MISHNAH: What a woman finds or makes with her hands belongs to her husband¹. Of what she inherits he eats the yield during her lifetime². [Payments she receives for] settlements for shame and diminution of value belong to her³ 8:1 states that the attacker has to pay for injury, pain, medical costs, lost earnings, and mental anguish. The expression “diminution of value” used here covers both injury (permanent impairment) and pain; “shame” is mental anguish. Since the husband has a claim to her handiwork, he also has a claim for payment for the time his wife is unable to work.; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, in case it is covered⁴, she receives two thirds and he one third; in case it is visible, he receives two thirds and she one third. His part shall be given immediately; her part shall be invested in real estate and he eats its yield.

footnotes: ¹ As stated in Mishnah 4:6. ² He is obligated to administer her property so it retains its value. For this, he is paid with the yield of the property. All these rules can be modified by prenuptial agreements. ³ If she is injured by a third party, Mishnah Baba Qama ⁴ The wife’s injury is covered by her clothing; then the husband’s shame that he was unable to defend his wife is not so great. If the wife’s injury is visible, the husband’s loss of face is serious.

HALAKHAH: “What a woman finds or makes with her hands belongs to her husband,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: One said, this is everybody’s opinion, the other said it is in dispute⁵. We do not know who said what. It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish should be the one who said it is in dispute since he explained that [the husband] provides her with food but does not give her a silver obolus as pocket money⁶ 11:4, Notes 51–55. R. Meïr holds that the obligatory work the wife does for her husband is for her silver obolus and what she does in addition is for her food. Therefore, if he does not provide her with pocket money, he has no right to her work and, similarly, to what she finds. For R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian, the work is for her food and the excess for the pocket money. (This is where R. Joḥanan disagrees.) Therefore, the husband has the right to what she makes and finds., and we did state: “If he does not give her a silver obolus as pocket money, what she makes with her hands is hers.” The work of her hands is parallel to what she finds. Rebbi Jacob bar Immi came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is everybody’s opinion⁷. That means that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish varies in his opinions⁸.

footnotes: ⁵ Between R. Meïr and R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian who disagree in Mishnah 5:5 whether a man can dedicate his wife’s work to Heaven. ⁶ Cf. Halakhah 5:5; Nedarim ⁷ What she finds belongs to her husband according to everybody, as explained in the next paragraph. ⁸ It seems that he taught different approaches to different students.

For whom is it needed⁹? For Rebbi Meïr! Even though for Rebbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand¹⁰ 7:1, Note 1), but for R. Meïr one would expect that a wife can only acquire an inheritance as representative for her husband. Therefore, it is essential that the Mishnah state that an inheritance becomes the wife’s sole property for which the husband has to act as administrator. Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Note 70; Ma‘aser Šeni 4:4, Note 95; Babli Nedarim 88b, Qiddušin 23b. and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it¹¹ are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated¹² 1:5.: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave¹³ is called “Canaanite slave”. In the theory of the Babli, the Canaanite slave’s body is the property of his master; therefore, if the slave lifts a find to acquire it, it is legally his master whose hand took it. or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave¹⁴ 21:1–11) are a frequent topic in the Talmudim, the subject is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slavery disappeared with the end of the First Commonwealth. It is asserted that only the working capability of the slave is the master’s, not his body. Therefore, if he lifts a find to acquire it, it is not the master’s hand which lifts the find. or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work¹⁵. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work¹⁶ and you say that her find belongs to him! Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel¹⁷ 1:5 (8a 1. 15)]. This is the only explanation offered in the Babli, 96a; it is called “because of jealousy”.. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away¹⁸ any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift¹⁹! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that²⁰. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, if they²¹ assigns their finds. This is qualified; the Mishnah applies only if the children are financially independent. In the Babli, this is formulated that “they are not dependent on their father’s table.” Cf. Peah 4:6, Note 107; Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1.3); Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 12b. are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.

