MISHNAH: Payments for shame, diminution of value, and fine of a seduced adolescent girl belong to her father, as are payments for suffering for the victim of an attack. If she appeared in court during her father’s lifetime, they are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’¹. If she did not appear in court until after the father’s death, they belong to herself².

footnotes: ¹ The claim to the payments is established with the first appearance of the claimants before the court (today one would say with the filing of court papers.) This might be different from the Babli, whose Mishnah requires that there were actual court proceedings during the father’s lifetime. Cf. also Chapter 3, Note 109. Once the claim is noted as the father’s, upon the father’s death it becomes part of the estate which is inherited by the male children. The inheritance of the brothers is subject to the claims of the daughters for sustenance and dowry. If there are only daughters, the daughters inherit. ² Following R. Aqiba (Mishnah 3:4).

HALAKHAH: “A seduced adolescent girl,” etc. Who stated “adolescent”? Rebbi Meïr. But following the rabbis, even an underage girl³.

footnotes: ³ Cf. Halakhah 3:9; Babli 40b.

“Payments for suffering for the victim of an attack.” The rape victim. This does not follow Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon frees the rapist from paying for suffering⁴.

footnotes: ⁴ Cf. Halakhah 3:5.

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations⁵ 87a/b, states flatly that the father has no claims to sums due under laws which are independent of the sex of the injured party.. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs⁶ 8:1 states that the person causing an injury is liable to pay for diminution of values (permament reduction of earning power), suffering, medical costs, lost earnings (earnings lost while disabled in treatment), and shame.? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately⁷ 87b, and the Tosephta, Baba Qama 9:8, the payment due the son is given in the form of a capital value which is transferred to the son on his reaching majority. Everybody agrees that the father has no claim to any sum due to his son.; those for the daughter shall be held as property value¹ of Babli and Tosephta: They belong to the father. This is then explained away as referring only to lost earnings since in the Babli everybody holds that all earnings of an underage daughter belong to the father.⁹ supports R. Johanan.. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value¹⁰ 7:1 Note 5 ff.). If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value¹¹ 9:9 and the baraita in Babli Baba Qama 87b nothing is awarded to the father. This is then explained away as referring to children who no longer live at home. In the Yerushalmi, payments for shame and diminution of value belong to the father; of the others he collects the yield of the capital until the daughter reaches adulthood. The treatments in the two Talmudim have very few points in common even though they are based on almost identical tannaitic texts., but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

footnotes: ⁵ Since biblical law allows a father to marry off his daughter and to pocket the money given for her preliminary marriage, and explicitly states that the father receives the fine imposed on the rapist, it is natural that the father should receive all benefits accruing to him from the fact that she is his underage female child. But since the text nowhere gives monetary rights deriving from male children to the father, the question is who receives payments which do not depend on the sex of the child. The Babli, Baba Qama ⁶ Mishnah Baba Qama ⁷ As always, “son” or “daughter” means underage child. In the Babli, Baba Qama ¹ In the baraitot ⁹ In the opinion of R. David Fraenckel, the father collects the yield of the capital reserved for the daughter until she reaches adulthood and in this the baraita ¹⁰ Since he collects payments for shame and diminution of value from the rapist, he collects all payments of this kind due to his underage daughter. If he is the guilty party, he is free since he would have to pay to himself. In Babli and Tosephta, he is never required to pay anything to his own underage children of either sex.It is clear that in the case of the father attacking his own daughter, “diminution of value” must refer to damage done to her physical appearance, not defloration. Since sexual relations with one’s daughter are a capital crime, no payment can be demanded (cf. Note 111, Chapter 3:1 Note 30, Terumot ¹¹ In Tosephta Baba Qama

What did you see to say so¹²? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.¹³. 22:19): “[The court] shall fine him 100 pieces of silver and give them to the girl’s father because he calumniated, a virgin of Israel”, stating first the fine and then the reason. But for the rapist it says (v. 29): “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 pieces of silver to the girl’s father.” Since the reason is stated immediately after the obligation to pay, it is inferred that the obligation to pay is independent of the availability of the father. Therefore, in the absence of a father, or if the girl is no longer in his potestas, one may disregard the mention of the father and read the verse as an obligation to pay the girl.” How is this? If there were court proceedings¹⁴ before her father died, you can say “he shall give to the girl’s father”; after the father died you can say “he shall give to her”. If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, you can say “he shall give to the girl’s father”; after she became an adult¹⁵ you can say “he shall give to her.”

footnotes: ¹² This refers to the Mishnah, that if the case came to court after the father’s death the fine is not part of the inheritance but belongs to the girl even if she still is supported by the brothers and her earnings go to them. ¹³ The following is the interpretation of R. David Fraenckel. In the case of the calumniator it is written (Deut ¹⁴ This quotes the language of the Babli Mishnah, cf. Note 1. ¹⁵ This refers to Mishnah 2.

From where comes this¹²? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine¹⁶ 43a, Qiddušin 16b; Sifra Behar Parašah6(5). The verse, Lev. 25:46, speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They¹⁷ have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment¹⁸; Rebbi Yose said, at the end¹⁹. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’²⁰”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.²¹” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state²²: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult²³. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there²⁴ 7:2.: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold²⁵”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai²⁶: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold²⁷ 71b, agrees with this reasoning.? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here²⁸, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

footnotes: ¹² This refers to the Mishnah, that if the case came to court after the father’s death the fine is not part of the inheritance but belongs to the girl even if she still is supported by the brothers and her earnings go to them. ¹⁶ In Babylonian sources, this is a tannaitic statement: Ketubot ¹⁷ The father’s heirs. ¹⁸ The act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine. ¹⁹ The judgment of the court creates the obligation to pay the fine. ²⁰ If this is an argument of R. Yose against R. Jonah, the reference must be to the Mishnah in general and in particular to the last part, not quoted here, which gives the fine to the girl if court proceedings start after the father’s death. If the fine was due from the moment of rape, it should be part of the estate. ²¹ Cf. Note 13. The exclusion of the fine from the estate is a biblical decree, independent of when the obligation starts. ²² An enlarged version of Mishnah 2. ²³ It is not that an adult rape victim can claim a fine but the verse gives the adult the right to sue for what was done to her as an adolescent. ²⁴ Mishnah Baba Qama ²⁵ The fine for stealing is double restitution; the fine for selling or slaughtering stolen livestock is fourfold or fivefold restitution. The Mishnah requires the thief to pay fourfold or fivefold to the estate (unless he is the sole heir); but if the obligation does not start with the act of larceny then the fine should depend on the relative times of selling/slaughtering and the father’s death, as explained in the next sentence. ²⁶ This should read: R. Ḥaggai objected to R. Yose (who holds that any obligation starts only with the court’s action.) ²⁷ There is no doubt that he stole from the estate and has to make good. But since the injured party is no longer alive, according to R. Yose he should not have to pay the extra penalty for selling or slaughtering. The Babli, Baba Qama ²⁸ The verses, in R. Simeon’s interpretation, determine the obligation to pay a fine irrespective of the recipient of the fine. Therefore, the question of the start of the obligation is secondary.

MISHNAH: If she did appear in court before she became an adult, [the payments] belong to her father, after the father’s death, they belong to the brothers. If she did not appear in court before she became an adult, they belong to herself. Rebbi Simeon says, if she did not collect before the father died, they belong to herself²⁹. Her earnings and what she finds, even if she had not collected [by the time] the father died, belong to the brothers³⁰.

footnotes: ²⁹ R. Simeon holds that the father’s rights start only with the delivery of the money as explained in the Halakhah (and the Babli, 42b). The anonymous majority hold that the payment ordered by the court can be enforced by foreclosure and therefore is ready money and part of the estate. ³⁰ The earnings of an underage daughter belong to the father since even the money given for a preliminary marriage of an underage daughter is pocketed by her father (Mishnah 4:6). After the death of the father only uncollected earlier earnings go to the estate, not her later earnings. The situation is slightly paradoxical since the brothers are obligated to support their unmarried sister but the father has only a religious, not a legal duty to support his daughters (Halakhah 4:8).

