## Ketubot Daf 51a

###### Ketubot 51a:1
[Ketubot 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:1)

סוֹף סוֹף, כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִגְזוֹז כְּגָזוּז דָּמֵי! דִּצְרִיכָא לְדִיקְלָא קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye asked him: **Ultimately, anything that is about to be sheared is considered sheared,** and therefore these dates should already be classified as movable property, from which her sustenance cannot be collected. Rav Yosef replied: **I spoke** of a case when the fruit is nearly fully ripe, but **is still in need of the palm tree.** Since they are attached to the ground, they may be used for the daughter’s sustenance.


###### Ketubot 51a:2
[Ketubot 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:2)

הָהוּא יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: הַעֲלוּ לַיָּתוֹם בִּשְׁבִיל יְתוֹמָה. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי, בֵּין לִמְזוֹנֵי בֵּין לִכְתוּבָּה וּבֵין לְפַרְנָסָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There were **a certain** minor **orphan boy and orphan girl who came before Rava. Rava said to** the trustees of the father’s estate: **Increase** the amount you give **to the orphan boy,** so that there should be enough **for the orphan girl** as well. **The Sages said to Rava: But it was the Master who said** that one may collect **from land but not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for** the daughters’ **livelihood.** In this case only movable property was available.


###### Ketubot 51a:3
[Ketubot 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:3)

אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִילּוּ רָצָה שִׁפְחָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ, מִי לָא יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ? כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to them: If** this orphan **wanted a maidservant to serve him, would we not give him** one? The court would use his father’s property to fund this acquisition. **All the more so here, where there are two** factors, as she is his sister and she will serve him as well. It is therefore appropriate to act in this manner, which is to the benefit of both the boy and the girl.


###### Ketubot 51a:4
[Ketubot 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת, וְאֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת — מוֹצִיאִין לִמְזוֹן אִשָּׁה וּלְבָנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת — מוֹצִיאִין לַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנִים, וְלַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנוֹת, וְלַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to **both property that has a guarantee,** i.e., real estate, **and property that does not have a guarantee,** i.e., movable objects, the court **removes** them from the orphan heirs **for the sustenance of the wife and for the daughters.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** With regard to **property that has a guarantee,** the court **removes** it **from** the possession of **the sons,** who are the heirs, **for** the sake of the sustenance of **the daughters.** If the deceased had only daughters, and the adult daughters have taken possession of the estate, the court takes some of the property **from the** adult **daughters** in order to give an equal share **to the** young **daughters. And** likewise, one takes some of the property **from the** adult **sons** in order to give an equal share **to the** younger **sons.**


###### Ketubot 51a:5
[Ketubot 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:5)

וְלַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת בִּנְכָסִים מְרוּבִּין, אֲבָל לֹא לַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And in** a case where the estate has **a large** amount **of property,** so that there is more than enough to provide sustenance for the daughters, the court takes **from the daughters** the property that is not needed to provide for their sustenance and gives it **to the sons,** who are the true heirs. **However,** in a case where the estate has **a small** amount of **property,** one does not take it **from the daughters** in order to give it **to the sons.**


###### Ketubot 51a:6
[Ketubot 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:6)

נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת מוֹצִיאִין לַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנִים, וְלַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנוֹת, וְלַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת. אֲבָל לֹא לַבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, with regard to **property that does not have a guarantee,** i.e., movable property, the court **removes** some of it from the possession of **the** adult **sons,** if they have taken it, in order to give a fair share **to the** young **sons, and** similarly, some property is taken **from the** adult **daughters** in order to give a fair share **to the** young **daughters. And** if there are both sons and daughters and the daughters have seized the movable property, it is taken **from the daughters,** who are not entitled to sustenance from movable property, and given **to the sons,** who are the heirs. **However,** they do **not** take any **property from the sons** in order to give it **to the daughters.**


###### Ketubot 51a:7
[Ketubot 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:7)

אַף עַל גַּב דְּקַיְימָא לַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, הָכָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמְּטַלְטְלִי, בֵּין לִכְתוּבָּה, בֵּין לִמְזוֹנֵי, בֵּין לְפַרְנָסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Even though we maintain** in general that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with **his colleague,** and therefore the *halakha* should follow his ruling rather than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, **here the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As Rava said: The *halakha*** is that a woman can collect her claim **from land but not from movable property, whether for the marriage contract, for sustenance, or for** her **livelihood.**


###### Ketubot 51a:8
[Ketubot 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה — בְּתוּלָה גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. כָּתַב לָהּ שָׂדֶה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה תַּחַת מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְלֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״כֹּל נְכָסִים דְּאִית לִי אַחְרָאִין לִכְתוּבְּתִיךְ״ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a husband **did not write a marriage contract for** his wife, **a virgin collects two hundred** dinars **and a widow one hundred dinars** upon divorce or the husband’s death, **because it is a stipulation of the court** that a wife is entitled to these amounts. If **he wrote** in **her** marriage contract that she is entitled to **a field worth one hundred dinars instead of** the **two hundred dinars** to which she is actually entitled, **and he did not** additionally **write for her: All property I have** shall serve as a **guarantee for** the payment of **your marriage contract,** he is nevertheless **obligated** to pay the full two hundred dinars; and he cannot say that she should take only a mortgaged field for payment of her marriage contract, **as it is a stipulation of the court** that all his property is held as surety for the entire sum.