footnotes: ⁹ The clause in the Mishnah that the husband has only the usufruct of any inheritance coming to his wife during the marriage. ¹⁰ Similarly, R. Meïr holds that a wife cannot act legally except as her husband’s representative. It would seem reasonable that a wife can retain separate property by prenuptial agreement (cf. Yebamot ¹¹ The inheritance. ¹² Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a ¹³ It is not required that the slave be Phoenician. Any non-Jewish slave who became semi-Jewish by circumcision (for a male) and immersion in a miqweh ¹⁴ While the rules for the treatment of Hebrew slaves (Ex. ¹⁵ Obviously, the master can direct the Hebrew slave to perform any task he asks of him; but he cannot direct him not to use his hands for anything else. ¹⁶ In Chapter 5, an exhaustive list was given of work the husband can demand from his wife. The wife’s body certainly is not her husband’s property. Therefore, one does not understand why her find should be her husband’s. ¹⁷ One has such a poor opinion of Jewish husbands that one is afraid he would be offended if the wife would not share her find with him [mentioned also in Baba Meṣi‘a ¹⁸ Meaning: stealing. ¹⁹ The gift can be given on condition that the husband have no right to it. Should the wife not be believed if she says she received a gift? ²⁰ R. Yose will agree that in the case of a find in the presence of other people his reason is invalid. He holds that, nevertheless, the rabbinic decree giving the find to the husband stands because ịt would be impractical to admit exceptions. ²¹ This refers to the adult children to whom the Mishnah in Baba Meṣi‘a

Rebbi Isaac instructed about one who had sent away his wife but not liquidated her ketubah²², the document in which the value of the dowry was recorded. Therefore, it seems reasonable to read the text that R. Isaac obligated the former husband to support his former wife until he had paid the last penny of everything he was obligated to by the ketubah document, not only until he had returned all her dowry., that he has to feed her until the time he liquidated it.

footnotes: ²² Greek φερνή “dowry”. In Halakhah 7:7, the word is used in the meaning of ketubah

Rebbi Redipha, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Because he does not make her lose anything²³. In secret²⁴, why does he take? Because of the pain he suffers with her.

footnotes: ²³ This refers to the rules of R. Yehudah ben Bathyra who gives the husband part of the payment for shame and diminution of value. Why should the husband get part of the payment for shame? Since the payment is pure revenue for the recipient, not restitution, she still ends up having more than she did before her injury. ²⁴ If the scars of her injury are not visible in public. The Babli, 66a, formulates: His wife is his body.

MISHNAH: If somebody decided²⁵ on money for his son-in-law and the son-in-law died²⁶, the Sages said that he can say²⁷ to the levirate marriage., I was ready to give to your brother, but it is impossible for me to give to you.

footnotes: ²⁵ He promised a fixed amount of dowry payable at the moment of the final marriage ceremony. ²⁶ Between the preliminary and the final marriage ceremony. ²⁷ To the levir who is scheduled to marry his daughter. This is intended to induce the levir to prefer ḥălîṣah

HALAKHAH: “If somebody decided on money for his son-in-law and the son-in-law died,” etc. Are these not the things that are acquired by speech²⁹? Bar Qappara stated: He promised the dowry on condition there be a marriage³⁰. And it is so³¹: If somebody decided on money for his underage daughter, one forces him to give. But not for the adult one³²? Rebbi Abun said, one forces [the groom] to give a bill of divorce³³.

footnotes: ²⁹ As explained in Halakhah 5:1, Notes 16 ff., that promises made at the moment of the preliminary marriage are enforceable in court. Why can the levir not sue for his brother’s property? ³⁰ A promise of dowry becomes enforceable only after the definitive marriage ceremony. ³¹ This refers to Halakhah 13:5: If somebody promised a sum to his son-in-law at the moment of the preliminary wedding but went bankrupt before the final wedding, and the groom is not willing to proceed with the definitive marriage without the dowry being paid, the question is whether the girl can insist on either to be married or to be freed to marry somebody else. In Tosephta 13:4, it is stated: If somebody decided on money for his underage daughter but then went bankrupt, one forces him to give because one can give a minor benefit but not obligation. A similar text is in the Babli, 109 a. In all these texts, it is stated “one forces him”, without an explanation whom one forces. ³² Is a promise of dowry for an adult daughter not enforceable? ³³ If the daughter was a minor at the time of the preliminary marriage and then the father went bankrupt, the court will force the groom either to marry the girl without money or to free her by a bill of divorce since acts of third parties to the detriment of minors are invalid and not enforceable in court. The same explanation is given in the Babli, 109a, by Rava, a frequent discussion partner of Ravin (= R. Abun.)

MISHNAH: If she decided to bring him 1’000 denars, he decides as equivalent fifteen minas³⁴ to return 150% of the capital at the dissolution of the marriage to account for his earnings from that capital.. Corresponding to estimates he decides one-fifth less³⁵. If it was appraised for a mina and it is worth a mina, he has only a mina³⁶ the full written value as value received, he cannot later complain and have the ketubah sum reduced.. For the estimate of a mina she gives him 31 [tetradrachmas and one]³⁷, and in a few other mss., two words are missing. The corrected text reads: שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאַחַת סֶלַע וְאֶחָד דֵּינָר. This text was translated. Cf. The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings, Tractate Kethubot vol. 2, ed. M. Herschler, Jerusalem 1977, p. קי-קיא, Notes 54–55. denar³⁸, she has to deliver goods estimated at 125 denars.. For 400 she gives 500, for what the groom decides, he decides one-fifth less.

footnotes: ³⁴ If the dowry is in cash which the groom will use in his business, he has to obligate himself in the ketubah ³⁵ As a matter of principle, any part of the dowry given in goods has to be capitalized at 80% of its estimated value at the time of marriage. Some commentators of the Babli explain that the 20% represent the depreciation of things in use; others explain that estimators have a tendency to inflate the values to make the bride appear richer than she is. Cf. Note 42. ³⁶ If the rule of the preceding paragraph is not followed and the groom agrees to accept in the ketubah ³⁷ In ms. and editio princeps ³⁸ ·31·4 + 1 = 125; 0.8·125 = 100.For a value of 100 denars written in the ketubah

HALAKHAH: “If she decided to bring him 1’000 denars,” etc. Why did they say for money, one and one half times, and for estimations less one fifth? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one estimates the will of the woman that she wants to use her vessels³⁹ פוחת) quotes the statement in the name of Samuel but in Alfasi the text is quoted as in the ms. and depreciates them by a fifth. One estimates the will of the man to use it⁴⁰ in trade and to make them one and one half⁴¹. Rebbi Yose said, this implies⁴⁰ that nobody has the right to sell his wife’s vessels. Example: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi went to appraise for Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s daughter. They said to [the groom]: Deduct a fifth and double⁴³ edited by him exhibit artificial inflation of the value of the dowry.. He said to them, he⁴⁴ deducts a fifth and does not double.

footnotes: ³⁹ כלי includes both garments and household vessels. Tosaphot (66a, s. v. ⁴⁰ The cash received. ⁴¹ He expects to earn more than 50% from the dowry. ⁴⁰ The cash received. ⁴³ First he is told to deduct 20% to arrive at the real value of the dowry and then to double, to inflate the apparent value. This was a widespread practice in Babylonia and was proposed by the three Babylonian-born rabbis acting as appraisers. The device was rejected by the Palestinian groom. The subject is dealt with by M. A. Friedman (cf. Chapter 5, Note 226), vol. 1, pp. 296–298, where references to the large literature about the subject are given. Friedman notes that none of the Palestinian ketubot ⁴⁴ Meaning himself.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If she brought him gold, at full value⁴⁵. This was also stated⁴⁶. Jewellery to be turned into denars⁴⁷, at the rate of one and one half. Denars to be turned into jewellery, at their full value. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Immi: If she brought him an animal⁴⁸? He said to him, at full value. If she brought him real estate: He said to him, at full value. But does he not gain from it⁴⁹? But she collects the real estate, he has only the usufruct⁵⁰. (Cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1.).

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Gold jewellery does not depreciate when worn. The Babli, 67a, points out that under a government which depreciates its currency, gold coins have the status of jewellery, not of coin. ⁴⁶ The Mishnah states that certain things in the dowry are accepted at full value. ⁴⁷ This becomes the husband’s working capital. ⁴⁸ Either cattle for agricultural work or goats for milk. ⁴⁹ Why is real estate not evaluated at 150%? ⁵⁰ Real estate, whether mortmain or paraphernalia, remains the wife’s property of which the husband has the usufruct. Since at the dissolution of marriage the real estate returns to the wife, there is no need to increase its value in the ketubah

MISHNAH: If she decided to bring him money, each tetradrachma is turned into six denars⁵¹ and the groom engages himself for ten denars for the perfume box for each mina⁵²; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all follows local custom.

footnotes: ⁵¹ This is 150%, as stated in the preceding Mishnah. ⁵² He will provide her with perfumes and accessories worth one tenth of the cash dowry.