HALAKHAH: “If she did appear in court before she became an adult,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 silver pieces to the girl’s father;” this teaches that the father acquires only by handing over³¹. Rebbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rebbi Simeon treats it as court decrees³² but the rabbis treat it as a loan³³. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land³⁴ 5:1 states that debts for torts are foreclosed from the most valuable real estate, loans from average, and a ketubah from the least valuable (R. Meïr says, from average.) The value is determined by the going rate for a unit of surface area.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt³⁵ 10:2. The details of the laws of the Sabbatical relating to this case are explained in Ševi‘it 10:2, Note 69.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion³⁶. 21:17) states that the father has to give him a double portion (or 2/3, assuming there are only two sons) “of everything that is found with him”, meaning everything in actual possession at the time of death. Money due for an executable court order is money in possession; money due for an outstanding loan is not money in possession since it is subject to the uncertainties of a court proceeding if foreclosure is needed and the position of the firstborn is not privileged in regard to future income..

footnotes: ³¹ In the Babli, 42b, this is an Amoraic interpretation of R. Simeon’s position. ³² Money receivable because of a judicial decision is not counted as property to be part of the estate since in many cases the collection of such a judgment depends on the claimant swearing that his claim was not otherwise satisfied and the heirs cannot swear for their deceased father. ³³ Outstanding documented loans are property and part of the estate since the debtor would have to prove his case if he claims that the loan had been repaid. ³⁴ If the debtor is unable to pay cash and the creditor comes to foreclose real estate, Mishnah Giṭṭin ³⁵ Only private debts are cancelled by the Sabbatical year, not those created by court order nor those handed over to a court for collection; Mishnah Ševi‘it ³⁶ The law of inheritance of the firstborn (Deut

³⁷ Rebbi Ze‘ira sent to Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rebbi Immi bar Pappai³⁸: Who owns the earnings of the daughter? They said to him, the diligent said, herself. Who is the diligent? Samuel! Rebbi Mattanah said, it was said in the name of Rebbi³⁹ as explanation of a verse: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the earnings of the daughter¹⁶ 43a, Qiddušin 16b; Sifra Behar Parašah6(5). The verse, Lev. 25:46, speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate.. Rebbi Yudan said, the Mishnah says so: “Her earnings and what she finds, even if she had not collected when the father died, belong to the brothers.” Anything she earned during her father’s lifetime. But what she earned after her father’s death according to everybody is hers⁴⁰.

footnotes: ³⁷ A slightly different version of the entire paragraph is in the Babli, 43b, where R. Ze‘ira points out that the brothers have to support their sisters but do not receive their incomes. ³⁸ In the Babli Rav Abime bar Pappai; cf. Note 262. ³⁹ In the Babli: Rav. ¹⁶ In Babylonian sources, this is a tannaitic statement: Ketubot ⁴⁰ If the heirs retained the right to the earnings of the underage daughters, the Mishnah would not have to emphasize that they retain the right to income earned but not collected. The same argument in the Babli, 43a.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage and she was divorced, in preliminary marriage and she was widowed, the ketubah belongs to him⁴¹ is treated in Halakhah 5:1.. If he gave her in definitive marriage and she was divorced, in definitive marriage and she was widowed, the ketubah belongs to her. Rebbi Jehudah says, the first ketubah is his. They said to him, from the moment he gave her in definitive marriage, he no longer has any power over her⁴².

footnotes: ⁴¹ As long as his daughter lives in his house, she is his property. The question whether a preliminarily married woman has a ketubah ⁴² Even an underage girl is emancipated in civil law by marriage.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter⁴³ was written and the dowry given at the time of the preliminary marriage, in contrast to the later practice which postponed these transactions to the time of the definitive marriage. In that case, the dowry has to be returned at the dissolution of the preliminary marriage and it is clear that the father wants to have the dowry returned to him. {Many Jewish communities in the Middle Ages enacted rules which guaranteed the return of the dowry to the wife’s family if the marriage was of short duration and/or there were no children; the best known being the rules of the community of Ṭulaiṭula (Toledo), *Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘Ezer §*118.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr)⁴⁴ learned from the calumniator⁴⁵, part 3, Chapter 49) and Nachmanides (Commentary to Deut. 22:19), the fine of the calumniator is 400 zuz since he wanted to steal from her the ketubah sum of 200 zuz by his accusation; as a thief he has to pay double restitution to the injured party. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that the father is the injured party. (Interpretation following R. Baruch Fränkel-Teomim.). Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her⁴⁶ after she became an adult, he is not flogged⁴⁷. 22:17 is interpreted to mean “they have him flogged.” nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas⁴⁸. 22:18 it is written: They shall fine him 100 silver pieces and give them to the adolescent’s father. If the girl is no longer an adolescent, the punishment does not apply. but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning⁴⁹. 22:24. If the witnesses for the husband are shown to be false (cf. Note 86), they are stoned since any false witness is punished by the sentence that would have been passed upon the accused if the testimony had been true.? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father⁵⁰. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour⁵¹ before a definitive marriage is possible. but the fine is only at the end⁵²; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment⁵³. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira)⁵⁴ are parallel institutions; the rules of the fine may inspire rules of ketubah..

footnotes: ⁴³ This presupposes the earlier practice that the ketubah ⁴⁴ Since R. Meïr is not mentioned otherwise in this connection, it seems that this is a scribal mistake for R. Jehudah. ⁴⁵ The calumniator accuses his definitively married wife, who is an adolescent, of infidelity while preliminarily married. If his accusation is false, he pays the fine to the father, not to his wife. This shows that the father retains an interest in the money coming to his adolescent daughter even if she is definitively married. In the opinion of Maimonides (More Nebukhim ⁴⁶ He is called a calumniator by the biblical text because he has to accuse his wife of adultery in front of the court, and for that he is punished if his accusation is not sustained. For the court to act on his accusation he has to produce two witnesses to the adultery since as husband he is his wife’s relative and barred from acting as a witness for or against her. ⁴⁷ The expression “they shall punish him” in Deut ⁴⁸ In Deut ⁴⁹ The standard punishment for adultery by a preliminarily married adolescent, Deut ⁵⁰ As long as the accusation is made when the girl is an adolescent, the verse gives the money to the father. ⁵¹ The groom has to accept all obligations of the ketubah ⁵² The fine is due only upon sentencing. ⁵³ He holds that the act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine rather than the court’s sentence. ⁵⁴ This probably should read: וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. “and Rebbi Yose like Rebbi Ze‘ira,” that the obligation of the fine starts with the rape and, therefore, fine and ketubah

MISHNAH: If a proselyte woman converted together with her daughter and the latter committed adultery⁵⁵, she is [executed] by strangling⁵⁶; she has neither a door of her father’s house⁵⁷. 22:21). nor 100 tetradrachmas⁵⁸. If she was conceived not in holiness but born in holiness⁵⁹, she is [executed] by stoning; she has neither a door to her father’s house⁶⁰ nor 100 tetradrachmas. If she was conceived and born in holiness⁶¹, she is a Jewish woman in all respects. If she⁶² has a father but no door to her father’s house⁶³, or a door to her father’s house but no father⁶⁴, she is stoned since the door to her father’s house was mentioned only as a commandment⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ As a preliminarily married adolescent. ⁵⁶ As any adulteress. The special rules of the preliminarily married adolescent are addressed to “a virgin of Israel”. She may be a virgin, if she was converted before she reached the age of three years and a day, but she is not of Israel. ⁵⁷ The adulterous preliminarily married adolescent is stoned there (Deut ⁵⁸ If her husband had falsely accused her. ⁵⁹ Her mother converted while pregnant. ⁶⁰ Since her mother s relationship with her father was a relationship of Gentiles at the moment of conception, it is non-existent for Jewish law. ⁶¹ Her mother became pregnant after her conversion. Holiness is Judaism. ⁶² This now refers to Jewish adolescents, rather than to proselytes. The sentence probably is the missing Mishnah 5. ⁶³ Her father owns no house. ⁶⁴ If her father died. ⁶⁵ A biblical commandment only requires execution to the letter if it is characterized as either חוּקָּה or תּוֹרָה.

HALAKHAH: “If a proselyte woman converted,” etc. It is written⁶⁶. 22:19.: “For he calumniated a virgin of Israel”. That excludes this one⁶⁷ who is not from Israel. “For he calumniated a virgin,” to include the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but her birth was in holiness, that she should be stoned. Why does one not add her for the fine⁶⁸? You cannot do that; as Ḥizqiah stated⁶⁹: We understand that it was said “they shall stone her⁷⁰22:21, speaking of the girl proven to be an adulteress: “her town’s people should stone her with stones that she dies.”,” does that not imply that she dies? Why does the verse say, “and she shall die”? But there must be another one who is stoned but (she)⁷¹ but one has to read וְהוּא פָטוּר for וְהִיא פְטוּרָה. As the Babli argues, there must be one case which is added only for this kind of death penalty. [he] is free; who is that? That is the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but who was born in holiness.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Deut ⁶⁷ The girl not born Jewish. ⁶⁸ The verse refers to the fine when she was falsely accused, not to her death when she was proven to be an adulteress. ⁶⁹ In the Babli, 44b, that is a statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish. ⁷⁰ Deut. ⁷¹ This is the text of ms. and editio princeps

