Yerushalmi Ketubot 12:2 ירושלמי כתובות י״ב:ב׳

MISHNAH: If the daughter²⁵The one mentioned in Mishnah 1. married, the husband has to sustain her and they pay the cost of her sustenance. If they died²⁶The mother’s husband and/or ex-husband., their daughters are supported from unincumbered property but she is supported from mortgaged property since her status is that of a creditor²⁷Her claim is that of her mother’s ketubah.. The intelligent ones did write: On condition that I support your daughter for five years the entire time you are with me²⁸Then the daughter’s claim is terminated if either the mother is divorced or the mother or the husband died..

HALAKHAH: “If the daughter married, the husband has to sustain her,” etc. What is the status of the ketubah stipulations if he wrote them in the document²⁹All the stipulations enumerated in Mishnaiot 4:7 ff. are enforceable even if they are not written in the ketubah. What is the legal difference between a ketubah in which the stipulations are explicit and one in which they are implicit?? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he wrote them for emphasis³⁰Without legal consequences. (In Rashi’s interpretation of the Babli, 102b, Rav Ashi agrees.); Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he wrote them to collect from encumbered property. Rebbi Jeremiah switched the traditions³¹He switched the attributions to R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. Therefore, the discussion proceeds without referring to names.. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah supports him who said, he wrote them for emphasis, since we stated there³²Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:3.: “One does not foreclose from mortgaged property to indemnify for produce or investment³³If somebody sold a field, the title to which was later disputed and the court awarded the title to another person who then takes the field away from the buyer. The innocent buyer then has regress on the fraudulent seller. Real estate is always sold with a title guarantee; therefore the value of the field can be taken from the seller’s mortgaged property (depending on the time of sale). But both the value of the standing crop which the buyer lost, and the value of the investments the buyer made in the property cannot be recovered from mortgaged property. The main difference is that the privileged amount, the value of the field, is a well-defined sum written in the sales contract, whereas the rest are open-ended obligations which cannot be foreseen and whose inclusion in the causes for foreclosure would bring all real estate transactions to a halt., or sustenance of widow and daughters³⁴These also are open-ended obligations which cannot be estimated beforehand; they cannot be enforced against mortgage holders, in contrast to the ketubah sum which is well-defined., in order not to impede the economy.” Are [the first categories] not based on a document? Here also based on the document³⁵Since the regress of the buyer on the fraudulent seller is based on the sales contract, and it turns out that only part of the claim can be satisfied by foreclosure, it shows that the ketubah document also has parts which have the status of certificates of indebtedness and other parts which cannot be enforced by foreclosure.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, “since her status is that of a creditor”! Is that not based on a document? Here also based on the document³⁶The wife’s daughter’s claim is also based on her mother’s ketubah document and is enforceable as a creditor’s claim but her mother’s own claim to sustenance as a widow is based on the same document and not thus enforceable..

If she dies she is not with him³⁷This refers to the stipulation of the “intelligent” who limit their liability.. If she was divorced she is not with him. If he took her back³⁸Without writing a new ketubah document, as authorized in Mishnah 9:13 (Note 240).? One says, this was stated for the ketubah but not for the stipulations; one says, both for the ketubah and the stipulations, which opinion is valid³⁹R. Nissim Gerondi (commentary on the Mishnah) has a smoother text: מָאן דְּאָמַר. לִכְתוּבָּה אֲבָל לֹא לִתְנָאִין הָכָא לִתְנָאִין. הָכָא נַמֵּי. נַמֵּי. מָאן דְּאָמַר. בֵּין לִכְתוּבָּה בֵין “Following the one who says, this was stated for the ketubah but not for the stipulations, it is clear; following the one who says, both for the ketubah and the stipulations, it is clear.” But since הָכָא נַמֵּי is purely Babylonian style, his text is a paraphrase, not a variant reading.? “The intelligent ones did write: On condition that I support your daughter for five years the entire time you are with me;” on that it was stated: Only for the first marriage⁴⁰Even if in general stipulations are re-instated with remarriage, this particular condition has been permanently terminated by the divorce. It could only be re-instated by a separate document.. This parallels what Rebbi Ḥanina said, if somebody marries off his son in a house, the latter acquires the house, but only for a first marriage⁴¹He gives them a house to live in alone during their wedding week; cf. 5:1 Note 23 (Babli 144a). For the Babli, there would be no parallel since there, R. Ḥanina assigns the house only to the oldest son who marries a virgin, and a woman with a daughter by another man is not a virgin..