HALAKHAH: “If she decided to bring him money,” etc. “If she decided to bring him 500 denars by appraisal, he makes it 400. If he did not do that but made it 1’000; if she made an agreement⁵³ p. 245). In the commentary on the Tosephta which is parallel to the text here (6:6–7), S. Lieberman reads in the text נקִיצּוּתָהּ “what she had decided”, based on the Tosephta text (6:6), and explains that the woman takes all if she actually delivered what she had promised. But in the ms. it is clear that in the Yerushalmi the word ends in the definite article תא, and Lieberman’s identification of Tosephta and Yerushalmi texts (pp. 278–279) cannot be accepted (or the ending תה in the Tosephta should be interpreted as תא.). In the Babli, קִיצוּתָא is “a fixed date”, קִיצְוְתָא “a fixed price.” The explanation given here is close to that proffered by R. Moses Margalit. Since the groom doubled the original appraisal and deviated from the norm, acceptance of this deviation is valid only if explicitly endorsed either in the ketubah or in an accompanying document. In the ketubot published by A. M. Friedman, the sums are regularly acknowledged by the bride’s representatives. It is to be assumed that in every case where one speaks of an agreement made “by the bride,” it means an agreement signed by her father or in his absence another duly authorized member of her family., she collects everything; if not, he deducts five denars for each tetradrachma, but he cannot touch the addition⁵⁴. But what he added over and above the appraised value is his irrevocable gift since in Galilee one did not routinely double the appraisals (cf. Note 41.) The widow collects from the estate 400 denars for the appraisal and 500 additional, for a total of 900.. If she decided to bring him 500 denars in coin, he makes it 750⁵⁵. If he did not do that but made them 1’000; if she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, he deducts six denars for each tetradrachma⁵⁶, but he cannot touch the addition. If she decided to bring him 1’000 zuz, he must turn them into fifteen minas. If he did not do that but wrote over to her a field worth 12 minas in place of the 1’000 zuz⁵⁷.. If she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not⁵⁸, one does not decrease for a virgin to less than 200 and for a widow to less than a mina.” Here, you say, he deducts. But there, you say, he does not deduct⁵⁹. Here, if she invalidated part of it, there if she did not invalidate part of it⁶⁰. p. 279) instead of בְּבִטְּלָה ,בנטלה “she invalidated” instead of בְּנָֽטְלָה “she took”.. Here, you say, he touches the addition but there, you say, he does not touch the addition⁶¹ she renounced 300 zuz that would have come to her, putting the entire ketubah in question.. Here, he added but did not subtract; there, he subtracted but did not add. It was stated: Both for appraisal and for coin⁶². Why for appraisal? Corresponding to what he subtracts, corresponding to what what he adds, corresponding to what she brings⁶³.

footnotes: ⁵³ This meaning is conjectural, based on the meaning of קצצא in Syriac (cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah Ketubot ⁵⁴ This follows the Mishnah, for each 5 denars of appraised value, the husband (or his estate) is obligated only for 4 denars, one sela ⁵⁵ As prescribed by the Mishnah. ⁵⁶ If the amount actually given as dowry cannot be ascertained, the husband’s estate is entitled to deduct 6 denars for every 4 in dispute. But the additional 250 denars have to be paid in full. ⁵⁷ He offers only 1200 in place of the 1500 for which he was obligated by the rules. If the wife accepts this in writing, because she prefers 1200 in real estate to 1500 in silver coin whose silver content depends on the policies of the government, she takes everything that is written in the ketubah ⁵⁸ And the amount of her claim is in dispute. ⁵⁹ In all cases except the last, definitive rules are given as to how to compute the claim on the estate. Only in the last case can the entire dowry be lost. ⁶⁰ Following the reading בבטלה conjectured by S. Lieberman (loc. cit ⁶¹ In all cases except the last one, the estate has to pay the full amount of the addition over and above the value of the dowry. Only in the last case, there is no clause that protects the addition. By taking real estate for 1’200 zuz ⁶² They follow the same rules. ⁶³ All this needs confirmation by the parties in writing.