It is written⁷². 22:13 ff.: “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse⁷³. 235, to R. Jehudah, as dissenting opinions., and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish⁷⁴ 9:10.? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel”⁷⁵ he says, I took this woman, came to her and did not find her to be a virgin.” One could read this as meaning that the libel and the claim of missing virginity are two different actions by the husband. But v. 17 makes it clear that there is only one action: “He attacks her by libel, saying, I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.” The same argument is in Sifry Deut.. Since “a libel” later implies whoring, so also here it means whoring. Since “a libel” later implies from the place of virginity, so also here? From where if he came upon her otherwise⁷⁶. agrees.? The verse says, “and he calumniates her”, in any way. “He said, I took this wife⁷⁷ and came to her,” that excludes assignations⁷⁸. 21:7–11) he can later assign the price he paid for her as bride money either for himself or for his son and declare her preliminarily married without investing an additional penny in her. But since the money originally was given for her work as a servant, not for marriage, the husband cannot say “I bought her as a wife”.; “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir⁷⁹; “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷² Deut ⁷³ In the Babli, 46a, this interpretation is attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob, in Sifry Deut ⁷⁴ Which according to the House of Hillel could be a cause for divorce, Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁷⁵ V. 14 reads: “He attacks her by libel and calumniates her, and ⁷⁶ He sets himself up for punishment even if during the first intercourse he did not penetrate. The Babli disagrees, 46a/b; Sifry Deut ⁷⁷ לָקַחְתִּי can be translated as: “I bought”. ⁷⁸ If a man buys somebody’s underage daughter as an indentured servant (Ex ⁷⁹ The levir did not give any money, his deceased brother did. ⁸⁰ In this case, money was given but the marriage not consummated.

“I took”, that excludes assignations⁷⁸. 21:7–11) he can later assign the price he paid for her as bride money either for himself or for his son and declare her preliminarily married without investing an additional penny in her. But since the money originally was given for her work as a servant, not for marriage, the husband cannot say “I bought her as a wife”.. Rebbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation⁸¹ 1:2 (59b 1. 40), Babli 19a, the only other places where the question is raised, only R. Yose ben R. Jehudah holds that the original money was not given with the idea that eventually it would be used as brides-money. But everybody agrees that the verses Ex. 21:8–9 require a separate action of assignment which is distinct from the original acquisition; therefore, the marriage of the indentured servant is not a “buy”.. “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir⁷⁹; not only for the earlier teachings that the obligation of the levirate precedes that of ḥalîṣah, but even according to the later teachings that the obligation of ḥalîṣah precedes the obligation of levirate⁸² 12:7, Note 140; Bekhorot Mishnah 1:7.. “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ If a man buys somebody’s underage daughter as an indentured servant (Ex ⁸¹ In Qiddušin ⁷⁹ The levir did not give any money, his deceased brother did. ⁸² Cf. Yebamot ⁸⁰ In this case, money was given but the marriage not consummated.

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin⁸³. 22:14..” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear⁸⁴? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.⁸⁵. 22:17. The father also is barred from being a witness in a case involving his daughter.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses⁸⁶. 19:18–20) only is impossible testimony, i. e., that the opposing party produces witnesses to testify that the other witnesses could not possibly have seen what they testify to since they were at another place at the time they pretend to have seen certain things.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses⁸⁷.

footnotes: ⁸³ Deut ⁸⁴ It is difficult to accept that the court should take the case simply on the husband’s statement, in particular because the husband cannot be cross-examined as a witness since he is related to his wife and relatives are barred from being witnesses. ⁸⁵ Deut ⁸⁶ The case is a regular criminal case to be adjudicated following all rules of criminal procedure; the only new feature is the punishment inflicted on the husband if his case is not sustained in court.In talmudic law, there are unreliable witnesses and there are perjurers. If the story of the witnesses does not hold up under cross-examination, or if the witnesses’s story is contradicted by equally trustworthy witnesses, the witnesses are unreliable and their testimony is not accepted as basis of a judgment. Perjury with its attendant penalties (Deut ⁸⁷ The penalties mentioned in this paragraph can only be imposed if the case is one of proven formal perjury.

“And they spread out the cloth.⁸⁸. 22:17. It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says.” That is all simile. Rebbi Ismael stated: That is one of three verses in the Torah which have been written as simile⁸⁹. 237; in Finkelstein’s opinion not of the original Sifry text. A slightly enlarged version is in Sanhedrin 8:8, 26c 1. 6.. “If he gets up and walks outside on his support, the one who hit him is not prosecuted.⁹⁰. 21:19, speaking of a person who deliberatly injures another. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 6; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 174.” Could anybody think that one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But what is “on his support”, in his health⁹¹. “If the sun shone on him, he has blood.⁹². 22:2, speaking of a thief digging a tunnel under a house, who can be killed with impunity if found out since in the tunnel “he has no blood”.” Does the sun shine only on him? But just as the sun is particular that it brings peace to the entire world, so also this one, if one knows that [the other] is at peace with him and he kills him, he is guilty⁹³ 72a/b, this can only be asserted of a father coming to steal from his son. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi (Note 89) it cannot be asserted of anybody. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13; differently in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 192..

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Deut ⁸⁹ Sifry Deut ⁹⁰ Ex ⁹¹ If the injured person regains his health but then has a relapse and dies, the person who injured him cannot be prosecuted for murder. ⁹² Ex ⁹³ In the opinion of the Babli, Sanhedrin

It was stated⁹⁴. §237. In the interpretation of the Babli, R. Eliezer ben Jacob requires that the court hear testimony about virginal blood.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse⁷³. 235, to R. Jehudah, as dissenting opinions., and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth⁸⁸. 22:17. It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says.”. Not that “they spread the cloth” but until the things become clear like a cloth⁹⁵. Assi said, “they spread the cloth”, the witnesses are not stoned, nor is the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas, until they say: you were with us at a certain place⁹⁶, and the husband hired them to testify falsely⁹⁷. If they said, you were with us at a certain place, but they did not say, the husband hired them to testify falsely? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁹⁸: It is said here “putting”, it is said there “putting”. Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money⁹⁹. 22:24: “you shall not charge interest to [the recipient of a loan].” From the principle that a word has only one meaning, one infers that the husband “puts” a libel on his wife by paying for it; then according to this opinion he cannot be punished unless he actually pays for the false testimony.. But did we not state: He did not say to the witnesses, come and testify in my case, but they came on their own, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses would be stoned⁴⁹. 22:24. If the witnesses for the husband are shown to be false (cf. Note 86), they are stoned since any false witness is punished by the sentence that would have been passed upon the accused if the testimony had been true.’¹⁰⁰? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them¹⁰¹ 42b); exeptions to that rule must have a biblical basis.. If the father brought two groups of witnesses¹⁰² 9b, discusses only the simple case that the same witnesses testify both about the other witnesses and the husband’s involvment.). One side say, you were with us at a certain place. The other side say, the husband hired them to testify falsely. It is obvious that those who said, you were with us at a certain place, are stoned¹⁰³, and those who said, the husband hired them to testify falsely, are flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas¹⁰⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, neither by these not by those are they flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas¹⁰⁴, but they are flogged because of “you shall not testify as a false witness against your fellow man.¹⁰⁶. 20:17. The Babli disagrees, Makkot 2b, since “a prohibition violated without an action is not prosecutable” (cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 2).”

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Babli 46a, Sifry Deut ⁷³ In the Babli, 46a, this interpretation is attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob, in Sifry Deut ⁸⁸ Deut ⁹⁵ Usually, new cloth was simply bleached, not dyed. חִװֵר really means “pale”; only in a derivative sense it means “logically consistent”. ⁹⁶ This is necessary to prove the witnesses guilty of perjury, cf. Note 86. ⁹⁷ This is necessary to impose penalties on the husband. ⁹⁸ This attribution seems most unlikely. Since the argument is quoted in the Babli, 46a, as a tannaitic statement attributed to R. Jehudah, it is more likely that the original text was: In the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai. ⁹⁹ The argument is a little more explicit in the Babli. It is written here, “he puts a libel on her”. It is written in Ex ⁴⁹ The standard punishment for adultery by a preliminarily married adolescent, Deut ¹⁰⁰ The Babli agrees, 46a. ¹⁰¹ This disagrees with the opinion given before. The husband must actively be involved in bringing the witnesses before the court but he does not have to pay them in order to become criminally liable. In general, a person who hires another to commit a crime (or simply induces him to commit a crime) cannot in general be prosecuted since “there is no agent for sin” (Babli Qiddušin ¹⁰² Who then are proven to have perjured themselves. (The Babli, Sanhedrin ¹⁰³ Since, if their testimony had been true, the husband’s witnesses would have been stoned. ¹⁰⁴ Since they testify to the involvement of the husband in the prosecution of his wife. ¹⁰⁴ Since they testify to the involvement of the husband in the prosecution of his wife. ¹⁰⁶ Ex

