## Ketubot Daf 109a

###### Ketubot 109a:1
[Ketubot 109a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:1)

תֵּשֵׁב עַד שֶׁיַּלְבִּין רֹאשָׁהּ. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: אִילּוּ אֲנִי פָּסַקְתִּי לְעַצְמִי — אֵשֵׁב עַד שֶׁיַּלְבִּין רֹאשִׁי, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאַבָּא פָּסַק — מָה אֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לַעֲשׂוֹת? אוֹ כְּנוֹס, אוֹ פְּטוֹר. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the betrothed woman can be left to **sit** unwed in her father’s house **until her head turns white.** If the groom does not wish to marry without a dowry he cannot be forced to do so, as the father failed to fulfill his promise. **Admon says** that **she can say: Had I apportioned** the money **myself** and broken my promise, I would agree to **sit until my head turns white.** However, **now that** my **father** was the one who **apportioned** the dowry, **what can I do? Either marry** me **or release** me by a bill of divorce. **Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon.**


###### Ketubot 109a:2
[Ketubot 109a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אַדְמוֹן וַחֲכָמִים עַל הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ וּפָשַׁט לוֹ אֶת הָרֶגֶל, שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״אַבָּא פָּסַק עָלַי, מָה אֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לַעֲשׂוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (13:1) that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Admon and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to one who** promises and **apportions money for his son-in-law** as a dowry **and** subsequently **went bankrupt, that** the betrothed woman **can say:** My **father apportioned** money **for me; what can I do?**


###### Ketubot 109a:3
[Ketubot 109a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:3)

עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל שֶׁפָּסְקָה הִיא עַל עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תֵּשֵׁב עַד שֶׁתַּלְבִּין רֹאשָׁהּ. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: כִּסְבוּרָה אֲנִי שֶׁאַבָּא נוֹתֵן עָלַי, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין אַבָּא נוֹתֵן עָלַי — מָה אֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לַעֲשׂוֹת? אוֹ כְּנוֹס אוֹ פְּטוֹר. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what did they disagree?** It is **with regard to** a case **where she apportioned** money **for herself, as the Rabbis say: Let her sit until her head turns white,** as she did not fulfill her promise. However, **Admon says** that **she can say: I thought that** my **father would give** the money **for me, and now that** my **father is not giving** the money **for me, what can I do? Either marry** me **or release** me. And it is with regard to this case that **Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon,** as the betrothed woman has no money of her own, and she was clearly relying on her father to provide the dowry.


###### Ketubot 109a:4
[Ketubot 109a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:4)

תָּנָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּגְדוֹלָה, אֲבָל בִּקְטַנָּה — כּוֹפִין. כּוֹפִין לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְאָב — אִיפְּכָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כּוֹפִין לַבַּעַל לִיתֵּן גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is **taught: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in the case **of an adult** woman. **However,** with regard **to a minor** girl, the court **compels** payment. The Gemara asks: **Whom do they compel? If we say** that they coerce the **father** to pay, the *tanna* **should have stated the opposite.** It is more reasonable to suggest that the father is compelled to pay when an adult woman promises the money, as the promises of an adult are legally valid, whereas a minor is not legally competent and therefore her promises are of no consequence. **Rather, Rava said:** In the case of a minor, the court **compels the groom** either **to give** her **a bill of divorce** or to marry her.


###### Ketubot 109a:5
[Ketubot 109a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל ״רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן״ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אֲפִילּוּ בְּבָרַיְיתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָאָמְרִינַן בַּמִּשְׁנָה?! בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said in the name of Ḥizkiyya: Anywhere** it is recorded **that Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon, the *halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion. **Rava said to Rav Naḥman:** Does this halakhic principle apply **even** when the debate between Admon and the Rabbis is recorded **in a *baraita*?** Rav Naḥman **said to him: Did we say:** Anywhere it is recorded **in the Mishna? We said: Anywhere** it is recorded **that Rabban Gamliel said,** which means even in a *baraita*.


###### Ketubot 109a:6
[Ketubot 109a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר חָנָן — הֲלָכָה כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר אַדְמוֹן — אֵין הֲלָכָה כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. מַאי קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said** that **Rabba bar Yirmeya said:** With regard to the **two statements that Ḥanan said,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him,** i.e., Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai (see 107b); however, with regard to the **seven statements that Admon said,** the ***halakha* is not in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him,** i.e., Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara asks: **What is he saying?** What does this ruling mean?


