## Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot Chapter 11

###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:1:1)

**משנה:** אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מִנִּיכְסִי יְתוֹמִין וּמַעֲשֶׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהֶן וְאֵינָן חַיָיבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ. יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים כְתוּבָּתָהּ חַיָיבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a widow is supported by the orphans’ property¹., she has to work for them but they are not obligated to bury her² and died after her husband, the speculator who bought her *ketubah* has to bury her (cf. Note 57 and S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה כתובות p. 329).. Her heirs, the heirs of her *ketubah*, are obligated to bury her.

footnotes:
¹ The widow who chose to be supported by the estate (as explained in Mishnah 4:12) rather than taking her ketubah
² If they are not her heirs, she has to keep house for them anyway. The husband whose wife dies before him must bury her since he is the heir of her property. If she died childless after her husband, the heirs of her side of the family have to bury her. Similarly, if she sold her future rights to a ketubah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:1:2)

**הלכה:** אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מִנִּיכְסִי יְתוֹמִין כול׳. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מְצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ. הוֹתִירָה מְזוֹנוֹת. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁמְּצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹתִירָה מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. אַלְמָנָה שֶׁמְּצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ הוֹתִירָה מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. הוֹתִירָה בְלָיוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. מָה אִם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהוֹתִירָה מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. הוֹתִירָה בְלָיוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. אַלְמָנָה שֶׁהוֹתִירָה מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. הוֹתִירָה בְלָיוֹת לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. תַּמָּן צְרִיכָה לוֹן לְנִידָּתָהּ. אַף הָכָא צְרִיכָא לוֹן לְנִידָּתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a widow is supported by the orphans’ property,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel³, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: What she finds belongs to herself. If she had sustenance left over? Since her finds belong to her husband, the married woman’s leftover sustenance belongs to her husband⁴ in the Babli, 65b. (In *Nazir* 24b it is explained that the husband’s property is the household money which she did not spend on food, rather than actual food she saved when being on a diet. The editing of *Nazir* seemingly is different from that of most Babli Tractates.). Since a widow’s finds belong to herself, her leftover sustenance belongs to herself. Her worn-out clothing belongs to her⁵ in the Babli, 65b, rejected there.. Since even a married woman, whose leftover sustenance belongs to her husband, keeps her worn-out clothing to herself, the widow, whose leftover food belongs to herself, her worn-out clothing so much more! There, she needs them for the time of her period. Here also, she needs them for the time of her period⁶.

footnotes:
³ He is the author of the same statement in the Babli, 96a.
⁴ A baraita
⁵ A baraita
⁶ A woman never has worn-out clothes since she always has occasion to wear rags. The Babli rejects this argument since in the absence of her husband she does not need a wardrobe of second rate dresses; she can wear real rags.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:1:3)

רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אַף הִיא אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה אוֹתָן דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּיִיחוּד. מָה הֶן דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּיִיחוּד. סָכָה לְהוֹן אֶת גּוּפָן וּמְרַחֶצֶת לְהוֹן אֶת פְּנֵיהֶן וּמוֹזֶגֶת לְהוֹן אֶת הַכּוֹס.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Also she does not perform for them services of intimacy. What are services of intimacy? She rubs their bodies, washes their faces, or mixes their cup⁷.

footnotes:
⁷ A slightly different list is in the Babli, 96a, also in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. It is understood that the heirs have the right to expect from her all services a wife does for her husband, except those that are preliminaries to sexual relations.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:1:4)

וּמוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֵין לָהּ יַיִן. אַלְמָנָה יֵשׁ לָהּ יַיִן. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁאָמְרָה. יֵצְאוּ מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיי לִמְזוֹנוֹתַיי. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ. אַלְמָנָה שֶׁאָמְרָה. יֵצְאוּ מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיי לִמְזוֹנוֹתַיי. שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
One adds to her sustenance: A married woman has no wine⁸, a widow has wine. If a married woman said, my earnings should be counted against my sustenance, one does not listen to her⁹ 40b; *Baba meṣi‘a* 49b), i. e., against the husband’s will. Since this is a money matter, the Yerushalmi will accept it in case of mutual agreement.; if a widow said, my earnings should be counted against my sustenance, one listens to her¹⁰.

footnotes:
⁸ Cf. Chapter 5, Note 251.
⁹ She keeps all of her earnings and the husband does not have to pay for her (he still has to provide for her lodging.) The Babli emphatically permits such an arrangement by the wife’s initiative (58b, 70a, 82b, 107b; Baba qama
¹⁰ Even against the heirs’ opposition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:1:5)

רַב אָמַר. הַמֵּת אָמַר. אַל תְּקַבְּרוּנִי. נִקְבַּר בִּצְדָקָה. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְעָא. וְכִי עָלָת עַל דַּעְתָּךְ שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲחֵרִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְהוּא נִקְבַּר בִּצְדָקָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. יוֹרְשֵׁיהָ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין כְתוּבָּתָהּ חַיָיבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ קַרְקַע. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הִנִּיחַ עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת וּמְטַלְטְלִין. כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה וַהֲלָהּ נִקְבַּר בִּצְדָקָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדַם וְתָפַס. הָא אִם לֹא קָדַם וְתָפַס מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. פָּתַר לֵיהּ בְּאוֹמֵר. קִבְרוּנִי. כְּהָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין. נִקְבַּר הַמֵּת וְלֹא אָמַר. קִבְרוּנִי. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּדְמוּ אֲחֵרִים וְתָפְשׂוּ מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן. בְּשֶׁתָּפְסוּ קַרְקַע. וְהָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן. בְּשֶׁתָּפַס קַרְקַע. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁתָּפְסוּ מְטַלְטְלִין אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן. בְּמִלְוֶה בְעֵדִים. אֲבָל בְּמִלְוֶה בִשְׁטָר בֵּין שֶׁתָּפְשׂוּ קַרְקַע בֶּין שֶׁתָּפְשׂוּ מְטַלְטְלִין אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. עָשׂוּ דִבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כְּבָרִיא שֶׁכָּתַב וְנָתַן. וְהוּא שֶמֵּת מֵאוֹתוֹ הַחוֹלִי. הָא הִבְרִיא לֹא. וּבִמְסַיַיֵם וְאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ שָׂדֶה פְלוֹנִית לִפְלוֹנִי. אָמַר. תְּנוּ שָׂדֶה פְלוֹנִית לִפְלוֹנִי. כְּמִי שֶׁסִּיֵים. אוֹ עַד שֶיֹּאמַר. חֶצְיָיהּ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחֶצְיָיהּ בַּדָּרוֹם. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. אָמַר שָׂרְפוּנִי וְעִבְדוּ בִי עֲבוֹדָה וּתְנוּ חֲצִי שָׂדֶה פְלוֹנִית לִפְלוֹנִי. אִם אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין אֵין נוֹתְנִין. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא. שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר. יָזוּנוּ בְנוֹתַיי. בְּלֹא כָךְ אֵין בְּנוֹתָיו נִיזּוֹנוֹת. לֹא צוּרְכָא דְלֹא. מָהוּ שֶׁיָּזוּנוּ מִן הַמְשׁוּעְבָּדִין וּמָהוּ שֶׁיָּזוּנוּ מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין. רִבִּי יוּדָן ברח לנוי אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר. יִינָתֵנוּ אוֹתִיּוֹתָיו לִפְלוֹנִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵין שְׁכִיב מְרַע מְזַכֶּה אֶלָּא בִדְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן נִקְנִין אוֹ בִשְׁטָר אוֹ בִמְשִׁיכָה. וְאֵילּוּ נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה וּבִשְׁטָר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. סְפִינָה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. סְפִינָה וְאוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה וּבִשְׁטָר. כָּתַב וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ מָשַׁךְ וְלֹא כָתַב לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב וְיִמְשׁוֹךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity¹¹? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her *ketubah*, are obligated to bury her.¹²” Explain it, if they inherited real estate¹³ is payable in real estate.. As it was stated¹⁴: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody¹⁵ or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and¹⁶ he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first¹⁷. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me¹⁸. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses¹⁹. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not²⁰ remove from their hands. For²¹ Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said²² 152a, 175a; *Giṭṭin* 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered²³. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y²⁴? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?²⁵ Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?²⁶ Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway²⁷ (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables²⁸ could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]²⁹ there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document *or* by taking hold³⁰. But these are acquired by a document *and* by taking hold. As it was stated³¹ 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document *and* by taking hold. ³²76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