So is the Mishnah: “And a perfume box for every mina⁶⁴ the perfume box for each mina” but “ten denars and a perfume box for each mina.” Cf. J. N. Epstein, ²מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 494; תלמוד בבלי עם שינויי נוסחאות כתובות, vol. 2, p. קיב, Note 25; תוספתא כפשוטה כתובות p. 277. One has to interpret הַכֹּל מְנָה as לְכָל־מְנָה. It is not necessary to change the text; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, p. 322..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made usufruct of perfumes like usufruct of money⁶⁵. Rebbi Avin said, they made usufruct of procreation like usufruct of money⁶⁶ since he or his children will inherit the money. It is left to local custom (in the Middle Ages mostly: local regulations) to deal with the disposition of the dowry if the couple remain childless; a clause which denies the husband the inheritance of his childless deceased wife is authorized by R. Yose and the end of Halakhah 9:1; cf. M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, vol. 1, VE, pp. 391–418.. As the following: The students of Rebbi Yose went to Qaddišin; they found them childless. They said to them: Did you stipulate between you? If you stipulated, it is fine⁶⁷. 134.; otherwise everything follows the local custom.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ The corrected text is not that of the Mishnah (and the Tosephta, 6:6), “ten denars for ⁶⁵ It is not clear what is referred to. From the next sentence, it seems that the paragraph refers to the statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that in the absence of explicit written agreement, all monetary aspects are judged based on local customs. Spices and perfumes given as articles of trade have the status of money (are better than money in an inflationary environment, and still are equal to money after Diocletian’s stabilization of the Roman currency.) In the Babli, 67a, this is restricted to Antiochene spices and perfumes (which, probably, were of guaranteed quality.) ⁶⁶ The groom can be generous in the conditions of the ketubah ⁶⁷ The rule that the husband inherits from his wife, being a money matter, can be set aside by stipulation. The biblical root of the rule is not explicit; cf. Sifry Deut

MISHNAH: If somebody marries off his daughter without mentioning particulars he should not give her less than 50 zuz⁶⁸ (silver denars) as working capital is barred from taking welfare payments (Mishnah Peah 9:9). If he had decided to take her in naked⁶⁹ the husband should not say, if she comes to my house I shall clothe her in my garment, but he covers her when she still is in her father’s house. Similarly, those who marry off an orphan girl⁷⁰ off the girl but the overseers of charity provide the money.) should not give her less that 50 zuz, and if money is available one provides for her according to her social standing⁷¹..

footnotes: ⁶⁸ As dowry. A person having a capital of 50 zuz ⁶⁹ As stated in Halakhah 6, some people have to come up with a large dowry to marry off their daughter but some can take money for giving away their daughter. ⁷⁰ The overseers of charity can use public money and even impose a tax on the public to provide a minimal dowry for a fatherless girl. (It is really the mother and/or the brothers who marry ⁷¹ The overseers of charity cannot collect money to provide the girl with a dowry that would approximate what her father would have given had he lived, but if there already is money in the charity account they have the right to vote her more than 50 zuz

HALAKHAH: “If somebody marries off his daughter,” etc. Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, asked: Did we not state: From where that even if he said, I shall go naked but clothe her, one does not tell him to be naked and to clothe her but he clothes her according to her social standing⁷²? There, it is the way of people to say, it is better for me to stand naked if only I cover my wife; but here it was a prior condition.

footnotes: ⁷² The intended text is probably close to Tosephta 6:7: If somebody marries off his daughter and contracted with his son-in-law that the latter should stand naked if only he provided her with clothes , one does not tell him to stand naked in public but that he has to clothe her according to her standing. In the Tosephta, “standing naked” is a figure of speech; why should it be taken literally in the Mishnah?

So is the Mishnah: And so those who provide for the orphan girl⁷³. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this means that one says to the overseers to take out a loan⁷⁰ off the girl but the overseers of charity provide the money.). For he explains it, if nothing is in the wallet one takes out a loan up to fifty. But if there is money in the wallet, one may add. Rebbi Yose said, this means that one does not say to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains if there is money in the wallet⁷⁴. But if there is no money one diminishes. As the following, about a girl in the days of Rebbi Immi. He said, let it be held over for the holiday⁷⁵. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, you are causing a loss⁷⁶, but give everything, for the Lord of the holiday exists⁷⁷. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina holds with Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose with Rebbi Immi⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷³ Cf. Note 68, parenthesis. ⁷⁰ The overseers of charity can use public money and even impose a tax on the public to provide a minimal dowry for a fatherless girl. (It is really the mother and/or the brothers who marry ⁷⁴ It seems that he does not accept the last sentence in his Mishnah text. ⁷⁵ R. Immi did not want to give public funds for the dowry of an orphan girl because he needed the money to distribute to the poor for their holiday needs. ⁷⁶ The orphan girl will not be able to marry. ⁷⁷ Give her a dowry of what is available in the charity account and God will see to it that money will be donated to charity for the holiday. ⁷⁸ If R. Immi thought that the overseers of charity can take out loans, he would not have to worry about the holiday.