###### Ketubot 109a:7
[Ketubot 109a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:7)

אִילֵּימָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר חָנָן — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, וְשִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר אַדְמוֹן — אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ וְלֹא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל ״רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן״ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that **this is what** he **is saying:** With regard to the **two statements that Ḥanan said,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion **and in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him, and** with regard to the **seven statements that Admon said,** the ***halakha* is not in accordance with his** opinion **and** also **not in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him, but didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar say in the name of Ḥizkiyya: Anywhere** it is recorded **that Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion.


###### Ketubot 109a:8
[Ketubot 109a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:8)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר חָנָן — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר אַדְמוֹן — אֵין הֲלָכָה כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. הָא כְּמוֹתוֹ — הֲלָכָה בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is what** Rabbi Zeira **is saying:** With regard to the **two statements that Ḥanan said,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion **and is** also **in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him,** i.e., Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. With regard to the **seven statements that Admon said, the *halakha* is not** only **in accordance with** the ruling of Rabban Gamliel, who ruled **similarly to** Admon in three of these cases. Rather, **the *halakha* is in accordance with** Admon’s ruling **in all** seven cases.


###### Ketubot 109a:9
[Ketubot 109a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:9)

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל ״רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן״ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, אָמַר — אִין, לֹא אָמַר — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: **Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar say in the name of Ḥizkiyya: Anywhere** it is recorded **that Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion? It may be inferred from here that in those cases concerning which Rabban Gamliel **said** his statement, **yes,** the *halakha* is in accordance with Admon’s ruling, but in those cases where Rabban Gamliel **did not say** his statement, **no,** the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Admon.


###### Ketubot 109a:10
[Ketubot 109a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:10)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר חָנָן — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר אַדְמוֹן — יֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is what** Rabbi Zeira **is saying:** With regard to the **two statements that Ḥanan said,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion **and** is also **in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him.** With regard to the **seven statements that Admon said, there are among** these rulings **those** in **which** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion **and in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him, and there are among** these rulings **those** in **which** the ***halakha* is not in accordance with his** opinion **but in accordance with** he who ruled **similarly to him.**


###### Ketubot 109a:11
[Ketubot 109a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:11)

בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, אִינָךְ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the above statement. In other words, **anywhere** it is recorded **that Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion, whereas in those **other** cases, where Rabban Gamliel remained silent, indicating that he did not agree with him, the *halakha* is **not** in accordance with Admon.


###### Ketubot 109a:12
[Ketubot 109a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָעוֹרֵר עַל הַשָּׂדֶה, וְהוּא חָתוּם עָלֶיהָ בְּעֵד — אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹחַ לִי, וְהָרִאשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה הֵימֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who contests** ownership **of a field,** claiming that a field under the control of someone else actually belongs to him, **and** the claimant himself **is signed as a witness on** the bill of sale to that other person, **Admon says:** His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: **The second** person **is easier for me,** as I can reason with him, **but the first** owner, who sold the field to the current holder, **is more difficult** to deal with **than him.** The claimant might have been afraid to protest against the first one, who is perhaps violent, and therefore he was even willing to sign as a witness to transfer the field to the control of someone more amenable to his ensuing protest.


###### Ketubot 109a:13
[Ketubot 109a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:13)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִיבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ. עֲשָׂאָהּ סִימָן לְאַחֵר — אִיבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: He** has **lost his right** to contest ownership, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the present holder. If **he established** that field **as a marker for another** field, everyone agrees that **he** has **lost his right.** In other words, if the claimant wrote a document concerning another field and in that document he listed the first field as a boundary marker and described it as belonging to someone else, even Admon concedes that he has lost his right, as he had no reason to say it belonged to someone else other than his belief this was in fact the case.


###### Ketubot 109a:14
[Ketubot 109a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/109a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֵד, אֲבָל דַּיָּין — לֹא אִיבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קְרָאוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Abaye said: They taught** this dispute **only** with regard to **a witness** who signed on a bill of sale. **However, a judge** who was contesting the ownership of a field and at the same time sat on a court that certified the bill of sale for that very tract of land **has not lost his right.** This is **as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Witnesses do not sign a document unless they have read it,** which means that a witness cannot reasonably claim that he is certifying only part of document; it is assumed that he read and is aware of everything it contains.