## Ketubot Daf 69a ###### Ketubot 69a:1 [Ketubot 69a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:1) תְּלָה לֵיהּ רַב לְרַבִּי בֵּינֵי חִטֵּי: הָאַחִין שֶׁשִּׁיעְבְּדוּ, מַהוּ? הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַבִּי חִיָּיא קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָכְרוּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? בֵּין מָכְרוּ בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוּ — מוֹצִיאִין לְפַרְנָסָה וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לִמְזוֹנוֹת! **William Davidson Edition - English:** § **Rav attached** the following question **for Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **between** the **lines** of a letter he sent him: With respect to **brothers who mortgaged** a certain property, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this property subject to seizure, if need be, for the benefit of the daughters’ dowries? **Rabbi Ḥiyya was sitting before** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when the letter arrived. **He said to him:** What is meant in the question? Did **they sell** the property **or** did **they pledge** it as a guarantee, so that it has not yet been transferred? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **said to him: What difference does it make? Whether they sold** it **or pledged** it, the court **may appropriate** the property **for support** for the daughters’ dowries, **but** the court **may not appropriate** it for their **sustenance.** ###### Ketubot 69a:2 [Ketubot 69a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:2) וְרַב, אִי מָכְרוּ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, נִכְתּוֹב לֵיהּ מָכְרוּ? אִי מִשְׁכְּנוּ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, נִכְתּוֹב לֵיהּ מִשְׁכְּנוּ?! **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rav** himself, **if he is raising a dilemma** about a case in which **they sold** the property, **let him write** explicitly that he is asking about an instance in which **they sold** the property. And **if he is raising a dilemma** about a case in which **they pledged** the property, **let him write** explicitly that he is asking about an instance in which **they pledged** the property. Why does Rav instead employ an ambiguous term? ###### Ketubot 69a:3 [Ketubot 69a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:3) רַב תַּרְוַיְיהוּ קָמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ וְסָבַר: אִי כָּתֵיבְנָא לֵיהּ מָכְרוּ, הָא נִיחָא אִי שָׁלַח לִי דְּמוֹצִיאִין — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן מִשְׁכְּנוּ. אִי שָׁלַח לִי אֵין מוֹצִיאִין — אַכַּתִּי מִשְׁכְּנוּ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara answers: **Rav was raising a dilemma about both** cases **and thought: If I write to him** that **they sold** the property, then **it** works **out well if** he **sends** back **to me** the ruling **that** the court may **appropriate** the sold property for the daughters’ dowries. In that case, I would also understand that **all the more so,** if the brothers merely **pledged** the property, the court would appropriate it for the dowry. But **if he sends to me** the reply that the court **does not appropriate** sold property, **still** the case in which they **pledged** the property will **be a dilemma for me.** ###### Ketubot 69a:4 [Ketubot 69a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:4) אִי כָּתֵיבְנָא לֵיהּ מִשְׁכְּנוּ, אִי שָׁלַח לִי דְּאֵין מוֹצִיאִין — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן מָכְרוּ. אִי שָׁלַח לִי מוֹצִיאִין, אַכַּתִּי מָכְרוּ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי. אֶכְתּוֹב לֵיהּ שִׁיעְבְּדוּ, דְּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Alternatively, **if I write to him** that the brothers **pledged** it, then **if he sends to me** the response **that** the court **does not appropriate** it, I can infer that **all the more so** if the brothers **sold** it we do not collect from the buyer. And **if he sends me** the response that the court **does appropriate** the land for the daughters’ dowries, **still** the case in which they **sold** the property will **be a dilemma for me.** Therefore, **I will write to him** that they **mortgaged** it, **which implies this** meaning **and** it **implies that** one, and in this way I will receive a complete answer to my question. ###### Ketubot 69a:5 [Ketubot 69a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:5) וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ הָא דְּרַבִּי, וְאִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ הֲוָה מְקַבֵּל לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ וְלָא מְקַבֵּל לֵיהּ? **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whether** it is **this or whether** it is **that,** the court **does not appropriate** assigned or sold properties for either the support or sustenance of the daughters. **A dilemma was raised before them:** Is it **that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not hear this** ruling **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **but had he heard it, he would have accepted it? Or, perhaps,** is it that even if **he had heard it, he would not have accepted it?