MISHNAH: If an orphan girl was married off by her mother or her brothers and they wrote her 100 or 50 zuz⁷⁹, after she becomes an adult she can claim from them what is appropriate to be given to her. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he married off his first daughter, the second should be given in the way the first had been given⁸⁰. But the Sages say, sometimes it happens that a person was poor and became rich, or was rich and became poor. But one appraises the property and gives to her⁸¹

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Less than what she could have expected, given her father’s wealth. ⁸⁰ If the father died before the second daughter was married, the second should get the percentage of the estate that the first got from the property. ⁸¹ The standard 10%. They will interpret “rich” and “poor” as feeling rich or poor, and giving his daughter more or less than the standard 10%.

HALAKHAH: “If an orphan girl was married off by her mother or her brothers,” etc. So is the Mishnah: If they married off the first one there should be given⁸², p. קלג). In this version, what the father did is not a precedent for his heirs but the heirs have to be consistent in the treatment of the daughters. (The text of the Mishnah here, in the Babli, and Tosephta 6:3 which refers to the father, is found in the Munich ms. of the Babli and the Mishnah mss. of the Maimonides tradition.) The arguments of J. N. Epstein (loc. cit. Note 62) who wants to disregard the change in number, cannot be sustained in view of the many Mishnah mss. confirming the Yerushalmi reading.. The words of the Sages: ⁸³”Sometimes a man marries off his daughter and spends money on her, and sometimes a man marries off his daughter and collects money for her.”

footnotes: ⁸² This is the reading of a number of Mishnah mss., among them both the Cambridge and the Kaufmann mss. A number of mss., among them the Parma ms., read השׂיאה “she (the mother) married off” (Babli with variant readings ⁸³ Tosephta 6:3.

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Ammi bar Pappai, who is the Tanna of “a tenth of the estate”? Rebbi Ze‘ura⁸⁴ said to him in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A tenth of the estate following Rebbi⁸⁵ 39b.). They asked before Rebbi: If there were ten daughters. Then if the first one took a tenth of the estate, the second took a tenth of the estate, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and so on up to the tenth, there is nothing left for the son! He said to them: The first one takes a tenth of the estate and leaves⁸⁶; the second takes a tenth of the remainder, the third from what then is left, the fourth of what then is left, up to the tenth from what then is left. It turns out that the daughters take two thirds less a little, and the son takes one third plus a little⁸⁷ from the estate. Let Eo be the original estate, En the amount left after the n-th daughter took her part. Then En = (1 - p)En-1 = (1-p)nEo. In our case, p = .1, n = 10, we have .910 = .3487 = .3333 + .0154. The last term is the “little bit” which the son takes above 1/3 and the daughters combined take less than 2/3. On the word פָּרָא “less than” and its possible derivations cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešōnēnū 39(1975) pp. 59–62..

footnotes: ⁸⁴ He probably is the Amora called Ze‘iri in the Babli. ⁸⁵ This is an explicit Tosephta, 6:3: Rebbi says, each [daughter] takes a tenth of the estate. (Babli 68a, 52b, Nedarim ⁸⁶ The first one takes her part, the younger sisters get less than she did. This is also accepted in the Babli, 68a/b. ⁸⁷ Let us assume that each daughter takes a part p

