## Ketubot Daf 97b

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

אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, what is the reason** that a widow **from betrothal** may sell property when not in court? **Ulla said: Due to desirability.** The Sages enacted several ordinances on behalf of women, so that men will want to marry them. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced** by being involved **in court** proceedings.


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

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גְּרוּשָׁה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא — גְּרוּשָׁה נָמֵי בָּעֲיָא חֵן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין — גְּרוּשָׁה לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between** the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them** is in the case of **a divorcée. According to the one who says** that it is **due to desirability, a divorcée also requires desirability.** But **according to the one who says** that it is **because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court,** a man **does not care** if his **ex-wife** is disgraced.


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

תְּנַן: וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין — גְּרוּשָׁה לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא, גְּרוּשָׁה נָמֵי בָּעֲיָא חֵן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna (97b): **And a divorcée may sell only in court.** The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the one who says** that this is **because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court,** here **he does not care** if his **ex-wife** is disgraced. **However, according to the one who says** that it is **due to desirability, a divorcée also requires desirability,** so why should she be required to sell in court?


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

הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** continuation of the mishna? **It is** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** in the mishna, who explains that anyone who is selling property to receive payment of her marriage contract and not for sustenance is required to sell only in court, and a divorcée does not receive sustenance.


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

אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: מִן הָאֵירוּסִין לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר כּוּ׳?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** this is according to the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** then wasn’t **it** already **taught in the first clause** that a widow **from betrothal sells** only in court because she does not receive sustenance? Since the same reasoning applies to a divorcée, why would the mishna have to teach the *halakha* again in this case?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין הוּא דְּלָא נְפִישׁ חֵן דִּידַהּ, אֲבָל גְּרוּשָׁה דִּנְפִישׁ חֵן דִּידַהּ, אֵימָא תִּיבְּעֵי חֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It was necessary, **lest you say:** In the case of **a widow from betrothal, she is not** in **great** need of **her desirability,** as she has not been tarnished through sexual relations and men will not hold back from marrying her, and therefore she can go to the court to manage her affairs; **however, a divorcée, who is** in **great** need of **her desirability** and needs assistance in getting remarried, **say** that she **requires desirability** so that she will not be disgraced and she is allowed to take care of her affairs out of court. Lest you make this argument, the *halakha* was clearly stated in the mishna.


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

הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת״. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי גְּרוּשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Didn’t **we** already **learn** this *halakha*, as it **also** says in the mishna the following generalization: **And anyone who does not receive sustenance** may sell only in court? This *halakha* was intended **to add what?** Was **it not** meant **to add** the case of a **divorcée** and teach that she can sell only in court, in which case the concluding remark of the mishna about the divorcée is superfluous?


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

לָא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי ״מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״ — כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת — בַּעַל חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is **to include** a woman about whom there is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced, and it is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: Wherever it was said:** A woman that there is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced,** her **husband is obligated** to provide **her sustenance** until the divorce is final, and a woman in this situation may sell out of court as well.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, כָּךְ יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ יוֹרְשֵׁי כְתוּבָּתָהּ מוֹכְרִים שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁתִּתְבַּזֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאִיהִי לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִתְבַּזֵּי — יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ נָמֵי לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיבַּזּוּ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא, יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מַאי חֵן אִיכָּא? תַּרְגְּמַהּ עוּלָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיְּרָשַׁתָּה בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אֲחוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof: **Just as** the widow **sells when not in court, so too, her heirs,** those who **inherit her marriage contract, sell when not in court. Granted, according to the one who says** that the reason why she may sell out of court is **because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced** by having to appear **in court,** it is possible to say that **just as he is not amenable** to the idea **that she will be disgraced, he also is not amenable** to the idea **that her heirs will be disgraced. However, according to the one who says** that she sells out of court **due to desirability, what desirability do her heirs** need to **have? Ulla interpreted it:** This could take place, **for example,** when **her daughter or her sister inherited** from **her,** and they too need desirability.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** מָכְרָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, מִשְׁכְּנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, נָתְנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְאַחֵר אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ — לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹכֶרֶת הִיא אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְּעָמִים. וּמוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, וְכוֹתֶבֶת ״לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי״. וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא תִּמְכּוֹר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a woman **sold all or part of her marriage contract,** or if **she mortgaged all or part of her marriage contract,** or if **she gave** away as a gift **all or part of her marriage contract to another,** then **she sells the remainder only in court. And the Rabbis say: She sells even four or five times,** and she is not obligated to sell everything at one time. **And** despite selling several times, she **sells for** her **sustenance** even **when not in court, and she writes** in the bill of sale: **I sold** this **for** my **sustenance. And a divorcée,** who does not receive sustenance, **sells only in court.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מָכְרָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, מִשְׁכְּנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, עָשְׂתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאַחֵר — אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָכְרָה וְלֹא מִשְׁכְּנָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלָּא מַחֲצִיתָהּ — אִבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in the **mishna?** The Gemara answers: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **she sold** all of **her marriage contract,** or **mortgaged her marriage contract,** or if **she made her marriage contract designated repayment to another, she does not** receive **sustenance** any longer; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: Although she has not sold or mortgaged her** entire **marriage contract, but only half of it, she has lost her** right to **sustenance.** Therefore, she can only sell the rest of her marriage contract in court.


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

לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת כֶּסֶף כְּכׇל כֶּסֶף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת כֶּסֶף כְּכׇל כֶּסֶף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that Rabbi Shimon holds that we do not say** that **part of the money** has a status **like the entire** sum of **money?** Since she no longer has a claim to the entire sum of her marriage contract, it is as though she no longer has a marriage contract and loses her right to sustenance, **and the Rabbis hold that we** do **say part of the money is like the entire money.**


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

הָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ״ — פְּרָט לְבוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁכָּלוּ בְּתוּלֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּבוֹגֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Didn’t **we hear them say the opposite? As it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning the verse that speaks about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:13): **“And he** shall take **a wife in her virginity,” to exclude a grown woman whose** sign of **virginity has diminished** because when a girl goes through puberty her hymen wears away; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare as fit even a grown woman** for the High Priest. This implies that they are of the opinion that the absence of a part is not considered the absence of the whole, and although part of her sign of virginity has been diminished, it is still present.


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

הָתָם בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלִים. ״בְּתוּלֶיהָ״ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּתוּלִים. ״בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ״, בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There they disagree** with regard to the interpretation of the **verses. Rabbi Meir holds** that were it stated in the verse **a virgin,** this general term would have indicated that as long as she is a virgin, **even if** she has only **part** of her sign of **virginity,** she could marry the High Priest. However, since the verse states: **“Her virginity,”** it means to say **until there is** a sign of **virginity in its entirety.** The addition of the prefix “in” to the phrase **“in her virginity”** teaches that if she engaged in sexual intercourse **in the typical manner,** i.e., in the place where her sign of virginity lies, then **yes,** it is considered that she has engaged in sexual intercourse and is no longer considered a virgin. But if she engaged in **sexual intercourse in an atypical manner,** i.e., anal intercourse, then she is **not** considered to have engaged in sexual intercourse.


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

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — שְׁלֵמָה מַשְׁמַע, ״בְּתוּלֶיהָ״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold** that the word **virgin implies a complete virgin,** whose sign of virginity is completely intact. Therefore, when the verse says: **“Her virginity,”** it indicates that **even if** she has only **part of** her sign of **virginity,** in this regard she is still considered a virgin.