footnotes:
¹¹ This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.
¹² This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.
¹³ Since usually a ketubah
¹⁴ A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.
¹⁵ Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah
¹⁶ If nothing is left of his estate.
¹⁷ If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.
¹⁸ If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.
¹⁹ In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.
²⁰ It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help.
²¹ This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests.
²² In the Babli (Baba batra
²³ The legal forms of a valid gift.
²⁴ It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.
²⁵ No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death.
²⁶ Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal?
²⁷ Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah
²⁸ At places where the ketubah
²⁹ The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here.
³⁰ By bodily possession.
³¹ Tosephta Qiddušin
³² This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:2:1)

**משנה:** אַלְמָנָה בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין לֹא תִמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וְכָל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת לֹא תִמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A widow, whether after preliminary or definitive marriage, may sell without court supervision³³; the widow after definitive marriage has a choice of either taking her *ketubah* or being sustained by the estate. Both Talmudim explain that nobody will want his family’s honor compromised by forcing his widow into court; therefore, it is understood that he wrote the *ketubah* with the idea that it should be liquidated, if possible, in private.. Rebbi Simeon says, after definitive marriage she may sell without court supervision; after preliminary marriage, she may sell only under court supervision since she has no sustenance and any person who has no claim to sustenance may sell only under court supervision.

footnotes:
³³ The woman who becomes a widow before her definitive wedding may have a claim to ketubah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:2:2)

**הלכה:** אַלְמָנָה בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כול׳. מִיסְבַּר סְבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. פָּסַק לָזוּן מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין. פָּסַק לָזוּן מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין לֹא תִמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חַס הוּא אָדָם עַל כְּבוֹד אַלְמָנָתוֹ בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A widow, whether after preliminary or definitive marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that everything depends on sustenance. If he had agreed to sustain her after preliminary marriage, she may sell without court supervision If he had agreed to sustain her after definitive marriage, she may sell only under court supervision³⁴. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person is concerned for his widow’s dignity³⁵ whether after preliminary or after definitive marriage.

footnotes:
³⁴ If she is widowed before definitive marriage.
³⁵ That she should not have to appear before an all-male court. This is also R. Joḥanan’s opinion in the Babli, 97b, where it is not the only explanation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:2:3)

רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הַמּוֹחֶלֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לִיתוֹמִים נִיזּוֹנֶת מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁמָּא אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא דַיֶיךָ שֶׁמָּחְלָה לִיתוֹמִין כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְהַבְרִיחָהּ מִמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The one who renounced her *ketubah* in favor of the orphans is sustained by them. This is difficult. If there were a woman without *ketubah*³⁶ to her husband., does she not have claim to sustenance? A woman without *ketubah* has claim to sustenance³⁷ vol. 2, 32d, at Note 23.. But here is it not enough that she renounced her *ketubah* in favor of the orphans, that you want to cheat her of her sustenance?

footnotes:
³⁶ Cf Mishnah 5:2; it is a matter of dispute whether a woman may donate her ketubah
³⁷ Since she is entitled to sustenance for the work she does in keeping house. The problem could not arise before the husband’s death (hinted at in Babli 53a).Many commentators want to emend the text; these emendations have to be rejected since the text as it stands is quoted in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:2:4)

רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית דִין אִיבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבִלְבַד מִן הַשּׁוֹפִי. הָא מֵאוֹנֶס לֹא. כְּהָדָא אַרְמַלְתָּא דְּרִבִי אַבְדִּימוֹס דְּמוֹזְבָה. אָמְרוּ לָיהּ. רִבִּי בָּא בַר כֹּהֶן בְּעֵי לֵיךְ. תָּבְעָת פֶרְנֶה. אוֹבְדַת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. מִן דְּאִיתְיָדְעִין מִילַּיָיא אַעֲלוֹן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְחָזְרָה לִמְזוֹנָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav³⁸ 54a, *Giṭṭin*25a, *Arakhin* 22a): Samuel.: If she requested her *ketubah* in court³⁹, she lost her claim to sustenance⁴⁰ or to be sustained by the estate.. Rebbi Yose said, but only from a clear mind; not if forced. As in the case of the widow of Rebbi Eudaimon from Mozva to whom they⁴¹ said, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen wants you. She requested her *ketubah* and lost her sustenance. After the matter became known⁴², it was brought before Rebbi Yose and she returned to her sustenance.

footnotes:
³⁸ In the Babli (Ketubot
³⁹ Not if the request is made in private.
⁴⁰ Since the widow is entitled either to be paid her ketubah
⁴¹ The heirs informed her falsely that a rabbi of reputation wanted to marry her.
⁴² Fraudulent information by an interested party is counted as forced deal for the victim.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:2:5)

רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִימְרָא. אַלְמָנָה שֶׁעָשָׂת שְׁנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא לִתְבּוֹעַ מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ אָבְדָה מְזוֹנֹתֶיהָ דְּאִינּוּן תַּלְתֵּי יַרְחַיָיא. בִּשֶׁלֹּא לִלְוֹת. אֲבָל אִם לָוְתָה גּוֹבָה. בְּשֶׁאֵין בְּיָדֶיהָ מַשְׁכּוֹן. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ בְּיָדֶיהָ מַשְׁכּוֹן אֲפִילוּ לֹא לָוְותָה גּוֹבָה. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ. בַּתְּחִילָּה מוֹכְרִין מָזוֹן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ. וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ מָזוֹן לֹ יוֹם. בְּסוֹף לֹ יוֹם הֵן אוֹמְרִים. נָתַנּוּ. וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. לֹא נָטַלְתִּי. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לוֹוֶה מִמֶּנָּהּ יֹבֹ אֶלֶף לְשָׁנָה לִהְיוֹת מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מִדֵּינָר זָהָב לַחוֹדֶשׁ. פְּשִׁיטָא חוֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן נָתַן וְחוֹדֶשׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן לֹא נָתַן. יָמִים שֶׁבֵּנְתַיִים זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ. הָא בַתְּחִילָּה לֹא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: A widow who lived two or three months without asking for sustenance, loses the sustenance of these three months⁴³. That is, if she did not take a loan. But if she took out a loan, she collects. If there is no pledge in her hand. But if she has a pledge in her hand, she collects even if she did not take a loan⁴⁴. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is what they said, at the start one sells for sustenance of twelve months but one gives her sustenance for 30 days⁴⁵. If at the end of thirty days they say, we gave, but she says, I did not receive⁴⁶ considered as if collected in the widow’s hand and the heirs want to deprive her of it and have to bring proof?, it would be similar to what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one took a loan of 12’000 for a year in order to repay one gold denar⁴⁷ 4:1 (Notes 23, 24) there is mention of an *aureus* worth 2’000. Cf. D. Sperber, *Roman Palestine*200–400*, Money Prices,* 1974, Chapter II. per month. It is obvious that he gave for the first month⁴⁸ and did not give for the last⁴⁹. About the days in between they said, not at the start⁵⁰.

footnotes:
⁴³ In the Babli, 97a, “two or three years”.
⁴⁴ Any action she takes earlier to show that she is aware of her claim validates the claim later.
⁴⁵ If the widow goes to court to sell from the estate’s real estate, it cannot be sold in small portions. One therefore sells to cover her sustenance for twelve months but the moneys are delivered to her in monthly installments since, as explained in the next paragraph, money delivered to the widow for her sustenance cannot be taken back (even if she remarries).In the Babli, 97a, the time frame for which one sells is a matter of dispute.
⁴⁶ Who carries the burden of proof? Is it the widow because she is the claimant, or is the ketubah
⁴⁷ Under the Augustan monetary system, a gold denar was worth 25 silver denars. The present statement must have been formulated during the inflation of the Military Anarchy when the debased “silver” denars had even lost their name. In Ma‘aśer Šeni
⁴⁸ Since this was due at the beginning of the contract, it may be presumed that payment was made. In this case, the burden of proof is on the recipient.
⁴⁹ Since nobody can be presumed to pay before due date; if the payor claims to have paid before that day, the burden of proof is on him.
⁵⁰ While in general in disputes about the fulfillment of contracts the burden of proof is on the claimant, in matters of payments to the widow the burden of proof is on the payor except for the first installment.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:2:6)

אָתָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּתְּחִילָּה מוֹכְרִין מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ מָזוֹן ל̇ יוֹם. וְיִמְכְּרוּ מָזוֹן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹרַע כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ מָזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָה חַב לִיתוֹמִים. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה אֲפִילוּ אֶלֶף זוּז לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָהּ. מָהוּ מֵימַר לָהּ. הֲוִי מַה בְּיָדַיִךְ. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְּרִבִּי מָנָא אָמְרִין לָהּ. הֲוִי מַה בְּיָדַיִךְ. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא עֲתִידָה לְהִישָּׁבַע בַּסּוֹף אֲפִילוּ מַה בְיָדַיִךְ אָמְרִין לָהּ. תְּהִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu quoted in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵¹: At the start one sells for sustenance of twelve months but one gives her sustenance for 30 days. Why should they sell for the sustenance of 12 months? Not to disadvantage the woman⁵². Why do they give her sustenance for 30 days? If you said otherwise, you would act in detriment of the orphans, as it was stated⁵³ is quoted in the Babli, 96a.: If a widow took possession even of 1’000 *zuz* for her sustenance, one does not take it away from her. What could one say to her? “Show⁵⁴ what is in your hands!⁵⁵” The students of Rebbi Mana said to her, “show what is in your hands.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to them, since in the end she will have to swear about anything in her hands⁵⁶ she has to deliver an accounting about any estate property in her hands., one says to her, let it be so.

footnotes:
⁵¹ Quoted in the preceding paragraph in the name of R. Yasa, Note 45. אתא here corresponds to גופא in the Babli as back reference.
⁵² She does not have to run after her sustenance every month.
⁵³ A similar baraita
⁵⁴ Reading הוי as equivalent of Babylonian חוי.
⁵⁵ One might think that she can collect for next month’s sustenance only after having accounted for the expenses of the past, reducing next month’s payment by the amount not spent in the preceding.
⁵⁶ If in the end she decides to take her ketubah,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:3:1)

**משנה:** מָכְרָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ נָתְנָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ לְאַחֵר אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ לֹא תִמְכּוֹר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מוֹכֶרֶת הִיא אֲפִילוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים. וּמוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין וְכוֹתֶבֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי. וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא תִמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If she sold⁵⁷ to a speculator who assumes the risk that she might die before her husband and the *ketubah* become void. her *ketubah* entirely or partially, or donated her *ketubah* to another, entirely or partially, she cannot sell the remainder except under court supervision⁵⁸. But the Sages say, she may sell even four or five times⁵⁹ without damaging her powers., and may sell for sustenance without court supervision but writes in the document that “I sold for sustenance.” A divorcee may sell only under court supervision⁶⁰.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ She sells her future right to the sum promised her in the ketubah
⁵⁸ This belongs to R. Simeon’s statement from the preceding Mishnah.
⁵⁹ She may sell small portions of the ketubah
⁶⁰ The divorcee can sell her former husband’s property only if he sent her the bill of divorce from far away. In that case, the court supervision is justified to preserve the estate.The Babli explains that the husband does not care if his divorcee has to apply to the court to collect her dues. The Yerushalmi rejects this argument in the second paragraph.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:3:2)

