💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2081b captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:17:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] **And if it enters our mind** that **a marriage contract can be collected during** his **lifetime,** why is all this necessary? **Let him set aside for her** part of the property that corresponds to **the amount of the marriage contract, and the rest let him sell.** Abaye replied: **And according to your reasoning,** rather than asking this question based on a *baraita*, **let him raise** this difficulty **from the mishna,** which teaches that **he may not say to her: Your marriage contract is placed on the table for you. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract.** Why can’t he designate property equivalent to the sum of her marriage contract and sell the rest?
‎[2] The Gemara answers: The *tanna* in the mishna **there teaches us good advice,** i.e., that one should not do so *ab initio*, so as to ensure that the amount set aside for her marriage contract is not lost, which would necessitate writing a new marriage contract. However, it should not be inferred from the mishna that it is prohibited to do so. **As, if you do not say so,** that it is merely good advice, consider **the latter clause** of the mishna, **which teaches: And similarly, a man may not say to his wife: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract. If he wants to sell, here too, may he not sell? Rather,** in that case the *tanna* **teaches us good advice,** and therefore **here too,** with regard to a *yevama*, **he teaches us good advice.**
‎[3] The Gemara asks: **But** if so, the question is raised once again, as the statement **of Rabbi Abba** said in the name of Sumakhos **is difficult.** Why is it necessary for the husband to divorce his wife when he can set aside the sum of her marriage contract? The Gemara answers: That teaching **of Rabbi Abba** is **also not difficult,** as the reason one may not do so is not that he cannot designate a sum as her marriage contract but **due to enmity.** If he were to set aside a certain portion for her marriage contract, she would perceive this as a sign that he desires to be rid of her. If he divorces and remarries her, she would realize it is only a ploy to allow him to sell the property and does not indicate his desire to divorce her.
‎[4] The Gemara relates: **A certain man had a *yevama* who happened** before **him** for levirate marriage **in** the city of **Pumbedita. His brother wanted to disqualify her from him by** means of **a bill of divorce,** as the *halakha* is that if one of the potential *yevamin* gives the *yevama* a bill of divorce she may no longer enter into levirate marriage with the others.
‎[5] The brother who wished to perform levirate marriage **said to him: What is your opinion?** Why are you doing this? Is it **due to the property,** as you are jealous that his property will belong to me, in accordance with the *halakha* that the brother who performs levirate marriage inherits the late brother’s property, whereas if the *yevama* receives *ḥalitza* or a bill of divorce all the brothers share the inheritance equally? **I will divide the property with you.** Upon hearing this, the brother consented to him performing levirate marriage. However, when he married the woman, the husband refused to give his brother anything, and the case came before the court.
‎[6] **Rav Yosef said: Since the Sages** have **said** that one **may not sell** the property of a widow waiting for her *yavam* before marrying her, **although he sold** it, **his sale is not** a valid **sale.** So too, his promise to give half the property to his brother, which is equivalent to a sale in this case, is of no consequence. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who died and left a widow waiting for her *yavam* and** also **left** behind **property** worth the value **of one hundred *maneh*,** equivalent to ten thousand dinars, **although her marriage contract is** worth **only** one ***maneh*,** or one hundred dinars, the *yavam* **may not sell** any part of his possessions, **as all of his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract.** The Sages prohibited him from selling it. Therefore, if he did so the transaction is void.
‎[7] **Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **And anywhere that the Sages said** that one **may not sell,** is it the *halakha* that **although he sold, his sale is no sale? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna (78a) with regard to a betrothed woman selling property: **Beit Shammai say: She may sell, and Beit Hillel say: She may not sell;** both **these,** Beit Shammai, **and those,** Beit Hillel, **agree that if she sold** it **or gave** it away, the transaction is **valid?** Evidently, even Beit Hillel agree that despite the violation of the Sages’ injunction, the sale is valid. Abaye therefore rejects Rav Yosef’s ruling. **They sent** this problem **before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi,** who **sent** back the following reply: The *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Yosef.**
‎[8] **Abaye said** in response: **Is that to say** that **Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi has hung jewelry upon it,** i.e., this ruling? His blunt declaration that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rav Yosef’s opinion without a logical explanation adds nothing to the discussion, and his decision should be rejected. **They sent** this inquiry **before Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Naḥumi,** who **sent** back the following written reply: The *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Abaye, but if Rav Yosef states a different reason for it, send** his reasoning **to me** and I will reconsider the matter.
‎[9] **Rav Yosef went, examined** the *mishnayot* carefully, **and found** the following source for his opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **If one claimed** money **from his brother** that he had previously lent him, **and** then the lender **died and left** behind **a widow waiting for her *yavam*,** then the *yavam* who borrowed money **may not say: Since I inherit** my brother’s property by means of the *yevama*, **I** may also **take possession** of the debt, and I do not have to restore it to the other brothers. **Rather, one appropriates** the sum of the debt **from the *yavam*, and he purchases land with it** for the woman’s marriage contract, **and he eats the produce.** This serves as proof for Rav Yosef’s opinion that a *yavam* may not sell his brother’s property or take possession of a debt he owed his brother.
‎[10] **Abaye said to him: Perhaps they did for him** that **which is good for him.** In other words, the *baraita* that states that one should purchase land and eat the produce is merely good advice to prevent the money from being lost. Rav Yosef **said to him: The *tanna* teaches: One appropriates,** i.e., against his will, **and you say that they did for him** that **which is good for him?** The language indicates that this is an obligation, not a matter of advice.
‎[11] **They** once **again sent** this question **before Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Naḥumi. He said to them: So said Rav Yosef bar Minyumi** that **Rav Naḥman said: This** *baraita* **is not a mishna** and therefore is not authoritative. Consequently, no proof may be adduced from it.
‎[12] The Gemara inquires: **What is the reason** that this *baraita* is rejected? **If we say** it is **because** the money he owes **is** considered **movable property,** as it is not present, **and movable property is not mortgaged to a marriage contract,** as only land can be mortgaged for this purpose, such an argument does not negate the *baraita*. **Perhaps it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said** that **movable property is mortgaged to a marriage contract.**
‎[13] **Rather,** the reason for doubting the reliability of the *baraita* is **because he says to her: You are not my litigant.** There is no legal dispute between the man and the *yevama*. He claims that she is not a party to this suit, as he owes money to his late brother. Therefore, she cannot claim the money from him by arguing that it is mortgaged for her marriage contract.
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC