Yerushalmi Yevamot 15:3 ירושלמי יבמות ט״ו:ג׳

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, she should remarry and collect her ketubah²⁹Since the husband is declared dead, she collects the widow’s portion.. The House of Hillel say, she should remarry but not collect her ketubah. The House of Shammai said to them, you permitted the stringent incest prohibition³⁰Adultery, which is considered incest. If the husband were alive, her second marriage would be adulterous., should you not permit the lenient money matters? The House of Hillel said to them, we find that the brothers cannot access the inheritance on her testimony³¹Nowhere do we find that the requirement of proof either by two witnesses or by certified document is abrogated in money matters. The leniency of informal proof applies only to the case of a woman who otherwise would have to stay unmarried for the rest of her life.. The House of Shammai said, we can infer that from the text of her ketubah document in which he writes³²I. e., he is required by rabbinical decree to write this sentence in her marriage document; if the sentence is missing it nevertheless is implied and enforced by the court; cf. Ketubot Chapter 4.: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say, she should remarry,” etc. May the daughters claim upkeep based on her word³³As will be explained later in the Halakhah, the standard text of the ketubah requires that “the sons will inherit and the daughters will be supported”. Since her testimony activates the ketubah, the daughters should be able to claim support (and a dowry in case they marry). But since the claim of the daughters is made dependent on that of the sons, and the sons cannot claim the inheritance on basis of her testimony, the daughters should be unable to claim support. The question is not answered (which in praxi means that the daughters cannot collect.) The problem is not treated in the Babli.?

The House of Shammai insist on interpretation of the ketubah. As the House of Shammai explain, we can infer that from the text of her ketubah document in which he writes³²I. e., he is required by rabbinical decree to write this sentence in her marriage document; if the sentence is missing it nevertheless is implied and enforced by the court; cf. Ketubot Chapter 4.: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel insist on interpretation of the ketubah. ³⁴Tosephta Ketubot 4:9; a slightly different language in Babli Baba Meṣ‘ia 104a. In a slightly different arrangement the rest of the Halakhah is also in Ketubot 4:8. Hillel the Elder explained it, using the vernacular. In Alexandria they were writing that a man there became betrothed to a woman³⁵In contrast to the usage in Judea, they did not execute the betrothal, qiddušin, by a gift but exclusively by contract.. Another man abducted her from a public place³⁶And immediately marry her.. When this came before the Sages, they intended to declare [the children] as bastards³⁷Since qiddušin make the girl a married woman in all aspects of criminal law. If somebody abducts a betrothed girl he commits adultery and the children are bastards.. Hillel the Elder told them, bring your mothers’ ketubah. They brough their mothers’ ketubah. They found written there: “When you enter my house you shall be my wife according to the laws of Moses and the Jews³⁸This language makes the validity of the betrothal dependent on the fact of marriage, of the bride entering the groom’s house. If the prospective bride was abducted before entering the groom’s house, there were no qiddušin and the girl was free to marry any man..”

Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah insisted on interpreting the ketubah. ³⁹MishnahKetubot 4:8. This Mishnah is rejected in Ketubot 4:8. The Babli, Ketubot 49a/b accepts the Mishnah but holds that a father who does not support his children has to be shamed in public.“Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explained: ‘The sons shall inherit and the daughters shall be supported.’⁴⁰A condition of the ketubah, incorporated in the text by reference even if not written. Since the sons can only inherit after their father’s death, so the daughters can claim support only after their father’s death.”

Rebbi Meїr insists on interpreting the contract text. As Rebbi Meїr said⁴¹Tosephta Ketubot 4:10. Essentially this text, but without attribution, is Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 9:3., if somebody accepts a field as a contractor⁴²He either works as a sharecropper or he leases the field for a fixed sum of money. In either case the contractor is required to keep the field in good condition so that at the expiration of the contract the owner can continue working the field as before without additional expense., one estimates how much it is expected to yield and give to [the owner]. Because the standard contract reads: “If I let it lie fallow and do not work on it, I shall pay as if from the best.”

Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. ⁴³Tosephta Ketubot 4:11; a similar text Sifra Meṣora‘ Parašah 4(16). The Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 104a, presents a problem. The text of the editio princeps formulates the statement that he is responsible for “any other obligations that come to you from earlier times” as part of the ketubah document; this is R. Jehudah’s reason to require that the husband pay for all obligatory sacrifices due from his wife, even if the obligation predates the marriage. Rashi ad loc. changes the text to conform to the Sifra text; the changed text is that of the Munich ms. and all other Ashkenazic surviving mss. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for⁴⁴Mishnah Nega‘im 14:12. The majority hold that the husband has to pay only for his children and slaves. R. Jehudah holds that a wealthy husband has to pay for his wife’s sacrifices in the way prescribed for wealthy people even if the wife has no money of her own. But he does not have to pay for her voluntary sacrifices., even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him⁴⁵In the receipt she gives for full payment of her ketubah. “any other obligations that come to you from earlier times.”

Rebbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan⁴⁷If the ketubah is treated as a mortgage on the groom’s real estate from the moment it is signed and due at the dissolution of the marriage, it relegates all mortgages executed during the marriage to secondary status. Any real estate sold by the husband after he signed the ketubah is potentially subject to foreclosure by the wife if there is not enough real estate left in the husband’s possession to satisfy her claim. Therefore, care must be taken in establishing the value of the ketubah in order to protect the innocent buyer. The value of the ketubah is the sum of three parts. (1) The basic sum of 200 zuz (defined in Mishnah Peah 8:8 as an amount which disqualifies its owner from public charity), (2) the voluntary amount added by the groom to that sum, and (3) the value of the dowry. It is stated here that the value of the dowry may be collected by foreclosure only if its value is correctly stated in the ketubah document. In places where the value of the dowry is routinely doubled, the document cannot be used against third parties for more than half the stated value.
A parallel text in Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 104b and in Tosephta Ketubot 4:13; in the latter text (all sources) in the name of R. Yose the Galilean., she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rebbi Eleazar [the caper grower] said, nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them⁴⁸In Ketubot, this is also declared to be the interpretation of a document but the document is not indicated.. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text, since Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, a person lending money to another person should not take pledges from him for more than the value of the loan since he writes for him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this [sum].”⁴⁹In Ketubot, the text is slightly different: “He who takes a pledge from his debtor shall take it only in court; he may not enter the debtor’s house to take the pledge.” The parallels in Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 104a and Tosephta Ketubot 4:12 follow the text given here. The text in Ketubot seems to require that the value of the pledge should be determined by an official of the court. The second clause in that text is a biblical verse (Deut. 24:10).

