## Ketubot Daf 51b

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

יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים — לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**they include a property guarantee he may not return** them to the lender, as he does not know who lost them. It is possible that the debt has already been paid and the documents were returned to the borrower, and he lost them. He may not give them back to the lender even if the borrower admits that he still owes the money, **as the court collects** the debt **from** purchasers of the borrower’s property. There is a concern that the borrower has repaid the loan and he is saying that he did not yet repay it because he has conspired with the lender to convince the court to confiscate liened property that the borrower sold, and the lender and borrower will divide the proceeds.


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

אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים — יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If, however, the documents were of the kind that **do not include a property guarantee he returns them, as** in this case **the court does not collect from** purchasers of the borrower’s property. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** In **both this** case **and that** one, **he may not return** the promissory notes, **as the court collects from** purchasers of the borrower’s property regardless, as it is assumed that the omission of the property guarantee from a document is merely a scribal error.


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

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְשָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין כְּתוּבָּה לִשְׁטָרֵי. וּמִי שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **the first clause** of the mishna here **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. And if you would say** that the **entire** mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and there is a difference for Rabbi Meir between a marriage contract and** other **documents,** i.e., the guarantee of a marriage contract applies even if it is omitted but the property guarantee in other contracts does not, **is there** really **a difference for him** between the two types of documents?


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְחוֹרָרִין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: פֵּירוֹת, וּשְׁבַח פֵּירוֹת, וְהַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לָזוּן אֶת בֶּן אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְגֵט חוֹב שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אַחְרָיוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Five** claims **may be collected** only **from free** assets, **and they are as follows: Produce, and enhancement** to the **produce. And** likewise, in the case of **one who accepts upon himself** the duty **to sustain his wife’s son or his wife’s daughter** and then dies, they receive their support only from the estate’s free assets. **And** other claims that may be collected only from free assets are **a document of debt that does not include** the clause of property **guarantee, and the marriage contract of a wife that does not include** the clause of property **guarantee.**


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

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר אַחְרָיוּת לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא — רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְקָתָנֵי כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reasons: **Whom have you heard say** that omission of the property **guarantee** from a document **is not a scribal error? Rabbi Meir, and** yet the *baraita* **teaches** that the same applies to the **marriage contract of a wife.** This proves that according to Rabbi Meir, there is no difference between a marriage contract and other documents.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הָתָם כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״, הָכָא לָא כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and if you wish, say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and **there,** in the other mishna (54b), the case is where **she wrote to him: I have received** it, thereby waiving her right to part of the marriage contract. In contrast, **here, she did not write to him: I have received** it, and therefore she collects the entire sum from him even if he did not write a marriage contract.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מַאי ״חַיָּיב״ דְּקָתָנֵי — מִן הַמְחוֹרָרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **if you wish, say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** According to this interpretation, **what is** the meaning of the phrase: He is **obligated, which is taught** in the latter clause of the mishna with regard to the case where the marriage contract did not specify that the husband’s property will serve as a guarantee of his obligations toward his wife? It means that the wife’s claims may be collected only **from the** husband’s **free** assets, i.e., she does not have a lien on his property.


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

לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה — אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ. חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if the husband **did not write for her** that he would redeem her from captivity and restore her to him, he is nevertheless obligated to do so, as this is a stipulation of the court. **Shmuel’s father said: The wife of an Israelite who was raped is forbidden to her husband,** as **we are concerned** that **perhaps her** ordeal **started as rape and ended willingly,** i.e., during the act she may have acquiesced, and a married woman who willingly had relations with another man is forbidden to her husband.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב לַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: ״אִם תִּשְׁתְּבַאי, אֶפְרְקִינִּךְ וְאוֹתְבִינִּךְ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״! אִישְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav raised an objection to** the opinion of **Shmuel’s father** from the mishna, which states that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract reads: **If you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife.** This indicates that despite the possibility that she might have been raped during captivity, she remains permitted to her husband if he is not a priest, and there is no concern that she might have ultimately agreed to the act. Shmuel’s father **was silent** and did not respond.