**הלכה:** מָכְרָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. מוֹכֶרֶת וְכוֹתֶבֶת אֵילּוּ לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ וְאֵילּוּ לִמְזוֹנוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. מוֹכֶרֶת וְכוֹתֶבֶת סְתָם. וּבְזוֹ כּוֹחָהּ מְיוּפֶּה. בָּאָת מִלְוֶה בָעֵדִים. אוֹמֶרֶת. לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִי. בָּאָת מִלְוֶה בִשְׁטָר. אוֹמֶרֶת. לִכְתוּבָּה מָכַרְתִי. וַאֲפִילוּ בָּאָת מִלְוֶה בָעֵדִים מוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וְטוֹרֶפֶת לְשֵׁם כְתוּבָּה. וְלָא אָמְרִין לָהּ. הֲוִי זְבִנֵיךְ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהוֹקִיר הַמִּקַּח.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If she sold her *ketubah* entirely or partially,” etc. It was stated⁶¹: “She sells and writes ‘this I sold for *ketubah*’ and ‘this I sold for sustenance,’ the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, she sells and writes non-specifically; in this she is empowered.” If a loan before witnesses [comes due], she says, I sold for sustenance⁶² If there is no unincumbered real estate, the creditor is prevented from foreclosing. A verbal loan executed before witnesses cannot be used to foreclose property sold after the loan was made.. If a loan by contract [comes due], she says, I sold for my *ketubah*⁶³. And even if a loan before witnesses [comes due], she sells for sustenance and turns around and forecloses it for her *ketubah*; could one not say to her, show your sale⁶⁴? Since a sale for sustenance is a sale on credit, to be paid over a 12 months’ period, should it not bring a premium price?? Explain it, if the object increased in value⁶⁵.

footnotes:
⁶¹ Tosephta 11:1; Babli 96b.
⁶² If the loan was executed after the date of her marriage, she can claim that the real estate is mortgaged to her ketubah.
⁶³ If no real estate is left in the estate, the creditor cannot foreclose from the buyers if his contract was dated later than her ketubah.
⁶⁴ In the first case (Note 62), could not the amount of the sale and its circumstances inform a competent appraiser whether it was for sustenance or ketubah
⁶⁵ And today it is impossible to determine the fair value at the time of sale.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:3:3)

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָדָם חַס עַל כְּבוֹד אַלְמָנָתוֹ כָּךְ חַס עַל כְּבוֹד גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם זוֹ גְרוּשָׁתוֹ. אִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי הֲוָות מֵעִיקָה לֵיהּ סַגִּין. סְלִיק רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה לְגַבֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. רִבִּי. שִׁיבְקָהּ. דְּלֵית הִיא דְאִיקָרָךְ. אֲמֵר לֵיהּ. פּוֹרְנֵה רַב עָלַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָא יְהִיב לָךְ פֶרְנֵה וְשִׁבְקָהּ. יְהַב לָיהּ פֶרְנֵה וּשְׁבָקָהּ. אָזְלָה וּנְסִיבַת לְטֶסוֹרָא דְּקַרְתָּא. אִיתְנְחַת מִן נִיכְסוֹי וְאִיתְעֲבִיד כְּסַגִיא נְהוֹרָא וַהֲוָת מְחַזְּרָא לֵיהּ עַל כָּל קַרְתָּא וּמַדְבְּרָא לֵיהּ. חַד זְמָן חֲזַרְתֵּיהּ עַל כָּל קַרְתָּא וְלֹא אִיתְיְיהַב לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. אֲמַר לָהּ. לֵיתּ הָכָא שְׁכוּנָה חוֹרִין. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. אִית הָכָא שְׁכוּנָה דִמְשַׁבְּקִי. וְלֵית בְּחֵיילִי עֲיַיל לֵהּ לְתַמָּן. שָׁרִי חֲבִיט לָהּ. עָבַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי וְשָׁמַע קַלוֹן מִתְבַּזֵּיי בְשׁוּקָא. נַסְבּוֹן וִיהָבוֹן בְּגַו חַד בֵיתָא מִן דִידֵיהּ וַהֲוָה מַסִּיק לוֹן מְזוֹנִין כָּל יוֹמִין דַּהֲווֹן בַּחַיִין. עַל שֵׁם וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם זוֹ גְרוּשָׁתוֹ. אֲפִילוּ כֵן אַצִּיתוֹן קָלוֹי בַלַּיְלִיָּא וְשָׁמְעִין קֹלָהּ אָמְרָה. לֹא הֲוָה טָב דַּיָיהּ צַעֲרָהּ לְבַר מִן גוּפָהּ וְלֹא לְגַו גּוּפָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as a man is concerned about his widow’s honor so he has to be concerned about his divorcee’s honor⁶⁶, as ⁶⁷ 17(3), *Lev. rabba* 34(14); *Yalqut Šim‘oni Torah* #23, 665, *Is.* #492; it is hinted at in *Tanna dBe Eliahu rabba* 27. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, “do not hide yourself from your flesh”⁶⁸ 58:7., that refers to one’s divorcee. Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s wife⁶⁹ she is referred to as his niece, his sister’s daughter, whom to marry is considered meritorious by Pharisees based on *Is.* 58:7 (but sinful by Sadducees, *CD* V 7–10). did mistreat him badly. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah went to him and told him, rabbi, send her away, for she does not treat you with the honor due to you. He said to him, her *ketubah* is too large for me. He said to him, I shall give you the *ketubah* and send her away. He gave him the *ketubah* and he divorced her. She went and married the city treasurer⁷⁰. That one lost his property and became blind. She took him around the town and led him. Once they went around the entire town and nobody gave him anything. He said to her, is there not another neighborhood? She said to him, there is the neighborhood of my divorcer; it is beyond my powers to bring you there. He started hitting her. Rebbi Yose the Galilean passed by and heard them demeaning one another in public. He took them, brought them to one of his houses, and provided them with food all the days of their lives, because “do not hide yourself from your flesh”, that refers to one’s divorcee⁷¹. Nevertheless they quarelled loudly in the night and her voice was heard saying, the pain she suffered outside her body was easier to bear than that inside her body⁷².

footnotes:
⁶⁶ This disagrees with the Mishnah.
⁶⁷ From here on, more wordy parallels are in Gen. rabba
⁶⁸ Is.
⁶⁹ In Gen. rabba
⁷⁰ Musaphia identifies the word טסורא with Greek θησαυριστής “collector”. The parallel words in the Midrashim seem to be corrupted.
⁷¹ Here end the parallels.
⁷² She preferred being beaten by her current husband to the mental pain inflicted on her by her ex-husband’s generosity


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:4:1)

**משנה:** אַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם וּמָכְרָה שָׁוֶה מְנָה בְמָאתַיִם אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בִּמְנָה נִתְקַבְּלָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ. הָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ מְנָה וּמָכְרָה שָׁוֶה מְנָה וְדֵינָר בִּמְנָה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. אֲפִילוּ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי אַחֲזִיר אֶת הַדֵּינָר לַיּוֹרְשִׁין מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a widow’s *ketubah* was 200 and she sold⁷³ either the worth of a mina for 200⁷⁴ or the worth of 200 for a mina⁷⁵ While she was within her rights to sell the property, she could have chosen the process of judicial appraisal which would have shielded her against any claims by the heirs or their guardians., her *ketubah* was paid. If her *ketubah* was for a mina and she sold the worth of a mina and a denar for a mina, her sale is void⁷⁶, any excess is an unauthorized sale and invalidates the entire transaction.. Even if she says, I shall return the denar to the heirs, her sale is void⁷⁷.

