## Ketubot Daf 64a

###### Ketubot 64a:1
[Ketubot 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:1)

מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב זְבִיד גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא, אָפְכִיתוּ לֵיהּ לְדִינָא עִילָּוֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִיבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי לַהּ רָבָא, וְלָא פְּשִׁיט?! הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר לָא הָכִי וְלָא הָכִי, תְּפַסָה — לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינַּהּ, לָא תְּפַסָה — לָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Because Rav Zevid is a great man,** and due to his piety and humility he would not challenge the ruling, **you twist the judgment against him? Didn’t Rav Kahana say: Rava raises a dilemma** with regard to this issue **and did not resolve** it, so how did you rule that she may retain her worn clothes? The Gemara summarizes: **Now that it was not stated** and concluded **this way or that way, if she seized** an item of her possessions, **we do not take it away from her,** but if she **did not seize** it, **we do not give** it to **her.**


###### Ketubot 64a:2
[Ketubot 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:2)

וּמְשַׁהֵינַן לַהּ תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא אַגִּיטָּא, וּבְהָנָךְ תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא לֵית לַהּ מְזוֹנֵי מִבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds another *halakha* with regard to a rebellious woman: **And we delay her bill of divorce** for **twelve months** of **the year** and do not give her a bill of divorce until then. **And during those twelve months** of **the year she does not** receive **sustenance from** her **husband.**


###### Ketubot 64a:3
[Ketubot 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:3)

אָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כּוֹתְבִין אִגֶּרֶת מָרֶד עַל אֲרוּסָה, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין אִגֶּרֶת מָרֶד עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. מֵיתִיבִי: אַחַת לִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה, אֲפִילּוּ נִדָּה, אֲפִילּוּ חוֹלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Tuvi bar Kisna said** that **Shmuel said:** The court **writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman** who is rebelling against her husband. This letter is a court order to deduct value from the marriage contract. **But it does not write a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her *yavam*** who does not want to enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **It is the same to me** if she is **a betrothed woman or a married woman,** and **even** if she is **a menstruating woman,** and **even** if she is **ill, and even** if she is **a widow awaiting her *yavam*.**


###### Ketubot 64a:4
[Ketubot 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:4)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁתָּבַע הוּא, כָּאן שֶׁתָּבְעָה הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תָּבַע הוּא — נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. תָּבְעָה הִיא — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult,** as the contradiction can be resolved in the following way: **Here,** where there is no distinction between a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her *yavam*, it refers to a case where **he asked** to marry **her** and she is refusing; **there,** where there is a distinction, the case is where **she asked** to marry **him** and he is refusing. **As Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said** that **Shmuel said: If he asked,** the court **responds to his** request and gives her the status of a rebellious woman, **but if she asked, it does not respond to her** request and does not add to her marriage contract.


###### Ketubot 64a:5
[Ketubot 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:5)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ לְהָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל — בְּשֶׁתָּבְעָה הִיא, הַאי ״כּוֹתְבִין אִגֶּרֶת מֶרֶד עַל אֲרוּסָה״? ״לַאֲרוּסָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, תְּנִי ״לָאֲרוּסָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **In what** manner **did you establish that which Shmuel** said, that one writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman but not about a widow awaiting her *yavam*? **If** it is a situation where **she asked** to marry him and he did not want, then why phrase **this:** The court **writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman,** which indicates that the bill is written against her. It **should have** said instead: Write a letter of rebellion **for a betrothed woman,** meaning it is written on her behalf against her husband. The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult,** as the text is imprecise. **Teach** the statement instead this way: **For a betrothed woman.**


###### Ketubot 64a:6
[Ketubot 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:6)

מַאי שְׁנָא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם דְּלָא — דְּאָמְרִינַן לַהּ: זִיל, לָא מִפַּקְּדַתְּ, אֲרוּסָה נָמֵי, נֵימָא לַהּ: זִיל, לָא מִפַּקְּדַתְּ! אֶלָּא בְּבָאָה מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה, דְּאָמְרָה: בָּעֵינָא חוּטְרָא לִידָא וּמָרָה לִקְבוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **a widow awaiting her *yavam*,** for whom a letter of rebellion is not written against her husband? **Because we say to her: Go away; you are not commanded** to procreate. Therefore, although she cannot get married, he cannot be compelled to perform an act that the Torah does not specifically command him to perform. The Gemara challenges this answer: If this is the reasoning, then in the case of **a betrothed woman, too, let us say to her: Go away; you are not commanded. Rather,** the case where a letter of rebellion is issued must be referring to a woman who **comes with a claim, saying: I want a staff in** my **hand and a hoe for burial,** i.e., I want children who will support me in my old age and attend to my burial after my death. This claim is valid, and therefore the court issues a letter of rebellion against the husband.