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

קָרֵי רַב עֲלֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: ״שָׂרִים עָצְרוּ בְמִלִּים וְכַף יָשִׂימוּ לְפִיהֶם״. מַאי אִית לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? בִּשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵילּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav recited** the following verse **about Shmuel’s father: “The princes refrained from talking and laid a hand upon their mouths”** (Job 29:9). The Gemara comments: The application of this verse to Shmuel’s father indicates that he refrained from responding despite the fact that an answer was available. But **what is there for him to say** in reply? The Gemara answers: He could have said that **in** the case of **a captive woman they were lenient.** Since it is uncertain whether she was in fact raped during her captivity, the Sages were lenient. However, it is possible that they were more stringent in the case of a woman who was definitely raped.


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

וְלַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אוֹנֶס דְּשַׁרְיַהּ רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים בְּצוֹוַחַת מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **According to Shmuel’s father, how can you find** a case of **rape where the Merciful One permits** the victim to remain married to her husband? It is always possible that she might have ultimately acquiesced. The Gemara answers: **For example, where witnesses say that she screamed** continuously **from beginning to end.**


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

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹף [בְּרָצוֹן, אֲפִילּוּ] הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: הַנִּיחוּ לוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא (לֹא) נִזְקַק לָהּ הִיא שׂוֹכַרְתּוֹ, מוּתֶּרֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא — יֵצֶר אַלְבְּשַׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Shmuel’s father **disagrees** with the opinion **of Rava. As Rava said:** With regard to **any** case **that starts as rape and ends willingly, even** if **she** ultimately **says: Leave him,** and she further states **that if he had not** forcibly initiated **intercourse with her, she** would **have hired him** for intercourse, **she is** nevertheless **permitted** to her husband. **What is the reason** for this? **The** evil **inclination took hold of her** during the act, and therefore she is still considered to have engaged in intercourse against her will.


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

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״, אֲסוּרָה. הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava:** The verse states with regard to a *sota*: “And a man lies with her…**and she was not taken”** (Numbers 5:13). This is referring to a woman who had intercourse but was not taken forcefully, i.e., raped, and therefore **she is forbidden** to her husband. It may be inferred from this that if she **was taken** forcefully, she is **permitted** to him. **And** the word “she” teaches **that you have** a case of **another** woman, **where even though she was not taken** forcefully **she is permitted. And which** case **is this? This is any** case **that starts as rape and ends willingly.** Although at the conclusion of the act she was not taken forcefully, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as stated by Rava.


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

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְפָּשָׂה — אֲסוּרָה, וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A different inference from the same verse **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **“And she was not taken”;** in this case, the woman **is forbidden** to her husband. It may be inferred that if **she was taken** forcefully, **she is permitted** to her husband. **And you have another** case **where, even though she was taken** forcefully, **she is forbidden** to her husband. **And which** case **is this? This is** the case of **the wife of a priest,** who is forbidden to her husband even if she is the victim of a rape.


###### Ketubot 51b:15
[Ketubot 51b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51b:15)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לָהּ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה, מוּתֶּרֶת. וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ שֶׁקִּידּוּשֶׁיהָ קִדּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּנָהּ מוּרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ — מְמָאֶנֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** another exposition of this same verse that **Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: “And she was not taken”;** in this case **she is forbidden** to her husband. It may be inferred that if she **was taken** forcefully **she is permitted** to her husband. **And there is** a case of **another** woman **where, even though she was not taken** forcefully, she nevertheless remains **permitted. And which** case **is this? This** is referring **to** one **whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as, even if her son** from this marriage **is riding on her shoulders she may refuse** to remain with her husband **and go** off as pleases **her.** Since she was not really married to begin with, an act of intercourse with another man does not render her forbidden to the man with whom she performed a mistaken betrothal.


