Yerushalmi Ketubot 13:1 ירושלמי כתובות י״ג:א׳

MISHNAH: Two robbery¹In most sources of the Babli גזירות. Probably this is simply a case of change of liquids. It is stated in Šeqalim 4:3 that the judges in criminal law were paid from the Temple taxes. judges were in Jerusalem, Admon and Ḥanan ben Absalom. Ḥanan said two things and Admon seven²All recorded statements of Admon and Ḥanan refer to civil law; the count refers only to those statements which were disputed by the High Priest’s sons. It is possible that the latter represented Sadducee practice.. If somebody went overseas and his wife now is demanding sustenance³She goes to court to obtain permission to sell from her husband’s real estate. She claims either that the husband did not provide her with household money before he left or that he stayed overseas longer than intended and that her household money is now exhausted., Ḥanan says that she is made to swear in the end⁴Either news is received that her husband died and she requests her ketubah or her husband returns and claims that she sold too much of his property. In both cases she has to provide an accounting and swear that nothing of her husband’s money remains in her hand.. The High Priests’ sons disagreed with him and said, she is made to swear in the beginning⁵The court should not grant her permission to sell her husband’s property unless she swears that all her claims are true. and in the end; Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos endorsed their statement. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, Ḥanan said correctly that she is made to swear only in the end.

HALAKHAH: “Two robbery judges were in Jerusalem,” etc. Did not Rebbi Phineas say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: 469 synagogues were in Jerusalem and each one of them had a Book house and a study house; the Book house for Scripture and the study house for Mishnah⁶Since every “study house” was a law school, it is obvious that Jerusalem had more than two judges.
The statement of R. Phineas is also in Megillah 3:1 (73d 28), Thr. rabbati 2:2, Introduction #12; in Ta‘anit 4, (69a 13) the number of schools is put at 500 in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. In the Babli, 105a, the number is 394.? But these two were appointed for robberies; to teach you that if anybody has the power to intervene, if he does not exercise his power the misconduct is attributed to him⁷The other judges were for civil cases. Those appointed to watch over public order are personally held responsible; therefore these judges are remembered by name. In the Babli, 105a, it is asserted that judges in a criminal court can be paid, in contrast to civil judges.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: Naḥum the Mede also was with them⁸In the Babli, 105a, this tradition is denied.. In Rebbi Nathan’s opinion, three robbery judges were in Jerusalem.

⁹This text is also in Soṭah 1:4, 1. 66 f., Notes 198–208. The variant readings from there are indicated by ס. To the sources indicated there one may add Gen. rabba 85(8) (in the name of R. Immi.) Rebbi Ḥizqiya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi used to explain three verses for praise. “She sat at the entrance to the double spring.” Is this possible? Even the most brazen whore would not do that. But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all hope is directed; she said before Him: Master of the universe, do not let me leave this house empty. Another explanation: “She sat at the entrance to the double spring;” she opened his eyes and told him, I am single and pure¹⁴The courts will not intervene in the monetary affairs of married couples. After the husband’s death, the liquidation of the husband’s estate is a legitimate object of the court’s attention.. “And Eli was very old; …, that they slept with.¹⁵This is confirmed in the Babli, 107a, but rejected as practice, 107b.” It is written “they bedded them¹⁶Our Mishnah reads “if somebody went overseas”, i. e., with the intent to return. In this version, the court will intervene in behalf of the married woman. But “if somebody left for overseas”, i. e., emigrated permanently, then the Mishnah only deals either with an abandoned wife or a widow, but not with a wife who expects her husband to return.”. Rebbi said, the women were bringing their nests¹⁷The oath required in the opinion of the High Priests’ sons. to become purified for their husbands and they were deferring the sacrifices; the verse counts it as if they had slept with them. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that is what he scolds them for: “Why do you disregard my slaughter sacrifice and my flour sacrifice?” Could he remove them from the serious sin and scold them for the simple one? “His sons did not walk in his ways,” that they were taking tithe and judging. Rebbi Berekhiah said, a camel caravan was passing by, they neglected public needs and dealt in merchandise.