footnotes:
⁷³ She sold her husband’s property not under the supervision of the court.
⁷⁴ She received what was due her.
⁷⁵ It is her fault if she had sold too cheaply; from the estate she received real estate in the valuie of her ketubah.
⁷⁶ Since she had the right only to sell for the payment of her ketubah
⁷⁷ An unauthorized transaction cannot be validated after the fact.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:4:2)

**הלכה:** אַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם כול׳. נִיחָא שָׁוֶה מְנָה בְמָאתַיִם אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בִּמְנָה. מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי מַפְסִידָה אֶת הַיְּתוֹמִין בִּמְנָה. בְּשָׁוֶה מְנָה בְמָאתַיִם אֵין סוֹפוֹ לַחֲזוֹר מִשֵּׁם מִקַּח טָעוּת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהוֹקִיר הַמִּקַּח. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין לְמִקַּח הוֹנָיָיה לְעוֹלָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם הָיָה הַמִּקַּח מוּפְלַג יֵשׁ לוֹ הוֹנָיָיה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה. הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקֲדֵּישׁוֹת. פָּתַר לָהּ. וּבִלְבַד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּפְלַג. פָּדָה שָׁוֶה מְנָה בְמָאתַיִם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵינוֹ פָדוּי. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. פָּדוּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר. טַלִּית זֶה תַּחַת חֲמוֹר זֶה. יָצָא לְחוּלִין. וְסֵיפָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. צָרִיךְ לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת דָּמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כָּל גַּרְמָהּ אָמְרָה שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת דָּמִים. מַה פְלִיגִין. לְהָבִיא מְעִילָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן מְעִילָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן מְעִילָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a widow’s *ketubah* was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200⁷⁸ or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina⁷⁹ for her *ketubah* if she sells real estate too cheaply is not a matter of the laws of *ketubah* but of torts in general; the person who causes damage has to pay for it.. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy⁸⁰. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/3%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.? Explain it that the property increased in value⁸¹. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah⁸² 4:9. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions⁸³. 25:14 since it is not bought “from his hand”; slaves are excluded since they are traded under the rules of real estate; securities are excluded since what one buys “from the neighbor’s hand” is the paper, but what is intended are the rights given by the paper and these are immaterial. The Temple is excluded in its transactions since it is not “a neighbor” (Babli *Baba meṣi‘a*56b)..” He explains it, unless it was excessive⁸⁴. ,אלמנה 98a) find the same opinion expressed by Rav Naḥman in the Babli, *Baba meṣi‘a* 57a.. If he redeemed⁸⁵. 27:11–25. what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed⁸⁶”. Since the Yerushalmi never quotes Samuel’s statement in the Babli (*Baba meṣi‘a* 57a and 7 other instances) that a redemption of dedicated items worth a mina by a *peruṭa* is valid (i. e., in ratio 19200: 1), there is no reason to assume that there should be any difference in the rulesfor overpaying or underpaying.. A *baralta* disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane⁸⁷. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value⁸⁸. 27:12). The presumption is that the statement means not only that the value has to be determined but also that it has to be paid in full.. Rebbi Yose said, the *baraita* itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny⁸⁹. 5:14–16). If the redemption of the donkey was valid, no sacrifice is due for using the donkey even if there remains the additional obligation to make up the difference in price between toga and donkey. If the redemption is invalid because the difference in price between the dedicated and the substitute values is too large, a sacrifice is due. The Babli, *Baba meṣi‘a*57a/b, is not quite sure to whom to attribute which opinion in this dispute.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ The Babli, 98 ab, does not hold that it is trivial that the widow is not rewarded for getting such a good deal; it concludes that an agent by his office is always required to look for the best possible deal and the widow sells as an agent for the estate.
⁷⁹ That she receives only 100 zuz
⁸⁰ Lev
⁸¹ And the fair value on the date of transaction can no longer be determined.
⁸² Baba meṣi‘a
⁸³ Real estate is excluded in Lev
⁸⁴ He holds that any transaction is void in which the profit margin is 100% of the fair value. Tosaphot (s. v
⁸⁵ He had donated something (other than a sacrificial animal) to the Temple. The redemption rules are based on Lev
⁸⁶ The standard commentators agree to switch the places of “mina” and “200 zuz
⁸⁷ He substitutes a toga for the dedicated donkey (which is redeemable since it is not a sacrificial animal) and presumably the donkey is worth at least two togas.
⁸⁸ It is a biblical requirement that dedications can be redeemed only after their value has been determined (Lev
⁸⁹ Unauthorized use of Temple property is sinful and has to be atoned for by a special sacrifice (Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:5:1)

**משנה:** רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם מִכְרָהּ קַיָים עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּשַׁיֵיר בַּשָּׂדֶה בַּת תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּים וּבַגִנָּה בַּת חֲצִי קַב. וּכְדִבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בֵּית רוֹבַע. הָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז וּמָכְרָה לָזֶה בִמְנָה וְלָזֶה בִמְנָה וְלָזֶה בִמְנָה וְלָאַחֲרוֹן יְפֵה מְנָה וְדֵינַר בִּמְנָה שֶׁלָּאַחֲרוֹן בָּטֵל וְשֶׁלְּכוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid⁹⁰ 1:10 gives minimal measures for different kinds of real estate; if these measures are not reached, the real estate cannot be subdivided. Therefore, if the parcel, which the heirs claim should not have been sold, would be one that could not be sold under the rules of *Baba batra*, the widow cannot be faulted if she gave it away essentially for free; it is not a case of over- or undercharging. unless there would have been left a field [for sowing] nine *qab*⁹¹, a plot of land on which in normal practice of extensive agriculture one would sow one *se’ah* of seed grain, which by tradition is fixed at 2500 square cubits (cf. *Peah* 2:1, Note 31). One *se’ah* equals 6 *qab*; the field of 9 *qab* then is 3750 square cubits. In the opinion of R. Jehudah, half of this area is a tradeable field., and in a garden⁹² would then be 2500:12 = 208 1/3 square cubits, and a quarter *qab* 104 1/6. half a *qab*, or following the words of Rebbi Aqiba, a fourth. If her *ketubah* was 400 *zuz*⁹³ and she sold to one person worth 100, to a second 100, to a third 100, and to the last the value of a mina and a denar for a mina, the last transaction is invalid but all others are valid.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ This Mishnah is the direct continuation of the preceding one; in most Mishnah mss. it is part of Mishnah 4. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that the sale, about which the heirs claim that the widow sold too cheaply, is valid if the field which would have remained in the heirs’ hands would not have qualified as an independent piece of agricultural real estate. Mishnah Baba batra
⁹¹ The standard unit for agricultural land is bet se’ah
⁹² A garden is intensively worked, irrigated property. The area for half a qab
⁹³ This sentence refers back to Mishnah 4, and is not only Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s. If one of several connected transactions is declared invalid, the others are not affected.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:5:2)

**הלכה:** רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם מִכְרָהּ קַיָים כול׳. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁמְּכָרוּהָ לָהֶן בְּאַרְבַּע שְׁטָרוֹת. מְכָרָהּ לָהֶם בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת וְהָיוּ הָעֵדִים כְּשֵׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן פְסוּלִין לָזֶה פְּסוּלִין לָזֶה. וֶחָרָנָה אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי אַבִּין מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן פְסוּלִין לָזֶה פְּסוּלִין לָזֶה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כְּשֵׁרִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָה הַשְׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵידוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. אַף הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. מְנַיִין אֲפִילוּ מֵאָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵידִים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי חְנַנְיָה חֲבֵרִין דְּרַבָּנִין וְרַבָּנִין. חַד אָמַר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וֶחָרָנָה אָמַר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר יְאוּת. מָאן דָּמַר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. נַעֲשֵׂית עֵדוּת אֶחָד מֵאִישׁ אֶחָד. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר יְאוּת. נַעֲשֵׂית כִּשְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדוּת כְּשׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts⁹⁴. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed⁹⁵ 1:1 (43a 1. 54) **גי** and *Makkot* 1:16 (31b 1. 26) **מ**; it is quoted in Alfasi *Makkot* 1, #1063 and discussed by his commentators R. Nissim Gerondi and Naḥmanides.: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document⁹⁶ and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other⁹⁷. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other⁹⁸; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other⁹⁹. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah¹⁰⁰ 1:12. *Deut*. 17:6 reads: “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses the guilty person shall be condemned to death; he cannot be condemned by the testimony of a single witness.” The question is raised, if two witnesses are sufficient, why are three mentioned? The answer given in the Mishnah is that since two witnesses are both disqualified if one of them is disqualified (in which case the remaining witness becomes a single witness), a group of three (or 100) witnesses who all testify to exactly the same effect is disqualified if one of them is disqualified. The witnesses signing a document necessarily all testify to exactly the same facts. (Alfassi #1062 notes that the Geonim restrict the Mishnah to criminal cases.) supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse¹⁰¹. 17:6. says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other¹⁰².

footnotes:
⁹⁴ The Halakhah deals only with the last case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the widow overstepped her authority only in part of the sale of property. If the legal and illegal contracts were executed separately, there is no reason to invalidate the earlier contracts because of the (necessarily last) invalid contract.
⁹⁵ The same text is in Giṭṭin
⁹⁶ His will.
⁹⁷ Relatives are not admitted as witnesses even in civil proceedings.
⁹⁸ He holds that testimony, even if in writing, is one whole; either it is valid or invalid. If it is invalid in one case, it must be invalid in general.
⁹⁹ The testimony has to be separated from its application. If the witnesses are known not to be felons, their testimony is valid. In the case of a relative, it is not applicable.
¹⁰⁰ Makkot
¹⁰¹ Deut
¹⁰² Since practice is not decided either way, the legal heirs can successfully attack the validity of the will, and the guardians of the orphans the validity of the entire sale by the widow.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:6:1)

**משנה:** שׁוּם הַדַּיָינִין שֶׁפָּחַת שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹתִיר שְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִכְרָן קַיָים אִם כֵּן מַה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה. אֲבָל אִם עָשׂוּ אִיגֶּרֶת בִּיקּוּרֶת אֲפִילוּ מָכְרוּ שָׁוֶה מְנָה בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בִּמְנָה מִכְרָן קַיָים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much, their sale is invalid¹⁰³. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, their sale is valid¹⁰⁴.; otherwise, what is the court’s power worth? But if they offered public tender¹⁰⁵, even if they sold either the worth of a mina for 200 or the worth of 200 for a mina, their sale is valid.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ Since any overcharging of at least one sixth empowers the injured party to annul the transaction.
¹⁰⁴ If they followed the rules of public sales detailed in Tractate Arakhin
¹⁰⁵ They made a written public announcement of a public sale and invited tenders and then sold to the highest bidder. The actual bids received are the best estimate of the value of real estate and override expert testimony as to the intrinsic value of the land.Following Rashi, אִיגֶּרֶת בִּיקּוּרֶת is a circular inviting people to visit (בִּיקּוּר) the property and make their offers.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:6:2)

**הלכה:** שׁוּם הַדַּיָינִין שֶׁפָּחַת שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹסִיף שְׁתוּת כול׳. כְּמַה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר בְּהֶדְיוֹט. בְּקַרְקַע עַד שְׁלִישׁ. בִּמְטַלְטְלִין עַד שְׁתוּת. וְדִכְוָותָהּ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ. בְּקַרְקַע עַד שְׁתוּת וּבִמְטַלְטְלִין עַד י̇ב̇. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שׁוּם הַיְתוֹמִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. שׁוּם הֶקְדֵּשׁ שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם. וּמַכְרִיזִין בַּבּוֹקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב. וְלָמָּה שְׁלֹשִׁים. כְּדֵי לְיַיפּוֹת כּוֹחָן שֶׁלִּיתוֹמִין. וְיַכְרִיזוּ יוֹתֵר. עָד שְׁלֹשִׁים אַתְּ מְיַיפֶּה כוֹחָן. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ אַתְּ מְרֵיעַ כּוֹחָן. וֶאֱמוֹר אַף בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ כֵּן. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שֶׁאַתְּ תּוֹפֵס רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. וְיַכְרִיזוּ לְעוֹלָם. דַּייוֹ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁיְּהֵא כִפְלַיִים בְּהֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. מִן מַה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאַתְּ תּוֹפֵס רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאִם יִמְצְאוּ שׁוּמָן שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִירִין וּמַחְלִיטִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much,” etc. As you say for a private person, in real estate up to one third¹⁰⁶. 50%, giving a ratio of 3 to 1 (*Pnei Mosheh*).., in movables up to one sixth⁸⁰. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/3%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.. And similarly, for Temple property, in real estate up to one sixth, in movables up to [one in] twelve¹⁰⁷. There¹⁰⁸ 6:1; cf. Tosephta *Ketubot* 11:3., we have stated: “The estimation for orphans is thirty days, the estimation for Temple property sixty days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings¹⁰⁹.” And why thirty? In order to empower the orphans. Why should they not announce longer? Up to thirty days you empower the orphans, more than that you diminish their power¹¹⁰. Why do you not say that for Temple property? Temple property is different because each offer made is firm¹¹¹. Then they should announce forever! If suffices for the Temple that it should be twice that of a private person. Rebbi Yudan said, since you say that Temple property is different because each offer made is firm, this implies that if they find their estimation they do not continue but close the deal¹¹².