###### Ketubot 64a:7
[Ketubot 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:7)

הָכִי נָמֵי שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, בְּבָאָה מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה?! אֶלָּא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁתָּבַע הוּא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן לַחֲלוֹץ, וְכָאן לְיַיבֵּם. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תָּבַע לַחְלוֹץ — נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. תָּבַע לְיַיבֵּם — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **So too here,** if she is **a widow awaiting her *yavam* who comes with a claim,** why shouldn’t the court listen to her? **Rather,** the Gemara retracts the explanation that she asked him to marry her. Instead, say that both **this and that** are discussing situations **where he asks** her and she rebels, and the question from the *baraita* on Shmuel’s statement is **not difficult. Here,** the *baraita* that said that the court writes a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her *yavam*, is referring to a case where the *yavam* asked her **to perform *ḥalitza*** and she refused. **There,** Shmuel’s statement that the court does not write it, is referring to a case where he asked **to consummate the levirate marriage, as Rabbi Pedat said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If** the *yavam* **asked her to perform *ḥalitza*** and she refused, the court **responds to him. If he asked to perform levirate marriage,** the court **does not respond to him.**


###### Ketubot 64a:8
[Ketubot 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:8)

מַאי שְׁנָא לְיַיבֵּם דְּלָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: זִיל וּנְסֵיב אִיתְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי. לַחְלוֹץ נָמֵי נֵימָא לֵיהּ: זִיל וּנְסֵיב אִיתְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** with regard to the request **to consummate the levirate marriage, that** if a woman refuses the court **does not** write a letter of rebellion against her? **Because we say to him: Go and marry another woman.** He is not required to marry her specifically, if she does not agree to the marriage. Therefore, her refusal is not deemed rebellion. The Gemara challenges that answer: If so, with regard to a request **to perform *ḥalitza* also, let us say to him: Go and marry another woman.** The difference between the two cases is still not clear.


###### Ketubot 64a:9
[Ketubot 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:9)

אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר: ״כֵּיוָן דַּאֲגִידָא בִּי, לָא קָא יָהֲבוּ לִי אַחֲרִיתִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that the reason is because **he says: Since she is attached to me they will not give me another** wife. As long as he has not performed *ḥalitza*, he may have a problem finding another wife, as a potential wife will be concerned that he has a woman attached to him and may eventually enter levirate marriage with him. This is a valid claim, and therefore the court writes a letter of rebellion against her if she refuses *ḥalitza*.


###### Ketubot 64a:10
[Ketubot 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:10)

הָכָא נָמֵי: ״כֵּיוָן דַּאֲגִידָא בִּי, לָא קָא יָהֲבוּ לִי אַחֲרִיתִי״! אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁתָּבַע לְיַיבֵּם, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **here too,** when she refuses a request to consummate the levirate marriage, he may say: **Since she is attached to me they will not give me another.** Why then doesn’t the court write a letter of rebellion in this case? **Rather,** one must say that **this and that** are both discussing a case **where he asked to consummate the levirate marriage. And it** is **not difficult. Here,** in the *baraita*, where the court writes a letter of rebellion, it is **in accordance** with **the first mishna. There,** in Shmuel’s statement, where it doesn’t write one, it is **in accordance** with **the ultimate** version of the **mishna.**


###### Ketubot 64a:11
[Ketubot 64a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:11)

דִּתְנַן: מִצְוַת יִבּוּם קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה — בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה, אָמְרוּ: מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת יִבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 13a): **The mitzva of levirate marriage precedes the mitzva of *ḥalitza*.** This *halakha* **originally** applied **when** people **would intend** to perform the levirate marriage **for the sake of the mitzva.** At that time, it was customary to compel a woman to enter levirate marriage. If she refused, the court wrote a letter of rebellion about her. However, **now that** people **do not intend** to enter levirate marriage **for the sake of the mitzva,** but may have other intentions, the Sages **said: The mitzva of *ḥalitza* precedes the mitzva of levirate marriage.** Shmuel’s statement that the court does not write a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her *yavam* is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.


###### Ketubot 64a:12
[Ketubot 64a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:12)

עַד מָתַי הוּא פּוֹחֵת וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַרְפְּעִיקִין? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִסְתֵּירָא. וְכַמָּה אִסְתֵּירָא — פַּלְגָא דְזוּזָא. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה טַרְפְּעִיקִין, שֶׁהֵן תֵּשַׁע מֵעֵין, מָעָה וַחֲצִי לְכׇל יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna asks: **Until when does he reduce** her marriage contract? And in that context it states that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the sums involved are calculated in *terapa’ikin* and not in dinars. The Gemara asks: **What are *terapa’ikin*? Rav Sheshet said: An *asteira*,** a small coin. **And how much is an *asteira*? A half of a dinar. This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says: Three *terapa’ikin*, which are nine *ma’as*, a *ma’a* and a half for each day,** multiplied by six for the six days of the week.


###### Ketubot 64a:13
[Ketubot 64a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/64a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף לִשְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי שְׁנָא אִיהוּ דְּיָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ דְּשַׁבָּת. וּמַאי שְׁנָא אִיהִי דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ דְּשַׁבָּת? אִיהִי דְּמִיפְחָת קָא פָחֵית, לָא מִיחֲזֵי כִּשְׂכַר שַׁבָּת, אִיהוּ דְּאוֹסוֹפֵי קָא מוֹסְפָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: What is different** when she is the one rebelling against **him, that we give him** compensation **for Shabbat,** as her marriage contract is reduced by seven dinars a week, which is one dinar per day including Shabbat, and **what is different** for **her that we do not give her** compensation **for Shabbat** but rather only for six days? The Gemara explains: When it is **she who** is fined and her marriage contract **is reduced,** it **does not appear to be Shabbat wages,** money paid for services rendered on Shabbat, which is prohibited. Whereas when it is **he who** is fined and compelled to **add** additional money every day to her marriage contract,