It happened that Rebbi Ismael allotted sustenance to a woman in the markets of Sepphoris¹⁰In the Babli, 107b, this is R. Abin’s version of what happened. Both in the Babli and here, “R. Ismael” cannot refer to the Tanna R. Ismael who lived in the South two generations earlier; the reference must be to R. Ismael ben R. Yose, the contemporary of Rebbi.. What means “in the markets”¹¹Could the woman get permission to sell her husband’s property through an informal talk in the market? This would contradict all rules of judicial procedure.? From the markets. Rebbi heard this and said, who told him that he¹²The absent husband. did not send her? Who told me that he did not leave for her¹³That the husband provided his wife with enough money to cover her expenses until his return.? Do the passers-by know? Rebbi Hila said, this is what Rebbi asked: Rebbi is of the opinion that the Mishnah does not speak of a married woman but of a widow¹⁴The courts will not intervene in the monetary affairs of married couples. After the husband’s death, the liquidation of the husband’s estate is a legitimate object of the court’s attention.. He said, Samuel¹⁵This is confirmed in the Babli, 107a, but rejected as practice, 107b. and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the Mishnah deals with a widow. It was stated in the House of Rebbi thus: “If somebody left¹⁶Our Mishnah reads “if somebody went overseas”, i. e., with the intent to return. In this version, the court will intervene in behalf of the married woman. But “if somebody left for overseas”, i. e., emigrated permanently, then the Mishnah only deals either with an abandoned wife or a widow, but not with a wife who expects her husband to return. for overseas and his wife demands sustenance.” They wanted to say, for him who says, the Mishnah speaks of a married woman, “in the beginning”¹⁷The oath required in the opinion of the High Priests’ sons. that he did not send her, “in the end” that she did not put aside and did not act dishonestly. For him who says, the Mishnah speaks of a widow, “in the beginning” that he did not leave for her¹⁸Before the husband left on his trip., “in the end” that she did not put aside and did not act dishonestly. Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said, that she did not renounce her ketubah in the orphans’ favor¹⁹The initial oath required by the High Priests’ sons does not refer to the amount of money she needs, since this can all be settled by the accounting she has to deliver under oath in the end. She has to swear at the beginning that in principle she is entitled to sustenance, since a widow who renounces her claim to ketubah at the same time also renounces her claim to sustenance..

²⁰This baraita is also discussed in the Babli, 107b. If somebody together with his wife left for overseas, then she returns and says, my husband died, she shall be supported and collect her ketubah²¹Since Mishnah Yebamot 15:1 states that in this case the widow may remarry without proof of the husband’s death, she certainly must be believed regarding the monetary implications of her husband’s death.. My husband divorced me²²In this case she is not permitted to remarry unless she proves the fact of her divorce either by a court document or by witnesses. Since her word alone is not accepted in criminal law, it cannot be accepted in civil law., she shall be supported from her ketubah since, as you take it, if she be a married woman, she must be supported from her husband’s; if she is no longer a married woman²³But she really is divorced., she can be supported from her ketubah²⁴If her husband’s death later becomes known, she can collect only the amount of her ketubah minus the amounts already taken for her sustenance (Interpretation of the Babli).. ²⁵Tosephta 12:4; Babli 107a.“If somebody returns from overseas and his wife requests support²⁶His wife took out a loan under the supervision of the court and now the wife requests him to repay the loan. but he says, let her earnings cover her sustenance, one listens to him²⁷He can request her to repay the loan from her own earnings. In the interpretation of R. Nissim Gerondi (Alfasi # 389), the husband has to pay the wife’s debt beforehand and then can recover from her earnings.. But if the court had allotted, what they allotted, they have allotted²⁸If the court had empowered her to sell of the husband’s property, he cannot require her to buy it back..” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if her earnings are not enough for her support²⁹He explains the Tosephta in case that the earnings of the wife were not sufficient to cover her expenses; therefore the court was justified in giving her permission to sell and their order has to stand.. In this case, does one listen to him³⁰In this case, why should the husband be able to refuse to pay for his wife’s borrowing.? Following him who says, there is no support for the wife in biblical law, as we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.”³¹Ma‘serot 3:1, Notes 11–12. The marriage contract explicitly notes that the husband will “work for, honor, feed, and provide for” his bride “in the manner of Jewish husbands.” The language seems to imply that this is a contract following rabbinic guidelines; this is the position of Nachmanides and R. Asher ben Ieḥiel (Rosh Ketubot Chap. 13, Sec. 6.) Maimonides holds that nevertheless the obligation is biblical, Hilkhot Iššut 12:2.
The wife may not sell Sabbatical produce for her needs since Sabbatical produce may not be used to pay debts of any kind. But if the husband is present, she may eat of his Sabbatical fruits; since his obligation to feed his wife is only rabbinical, this is not considered paying his debts with Sabbatical produce. Rebbi Yose says, if her earnings are sufficient for her support³²He explains that the Tosephta is applicable even if the wife earns enough and does not have to go hungry in her husband’s absence. Since by the ketubah contract the wife is entitled to live as well in her husband’s absence as in his presence, the court is entitled to grant her money to make up the difference.. In that case, why what they allotted, they have allotted? Explain it, if they allotted excess.

If somebody was overseas and said, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are included³⁴For gifts between the living, people make no distinction between sons and daughters. Following the general linguistic rule that for mixed genders the masculine is used (in educated speech), בנים can mean both “sons” and “children”.. If he said that when he was dying, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are not included³⁵Death-bed instructions are to be interpreted as referring to inheritance. Since in biblical law daughters do not inherit in the presence of sons, daughters are not included in the absence of specific instructions (cf. Mishnah 4:8)..

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav; Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Practice follows Ḥanan in his two statements; practice does not follow Admon in his seven statements. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula: In every case in which Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement, practice follows him^36,Similar statements are in the Babli, 109a.³⁷Only three of Admon's sayings are accepted in practice..