## Ketubot Daf 97a

###### Ketubot 97a:1
[Ketubot 97a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:1)

אִם בְּמַתָּנָה נוֹטְלָן לֹא כָּךְ יָפֶה כֹּחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If he takes it as a gift, his power** as a creditor **is not enhanced** in **this manner.** He is not served well because he would not be able to seize property sold to a third party in order to receive his gift. So too, the widow can sell property and then decide later for what purpose she sold it.


###### Ketubot 97a:2
[Ketubot 97a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:2)

כֵּיצַד מוֹכֶרֶת? אָמַר רַבִּי דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מוֹכֶרֶת אַחַת לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: מוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **How does** a widow **sell** property to earn money for her support? **Rabbi Daniel bar Rav Ketina said** that **Rav Huna said: She sells** her late husband’s property **once every twelve months and the buyer** who purchased the property from her **provides** her with money **once every thirty days. And Rav Yehuda said: She sells** once **every six months and the buyer provides** her with money **once every thirty days.**


###### Ketubot 97a:3
[Ketubot 97a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:3)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: מוֹכֶרֶת לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: מוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna: She sells** once **every twelve months, and the buyer provides** her with support **once every thirty days.** So too, it **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda: She sells** once **every six months, and the buyer provides** her with money **once every thirty days.**


###### Ketubot 97a:4
[Ketubot 97a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:4)

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר, הִלְכְתָא: מוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְלוֹקֵחַ מְפַרְנֵס אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: דְּרַב הוּנָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר: לָא סְבִירָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar said: The *halakha*** is that **she sells** once **every six months and the buyer provides** her with money **once every thirty days,** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. **Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What** do you have to say about the opinion **of Rav Huna? He said to him: I did not hear** about this statement; **that is to say, I do not hold** in accordance with it.


###### Ketubot 97a:5
[Ketubot 97a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:5)

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּחֲזוֹר וְתִטְרוֹף לִכְתוּבָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The students **raised a dilemma to Rav Sheshet:** If a woman **sells** property **for** her **sustenance, what is** the *halakha*? **Can she return and seize** those very properties that she had sold, as payment **for** her **marriage contract?**


###### Ketubot 97a:6
[Ketubot 97a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:6)

קָמִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ בִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַרְמַלְתָּא דְּזַבֵּין — אַחְרָיוּת אַיַּתְמֵי, וּבֵי דִינָא דְּזַבֵּין — אַחְרָיוּת אַיַּתְמֵי. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **They raised this dilemma in** reference to a *halakha* established **by Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said:** In the case of **a widow who sold** liened property to a third party, **the** property **guarantee** rests **upon the orphans.** If the property was seized from the purchasers in payment of a previous debt, then the purchasers are reimbursed by the orphans. **And** so too, in the case of **a court that sold** property belonging to the deceased, **the** property **guarantee** rests **upon the orphans.** It is in light of this *halakha* that the dilemma was raised to Rav Sheshet: **What** is the *halakha* in this case?


###### Ketubot 97a:7
[Ketubot 97a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:7)

כֵּיוָן דְּאַחְרָיוּת אַיַּתְמֵי, טָרְפָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא מָצֵי אָמְרִי לַהּ: נְהִי דְּאַחְרָיוּת דְּעָלְמָא לָא קַבֵּילְתְּ עִילָּוָךְ, אַחְרָיוּת דְּנַפְשָׁךְ מִי לָא קַבּוֹלֵי קַבֵּילְתְּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Is the *halakha* that **since the** property **guarantee** rests **on the orphans, she** is able to **seize** the property? **Or perhaps** the buyers **are able to say to her: Granted, you did not accept upon yourself** a property **guarantee for everyone,** and it is the heirs and not you who have to reimburse us if our property is seized; however, **did you not accept a guarantee** about **your own** actions, that you as the seller will not return and seize the property from us?


###### Ketubot 97a:8
[Ketubot 97a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: מוֹכֶרֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד כְּדֵי כְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְסֶמֶךְ לָהּ שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַשְּׁאָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שַׁיַּירָא — אִין, לָא שַׁיַּירָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to** the one who raised the dilemma: **You learned** in a *baraita*: A widow **sells** the deceased’s property for her sustenance, and **she continues** to do so **until** there is nothing left except **the value of her marriage contract, and she relies upon** the fact **that she will collect** payment of **her marriage contract from the remainder** of the property. **Learn from this** that if **she left** property equal in value to her marriage contract, then **yes,** she can sell it as payment of her marriage contract; but if **she did not leave** property, then **no,** she cannot collect her marriage contract. If she could simply seize the land from the buyers, she would not need to set aside part of her husband’s property to use as payment for her marriage contract. She could sell all the land for sustenance and afterward return and seize the property from the purchasers.


