Yerushalmi Ketubot 13:11 ירושלמי כתובות י״ג:י״א

MISHNAH: Everybody moves to the Land of Israel but not everybody leaves¹⁴⁴As explained in the Halakhah, if one part of the family wants to emigrate to the Land of Israel, the other has to follow.. Everybody moves to Jerusalem but not everybody leaves. How is this¹⁴⁵This word is not in the Babli; it is found in all Yerushalmi Mishnah mss. and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah. It implies that the preference given to the coin of the Land of Israel is a consequence of the first part of the Mishnah..? If he married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he pays her in coin of the Land of Israel¹⁴⁶This is unproblematic; since ketubah and bill of divorce were executed in the same country, it is clear that the sum stipulated in the ketubah, whose payment was triggered by the bill of divorce, has to be settled in the coin of the country.. If he married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in Kappadokia, he pays her in coin of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in Kappadokia and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he pays her in coin of the Land of Israel¹⁴⁷It is pointed out in the Babli that in terms of contract law, the two statements contradict one another. If he married in Israel and had to pay in coins of Israel, it implies that the ketubah determines the currency. But if he married in Kappadokia and had to pay in coins of Israel, it implies that the bill of divorce, the trigger of the payment, determines the currency. (In the Babli, 101b, and the Tosephta, 12:6, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel states that the place of executing the ketubah determines its currency.) The Babli, 110b, concludes that, since the Persian coins current in Kappadokia are better than the debased Roman coins in Israel, the obligation of the ketubah is a rabbinic institution and the possibility of paying with debased coin was part of the institution. The Yerushalmi (also Tosephta, 12:6) will argue that the Jewish coins of Israel, not the Roman coins, are meant and, therefore, the Mishnah proclaims a stringency which can only be explained by giving the ketubah biblical status.; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in coin of Kappadokia. If he married a woman in Kappadokia and divorced her in Kappadokia, he pays her in coin of Kappadokia¹⁴⁶This is unproblematic; since ketubah and bill of divorce were executed in the same country, it is clear that the sum stipulated in the ketubah, whose payment was triggered by the bill of divorce, has to be settled in the coin of the country.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody moves,” etc. If he wants to move to the Land of Israel but she does not, one forces her to move¹⁴⁸In the Babylonian texts, Babli 110b and Tosephta 10:5, it is explained that “forcing” means that the refusing party is the guilty party in the ensuing divorce.. If she wants but he does not, one does not force him to move¹⁴⁹In Babli and Tosephta: “One forces him”.. If he wants to move to Jerusalem but she does not, one forces her to move. If she wants but he does not, one does not force him to move¹⁵⁰The sentences about Jerusalem are missing in Babli and Tosephta.. If he wants to leave the Land of Israel but she does not, one does not force her to leave. If she wants to leave but he does not, one forces her not to leave.

“He pays her in coin of the Land of Israel.” This implies that the coins of the land of Israel are the best of all countries¹⁵¹Since Palestine had no imperial mint in Talmudic times, this cannot refer to Roman coins in circulation, which were coins in the Land but not of the Land. It must refer to the minting standards of the two revolts whose Jewish coins were intended to be used for the Temple tax and as such were of full weight, i. e. the “holy sheqel”. This also must be the meaning of the statement in the Tosephta 12:6, cf. S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה כתובות p. 389.. This supports him who says that a woman’s ketubah is from the words of the Torah¹⁵²Because it has to be paid in terms of biblical coin standards., against Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated¹⁵³Babli 10a, in a first version. In the second version and in 110b, he is reported to consider ketubah a biblical obligation. In Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 209, a Babylonian compilation in the opinion of J. N. Epstein, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is quoted as saying that ketubah has no fixed sum from the Torah; i. e., the institution is biblical, “the mohar of virgins”, but the amount and all details are rabbinical.
The Babli follows the saboraic rule that practice always follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah; a principle not known to the Yerushalmi and certainly rejected here. Cf. also 1:2, Notes 112–120, 4:8 (29a 1. 30), 4:12 Note 248; Yebamot 7:2 Note 63, 15:3 Note 63. For biblical status of ketubah, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 17 (p. 308, ed. Horovitz-Rabin).: A woman’s ketubah is from the words of the Torah. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a woman’s ketubah is only an institution of the Soferim¹⁵⁴I. e., dating from Ezra and/or his successors..