** ###### Ketubot 69a:6 [Ketubot 69a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:6) תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאִתְּמַר: מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי בָּנוֹת וּבֵן, וְקָדְמָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְנָטְלָה עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיקָה שְׁנִיָּה לִגְבּוֹת עַד שֶׁמֵּת הַבֵּן, **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara proposes an answer, indicated by a dispute of *amora’im*: **Come** and **hear** a proof, **as it was stated** that *amora’im* disputed a certain case. The Sages debated the *halakha* with regard to **one who died and left** behind **two daughters and a son, and the first** daughter **advanced and took one-tenth of** the **estate** for her dowry, **but the second** daughter **did not have enough time to collect** her one-tenth **before the son died.** When the daughters divide the remaining assets, are they divided equally, or does the second daughter receive a slightly larger sum, commensurate with an additional portion earmarked for the dowry that she has not yet collected? ###### Ketubot 69a:7 [Ketubot 69a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:7) אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנִיָּה וִיתְּרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ אָמְרוּ: מוֹצִיאִין לְפַרְנָסָה וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לִמְזוֹנוֹת, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ שְׁנִיָּה וִיתְּרָה?! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The second** daughter **forfeited** her right to an equal one-tenth of the estate for a dowry. No specific funds are separated from the estate as a dowry before the inheritance is divided equally among the daughters. **Rabbi Ḥanina said:** The Sages **said** something even **greater than this** with respect to her support: The court **appropriates** liened property **for support, but** it **does not appropriate** it **for sustenance. And** yet would you, Rabbi Yoḥanan, **say** that **the second** daughter **forfeited** her right to collect even when the property is not liened? It cannot be that her support is diminished merely because of her brother’s death. ###### Ketubot 69a:8 [Ketubot 69a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:8) וְאִם אִיתָא, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאן אַמְרַהּ? וְדִלְמָא לְעוֹלָם לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, וְכִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ — קַבֵּיל, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא רְוַוח בֵּיתָא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara understands that there is evidence within the exchange that Rabbi Yoḥanan knew Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion and nevertheless ruled against it. **And if it is so,** that Rabbi Yoḥanan never heard the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then **let** Rabbi Yoḥanan **say to** Rabbi Ḥanina: **Who stated that,** that property is appropriated for the dowry? Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan must have known and rejected Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling. The Gemara rejects the proof: **And perhaps he actually did not hear it; but** had **he heard it, he** would have **accepted it. And** Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled as he did because **it is different there,** in the case in which the son died, **since there is abundance** in **the house.** Since the second daughter receives half of all the inheritance, she is not concerned about the one-tenth of the estate. ###### Ketubot 69a:9 [Ketubot 69a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:9) אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אַשְׁכְּחָה מְצִיאָה בְּעָלְמָא, דְּאִיכָּא רְוַוח בֵּיתָא — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רְוַוח בֵּיתָא מֵהָנֵי נִכְסֵי קָאָמֵינָא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If** that is **so,** according to that logic, then if **she** had **found a generic lost object, as there is abundance** in **the house** due to the value of the newly found article, **so too would we not give her one-tenth of the estate?** Since finding a lost object, or similarly, being independently wealthy, does not actually change her right to collect her full dowry, it stands to reason that she should collect the full dowry even when she inherits half of the remaining estate. **He said to him: I would say** this is true of **abundance** in **the house** that comes **from these properties** of the estate. Because the matter depends upon her share of the inheritance, when she commands a sizeable portion of the inheritance, she does not quibble over the one-tenth of the inheritance earmarked for her dowry. However, if she has other resources unrelated to the inheritance, her independent wealth cannot diminish her share of the inheritance with respect to the dowry. ###### Ketubot 69a:10 [Ketubot 69a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:10) אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת הָוְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: אִילּוּ בָּעֵי לְסַלּוֹקַהּ בְּזוּזֵי, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מָצֵי לְסַלּוֹקַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִי בָּעֵי לְסַלּוֹקַהּ בַּחֲדָא אַרְעָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § With regard to the fundamental right of daughters to receive the support of the dowry from the estate, **Ameimar said: A daughter is** considered **an inheritor. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar:** According to your opinion, **if** another inheritor **wants to remove her** from among the inheritors **by** giving her **money** instead of inherited property, is he **indeed unable to remove her?** May she insist on receiving actual property from the estate for the purpose of her dowry? **He said to him: Yes,** she may insist on inherited property. Rav Ashi continued to ask Ameimar: **If** he **wants to remove her by** giving her **one** specific piece of **land,** is he **also unable to remove her,** since, as an inheritor, she has the right to collect portions of all the property? **He said to him: Yes,** he is limited in this way. She may insist on her right to inherit from the entire property. ###### Ketubot 69a:11 [Ketubot 69a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:11) רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בַּת — בַּעֲלַת חוֹב הָוְיָא. וְאַף אַמֵּימָר הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב מִנְיוֹמֵי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נִיחוּמִי: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר, וַאֲתַאי הַאי אִיתְּתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, דַּהֲוָת קָא בָּעֲיָא עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים. וַחֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְסַלּוֹקַהּ בְּזוּזֵי הֲוָה מְסַלֵּק לַהּ. דְּשָׁמְעִי מֵאַחֵי דַּהֲווֹ קָאָמְרִי לַהּ: אִילּוּ הֲוָה לַן זוּזֵי, סַלֵּיקְנָא בְּזוּזֵי וְאִישְׁתִּיק, וְלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** In contrast to Ameimar, **Rav Ashi said: A daughter is** legally considered **a creditor** with regard to the inheritance, and the inheritors may insist that they will provide her support by any means, without giving her a share of the actual inheritance. The Gemara notes: **And even Ameimar retracted** his opinion that she is an inheritor, **as Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Niḥumi, said: I was standing in front of Ameimar, and this woman came before him, as she was asking** for **one-tenth** of her father’s **estate. And I saw that his opinion** was **that if** the inheritor **wants to remove her by** giving her **money,** he **may remove her, as I heard from** the woman’s **brothers that they were saying to her: If we had** sufficient **money, we would** pay your claims and **remove you with** our own **money. And Ameimar was silent and did not say anything to them.** Since Ameimar did not object to their suggestion in principle, evidently he agreed that her status was that of a creditor, who may be repaid in cash. ###### Ketubot 69a:12 [Ketubot 69a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:12) וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ בַּעֲלַת חוֹב הָוְיָא: דְּאַבָּא אוֹ דְאַחֵי? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִיגְבֵּא לְבֵינוֹנִית שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה, וְזִיבּוּרִית בִּשְׁבוּעָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara comments: **And now that you** have reached a conclusion and **said** that the daughter **is** functionally **a creditor,** is she a creditor **of** the **father or of** the **brothers?** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** *halakha* is there **a practical difference?** Either way, as the father has died, she receives her support from the estate. The Gemara answers: There is a difference with respect **to collecting intermediate-quality land without an oath and inferior-quality land with an oath.** If she is the father’s creditor, she may collect from the estate only the inferior-quality land with an oath. If, however, she is the brothers’ direct creditor, she may collect her claim in the same manner as standard creditors, collecting intermediate-quality land without an oath. ###### Ketubot 69a:13 [Ketubot 69a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:13) מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּרָבִינָא אַגְבְּיַהּ לְבַרְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי מִמָּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בֵּינוֹנִית, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. מִבְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי זִבּוּרִית, בִּשְׁבוּעָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **What is** the *halakha*? Whose creditor is she? The Gemara responds: **Come** and **hear** a proof, **as Ravina provided** one-tenth of the estate **for the daughter of Rav Ashi** from two sources. **From Mar, son of Rav Ashi,** Ravina gave her **intermediate-quality land without an oath.