⁸⁹. 51a. If there were two daughters and one son; the first one took a tenth of the estate, but the son died before the second could take her tenth⁹⁰. Rebbi Ḥanina was of the opinion that the second takes a tenth of the estate and the rest they divide equally among themselves. Rebbi Joḥanan told him that in this case there was nothing else to provide for her, but here she may sell from the remainder and provide for herself⁹¹! Rebbi Tebi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The reason of Rebbi Ḥanina: If she can collect from encumbered real estate, from what lies before her not so much more⁹² obligation and as such has the status of a mortgage. Therefore, in talmudic law (abolished by the Geonim in Babylonia after the Arab conquest and apparently never followed in the European provinces of the Roman empire) the claim for a dowry must be satisfied by real estate. If the father sold a piece of real estate and there is none left to satisfy the demand for dowry, the daughter can go to court to repossess the land and let the buyer be indemnified by the estate.? Rebbi Joḥanan sticks to his opinion, since Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect⁹³. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina [and Rebbi Hila] collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property⁹⁴. There were orphan [girls] who asked to be provided for. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity⁹⁵? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it⁹⁶; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans get up and complain, I would give it to them⁹⁷. Even so, they saw and did not complain. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose: How do you decide in practical cases? He said to him, following Rebbi Ḥanina. And so an actual case was decided following Rebbi Ḥanina⁹⁸. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Hila: One considers the estate as if it were dry⁹⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Parallel arguments are in the Babli 69a, Giṭṭin ⁹⁰ The son died childless; then the two daughters inherit the estate. ⁹¹ In the Babli, R. Joḥanan holds that the second daughter gave up her claim for the extra 10% and takes 50% of the estate. According to R. Ḥanina, 45% go to the first daughter and 55% to the second. ⁹² He holds that providing a dowry for the daughters is a ketubah ⁹³ He refuses to grant repossession for claims to dowry. ⁹⁴ Valuables, not real estate. ⁹⁵ The underlying hypothesis here is that dowries from estates are given only from real estate. R. Simeon ben Yaqim holds that an estate rich in money but without real estate should provide for the daughters in money and not force them to apply to public charity for their dowry. ⁹⁶ The Patriarch’s court in his days could not decide whether dowries should be paid from real estate or movables; why should a lower court deal with the matter? ⁹⁷ In a similar situation, he provided for the daughters from movables. But since he had no precedent, if the male orphans were to appeal the judgment, he would rescind it. Since there was no appeal, a precedent was created that dowries be given from movables. The Babli strongly disagrees, 69b. ⁹⁸ To split the inheritance 55% / 45%, cf. Note 89. ⁹⁹ The daughters cannot claim part of the yield of the estate for their dowry.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives money in trust¹⁰⁰ for his daughter and she says, I am trusting my husband¹⁰¹, the trustee should execute what he was entrusted with¹⁰², the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, is it not only about a field? If she wants to sell it, can she not sell it now¹⁰³? When has this been said? If she is an adult. But about a minor, no legal act of a minor is valid¹⁰⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ To buy some real estate for his daughter, after the giver’s death. ¹⁰¹ She wants the money to be given to her husband that he could buy the piece of real estate for her. ¹⁰² And not hand over the money to the husband. ¹⁰³ Could she not legally sell today the field that in the future will be bought for her by the trustee, to be the buyer’s after the trustee will have delivered the field to her. Therefore, the trustee should follow the daughter’s instructions. ¹⁰⁴ R. Yose agrees that the instructions of an underage daughter should not be followed.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives money in trust for his daughter and she says, I am trusting my husband,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of the case that he gave at the time of the preliminary marriage. But if he gave at the definitive marriage even Rebbi Meïr agrees¹⁰⁵ If he established the trust after the definitive marriage, that is the disagreement¹⁰⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Since the husband gets the income from the real estate after the definitive marriage, there is no reason why he should not be entrusted with buying the real estate. A similar argument is in the Babli, 69b, and an explicit text in Tosephta 6:9. ¹⁰⁶ If the father by his action shows that he does not trust his son-in-law, the trustee should not hand over the money. R. Yose holds that even in this case the daughter can sell her rights to that land any day of that year.

¹⁰⁷”If somebody says¹⁰⁸, give my sons one šeqel per week and they need a tetradrachma, one gives them a tetradrachma¹⁰⁹, 1 tetradrachma, comprise at least one šeqel.. Do not give them more than one šeqel per week, one gives them a šeqel. But for the support of the wife and the daughters, whether he says give or do not give, one gives them a šeqel¹¹⁰ contract and a will cannot modify a contractual obligation.. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, Meïr used to say, if somebody says, give my sons one šeqel per week and they need a tetradrachma, one gives them a šeqel, and for the remainder they should be provided for by charity¹¹¹. But the Sages say, one takes continuously until the property is used up¹¹² and after that they should be provided by charity.” Rebbi Yose said, that gives a simple example for Ḥilfai’s question. He said, I shall sit on the river bank and if I cannot extract the teachings of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya¹¹³ and tosephtot in the study of Jewish law and was ready to jump into the sea if somebody could produce a baraita whose teachings he could not derive from the Mishnah. In the Babli, R. Yose’s observation is Ḥilfai’s own. from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. What could he say¹¹⁴? “The trustee should execute what he was entrusted with.¹¹⁵”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Tosephta 6:10; the first part also in the Babli, 69b. ¹⁰⁸ In his will to the executors of his estate after his death. ¹⁰⁹ If prices rise, since 2 šeqalim ¹¹⁰ All sources of the Tosephta read: “A tetradrachma.” This reading is required since the widow and her daughters are fed by the ketubah ¹¹¹ The executors are not empowered to deviate from the testator’s instructions even if it means that the children have to apply to public welfare. ¹¹² Nobody should be forced to apply for welfare if there is a possibility to avoid it. ¹¹³ The Tosephta. In the Babli, 69b, he is called Ilfa and it is explained that he objected to the use of baraitot ¹¹⁴ Where does he find justification for the position of R. Meïr that the executors of the will cannot deviate from their instructions even in case of necessity. ¹¹⁵ Even if it seems reasonable to follow the daughter’s wishes.