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23¹⁰⁷ 1:1), capital cases by a court of 23 (Mishnah 1:4). The anonymous majority hold that potential cases of flogging are adjudicated by a court of 3 (Mishnah 1:2). Therefore, flogging and payment of a fine can be imposed by the same court.? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23¹⁰⁸ 8b, this is reported as the opinion of R. Ḥiyya bar Abin and the Babylonian Rava.? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding¹⁰⁹. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23¹¹⁰ is not found in other sources. The reference is to Deut. 22:15, where the girl’s father is instructed to go “to the town’s Elders, to the gate.” The double determination is read as instruction to appear before two different courts.. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays¹¹¹. There¹¹² 1:1., we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.¹¹³” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah¹¹⁴ only if the wife is found guilty, a set-up in which two courts could come to contradictory conclusions is impossible.. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated¹¹⁵ 1:1 states clearly that there is a disagreement in the case of the calumniator. If there were a disagreement in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, it would have to be stated in the Mishnah.? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu]¹¹⁶: וְאַתְיָא דְרִבִּי מָנָא כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן כְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ “Rebbi Mana follows R. Ze‘ira and R. Yose bar Abun follows R. Abbahu.” It is possible to explain that version, in that R. Yose bar Abun was forced to invent the case that the witnesses for perjury were perjurers since in the case of the husband he follows R. Abbahu and that R. Mana, who in the main rule disagrees with R. Ze‘ira, accepts his explanation that the baraita is R. Meïr’s..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Money matters are adjudicated in a court of 3 judges (Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹⁰⁸ It is not necessary to discuss the case that the witnesses to perjury are found to be themselves perjurers; the same result can be obtained assuming the husband’s witnesses are perjurers. Then also the husband’s case is one of flogging and fine, in the competence of a small court, but that of the witnesses is a capital case which requires the large court.In the Babli, Sanhedrin ¹⁰⁹ Since the husband can only be flogged and fined if the witnesses are stoned, the husband’s case is an appendix to that of the witnesses. ¹¹⁰ This baraita ¹¹¹ Cf. Chapter 3:1, Note 30. He will agree that the two punishments of the husband are in the competence of one court. The Sages, who hold that in general the culprit who is flogged does not pay, must agree that the husband can only be flogged by the court which sentences the witnesses for perjury. ¹¹² Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹¹³ Since the wife has to be stoned if found to have committed adultery as a preliminarily married adolescent. ¹¹⁴ Since the husband can be freed from his obligations under the ketubah ¹¹⁵ Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹¹⁶ Text of the Constantinople edition. Text of the ms. and editio princeps

The husband is never flogged, nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas, unless the witnesses are stoned¹¹⁷. When is he obligated for the fine? Rebbi Jonah said, at the end. Rebbi Yose said, from the first hour¹¹⁸. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: In your opinion, since you say at the end, can he be flogged and made to pay 100 tetradrachmas by a court of three and the witnesses stoned by a court of 23¹¹⁹? Rebbi Mana said, even according to Rebbi Yose one could ask the question following him who holds that perjured witnesses need to be warned. If they did not warn them, is he flogged and made to pay 100 tetradrachmas by a court of three; are the witnesses stoned by a court of 23¹²⁰? Rebbi Abbamari said, who is that who says so¹²¹?

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Since only in this case is the husband’s guilt established. ¹¹⁸ They switch their positions from Halakhah 1, in the case of the fine imposed on the rapist. “At the end” means after sentence is imposed, “the first hour” is the moment he falsely accuses his wife of adultery. ¹¹⁹ If the obligation of the fine is a consequence of the conviction of the witnesses, flogging and the fine should be mentioned after the sentence imposed on the witnesses and not before. ¹²⁰ If the witnesses are shown to be perjurers but they cannot be punished because they were not warned of the consequences of perjury, the fact that they cannot be convicted frees the husband and, therefore, his obligation could not be from the first moment. ¹²¹ Nobody holds that witnesses need special warnings since they must be informed by the court about the importance of their testimony. The Babli agrees, 33a.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One who rapes or seduces an orphan is free¹²². Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, this is in dispute; following Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba a fine is due, and the fine belongs to herself¹²³. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah¹²⁴ says so: “She has neither a door to her father’s house nor 100 tetradrachmas;” is she not like an orphan¹²⁵? Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say, one who calumniates an underage girl is free¹²². Rebbi Hoshaiah said, that is correct. If she were an adult who was not warned, would there be any case¹²⁶? And an underage girl who was warned is like an adult who was not warned¹²⁷.

footnotes: ¹²² He does not have to pay the criminal fine, but the payments enumerated in Mishnah 3:5 in civil law are still due. ¹²³ Halakhah 3:4. ¹²⁴ This now refers to Mishnah 5. ¹²⁵ The Mishnah refers to the girl whose mother converted while pregnant with her, who legally has no father since by conversion her mother became a new person, unrelated to her prior existence. ¹²² He does not have to pay the criminal fine, but the payments enumerated in Mishnah 3:5 in civil law are still due. ¹²⁶ Even the adolescent, who is an adult in criminal law, cannot be executed for adultery if at the moment of her adultery she was not duly warned in front of two witnesses that she would risk the death penalty if she went ahead with her adultery. It was stated before that the husband pays only if his witnesses are stoned. But his witnesses can be stoned only if the woman would be stoned had their testimony been true. If there are no witnesses to the warning, the witnesses to the adultery cannot cause her to be executed. Therefore, if these witnesses are found perjured, they cannot be stoned. Therefore, the husband cannot be flogged and fined. ¹²⁷ A minor cannot be criminally liable. Since the underage wife could under no circumstances be stoned, the husband cannot possibly be flogged and fined. The same argument in the Babli, 44b.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: She cannot be executed unless she is an adolescent at the time of the execution. What is the reason? “They shall execute the adolescent at her father’s door¹²⁸. 22:18–21..” But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state¹: If she whored in her father’s house and [the husband] calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the witnesses are executed by stoning. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: “If he escaped after being sentenced and then his pubic hair grew fully.¹²⁹ 8:6, speaking of the unruly son, Deut. 21:18–21, who can be judged only if he is an adolescent, in the 6 months after he grew two pubic hairs before the pubic hair is fully grown. If he was sentenced as an adolescent, he can be executed as an adult.” There, you can say “they shall execute the adolescent” who whored; can you say here “they shall execute him”, the son¹³⁰. 22:21 says only “they shall stone him”, without indicating age.?

footnotes: ¹²⁸ Deut ¹ Cf. Notes 46–49. ¹²⁹ Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹³⁰ Deut

It was stated¹³¹ 10:10.: One stones a preliminarily married adolescent girl who whored at her father’s door. If she does not have a father’s house’s door one stones her where she whored. If it was a Gentile town one stones her at the court’s door. Also, a person who practiced idolatry one stones at the place where he worshipped. If it was a Gentile town one stones him at the court’s door. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Take the blasphemer out from the encampment,¹³². 24:14. The same statement in the Babli Sanhedrin 45b.” this teaches that the court sits inside and the place of stoning is outside. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference: The place where he went astray is the place where he was found, is the place where he was judged, is the place where he was stoned¹³³. 17:5, that the idolator has to be stoned “at your gates.” In Sifry Deut. 148: “The gate where he was found, not the gate where he was judged.”. “For she did a foul deed in Israel.” This one befouled all of Israel, for she came to whore in her father’s house. The bad growth they grew shall come and foul up them and their growth.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Babli 45b; Tosephta Sanhedrin ¹³² Lev ¹³³ In the Babli, 45b, this is a tannaitic statement about Deut

MISHNAH: The father has the benefit to give his daughter¹³⁴ in preliminary marriage by money¹³⁵, contract¹³⁶, or intercourse¹³⁷ 1:1 states that a woman can be preliminarily married either by money (given by the groom to his bride or her father) or by a contract (by which the groom signs his intention to marry his bride) or by intercourse (which has to be performed in front of two witnesses to be legally valid); the latter way is frowned upon in practice.; he has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows¹³⁸ Chapters 10–11., and to receive her bill of divorce¹³⁹, but cannot eat usufruct in her lifetime¹⁴⁰. If she is definitively married, the husband in addition¹⁴¹ eats usufruct in her lifetime¹⁴² but is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom¹⁴³, and her burial. Rebbi Jehudah says, even the poorest in Israel should not provide for her less than two flutes and one wailing woman.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ As long as she is not an adult. ¹³⁵ He can pocket the money. ¹³⁶ He can make himself be paid for signing the marriage contract. ¹³⁷ Mishnah Qiddušin ¹³⁸ Cf. Nedarim ¹³⁹ As long as she is not definitively married. ¹⁴⁰ If her mother is dead and she inherits from her maternal grandfather, all yield from that property is hers and has to be kept in trust for her. But if she dies unmarried, the father inherits from her. ¹⁴¹ In addition to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows. ¹⁴² Of all property she brings into the marriage; cf. Chapter 8. ¹⁴³ If she is kidnapped.

HALAKHAH: “The father has the benefit to give his daughter,” etc. One understands that the father has a benefit from money or contract. By intercourse? Explain it that [the groom] said to [the father]: When your daughter becomes mine by intercourse, this money shall be your property.

“He has the right to what she finds.” Rebbi Zakkai from Alexandria asked: How do you treat what she found on [her] field¹⁴⁴, as a find or as her usufruct? If you treat it as usufruct it is hers.¹⁴⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ A field which she inherited from her mother’s side and to whose yield the father has no claim. ¹⁴⁵ While R. Zakkai’s question is not answered, the fact that only one interpretation is analyzed further seems to indicate that anything she finds on her field belongs to her.

“If she is definitively married, the husband in addition eats usufruct in her lifetime,” as a regulation they instituted that he should oversee his wife’s property and eat from it. Is it also thus for the father? Without incentives the father overseas the daughter’s property; should he eat? “He is required to pay for her upkeep and her ransom.¹⁴⁶” It was stated: If the husband said, it is impossible for me to eat and to oversee, one does not listen to him¹⁴⁷; but if the father said, I shall oversee if I can eat, one listens to him¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ This is an unnecessary quote from the Mishnah; the text continues to refer to the wife’s property. ¹⁴⁷ Since this is a generally valid regulation, the court cannot relieve the husband from caring for his wife’s property. (But the husband can cede the administration of the property to his wife by a private contract as long as no court is involved.) ¹⁴⁸ The court may allow the father a reasonable fee for administering his underage daughter’s property if this is to her advantage.

“And her burial.” It was stated: If the husband refused to bury her, the father buries her and recovers his expenses in court. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father and also a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.¹⁴⁹” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, a third party. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial and for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs¹⁵⁰. It was stated¹⁵¹ 14:7. The fee of the preacher who eulogizes the deceased can be recovered from the husband.: At a place where it is customary to eulogize, one eulogizes.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ The reference here really should be to Mishnah 13:2; the parallel to this paragraph, formulated in a slightly different way, is at the end of Halakhah 13:2. The essence of that Mishnah is that if the husband is absent without providing for his wife and a third party supports the wife without either having the wife sign a document that she recognizes the money for support as a loan, or being appointed her guardian by the court, he has no regress on the husband upon his return. ¹⁵⁰ If the community buries her, they can recover the costs from the husband. The Babli, 47a, refers this to the husband: If somebody tells his heirs not to bury him, the community buries him and recovers the cost from the estate since one will not allow a man to have himself buried with taxpayers’ money in order to increase his estate. ¹⁵¹ Tosephta 4:2, Śemaḥot

MISHNAH: She always remains in the father’s power¹⁵² until she enters the husband’s power for definitive marriage. If the father entrusted her to the husband’s emissaries she is in the husband’s power. If the father went with the husband’s emissaries, or the father’s emissaries went with the husband’s emissaries, she is in the father’s power. If the father’s emissaries entrusted her to the husband’s emissaries¹⁵³, she is in the husband’s power.

footnotes: ¹⁵² For all the rights and duties enumerated in the preceding Mishnah. ¹⁵³ Even though they will accompany the bride to the place of the nuptials and participate in them.

HALAKHAH: “She always remains in the father’s power,” etc. Not only to the bridal chamber¹⁵⁴ but to a house where the bridal chamber is. In which way? A banquet hall¹⁵⁵3:5, Note 229. and a bedroom¹⁵⁶, the bridal chamber being the bedroom, and she entered the banquest hall. In which respect? Rebbi Eleazar said, to inherit from her¹⁵⁷ document, the husband’s rights and obligations are activated not by the formal “seven benedictions” of the definitive marriage but by the bride entering the husband’s power.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows¹⁵⁸. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even though Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he does not actually dissolve them until she enters the bridal chamber. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita¹⁵⁹ is quoted in the Babli, 49a. supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “To whore in her father’s house,” that excludes the case that the father’s emissaries entrusted her to the husband’s emissaries, after which she¹⁶⁰ should not be stoned but strangled.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ It seems that the original Yerushalmi Mishnah did not read “until she enters the husband’s power for definitive marriage” but “until she enters the bridal chamber” with most Mishnah mss. and the Munich ms. of the Babli. S. Lieberman emphasizes on several occasions that it seems that the scribe of the Leiden ms. obtained the Mishnah text not from the Yerushalmi text he was copying but from a separate Mishnah ms. ¹⁵⁵ Greek τρικλίνιον, cf. Berakhot ¹⁵⁶ Greek κοιτών. ¹⁵⁷ In the Babli, 48b, this is Samuel’s opinion, that after the signing of the ketubah ¹⁵⁸ In the Babli, 48b, he is reported to hold that after this moment, if she is divorced or widowed before entering the bridal chamber, she legally becomes a divorcee or widow after definitive marriage. This parallels R. Ze‘ira’s interpretation here, that the husband acquires all rights even if he cannot exercise them yet. ¹⁵⁹ A similar baraita ¹⁶⁰ If now she should commit adultery before two witnesses after being duly warned that it would be a capital crime, she is treated as a definitively married woman, not as a preliminarily married adolescent.

MISHNAH: The father is not obligated to support his daughter¹⁶¹ contract with his wife does not force a father to feed his underage or adolescent daughter even though he has the right to receive her earnings.. This inference did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain in the vineyard of Jabneh¹⁶²: “The sons shall inherit and the daughters be supported.¹⁶³ stipulation quoted in Aramaic in Mishnah 12.” Since the sons do not inherit before their father’s death, neither are the daughters supported before their father’s death.

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ The ketubah ¹⁶² The seat of the central rabbinic authority in the time between the two wars with the Romans. ¹⁶³ The original Hebrew text of the ketubah

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. ¹⁸⁴ corrected following the Babli, “R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is obligatory to feed one’s daughters. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important¹⁸⁵. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior¹⁸⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Tosephta 4:8, Babli 49a. In these sources, and in the editio princeps ¹⁸⁵ The Babli, 49a, identifies this Tanna as R. Meïr, the one who gives preference to the daughters as R. Jehudah, with the same reasoning as given here. In the Tosephta only the first opinion is given, anonymously. ¹⁸⁶ That they should not be forced into prostitution.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah¹⁸⁷ 1:1, Note 59, and eventually in the next paragraph, he is called R. Jehudah bar Ḥanina.: They voted at Usha¹⁸⁸ 1:1, Note 60. that a man has to feed his underage children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we know who participated in that vote¹⁸⁹. Uqba came before Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹⁰ who said to him: Uqba, feed your children. He answered, Master, why¹⁹¹? He said to him: Evil Uqba, feed your children. Rebbi Ulla¹⁹² said, a Mishnah¹⁹³ confirms that a man has to feed his underage children, since we have stated there: “If she is nursing, she has to work less and one adds to her food.”

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ In the Babli, 49b, in Peah ¹⁸⁸ The temporary meeting place of the supreme religious authority in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kohkba; cf. Peah ¹⁸⁹ They were important enough to accept their vote as judicial practice. (In today’s practice of the Israeli Rabbinate, support is required to the end of the child’s schooling.) ¹⁹⁰ He was sued for child support by either his wife or the local overseer of charity who did not want to spend public funds on Uqba’s children. ¹⁹¹ There is no biblical authority to force me to feed them. ¹⁹² Probably R. Hila (Ilaï), the tradent of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statements in the Babli, 49b. ¹⁹³ Mishnah 5:13. The Mishnah shows that the husband has less revenue and more expenses because of the feeding of his baby.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted in Usha that if one writes all his property over to his sons, he and his wife are supported by them¹⁹⁴. What is the situation of underage children? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥanina: He, his wife and his underage children are supported by them.¹⁹⁵ What about his widow¹⁹⁶ since her husband died without leaving an estate. Therefore, if the sons supported her during their father’s lifetime, they must support his widow indefinitely.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this was asked but not resolved. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it was asked and resolved, Rebbi Abba said, it seems reasonable that if she ate during her husband’s lifetime then she eats; otherwise, she does not eat. It says only “if one writes”; that excludes the seller. If he wrote to his sons¹⁹⁷ and sold to others, what is here reasonable? Rebbi Ḥanina said, I would not give him anything. Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable that they hire him a servant and marry a wife to him so she should serve him¹⁹⁸?

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ Even if the property be given unconditionally and immediately, it is a law promulgated at Usha that the sons have to care for their parents (Rashi, on Babli 49b). ¹⁹⁵ The adult sons who inherited from their living parents. ¹⁹⁶ She cannot collect her ketubah ¹⁹⁷ The sons received only part of the estate; the remainder was sold to outsiders and the proceeds used up. ¹⁹⁸ As a matter of honoring father and mother, not as a monetary obligation deriving from their partial inheritance.

²⁰⁰ 5:4. The variant readings are indicated by גי. In this text, “here” means the text in Giṭṭin, “there” is a different setting in Yebamot 6:6 (Notes 115,116). The topic of the Mishnah in Giṭṭin is the enforcement of the ketubah contract for the support of a wife and her daughters; the question is whether the ketubah also covers granddaughters. Similarly, here the question is whether the rules of Usha require a man to feed his underage grandchildren (if they have no father or the father is incapacitated.) In Yebamot, the question is whether grandchildren count as much as children in the obligation “to be fruitful and multiply.” The answer there is a qualified yes, while here and in Giṭṭin it is no. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, [grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren²⁰¹.

footnotes: ²⁰⁰ This paragraph, transmitted here in rudimentary form, is from Giṭṭin ²⁰¹ In biblical obligations, grandchildren can be counted as children. But in rabbinic institutions involving monetary obligations, only what is specified counts.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥaninah: They voted in Usha that one who insults an Elder or hits him has to indemnify him fully for his shame. It happened, that somebody who insulted an Elder and hit him had to indemnify him fully for his shame. They said, it happened to Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina²⁰² 8:6 (6c) that the “full payment for shame” is one Roman libra of gold..

footnotes: ²⁰² It is explained in Baba Qama

²⁰³ 1:1, Notes 58–64, as noted by the scribe when he stopped copying the entire paragraph. In the Babli, 50a. Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property” … “corresponding to the first of all your yield”²⁰⁴ it is clear that the inference is from the part of the verse which is not quoted here.. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? {One studies this in the first Halakhah of Peah.}²⁰³ 1:1, Notes 58–64, as noted by the scribe when he stopped copying the entire paragraph. In the Babli, 50a. Will he not die²⁰⁵: A person is permitted to give to charity one fifth of his property once; from thereon in he is restricted to one fifth of his income lest he die of hunger in the future.? But lest he die in the future.

footnotes: ²⁰³ This paragraph is essentially from Peah ²⁰⁴ In Peah ²⁰³ This paragraph is essentially from Peah ²⁰⁵ If every year he gives away one fifth of his property, soon he will have nothing. This part is formulated differently in Peah

²⁰⁶ 15:3, Notes 34–79 (whose readings are denoted by י); its Tannaïtic parts are paralleled in Tosephta Ketubot 4:9–13. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah insisted on interpreting the ketubah: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explained: ‘The sons shall inherit and the daughters shall be supported.’ Since the sons can only inherit after their father’s death, so the daughters can claim support only after their father’s death.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ From here to the end of the Halakhah the text essentially is from Yebamot

The House of Hillel insist on interpretation of the ketubah. Hillel the Elder explained it, using the vernacular. In Alexandria they were writing that a man there became betrothed to a woman. Another man abducted her from a public place. When this came before the Sages, they intended to declare [the children] as bastards. Hillel the Elder told them, bring your mothers’ ketubah. They brough their mothers’ ketubah. They found written there: “When you enter my house you shall be my wife according to the laws of Moses and the Jews.”

The House of Shammai insist on interpretation of the ketubah. As the House of Shammai explain, the text of her ketubah document teaches, for he writes: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.

Rebbi Meïr insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Meïr explained, if somebody accepts a field as a contractor, at the moment [he] accepts, one estimates how much it is expected to yield and he gives to [the owner]. Because the standard contract reads: “If I let it lie fallow and do not work on it, I shall pay as if from the best.”

Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Jehudah explained: A man brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him “any other obligations that may come to you from me from earlier times.”

Rebbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan, she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower explained: nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa explained: a person lending money to another person should not take pledges except in court; he should not enter [the debtor’s] house to take the pledge, for he writes to him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this [sum].”²⁰⁸: “a person lending money to another person should not take pledges from him for more than the value of the loan since he writes for him: It will be paid …” That text should be considered the correct one since (a) it refers to the text of the contract and (b) the statement here is a biblical commandment (Deut. 24:10–11).

footnotes: ²⁰⁸ In the text of Yebamot

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. [Even if you say, they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah.]²⁰⁹; missing in Yebamot. But is the money stipulated in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate⁶⁶. 22:19.?

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ Inserted here by the corrector who prepared the editio princeps ⁶⁶ Deut

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas; it was heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father or any person from whom he might inherit went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of broken persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known. Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of broken people. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav²¹⁰ “Rav Jehudah”. It is impossible to determine the original reading since R. Jacob bar Aḥa, a student of R. Joḥanan, was a great collector of the sayings of earlier authorities.: ²¹¹ missing here which are needed to make sense of the statement. “Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables [for the rules of broken people]. Rav Sheshet asked”. Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

footnotes: ²¹⁰ In Yebamot, ²¹¹ There are two sentences from Yebamot

MISHNAH: If he did not write her a ketubah, a virgin collects 200 [zuz] and a widow 100, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court²¹² marriage (temporary marriage for sexual pleasure only). A similar institution, ἄγραφος γάμος, “marriage without written contract,” which nevertheless implied all monetary obligations of the husband towards his wife, was known in contemporary Egyptian native law; cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, Chapter IIB3.. If he substituted something²¹³ is a mortgage (primarily or exclusively) on all the husband’s property, it is reasonable to assume that in the Yerushalmi version likewise it is understood that a piece of real estate was offered to satisfy the ketubah claims. valued at a mina for the 200 zuz and did not write “that all my property is guaranty for your ketubah,” he still is obligated by it, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court²¹⁴ contracts following the Babylonian style; the fact that a document is designated as ketubah makes these stipulations enforceable..

footnotes: ²¹² The fact that there is a marriage creates the financial obligations of the husband even in the absence of a contract. This stipulation bars any mut‘a ²¹³ In the Mishnah of the Babli: “A field.” Since the lien of the ketubah ²¹⁴ Therefore, all the stipulations mentioned in this and the following Mishnaiot are not written in ketubah

HALAKHAH: “If he did not write her a ketubah,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said²¹⁴ contracts following the Babylonian style; the fact that a document is designated as ketubah makes these stipulations enforceable.: “Anybody who writes for a virgin less that 200 [zuz] or a mina for a widow engages in immoral intercourse.²¹⁵; that amount can therefore be foreclosed. A similar argument is in the Babli, 51a, where, however, the position is taken that R. Jehudah agrees that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the obligation of the husband’s estate is 200 or 100 zuz but that by written agreement of the wife this obligation can be reduced.” Who needs it²¹⁶? Rebbi Meïr! Even though Rebbi Meïr says that any contract which does not contain an alienation clause²¹⁷ 1:6). cannot be foreclosed, here he agrees that it can be foreclosed²¹⁸.

footnotes: ²¹⁴ Therefore, all the stipulations mentioned in this and the following Mishnaiot are not written in ketubah ²¹⁵ For R. Meïr, the existence of a marriage is proof of a responsibility of the husband or his estate for at least 200 or 100 zuz ²¹⁶ The position of R. Meïr in Mishnah 5:2 does not yet explain why a document of indebtedness does not have to be produced in court. ²¹⁷ R. Meïr holds that a loan document which is not a mortgage, i. e., does not contain a clause which states that in the case of nonpayment some of the debtor’s property will be alienated to the creditor, cannot be enforced in court. In that he is opposed by R. Jehudah who holds that the absence of such a clause is a scribal error (Babli 51a/b; Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a ²¹⁸ The Babli, 51b, qualifies this statement that R. Meïr permits foreclosure only from real estate not otherwise pledged while the Yerushalmi will permit foreclosure from real estate pledged after the marriage was contracted (because the wife’s lien cannot be removed.)

MISHNAH: If he did not write her “if you are kidnapped I shall ransom you and bring you back as my wife,” or for Cohens’ wives “I shall return you to your country²¹⁹ in addition to the ransom he paid for her.,” he is obligated,²²⁰ for this is a stipulation enforced by the court. If she was kidnapped he is obligated to ransom her. If he said, here is her divorce document and her ketubah, let her redeem herself; he is not allowed to do that²²¹ and (b) to deduct the amount of the ransom from her ketubah.. If she was smitten²²², he is obligated to heal her. If he said, here is her divorce document and her ketubah, let her redeem²²³ herself; he is allowed to do that²²⁴ This means, as explained in the Halakhah, that medical costs which can be determined beforehand are not part of the husband’s obligation but ongoing costs for chronic conditions are to be paid by the husband just like ongoing costs for food are his responsibility..

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Since she is forbidden to him as a probably rape victim, he has to divorce her and pay her ketubah ²²⁰ Even if the ransom will exceed the value of her ketubah. ²²¹ He is not allowed (a) to cap possible ransom by the value of the ketubah ²²² If she became sick. ²²³ This probably is a scribal error. In all other mss. (Babli and independent Mishnah mss.): תְּרַפֶּה “let her heal herself.” ²²⁴ The explanation given for the rule is in Tosephta 4:5, that ongoing medical expenses are part of the upkeep promised in the ketubah.