** He collected another portion of the property **from the** orphan **son of Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi,** who was an inheritor of the same estate from his grandfather. This portion was provided of **inferior-quality land, with an oath.** Since, with regard to the property that Rav Ashi’s daughter was collecting from an orphan, Ravina required an oath and allowed her to collect only low-grade land, it appears that Ravina treated the daughter as the creditor of the sons and not of the father. ###### Ketubot 69a:14 [Ketubot 69a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:14) שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא זוּטָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: כִּי אָתְיָא הָא אִיתְּתָא לְקַמָּךְ, אַגְבְּיַהּ עִישּׂוּר נִכְסֵי אֲפִילּוּ מֵאִיצְטְרוֹבְלָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, הֲוָה מַגְבֵּינַן אֲפִילּוּ מֵעַמְלָא דְבֵיתֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara records a number of related incidents. **Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, sent** a message **to Rabba bar Rav Huna the Small, of Neharde’a: When this woman** bearing this letter **comes before you, provide her one-tenth of** her father’s **estate,** providing a percentage **even of** the land upon which sits **the millstone** [***itzterubela***], as this is also real estate. **Rav Ashi said: When we were** students **in Rav Kahana’s house, we would collect** the one-tenth of the estate for the dowry **even from the** income from **the rental fees** for **houses** in the estate. Since this money is earned from the real estate itself, it too is considered in calculating the appropriate dowry. ###### Ketubot 69a:15 [Ketubot 69a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:15) שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב עָנָן לְרַב הוּנָא: הוּנָא חַבְרִין, שְׁלָם! כִּי אָתְיָא הָא אִיתְּתָא לְקַמָּךְ אַגְבְּיַהּ עִישּׂוּר נִכְסֵי. הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אֵימָא לֵיהּ: וּבְשַׁמְתָּא יְהֵא מַאן דְּלָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״עָנָן עָנָן! מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי אוֹ מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי?״ וּ״מַאן יָתֵיב בֵּי מַרְזֵיחָא בְּרֵישָׁא?״ **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara recounts an interaction between Rav Anan and Rav Huna. **Rav Anan sent** the following letter to **Rav Huna: Huna, our friend,** we wish you **peace. When this woman** bearing this **letter comes before you, provide her one-tenth of** her father’s **estate. Rav Sheshet was sitting before him,** and Rav Huna **said to him: Go** and **say to** Rav Anan my reply. Knowing that Rav Sheshet may be hesitant to relay the sharp language of the reply, Rav Huna cautioned him: **And whoever does not say to him** my exact words **is** in a state of **excommunication: Anan, Anan,** should the one-tenth be provided **from real estate or from movable property? And,** incidentally, tell me **who sits at the head** in **the house of a *marzeiḥa*?** ###### Ketubot 69a:16 [Ketubot 69a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:16) אֲזַל רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב עָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר רַבָּה, וְרַב הוּנָא רַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, וְשַׁמּוֹתֵי שַׁמֵּית מַאן דְּלָא אָמַר לֵיהּ, וְאִי לָאו דְּשַׁמֵּית, לָא הֲוָה קָאָמֵינָא: ״עָנָן, עָנָן, מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי אוֹ מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי? וּמַאן יָתֵיב בֵּי מַרְזֵיחָא בְּרֵישָׁא?״ **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Sheshet went before Rav Anan** and reverentially **said to him,** addressing him in the third person: My **Master** is **a teacher, but Rav Huna** is the **teacher of** the **teacher. Moreover, he** readily **excommunicates whoever does not say to him,** i.e., to you, my teacher, his precise message, **and if** it **were not that** he would **excommunicate** me, **I would not say** his words: **Anan, Anan,** should the one-tenth be provided **from real estate or from movable property? And,** incidentally, tell me **who sits at the head** in **the house of a *marzeiḥa*?** ###### Ketubot 69a:17 [Ketubot 69a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/69a:17) אֲזַל רַב עָנָן לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי מָר הֵיכִי שְׁלַח לִי רַב הוּנָא ״עָנָן עָנָן״, וְעוֹד ״מַרְזֵיחָא״ דִּשְׁלַח לִי [לָא יָדַעְנָא] מַאי נִיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִימָּא לִי אִיזִי **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva** to consult with him about Rav Huna’s reply. He **said to him:** Let the **Master see how Rav Huna sent me** an offensive message, addressing me as **Anan, Anan. Moreover,** with regard to this word ***marzeiḥa*** in the letter **that he sent me, I do not know what it is.** Mar Ukva **said to him: Say** to **me, my friend [*izi*],**