###### Ketubot 51a:9
[Ketubot 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:9)

לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ: ״אִם תִּשְׁתְּבַאי, אֶפְרְקִינִּךְ וְאוֹתְבִינִּךְ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״, וּבְכֹהֶנֶת: ״אַהְדְּרִינִּךְ לִמְדִינְתִּךָ״ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if **he did not write for her** in the marriage contract: **If you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife, and in** the case **of a priestess,** i.e., the wife of a priest, who is prohibited to return to her husband if she has intercourse with another man even if she is raped, if he did not write: **I will return you to your** native **province,** he is nevertheless **obligated** to do so, **as it is a stipulation of the court.**


###### Ketubot 51a:10
[Ketubot 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:10)

נִשְׁבֵּית — חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. וְאִם אָמַר: הֲרֵי גִּיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְתִפְדֶּה אֶת עַצְמָהּ — אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. לָקְתָה — חַיָּיב לְרַפְּאוֹתָהּ. אָמַר: ״הֲרֵי גִּיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, תְּרַפֵּא אֶת עַצְמָהּ״ — רַשַּׁאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a woman **was taken captive,** her husband is **obligated to redeem her. And if he said:** I **hereby** give my wife **her bill of divorce and** the payment of **her marriage contract, and let her redeem herself, he is not permitted** to do so, as he already obligated himself to redeem her when he wrote the marriage contract. If his wife **was struck** with illness, he is **obligated to heal her,** i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. In this case, however, if **he said:** I **hereby** give my wife **her bill of divorce and** the payment of **her marriage contract, and let her heal herself, he is permitted** to do so.


###### Ketubot 51a:11
[Ketubot 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הַפּוֹחֵת לִבְתוּלָה מִמָּאתַיִם וּלְאַלְמָנָה מִמָּנֶה — הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Who is** the author of the mishna? **It is Rabbi Meir, who said: Anyone who decreases** the sum guaranteed **to a virgin** in her marriage contract to less **than two hundred** dinars, **or** the sum guaranteed **to a widow** to less **than one hundred dinars,** and proceeds to live with his wife, **this is licentious sexual intercourse.** These sums are fixed by the Sages, and a husband is not permitted to pledge less than the established sum.


###### Ketubot 51a:12
[Ketubot 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:12)

דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: רָצָה, כּוֹתֵב לִבְתוּלָה שְׁטָר שֶׁל מָאתַיִם, וְהִיא כּוֹתֶבֶת ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ מָנֶה״. וּלְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה, וְהִיא כּוֹתֶבֶת: ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For if** you say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say** that if the husband **wants, he may write a document** as a marriage contract **for a virgin** in which he pledges **two hundred** dinars, **and she may** immediately **write: I have received from you one hundred dinars,** thereby waiving her rights to half the sum, so that in practice she gets only one hundred dinars? **And** similarly, **he may pledge one hundred dinars** in the marriage contract **of a widow, and she may write: I have received from you fifty dinars.** This is not in accordance with the mishna, which indicates that he cannot give her less than the minimum amount even with her consent.


###### Ketubot 51a:13
[Ketubot 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:13)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כָּתַב לָהּ שָׂדֶה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה תַּחַת מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְלֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״כֹּל נְכָסִים דְּאִית לִי אַחְרָאִין לִכְתוּבְּתִיךְ״ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But now **say the latter clause** of the mishna: If **he wrote** in **her** marriage contract that she is entitled to **a field worth one hundred dinars instead of** the **two hundred dinars** to which she is actually entitled, **and he did not** additionally **write for her: All property I have** shall serve as a **guarantee for** the payment of **your marriage contract,** he is nevertheless **obligated** to pay the full two hundred dinars, **as it is a stipulation of the court** that all his property is held as surety for the entire sum. In this clause, **we come to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that omission of the **guarantee** from a document **is** presumed to be **a scribal error,** unless the document explicitly states that the property of the individual who wrote the document is not liened to guarantee the transaction.


###### Ketubot 51a:14
[Ketubot 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51a:14)

דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָאָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת — לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא. דִּתְנַן: מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב — אִם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For if** this is the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, didn’t he say** that omission of the **guarantee** from a document **is not a scribal error,** i.e., a lien can be placed on the property to guarantee the transaction only if the document explicitly states this to be the case. The Gemara cites the source of this dispute. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 12b): With regard to one who **found promissory notes, if**