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ R. Joḥanan was reported to say in Halakhah 4 that in real estate the deviation must be 100%. This is interpreted here to mean than the overcharge cannot be more than 100% of the undercharge, 150% vs
⁸⁰ Lev
¹⁰⁷ For redemption of property dedicated to the Temple, all terms are halved or doubled to the advantage of the Temple as exemplified in the Mishnah, next Note.
¹⁰⁸ Arakhin
¹⁰⁹ The court’s herald announces the sale twice daily in public.
¹¹⁰ In less than 30 days one is not sure that all potential buyers hear of the sale; a shorter period would diminish the number of bidders. If the process is drawn out too long, people lose interest and one diminishes the number of buyers.
¹¹¹ Each offer made to the Temple administration obliges the bidder to act on his bid until he is notified that he was released from his obligation because a higher bid was accepted. The Temple does not have to worry that it would lose bidders in a drawn out process.
¹¹² If the administration had decided on an adequate price, the first bidder meeting this price can immediately be given possession and the public announcements stopped, since the Temple will get its full price. The sixty day period is a possibility, not a necessity.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:6:3)

וּמַכְרִיזִין בַּבּוֹקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב. בִּיצִיאַת פּוֹעֲלִים וּבְהַכְנָסַת פּוֹעֲלִין. וְאוֹמֵר שָׂדֶה וְסֵימָנֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בִּשֶׁלֹּא מָצְאוּ שׁוּמָן מַחֲלִיטִין. דּוּ מַתְנִיתָא. שׁוּם הַדַּיָינִים שֶׁפָּחַת שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹתִיר שְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ. אֲבָל מָצְאוּ שׁוּמָן מַחֲלִיטִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הוּכְרְזוּ אֲנָן קַיָימִין. מִן דְּבַתְרָהּ. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ אִיגֶּרֶת בִּיקּוּרֶת. מָהוּ אִיגֶּרֶת בִּקּוּרֶת. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי אָמַר. אַכְרָזָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And one announces mornings and evenings,” at the time when [agricultural] workers go out or come back, and he mentions the field and its description¹¹³ 21b. As explained there, the landlord can then tell his workers to look up the property offered and to report back in the evening.. Rebbi Yose said, if they do not get their estimated price¹¹⁴, they can conclude the sale. Is that the Mishnah, “if the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much, their sale is invalid”? Becausethey sold too low or too high, but if they found their estimate they close the deal¹¹⁵. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: What can you say, we deal with the case that they did not announce in public¹¹⁶! From what is said afterwards: “Except if they offered public tender.” What is public tender? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, announcement¹¹⁷.

footnotes:
¹¹³ Babli Arakhin
¹¹⁴ After the 30 days of public announcement. (The Babli in the end substitutes 8 weeks of announcement on market days for the 30 days of daily announcement.)
¹¹⁵ Even before the 30 days are up.
¹¹⁶ The disagreement between the rabbis and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is only in the absence of a public tender.
¹¹⁷ Quoted by Rashi in his commentary to the Mishnah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:6:4)

עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. עֲבָדִים שֶׁלֹּא יִבְרְחוּ. וּשְׁטָרוֹת וּמְטַלְטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא יִגָּנֵבוּ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֵית הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהָעֶבֶד נִפְדֶּה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. וּבְקַרְקָעוֹת תִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֶן. וְאָדָם כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אָדָם שֶׁכָּן בֶּן חוֹרִין הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁸ 4:4 (75b 1. 22), noted **מ**, and *Sanhedrin* 1:3 (19b 1.6), noted **ס**.The origin is in *Sanhedrin* since only there one finds the *baraita* which is explained by Ulla: “The following are not subject to public tender: Slaves, securities, and movables.” Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen¹¹⁹. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave is redeemed in front of three people¹²⁰? He answered him, yes. He said to him, but did we not state¹²¹ 1:3, determining the number of jurors in judicial cases.: “Real estate¹²². 27:22–23. nine persons and a Cohen, and a human¹²³. 27:8. In both cases, the Cohen’s determination has to be made in public; the definition of “public knowledge” is “known by at least 10 people.” by the same rule”? He answered him, the human here is a free person.

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ This paragraph is also in Megillah
¹¹⁹ Since the owner has to be mentioned, thieves would be informed that it is worth while to break into that house.
¹²⁰ If a slave was dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed by his owner, this should be a private procedure.
¹²¹ Mishnah Sanhedrin
¹²² Real estate dedicated to the Temple and redeemed following the rules of Lev
¹²³ A person who dedicates his own worth and finds it impossible to give the prescribed value; Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:6:5)

חֲנַנְיָה בַּר שֵׁילֶמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. בְּעָא מֵיעֲבַד כְּרַבָּנִן. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּרָטָא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּרָטָא. לֹא כֵן לִימַּדְתָּנוּ בְשֵׁם זְקֵינֶיךָ. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשֹוּ אִיגֶּרֶת בִּיקּוּרֶת. וְקִיבְּלָהּ. וְחָזַר בֵּיהּ וַעֲבַד כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²⁴Ḥananiah bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi, who wanted to act following the rabbis¹²⁵. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus¹²⁶, said to him: Did you not teach us in your old man’s¹²⁷ 4(1933), p. 378. name, “except if they offered public tender”¹²⁸? He accepted it; Rebbi changed his mind and acted following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

footnotes:
¹²⁴ With slight changes in names this is quoted in the Babli, 100a.
¹²⁵ A case was appealed to him, in which the local court had sold property, deviating more than a sixth from the appraised value. He wanted to annul the sale.
¹²⁶ Who can be dated to the first half of the Second Century.
¹²⁷ For זקיניך as “your father” cf. S. Lieberman, תיקוני ירושלמי Tarbiẓ
¹²⁸ In this interpretation, the last sentence of the Mishnah is Rabban Simeon’s and is disputed by the rabbis. This disagrees with the findings above, Note 116. In the Babli, the entire case dealt with a sale without public announcement which Rebbi refrained from annulling.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:1)