###### Ketubot 97a:9
[Ketubot 97a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:9)

וְדִלְמָא עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלָא לִיקְרוֹ לַהּ הַדְרָנִיתָא. אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי: ״גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַשְּׁאָר״, מַאי ״סֶמֶךְ לָהּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שַׁיַּירָא — אִין, לָא שַׁיַּירָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **But perhaps** the *baraita* **teaches us good advice, so that they will not call her a retractor** and say that she is an untrustworthy individual who goes back on agreements into which she entered. However, legally, she is able to seize the property from the buyers. The Gemara answers: **If** that is **so,** and the *baraita* intended only to give advice, **let it** simply **teach: She collects** payment of **her marriage contract from the remainder. What** is the purpose of the added emphasis of: **She relies? Learn from** this that the *baraita* is worded in a precise manner and teaches that if **she left** property, **yes,** she can collect payment of her marriage contract. If **she did not leave over, no,** she cannot collect payment of her marriage contract.


###### Ketubot 97a:10
[Ketubot 97a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: זַבֵּין וְלָא אִיצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, אוֹ לָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the scholars: If someone **sold** properties because he needed money for a certain purpose **and** in the end **he did not need the money** for that purpose, is this considered a sale conducted in error, so that the seller can renege on the deal and **the sale is reversed? Or, is the sale not reversed** and what is done is done?


###### Ketubot 97a:11
[Ketubot 97a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין אַרְעָא לְרַב פָּפָּא, דְּאִצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְמִיזְבַּן תּוֹרֵי. לְסוֹף לָא אִיצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ, וְאַהְדְּרַיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַרְעֵיהּ. רַב פָּפָּא לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין הוּא דַּעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof: There was **a certain man who sold land to Rav Pappa because he needed money to buy oxen. In the end, he did not need** the money and regretted having sold the land, **and Rav Pappa returned his land to him.** The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, as **Rav Pappa acted** in a manner that was **beyond the letter of the law.**


###### Ketubot 97a:12
[Ketubot 97a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא בִּצּוּרְתָּא דַּהֲוָת בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, זַבְּנִינְהוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְאַפַּדְנַיְיהוּ, לְסוֹף אֲתוֹ חִיטֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: דִּינָא הוּא דְּהָדְרִי אַפַּדְנֵי לְמָרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another proof: There **was a certain drought in Neharde’a** during which **everyone sold his mansion [*appadna*]** in order to buy wheat. **In the end, wheat arrived,** driving down the price, rendering their sale unnecessary. **Rav Naḥman said to them: The *halakha* is that the mansions are returned to their** previous **owners.** It is evident that he holds that a sale that was prompted by the need for money is voided if it becomes clear that the seller no longer needs the money.


###### Ketubot 97a:13
[Ketubot 97a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:13)

הָתָם נָמֵי: זְבִינֵי בְּטָעוּת הֲווֹ, דְּאִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּאַרְבָּא בְּעִקּוּלֵי הֲוָה קָיְימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There too, the sale was** conducted **in error, as it became known that the ship** with the wheat **was** already **in the bays of the river** at the time when the mansions were sold. Had they known that the ship was so close, they would not have sold their property. This is a case of an error at the time of the sale, which is different from a case where the circumstances changed after the sale.


###### Ketubot 97a:14
[Ketubot 97a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:14)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב נַחְמָן: אִם כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָ מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ כׇּל יוֹמָא בִּצּוּרְתָּא שְׁכִיחָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, בִּצּוּרְתָּא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא מִשְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers proof that the error was already present at the time of the transaction: **If so, this is what Rami bar Shmuel said to Rav Naḥman** when he questioned his ruling: **If** this is **so,** and the mansions need to be restored to their previous owners, **you find yourself obstructing them for the future.** As a result of this ruling, people will not want to buy land because they will worry that the seller will change his mind. Rav Naḥman **said to him: Is that to say** that it is so **common,** that there is **a drought every day?** I said that the properties are returned only in these specific circumstances. **He said to him: Yes, in Neharde’a drought is a frequent** occurrence.


###### Ketubot 97a:15
[Ketubot 97a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:15)

וְהִלְכְתָא: זַבֵּין וְלָא אִיצְטְרִיכוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי — הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha* is** that if one **sold** properties for a certain purpose **and** in the end **did not need the money** for that reason, **the sale is reversed.**


###### Ketubot 97a:16
[Ketubot 97a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַלְמָנָה, בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A widow, whether** widowed **from betrothal or from marriage, sells** her husband’s property **when not in court.**


###### Ketubot 97a:17
[Ketubot 97a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:17)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִן הָאֵירוּסִין לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת — לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** A widow **from marriage sells when not in court,** but a widow **from betrothal may sell only in court, because she does not receive sustenance** from her husband’s property. She receives only her marriage contract, **and anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court.**


###### Ketubot 97a:18
[Ketubot 97a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/97a:18)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — מִשּׁוּם מְזוֹנֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara elaborates: **Granted,** a widow **from marriage** may sell when not in court **due to** the fact that **her sustenance** is a pressing concern, so one does not make her wait until she finds a court that will oversee her sale.