis."
,k3b_15:" Earlier in the cited Baraitha."
,k3b_16:" [Implying that it was not an established custom.]"
,k3b_17:" And he would requisition the food prepared for the wedding-feast."
,k3b_18:" If he only passes through the town."
,k3b_19:" I.e., let the marriage be delayed till the fourth day of the following week."
,k3b_20:" [Instead of the second day of the week and thus give him a longer opportunity for making preparations for the wedding.]"
,k3b_21:" The general's."
,k3b_22:" With water, their wine being too strong to be drunk undiluted. I.e., all the preparations for the wedding had been made."
,k3b_23:" [Who had to provide for the wedding-feast.]"
,k3b_24:" [Who provided the wife with her trousseau.]"
,k3b_25:" Huppah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> First the marriage and then the mourning. "
}

txt:
<p>
What is [the reference to] shakedu? [For] it has been taught: Why did they say that a maiden is married on the fourth day? 'Because if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [next morning] to the court of justice. But let her be married on the first day in the week and if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [on the morning of the second day in the week] to the court of justice? &mdash; The Sages watched over the interests of the daughters of Israel so that [the man] should prepare for the [wedding-]feast three days, the first day in the week, and the second day in the week, and the third day in the week, and on the fourth day he marries her. And from [the time of] danger and onwards the people made it a custom to marry on the third day and the Sages did not interfere with them. And on the second day [of the week] he shall not marry; and if on account of the constraint<a id="k3b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is allowed. And one separates the bridegroom from the bride on the nights of Sabbath at the beginning,<a id="k3b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; because he makes a wound.<a id="k3b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What [was the] danger? If I say that they<a id="k3b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; said, 'a maiden that gets married on the fourth day [of the week] shall be killed', [then how state] 'they made it a custom'? We should abolish it entirely! &mdash; Said Rabbah: [That] they said, 'a maiden that gets married on the fourth day [of the week] shall have the first sexual intercourse with the prefect.'<a id="k3b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [You call] this danger? [Surely] this [is a case of] constraint!<a id="k3b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because there are chaste women who would rather surrender themselves to death and [thus] come to danger. But let one expound to them<a id="k3b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that [in a case of] constraint [it] is allowed?<a id="k3b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There are loose women<a id="k3b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and there are also priestesses.<a id="k3b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But [then] let one abolish it?<a id="k3b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; A decree<a id="k3b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is likely to cease, and [therefore] we do not abolish an ordinance of the Rabbis on account of a decree. If so, on the third day he [the prefect] would also come and have intercourse [with the bride]? &mdash; Out of doubt he does not move himself.<a id="k3b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[It is stated above:] 'And on the second day [of the week] he shall not marry; and if on account of the constraint it is allowed.' What constraint [is referred to]? Shall I say [that it is] that which we have said?<a id="k3b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; There,<a id="k3b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; one calls it 'danger' 'and here, one calls it [mere] 'constraint'! And further, there [it states], 'they made it a custom', [whilst] here, 'it is allowed'!<a id="k3b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Raba: [it is that] they say 'a general has come to town.<a id="k3b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; In what case? If he comes and passes by,<a id="k3b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; let it be delayed!<a id="k3b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is not necessary [to state this but] that he came and stayed. Let him, [then], marry on the third day [of the week]!<a id="k3b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; His<a id="k3b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; vanguard arrived on the third day. And if you wish I may say: What is [the meaning of] 'on account of the constraint'? As it has been taught: If his bread was baked and his meat prepared and his wine mixed<a id="k3b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and the father of the bridegroom<a id="k3b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; or the mother of the bride died,<a id="k3b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; they bring the dead [person] into a room and the bridegroom and the bride into the bridal chamber,<a id="k3b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</P>