**משנה:** הַיְּתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת. וְאִם מִתְּחִילָּה נְשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם אַיְילוֹנִית יֵשׁ לָהּ כְתוּבָּה. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Neither the orphan¹²⁹ 1:2, Note 118). By walking out, she (*Yebamot* Mishnah 13:4).
In all Babli mss. and in all Mishnah mss. of the Babylonian tradition, instead of “the orphan” one reads outright הַמְמָאֵנֶת “the repudiating”. Cf. *The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings, Kethuboth II*, p. תיד, Note 59. The Yerushalmi version must have been the original one since the Babli, 100b, discusses whether the Mishnah implies that no minor can claim a *ketubah*., nor the secondarily prohibited¹³⁰2:4, Note 67. But since the marriage is valid by biblical standards, her children are not bastards. She is denied a *ketubah* in order to induce her to refuse the marriage from the start., nor the she-ram¹³¹ 1:1, Note 65. If she was married underage and failed to become an adult physically, the husband may claim that he entered the marriage thinking that she was fully female and that, therefore, the marriage transaction was in error and invalid. may claim *ketubah*, or usufruct¹³², or sustenance, or depreciation¹³³. But if he married her from the start as a she-ram, she has claim to her *ketubah*¹³⁴, but all other payments due to the divorcee or widow, since the marriage certainly was valid.. A widow [married] to the High Priest¹³⁵. 21:14); she is not forbidden to marry him but she is barred from eating sanctified food and her children are desecrated from the priesthood. By biblical decree, she and her children are desecrated. This is punishment. Her marriage is biblically valid; there is no rabbinic reason to deny her the *ketubah* and the benefits accruing automatically to a wife., a divorcee or one who had received *ḥalîṣah* to a common priest¹³⁶. 21:7); she is not forbidden to marry him but she is barred from eating sanctified food and her children are desecrated from the priesthood., a bastard or Gibeonite girl to an Israel, an Israel girl married to a bastard or Gibeonite¹³⁷. 23:3, cf. *Yebamot* 1:5 Note 176; 4:15 Note 211), the Gibeonite by an old popular tradition ascribed to King David (*Yebamot* 2:4, Note 72). By Mishnah *Qiddušin* 3:14, in both cases the children inherit the status of the partner with the lower status., have claim to *ketubah*.

footnotes:
¹²⁹ The orphaned underage girl who was married off by her mother or brothers, who repudiated her husband before reaching adulthood (cf. Yebamot
¹³⁰ She is her husband’s relative but not a close one; her marriage is valid by biblical standards but considered incestuous by rabbinical rules; Yebamot
¹³¹ The infertile female who lacks secondary female sex characteristics; cf. Yebamot
¹³² The husband does not have to return the usufruct he had from her dowry during the existence of the marriage.
¹³³ He is not responsible to replace depreciated goods brought as her dowry.
¹³⁴ Not only ketubah
¹³⁵ The High Priest is forbidden to marry her (Lev
¹³⁶ He is forbidden to marry her (Lev
¹³⁷ The bastard is forbidden by biblical law to marry an Israelite girl (Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:2)

**הלכה:** הַיְּתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית כול׳. נִיחָא שְׁנִיָיה אַיְילוֹנִית. יְתוֹמָה. וִיתוֹמָה אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תִּיפְתָּר בִּיתוֹמָה שֶׁמֵּיאֵינָה. רִבִּי אַייבוֹ בַּר נַגָּרִי רִבִּי אִימִי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקָּנְסוּ בָהּ כָּךְ קָנְסוּ בוֹ. לֵיי דֶא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָהּ בְּלִיטְרָא שֶׁלְּזָהָב שֶׁהוּא מְאַבֵּד אֶת הַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Neither the orphan girl, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram,” etc. One understands the secondarily prohibited and the she-ram. The orphan? Does an orphan not have *ketubah*? Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi J̣oḥanan: Explain it for an orphan who repudiated¹²⁹ 1:2, Note 118). By walking out, she (*Yebamot* Mishnah 13:4).
In all Babli mss. and in all Mishnah mss. of the Babylonian tradition, instead of “the orphan” one reads outright הַמְמָאֵנֶת “the repudiating”. Cf. *The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings, Kethuboth II*, p. תיד, Note 59. The Yerushalmi version must have been the original one since the Babli, 100b, discusses whether the Mishnah implies that no minor can claim a *ketubah*.. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari, Rebbi Immi: Just as they fined her, so they fined him. In which respect? That if he preliminarily married her by [giving her] a pound of gold, he loses it all.

footnotes:
¹²⁹ The orphaned underage girl who was married off by her mother or brothers, who repudiated her husband before reaching adulthood (cf. Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:3)

וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שֶׁאֵין לֹו עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צַיְדָנִיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּפַלִּיג עַל רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְזַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. מַהוּ לֹא פֵירוֹת. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאָכַל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹³⁸ 9:4, variant readings noted **י**, explained there in Notes 31–53.“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].

footnotes:
¹³⁸ From here to the end of the Halakhah, this is Halakhah Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּכָל שָׁעָה הַוָה רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי אָמַר לִי. תְּנִי מַתְנִיתָךְ. יוֹרְשָׁהּ וּמִיטַמֵּא לָהּ. וְתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא כֵן. מְטַמֵּא הוּא אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כְשֵׁירָה. וְאִינוֹ מִיטַמֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ פְסוּלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said: All the time my teacher Rebbi Hila told me, state in your *baraita* that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:5)

רִבִּי רְאוּבֶן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. עַבְדֵי שְׁנִייוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁתוֹק וְיָפֶה לָךְ. הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וַעֲבָדֶיהָ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Reuben asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:6)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. גֵּט הַמְעוּשֶּׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּשֵׁר וּבַגּוֹיִם פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל בִּכְהוּנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא כְגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. שְׁנִיּוֹת. לָא בְגִין דָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמַדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּיהֲנוֹת לוֹ. עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel⁴¹; it is invalid from Gentiles.⁴²” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by *ḥalîṣah* for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay *ketubah*”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

footnotes:
⁴¹ The heirs informed her falsely that a rabbi of reputation wanted to marry her.
⁴² Fraudulent information by an interested party is counted as forced deal for the victim.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:7)

מַה בֵין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ. אֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין וְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין קְנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְקָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּיסֵית. מָאן דָּמַר. אֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא דְבַר תּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין קְנָסָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד הַוְולָד לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is the difference between these and those? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah [do not]¹⁴⁰; considered a scribal error since it is implied by the later quote. need support, therefore they have *ketubah*. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have *ketubah*. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have *ketubah*. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have *ketubah*. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has *ketubah*. For him who says since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no *ketubah*.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ Missing in Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:7:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/11:7:8)

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי הִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. הוֹצִיא. וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. הוּא בָּעֵי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. בִּתְנַאי כְּתוּבָּה פְלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ תְּנַאי כְתוּבָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. בְּיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קָנְסוּ. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בָּהּ. מָאן דָּמַר. פְּלִיגִין. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת. הָא בִּתְנַאי כְתוּבָּה לא. בָּהּ קָנְסוּ. לֹא קָנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about sustenance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand sustenance. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to him, divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say, for him who says they differ about the conditions attached to a *ketubah*, Rebbi Joḥanan said, she has the *ketubah* stipulations. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about sustenance, it follows that they do not differ about the stipulations of a *ketubah*. They fined her, but did not fine her heirs.