###### Ketubot 51b:16
[Ketubot 51b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51b:16)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי נְשֵׁי דִּגְנַבוּ גַּנָּבֵי — שַׁרְיָין לְגוּבְרַיְיהוּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יְהוּדָה: וְהָא קָא מַמְטְיָאן לְהוּ נַהֲמָא! מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה. וְהָא קָא מְשַׁלְּחָן לְהוּ גִּירֵי! מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה. וַדַּאי, שַׁבְקִינְהוּ וְאָזְלָן מִנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ — אֲסִירָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said: Those women stolen by kidnappers are permitted to their husbands,** as, even if they had intercourse with their captors it is considered rape. **The Rabbis said to Rav Yehuda: But** while they are captives **they bring** their kidnappers **bread.** This indicates that they are not acting under duress. He replied: They do so **due to fear.** The Rabbis further inquired: **But they send them arrows.** Rav Yehuda again replied: This too is **due to fear.** However, I **certainly** agree that if the kidnappers **leave them alone, and they go** back to them **of their own accord, they are forbidden** to their husbands, as it is clear that they are no longer acting out of fear.


###### Ketubot 51b:17
[Ketubot 51b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51b:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁבוּיֵי מַלְכוּת — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁבוּיִין. גְּנוּבֵי לִיסְטוּת — אֵינָן כִּשְׁבוּיִין. וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** With regard to women **captured by the monarchy** for the purpose of having intercourse with the king, **they are** considered to be **like captives,** i.e., they are assumed to have been raped but not to have consented to intercourse. However, **those stolen by bandits are not** considered to be **like captives,** as there is a concern that they might have consented to their captors, thinking that they will marry them. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **the reverse** is the case, i.e., women taken by the monarchy are not classified as captives, whereas this status does apply to those abducted by bandits?


###### Ketubot 51b:18
[Ketubot 51b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51b:18)

מַלְכוּת אַמַּלְכוּת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הָא בְּמַלְכוּת בֶּן נֶצַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling of one *baraita* with regard to those captured by the **monarchy** and the ruling of the other *baraita* with regard to those captured by the **monarchy** is **not difficult: This** first *baraita* is referring **to the monarchy of Ahasuerus,** i.e., a powerful king, as the woman is aware that he is merely using her to satisfy his lust and will certainly not marry her, whereas **that** other *baraita* is dealing **with the monarchy of ben Netzer,** a man who established for himself a minor kingdom through robbery and small-scale conquests. It is possible for a woman to suppose that a king like ben Netzer will eventually marry her.


###### Ketubot 51b:19
[Ketubot 51b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51b:19)

לִיסְטוּת אַלִּיסְטוּת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּבֶן נֶצַּר, הָא בְּלִיסְטִים דְּעָלְמָא. וּבֶן נֶצַּר, הָתָם קָרֵי לֵיהּ מֶלֶךְ, וְהָכָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ לִסְטִים! אִין, גַּבֵּי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ — לִסְטִים הוּא, גַּבֵּי לִסְטִים דְּעָלְמָא — מֶלֶךְ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling of one *baraita* with regard to those kidnapped by **bandits** and the ruling of the other *baraita* with regard to those kidnapped by **bandits** is **not difficult: This** first *baraita* is referring **to** the banditry of **ben Netzer,** as she might agree to his advances, hoping to become the wife of a king. Conversely, **that** other *baraita* is dealing **with regular bandits [*listim*],** as it can be assumed that the woman did not acquiesce to having intercourse, as, even if he wanted to marry her she would not agree. The Gemara asks: **And** this **ben Netzer,** how can it be that **there he is called a king and here he is called a bandit?** The Gemara answers: **Yes,** when considered **alongside Ahasuerus he is** merely **a bandit,** but when considered **alongside a regular bandit he is** deemed **a king.**


###### Ketubot 51b:20
[Ketubot 51b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/51b:20)

וּבְכֹהֶנֶת אַהְדְּרִינִּךְ לִמְדִינְתִּךָ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — חַיָּיב לִפְדוֹתָהּ, שֶׁאֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ ״וּבְכֹהֶנֶת אַהְדְּרִינִּךְ לִמְדִינְתִּךָ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **And in** the case of **a priestess,** i.e., the wife of a priest, even if her husband did not write: If you are taken captive **I will** redeem you and **return you to your** native **province,** he is obligated to do so. **Abaye said:** In the case of **a widow** who was married **to a High Priest,** although the marriage is prohibited by Torah law, if she is taken captive he is **obligated to redeem her, as I apply** to **her** the clause: **And in** the case of **a priestess: I will return you to your** native **province.** Her husband can, and therefore must, fulfill this clause just as he could if he had married a woman who is permitted to him.