HALAKHAH: “If he did not write her “if you are kidnapped I shall ransom you,” etc. “If she was kidnapped he is obligated to ransom her,” etc. It was stated²²⁵: If a sister-in-law²²⁶ was kidnapped, the heirs do not have to ransom her. Rebbi²²⁷ Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Not only if she was kidnapped when her husband was still alive but even if she was kidnapped after the husband’s death, the heirs do not have to ransom her. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Aḥa²²⁸: The Mishnah supports Rav: “And bring you back as wife;” there is no “wife”.

footnotes: ²²⁵ Tosephta 4:5. ²²⁶ The widow of childless man who waits to be married in levirate. The Babli, 52a, reports the same rule for any widow. ²²⁷ This should be “Rav”. ²²⁸ This name does not appear otherwise in the Talmudim. In the Babli, Rav reports his argument in the name of his uncle, the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya (bar Abba bar Aḥa Karsala).

“For Cohens’ wives ‘I shall return you to your country.’” Does this mean, exactly to her country? To a civilized place.²²⁹ and where she can find a new husband.

footnotes: ²²⁹ To a Jewish community where he pays her the ketubah

²³¹ Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated²³²: For any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah. If it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate²³³ in cash.. As the following: A woman came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor give a fixed price? She said, no²³⁴ 9:6, 17a 1. 20, the woman is identified as a relative of R. Simeon ben Abba. In the Babli, 52b, R. Joḥanan is reported to have sided with the heirs, telling them to get an all-inclusive price from the doctor.. Did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Do not turn yourself into an pleader²³⁵ 1:8. It is unethical for a judge to dispense legal advice.,” that one shall not disclose the judgment to a party? He knew her to be honest²³⁶.

footnotes: ²³¹ This paragraph refers to the statement about medical costs. ²³² Tosephta 4:5; Babli, 52b. ²³³ If she is a widow who preferred to be sustained by the estate instead of collecting her ketrubah ²³⁴ He told her to insist the doctor be paid for each visit, not to give the treatment on an all-inclusive fixed price. In Baba Batra ²³⁵ Mishnah Abot ²³⁶ She would not change her behavior based on the information received from him.

MISHNAH: If he did not write her “the male children you will have from me shall inherit the amount of your ketubah in addition to their part with their brothers²³⁷ (the ≥200 zuz from the husband and all the dowry noted in the document) from the estate; only the remainder is divided between the sons (with an eventual first-born son taking two parts.)”; he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

footnotes: ²³⁷ If the wife should die before the husband and the husband inherits from her then, if the husband dies, the sons of his several wives can first claim their mother’s ketubah

HALAKHAH: “If he did not write her “the male children,” etc. That is what Rebbi Immi said, that a man should be disposed to give generously to his daughter²³⁸.

footnotes: ²³⁸ If he knows that the dowry will remain the possession of his grandchildren, he will be more inclined to provide his daughter with a dowry. In the Babli, 52b, the explanation is ascribed to R. Joḥanan and the recommended amount is 10% of the father’s property.The same statememt is also in Halakhah 10:2.

²³⁹ 8:6. There, we have stated²⁴⁰ 8:6. The biblical law of inheritance (Num. 27:8–11) states that inheritances should be distributed to the next of kin; it is implied that all persons of the same degree of relationship shall be treated equally (except for the rule of the firstborn. Deut. 21:15–17). In Mishnah 8:5, the anonymous majority states that a person may make a will in which he distributes his property unevenly. The will will be valid if formulated in the language of gifts, invalid in the language of inheritance. In Mishnah 8:6, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa states that even the language of gifts is acceptable if and only if the recipient is a legal heir directly in line; e. g., one son among many, but not a daughter in the presence of sons since daughters inherit only if there are no sons. If there are no sons, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa will accept unequal distribution of the estate among the daughters. The Mishnah here is formulated following Ben Beroqa since it accepts unequal distribution of the estate even without writing (Babli Baba Batra 131a).: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if he speaks about somebody who is a legal heir, his statements are valid, but about somebody who is not a legal heir, his statements are invalid.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ben Beroqa spoke only about a son among sons or a (daughter)²⁴¹ son among daughters, not about a daughter and brother or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There was a case and Rebbi decided following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did they say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the reason? He asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did the Sages say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa²⁴² is anonymous, it represents practice and it follows R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa. The Babli, Baba Batra 131a, presents the question in slightly different form and ends up by denying its validity. The Babli holds (seemingly against the Yerushalmi) that property rights based on a ketubah stipulation are strictly weaker than those mentioned in the ketubah contract in that they cannot be asserted against third parties.? Are you not the one who stated “shall inherit”? (He said to him, you stated “shall take”; he came to him)²⁴³. He said to him, there is no “shall inherit” but “shall take”²⁴⁴”, making the transaction one of a gift valid from the time of the marriage. Therefore, the rules of inheritance are irrelevant and there is no relation between the Mishnah here and Ben Beroqa’s statement about wills. (Everybody agrees that by a gift “valid now but executed only after my death”, a person can freely dispose of his assets without regard to biblical laws of inheritance.). When he came to his father, he said to him²⁴⁵: you disadvantaged Nathan the Bablylonian; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is what he told him: I made an error in what I taught you; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit”. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is one of the leniencies of the ketubah stipulations. In general, a person can transfer rights only by a document; here even verbally. In general, a person cannot transfer rights to somebody not yet existing; here to the non-existing²⁴⁶.. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how the rabbis can compare ketubah to inheritance, for inheritance is a biblical law but ketubah is from their words²⁴⁷ is purely a rabbinic institution (or better, a generally followed practice in post-exilic Judaism, inspired by but not derived from the biblical “bridal gift”.) This is the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, cf. the last paragraph of this tractate. Since the Mishnah text is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s, the question is relevant.; how can one argue this? Even if you say that ketubah is a biblical law, do they not agree that the stipulations of the ketubah are from their words²⁴⁸ stipulations and the laws of inheritance.?

footnotes: ²³⁹ A similar, but more tersely and clearly formulated text is in Baba Batra ²⁴⁰ Mishnah Baba Batra ²⁴¹ This was the first (correct) word written by the scribe who then (incorrectly) crossed it out and replaced it by “son” to produce a meaningless sentence. ²⁴² Since the Mishnah in Ketubot ²⁴³ The fragments of sentences in this parenthesis make no sense; they belong to nearby texts and the scribe seems to have been unsure about the order of the sentences. It is best to leave the parenthesis unexplained. ²⁴⁴ It is not quite clear whether this is Rebbi’s or R. Nathan the Babylonian’s statement. It changes the language of the Mishnah, that the woman’s sons “shall take her ketubah ²⁴⁵ When Rebbi came to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, the latter affirmed the text of the Mishnah as the correct one. ²⁴⁶ At the date of the marriage, no sons are yet born. For everybody except R. Meïr, the unborn cannot be the recipient of a gift (other than through a guardian); the same argument is in the Babli, loc. cit ²⁴⁷ Ketubah ²⁴⁸ Therefore, there is no connection between the ketubah

MISHNAH: “The female children you will have by me shall live in my house and be supported by my estate until they are married to men”; he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

HALAKHAH: ““The female children you will have by me,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if they became adults, they lost the support²⁴⁹. If they married, they lost their dowries²⁵⁰. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁵¹: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Hila: They all agree on the following: If a widow sues the heirs, she says I did not receive my ketubah, but the heirs say you received your ketubah. Before she remarried, the burden of proof is on the heirs that she received her ketubah²⁵² in the Babli since it requires either that the widow present the ketubah, which will be torn up upon payment, or bring witnesses that she married at a place where routinely no ketubah is written; then she has to deliver a receipt.. After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah²⁵³ was not liquidated at that time.. But did we not state²⁵⁴: “If an orphan was married off by her mother or her brother and they wrote her [a dowry of] 150 zuz, after she grows up she can extract from them.” The reason, because she was underage. Therefore, a grown up gave up her claim²⁵⁵. Explain it that she had received partial payment²⁵⁶, there can be no argument that the widow renounced her claim.. Did not Rebbi Avina say in the name of Rebbi²⁵⁷ 136a. Assi: If a firstborn took as a simple [brother]²⁵⁸, this is prima facie evidence that he gave up his claim. Still, if she had received part payment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture²⁵⁹ 136a, this is very much in dispute since a dissenting opinion holds that the firstborn only lost his right to re-open past distributions but that he is not restrained from asserting his double claim in the future.. There came a case before Rebbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rebbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “if they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries”? He said to him: I quoted a tradition, you quoted a Baraita. Let the tradition be disregarded before the Baraita.