¹¹⁶ whether he said to give, or not to give more.” The fact that others have to be mentioned in the will proves that these are not the legal heirs to whom the inheritance would have been given had the testator died intestate.”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance¹¹⁷. 27:6–11 and transfer of property by inheritance is restricted to the paternal family. The last sentence in this paragraph will make clear that one supposes that the beneficiaries of the will are one or more sons-in-law whose wives are excluded by biblical law from the inheritance if there is a son at the time of the father’s death, even if that only son should then die childless. In Mishnah Baba Batra 8:5, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa holds that a testamentary gift may be formulated in the language of inheritance if the recipient is a relative on the father’s side who might be an heir if the other prospective heirs would die before him.? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”¹¹⁸. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over¹¹⁹ all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance¹²⁰ 129a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance¹²¹ Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan¹²² said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing¹²³? ¹²⁴ 3:2, Notes 88–94. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi¹²⁵: Rebbi Assi (Yasa) in the name of R. Joḥanan; the latter is the teacher and the former the student.: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality¹²⁶. 15:19). The wool is forbidden for usufruct but, in contrast to fruits from a tree less than three years old, the wool according to R. Joḥanan does not make everything forbidden if it is mixed with permitted fibers.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight¹²⁷ but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah¹²⁸ 3:3 but Mishnah 3:2 shows that it represents R. Meïr’s minority opinion; therefore, it is not practice.? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.¹²⁹ 8:5. If somebody wrote a will in which either he gave some property to a non-heir or he distributes his estate in unequal portions between the heirs, if he wrote either “as a gift this property is given to X” or “this property as a gift is given to X” or “this property is given to X as a gift”, the gift is valid and can be collected by court order. This is the Babli’s interpretation in Baba Batra. The Yerushalmi in Baba Batra does not discuss the meaning of the sentence. R. Eleazar could read the Mishnah as stating that a will is valid if it gives property to three people if to one of them at least it is given as gift (position of Rav Sheshet in the Babli, loc. cit. Note 118). The Mishnah clearly implies that any of these instructions makes the entire will valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance¹³⁰ Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others¹³¹? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives¹³².

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ This refers to a sentence in the Tosephta quoted in the preceding paragraph: “If he said, if they should die, others should inherit, then one gives them only a šeqel, ¹¹⁷ Since inheritance is defined in Num ¹¹⁸ It is suggested that the (Hebrew) text of the Tosephta be explained (in Aramaic) to remove the objection. ¹¹⁹ In one document. ¹²⁰ He holds that a document is either valid or invalid. Since the bequest by gift is valid, the entire document is valid. The same argument is in the Babli in greater detail, Baba Batra ¹²¹ The document is valid but the bequest of inheritance to a non-heir is not enforceable in court. ¹²² R. Eleazar gives a straight decision, implying that he learned this principle from his teachers. R. Joḥanan’s statement seems to be tentative. ¹²³ R. Joḥanan gives a definitive statement: R. Meïr’s opinions in the Tosephta are rejected. Therefore, R. Jeremiah’s argument is without base. ¹²⁴ The next three sentences are from ‘Orlah ¹²⁵ This must be read with the text in ‘Orlah ¹²⁶ A firstling sheep may not be shorn (Deut ¹²⁷ One pound of firstling wool mixed with eight pounds of wool from other sheep, and thoroughly mixed so that one cannot recognize the fibers coming from the firstling. ¹²⁸ It is Mishnah ‘Orlah ¹²⁹ Mishnah Baba Batra ¹³⁰ R. Joḥanan would agree that a document, in which some property is given as a gift and other property as inheritance to one and the same person, is valid. But if the recipients are two different people, the validity for one does not imply the validity for the other. ¹³¹ By naming his daughters and their husbands as heirs after his sons, does he not deprive his brothers of their biblical right of inheritance? ¹³² In order to execute the will of the deceased, the court has to enforce a will giving property to daughters and their husbands even against the testator’s brothers.