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed⁵⁰Mishnah Ketubot 4:6..” Since the sons inherit movables⁵¹Since the entire inheritance goes to the sons, it seems logical that the daughters should have a lien on the entire inheritance., the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.⁵²Mishnah Ketubot 4:11. This is one of the conditions stipulated in the marriage contract which does not have to be written down because the court will enforce it based on the existence of a ketubah alone. The obligation to support the daughters continues “until they are taken in marriage”.” It was stated on this⁵³In the Babli, Ketubot 51a, this is stated in the name of the later Amora Rava and is undisputed. Rava himself rules in a practical case that if there was no real estate, the daughters must be fed in payment for the housekeeping duties they fulfill. {All these rules on the meaning of the ketubah contract are rabbinical and dependent on the circumstances. When the Jews lost their real estate after the Arab conquest of Iraq in the Eighth Century, the Geonim, the rabbinical authorities of that time, eliminated any mention of real estate in the rules of the ketubah.}: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated⁵⁴Babli Ketubot 51a, Tosephta Ketubot 4:18. The version of the Babli is the most elaborate; probably it is the latest version taking into account the objections that may be raised against the Yerushalmi version. The Tosephta version differs in language from both Talmudim; S. Lieberman (Tosephta kiFshuṭah, part 6, vol. 1 (New York 1967) p. 254 shows that the Tosephta is compatible with the Babli version.: “One uses both guaranteed property⁵⁵“Property under threat of alienation”. Real estate is always sold with a warranty that if the buyer loses the property (it is alienated) because of a pre-existing lien or mortgage, the seller will indemnify the buyer. Cf. Peah 3:8, Note 121. and non-guaranteed property⁵⁶Movables. for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons⁵⁷The court will adjudicate claims of unequal distribution of property between the heirs. (If there are no sons, the daughters legally have the status of sons.), by daughters from daughters⁵⁸The daughters have a claim to a dowry which is fixed at 10% of the inheritance (Ketubot, Yerushalmi 6:6, fol. 30d; Babli 68a). If there are ndaughters, for the first one has to reserve 1/₁₀ of the capital, for the second 1/₁₀of the remaining ⁹/₁₀, etc. By the formula of the geometric progression, in all 1 - (⁹/10)ⁿ of the inheritance has to be set aside for the daughters. The younger daughters may claim an equal share with the oldest one in the distribution of dowry., by sons from daughters⁵⁹If the inheritance is large, the sons may try to convince the court that the part reserved for the support of the unmarried daughters is too large., and by daughters from sons⁶⁰If the inheritance is small, the daughters my apply to the court to reserve the entire inheritance for them. If the inheritance is large, the daughters may sue to invalidate any sale of real estate by the brothers which reduces the amount of capital available for their support. {This shows that the brothers have a monetary interest in marrying off their underage sisters.}. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters⁶¹If they took from the inheritance. but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself⁶²The silence of the Babli in this matter supports this claim in the Yerushalmi.. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment⁶³This is the position of the Yerushalmi (for the marriage of a virgin), opposed by the Babli; cf. Chapter 7, Note 63. but support of the daughters is from their words⁶⁴It is part of the rabbinic ketubah text decreed by Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ in Hasmonean times which may show demotic Egyptian and Roman influences.. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah⁶⁵If there were sons of different mothers who predeceased the father, the original ketubah decree required that each set of full brothers first recover the full amount of their mother’s ketubah before the rest was divided among all sons.. But is the money contained in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate⁶⁶Since the entire ketubah must be satisfied by distribution of real estate (cf. Note 53).?

⁶⁷Tosephta Ketubot 8:2–3. The Tosephta contains additional statements, found in the parallel in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 28b–29a.“If somebody who works his wife’s property⁶⁸His wife’s paraphernalia property of which he receives the usufruct as payment for his investment in and work on the fields. If he divorces his wife before harvest, he loses all rights to the crop. He therefore has an incentive to harvest as early as possible. has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners⁶⁹Not only kidnap victims but a large class described in the next sentence. Both Talmudim, by endorsing Samuel’s definition, take position against the very wide definition of this Tosephta. heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance⁷⁰He had a reason to work the fields to keep them producing; he is rewarded by the possibility of acquiring the yield even if he has to return the real estate.. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance⁷¹He started to work the field without authorization; if the owner returns before the harvest, he loses his investment. (In the Tosephta he may claim to be rewarded for his investment in money and time by being made a sharecropper. The Babli explains that this applies only if the farmer is appointed by the court to take care of his relative’s property. There is no hint of this in the Yerushalmi.). Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons⁷²He disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and assigns the yield to the person working the field.. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed⁷³The Babli refers to Hos. 10:14. persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions⁷⁴The relative who went to work the field may reasonably assume that he would have been appointed to care for the property if the kidnap victim had had time to communicate with him. Therefore, the courts will assign the yield to him.. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions⁷⁵Samuel disagrees with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and refuses the harvest to the relative working the field.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people⁷⁶The absent person cannot reclaim usufruct the unauthorized relative had from his movables.. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables⁷⁷In the Babli, Šebuot 43a, theparallel statement is attributed to the Tanna R. Meїr; the anonymous majority declares any ripe crop to be under the laws of real estate until harvested. That means that the editors of the Babli rejected the attribution of the statement to Samuel, their highest authority in civil law.. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting⁷⁸There, palm trees are so abundant that it is not necessary to take male flowers and hang them into the crowns of female trees. That means that the trees do not need hard work., is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested⁷⁹No answer is given. The problem is not treated in the Babli since it precludes the basis of the question.?