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ Since support for daughters is stipulated only until marriage, the support ends once the usual age for marriage, adolescence, has passed. ²⁵⁰ If after the father’s death she did not claim her dowry at the moment of marriage, she is presumed to have renounced her right to a dowry which on average is 10% of the estate (cf. Halakhah 6:6). In the Tosephta, 4:17, this is the opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar. ²⁵¹ Tosephta 4:17, opinion of the anonymous majority. ²⁵² There is a parallel text in the Babli, 96a/b, but it deals with the case that the widow comes at the end of a year and claims not to have received support for the past year. There is no mention of ketubah ²⁵³ Since all support by the estate stops upon remarriage of the widow, it would be a most unusual circumstance if the ketubah ²⁵⁴ Mishnah 6:6. ²⁵⁵ She is supposed to have renounced her claim if she did not request her dowry at the time of the marriage; the underage girl may wait until she becomes an adult able to act in legal matters. ²⁵⁶ If the quarrel is not about the entire amount of the ketubah ²⁵⁷ This must be Rav Assi, quoted in the Babli, Baba Batra ²⁵⁸ The ms. formבְּפָשׁוּט , in his quality of “simple” brother (i. e., taking only one portion in contrast to the firstborn’s double share), is good rabbinic Hebrew style and does not have to be changed into כְּפָשׁוּט. ²⁵⁹ Therefore, the case of the firstborn is different from that of widow or orphan girl. In the Babli, Baba Batra

““And you shall dwell in my house”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he slept with her when she still was in her father’s house, did he then activate all ketubah stipulations or is that only by definitive marriage²⁶⁰ stipulations do not apply to the preliminarily married woman. This is obviously implied by the question raised here.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If she renounced her ketubah, what is the situation? She renounced her rights but not those of her children²⁶¹.

footnotes: ²⁶⁰ The question is not answered. In the Babli, 53a, it is stated that ketubah ²⁶¹ One could read this sentence as a question: She renounced her own rights (which she can do following R. Jehudah, Mishnah 5:2), but was she able to renounce those of her children? In the Babli, 53a, the question is answered in the positive: she renounced all rights. Under the influence of the Babli, the commentators chose the interpretation as a question.

MISHNAH: “And you shall dwell in my house and be supported by my property during all of your widowhood”; he is obligated, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court.

HALAKHAH: ²⁶² (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) which in itself is not without problems, see Note 267. As the reader will easily verify, the Aramaic portions of the text have been adapted to Babylonian spelling. Therefore, the text cannot serve as witness to the details of the text: רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁלַח שָׁאִיל לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב וּלְרַב אֲבִימֵי בַּר פָּפָּא. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם בַּיִת מַאי. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שׂוֹכְרִין לָהּ בַּיִת. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת קַרְקַע וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים מָעוֹת. הַדִּין עִם הַיְּתוֹמִים. כְּהָדָא. חָדָא אִיתְּתָא הֲוָה פֶורנָהּ עֶשְׂרִין דֵּינָרִים. וַחֲוָה תַמָּן חַד בַּיִת טָב עֲשָׂרָה דֵינָרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אָמַר. אוֹ יְהָבוֹן לָהּ בַּיְתָא אוֹ יְהָבוֹן לָהּ עֶשְׂרִים דֵּינָרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. מִכֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיתָא אֶלָּא בָעֲשָׂרָה דֵּינָרִין כְּמָאן דְּלֵית לָהּ פֶורְנֵה אֶלָּא בָעֲשָׂרָה דֵּינָרִין. מִיכָּן וָהֵילַךְ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת קַרְקַע וְהֵן אוֹמְרִין מָעוֹת. הַדִּין עִם הַיְּתוֹמִים. Rebbi Ze‘ira sent to ask Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and (Rebbi)²⁶³ Abime bar Pappai: What if there was no house? They said to him, the heirs rent a house for her. One concludes²⁶⁴ (the standard commentary to Rosh),ad loc. that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. As the following: A woman’s ketubah²⁶⁵ representing both the sum the husband gave from his side and the dowry which has to be returned at the dissolution of the marriage. was twenty denars²⁶⁶ for one gold denar a total of 500 zuz., and there was a house worth at most ten denars. The case came before Rebbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her the house or they give her twenty²⁶⁷ (R. Nissim Gerondi, in his commentary on Alfasi, 20b in the Wilna ed.), R. Ḥanina tells the heirs either to give the widow (who probably is not their mother) the house to dwell in or to pay the ketubah in full, where R. Mana disagrees and holds, in accordance with the practice of the Babli, that the ketubah cannot be worth more than the real estate which guarantees it. In Rosh’s version, the entire discussion is only about the right of the widow to an apartment. denars. Rebbi Mana said, since the house is not worth more than 10 it is as if her ketubah was only 10²⁶⁸ and incorrect in the ms.. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. The following is Rosh’s explanation (Chapter 4, #29): “This is the explanation: What are the rules if there was no house there appropriate as a dwelling for the widow and the orphans together? They said to him, the orphans rent a house for her and if she says, real estate, i. e., ‘I want to dwell in my husband’s house’, but they say money, ‘we rent you an apartment but we want to dwell [in the house]’, the law sides with the heirs since she has no property rights in the real estate, only an easement. Therefore, they can rent an apartment for her and they can dwell in that house. {And what we say that she has the right to continue living in her husband’s dwelling (Mishnah 12:3), that is if the house is large enough for all but they want to move her to a lesser apartment.} In the case of that woman, whose ketubah was 20 denars and the only apartment in the estate was a house worth 10 denars (Note of Qorban Nathanael: insufficient to pay the ketubah), R. Ḥanina ruled that either they give her the house or they pay her 20 denars. On that, R. Mana(I) said that she should not take the real estate but that they could give her 10 denars since she has no property rights in the real estate, only an easement. Therefore also in general, since she has no property rights to the apartment, only a claim to be given one, they can move her out of the apartment and rent a different one for her. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and (Rebbi) Abime bar Pappai: What if there was no house? They said to him, the heirs rent a house for her. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. As the following: A woman’s ketubah was twenty denars, and there was a house worth at most ten denars. The case came before Rebbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her a house or they give her twenty denars. Rebbi Mana said, since the house is not worth more than 20 it is as if her ketubah was only twenty. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs.

footnotes: ²⁶² This text is difficult in several places. There exists a version quoted and explained by Rosh ²⁶³ This title is in error; it might be “Rav”. In the Babli, he has no title. ²⁶⁴ This interpretation of מכאן ואילך as a technical term follows Qorban Nathanael ²⁶⁵ Greek φερνή “nuptual gift” used as synonym with ketubah, ²⁶⁶ Gold denars, at the usual rate of 25 silver zuzim ²⁶⁷ In the version of the ms., supported by the quote in RAN ²⁶⁸ This sentence certainly is correct in Rosh

MISHNAH: This²⁶⁹ is what the people of Jerusalem wrote. The people of Galilee wrote like the people of Jerusalem. The people of Judea wrote: “Until the heirs will want to pay her the ketubah.” Therefore, if the heirs wish they can pay her the ketubah and send her away²⁷⁰.

footnotes: ²⁶⁹ The stipulation of Mishnah 14. ²⁷⁰ Whereas in Jerusalem it was the widow’s choice whether to claim housing and support or payment of the ketubah.

HALAKHAH: “This is what the people of Jerusalem wrote,” etc. The people of Galilee cared for their honor more than for their money²⁷¹ unless she was supported by the estate for 25 years (Mishnah 12:4), it is clear that the heirs save money by immediately paying the ketubah in full. But certainly it is not honorable to evict the widow from her husband’s home.; the people of Judea cared for their money more than for their honor. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Abbahu, and some say it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Caesarea²⁷²2:1, Note 40. follows Judea and all other countries Jerusalem²⁷³.

footnotes: ²⁷¹ Since the widow can claim her ketubah ²⁷² Caesarea Philippi, cf. Berakhot ²⁷³ The stipulation of Mishnah 14 is enforced everywhere except in R. Abbahu’s town.

A man said when he was dying: “This man’s wife should be paid her *ketubah.*²⁷⁵ and not provide dwelling and sustenance for his widow.” The case came before Rebbi Mana, who said, let the words of the deceased be confirmed²⁷⁶. Rebbi Ḥanina said to him: Can a person do away verbally with a ketubah stipulation²⁷⁷ stipulations are part of the marriage contract, they cannot be abrogated except by mutual consent, by a rider attached to the ketubah contract. There can be no unilateral abrogation of contractual obligations.? He answered, since you are saying that, what is your reason? He said to him, are we not living in Galilee? And we are taught to say that the people of Galilee prefer their honor over their money²⁷⁸ stipulations were part of the contract; the dying husband’s wish was illegal and could not be enforced..

footnotes: ²⁷⁵ He told his heirs to immediately pay the ketubah ²⁷⁶ It is a general principle that legal death-bed dispositions must be followed. ²⁷⁷ Since the ketubah ²⁷⁸ Since the wife at the time of marriage could expect that all ketubah