Yerushalmi Ketubot 11:7 ירושלמי כתובות י״א:ז׳

MISHNAH: Neither the orphan¹²⁹The orphaned underage girl who was married off by her mother or brothers, who repudiated her husband before reaching adulthood (cf. Yebamot 1:2, Note 118). By walking out, she (Yebamot Mishnah 13:4).
In all Babli mss. and in all Mishnah mss. of the Babylonian tradition, instead of “the orphan” one reads outright הַמְמָאֵנֶת “the repudiating”. Cf. The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings, Kethuboth II, p. תיד, Note 59. The Yerushalmi version must have been the original one since the Babli, 100b, discusses whether the Mishnah implies that no minor can claim a ketubah., nor the secondarily prohibited¹³⁰She is her husband’s relative but not a close one; her marriage is valid by biblical standards but considered incestuous by rabbinical rules; Yebamot2:4, Note 67. But since the marriage is valid by biblical standards, her children are not bastards. She is denied a ketubah in order to induce her to refuse the marriage from the start., nor the she-ram¹³¹The infertile female who lacks secondary female sex characteristics; cf. Yebamot 1:1, Note 65. If she was married underage and failed to become an adult physically, the husband may claim that he entered the marriage thinking that she was fully female and that, therefore, the marriage transaction was in error and invalid. may claim ketubah, or usufruct¹³²The husband does not have to return the usufruct he had from her dowry during the existence of the marriage., or sustenance, or depreciation¹³³He is not responsible to replace depreciated goods brought as her dowry.. But if he married her from the start as a she-ram, she has claim to her ketubah¹³⁴Not only ketubah, but all other payments due to the divorcee or widow, since the marriage certainly was valid.. A widow [married] to the High Priest¹³⁵The High Priest is forbidden to marry her (Lev. 21:14); she is not forbidden to marry him but she is barred from eating sanctified food and her children are desecrated from the priesthood. By biblical decree, she and her children are desecrated. This is punishment. Her marriage is biblically valid; there is no rabbinic reason to deny her the ketubah and the benefits accruing automatically to a wife., a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah to a common priest¹³⁶He is forbidden to marry her (Lev. 21:7); she is not forbidden to marry him but she is barred from eating sanctified food and her children are desecrated from the priesthood., a bastard or Gibeonite girl to an Israel, an Israel girl married to a bastard or Gibeonite¹³⁷The bastard is forbidden by biblical law to marry an Israelite girl (Deut. 23:3, cf. Yebamot 1:5 Note 176; 4:15 Note 211), the Gibeonite by an old popular tradition ascribed to King David (Yebamot 2:4, Note 72). By Mishnah Qiddušin 3:14, in both cases the children inherit the status of the partner with the lower status., have claim to ketubah.

HALAKHAH: “Neither the orphan girl, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram,” etc. One understands the secondarily prohibited and the she-ram. The orphan? Does an orphan not have ketubah? Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi J̣oḥanan: Explain it for an orphan who repudiated¹²⁹The orphaned underage girl who was married off by her mother or brothers, who repudiated her husband before reaching adulthood (cf. Yebamot 1:2, Note 118). By walking out, she (Yebamot Mishnah 13:4).
In all Babli mss. and in all Mishnah mss. of the Babylonian tradition, instead of “the orphan” one reads outright הַמְמָאֵנֶת “the repudiating”. Cf. The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings, Kethuboth II, p. תיד, Note 59. The Yerushalmi version must have been the original one since the Babli, 100b, discusses whether the Mishnah implies that no minor can claim a ketubah.. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari, Rebbi Immi: Just as they fined her, so they fined him. In which respect? That if he preliminarily married her by [giving her] a pound of gold, he loses it all.

¹³⁸From here to the end of the Halakhah, this is Halakhah Yebamot 9:4, variant readings noted י, explained there in Notes 31–53.“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].

Rebbi Yose said: All the time my teacher Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

Rebbi Reuben asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.

There, we have stated: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel⁴¹The heirs informed her falsely that a rabbi of reputation wanted to marry her.; it is invalid from Gentiles.⁴²Fraudulent information by an interested party is counted as forced deal for the victim.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

What is the difference between these and those? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah [do not]¹⁴⁰Missing in Ketubot; considered a scribal error since it is implied by the later quote. need support, therefore they have ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have ketubah. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has ketubah. For him who says since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no ketubah.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about sustenance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand sustenance. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to him, divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say, for him who says they differ about the conditions attached to a ketubah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, she has the ketubah stipulations. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about sustenance, it follows that they do not differ about the stipulations of a ketubah. They fined her, but did not fine her heirs.