Ketubot 9

הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָתַב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ, שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, קַיָּם. כָּתַב לָהּ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרֵי פֵרוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵרֵי פֵרוֹתֵיהֶן עַד עוֹלָם. כָּתַב לָהּ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵרֵי פֵרוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיַּיִךְ וּבְמוֹתֵךְ, אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם מֵתָה, יִירָשֶׁנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, תְּנָאוֹ בָטֵל:

If one wrote to his wife: "I have nothing to do with your property," he eats fruits in her lifetime, and if she dies, he inherits her. [If, while she were still betrothed, he wrote to her: When you get married to me, I have nothing to do with your property — even though they (the receivers) did not acquire it from him, she may sell it and give it as a gift, and the transaction stands. For a man may make a condition not to inherit an inheritance falling to him from elsewhere. And if they did acquire it from him, even after marriage her sale stands. But he eats fruits, and if she died, he inherits her. For this is what is implied, viz.: "I have nothing to do with your property, but I do have something to do with its fruits. And so long as it is your property, (i.e., during your lifetime) I have nothing to do with it. But after you die, I do have "something to do with it."] If so why does he write her: "I have nothing to do with your property"? So that if she sold it or gave it away, it (the transaction) stands. If he wrote her: "I have nothing to do with your property or its fruits," he does not eat fruits in her lifetime. And if she dies, he inherits her. R. Yehudah says: He always eats fruits of fruits, unless he writes: "I have nothing to do with your property, or its fruits, or the fruits of its fruits forever." [The gemara explains which are fruits and which are fruits of fruits. If she brought land in to him, and it produced fruits — these are fruits. If he sold these fruits for land, which produced fruits — these are fruits of fruits. If he tells her only: "I have nothing to do with your property or its fruits," he eats fruits of fruits according to R. Yehudah; for he "removed" himself only from fruits. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] If he wrote her: "I have nothing to do with your property, or its fruits, or the fruits of its fruits in your lifetime or after your death," he does not eat fruits in her lifetime, and if she dies, he does not inherit her. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If she dies, he inherits her; for he made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah; and if one makes a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah, the condition is void. [For it is written (Numbers 27:11): "And he shall inherit her" — whence it is derived that a man inherits his wife. But the conclusion is that a man's inheriting his wife is not a Scriptural but a rabbinical enactment and the (above) verse only serves as support — notwithstanding which the halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel. Not because he makes a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah, but because the sages gave it "Torah strength."]

מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב וְיוֹרְשִׁין, וְהָיָה לוֹ פִקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִלְוֶה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁין, שֶׁכֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה:

If one died, and left a wife, a creditor, and heirs, and he had a pledge or a loan (owing him) in the hands of others, R. Tarfon says: It is to be given to the "weakest" among them. [Some explain: to the one whose deed is latest, he being the "weakest" of all, not being able to seize property which had been sold before him (i.e., before the date of the deed.) Others explain: to the (kethubah of the) woman. She is called "weakest," it not being proper for a woman, as it is for a man, to seek out a dead man's property and to inquire where he has land. And even though the chattel of the orphans is not bound to the creditor or to the kethubah of the woman, here, where it is not in their domain, R. Tarfon holds that it is taken from the debtor's hand or from the hand of the one who has the pledge, and given to the creditor or to the (woman for her) kethubah.] R. Akiva says: "There is no mercy in judgment," and it is given to the heirs [and seizure (by the others) is of no avail.] For all require an oath, but the heirs do not require an oath. [For if one comes to collect from the property of orphans, he can do so only with an oath. And so long as they (the claimants) do not swear, we do not know whether they are owed anything at all. Therefore, when the father dies, the heirs inherit it (the loan or the pledge), and it is in their domain.]

הִנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָהֶן. זָכְתָה אִשָּׁה יוֹתֵר מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וּבַעַל חוֹב יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ, הַמּוֹתָר, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, שֶׁכֻּלָּם צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה:

If he left fruits torn from the land, whoever is first (to seize them) acquires them. [If the heirs were first, they acquire them; and it is not taken from their hands. For the chattel of the orphans is not bound to the creditor or to the kethubah. If one of the others were first — the woman or the creditor — he acquires them. For R. Tarfon holds that seizure after death is valid.] If the woman acquired more than her kethubah [If she came first and seized more (fruits) than her kethubah (is worth)], or if the creditor [came first] and [seized] more than his debt — the remainder, R. Tarfon says, should be given to the "weakest" [the holder of the deed, who has the "lower hand." And if they (the fruits) come to the hand of the orphans, they can no longer be taken from them, neither by the woman nor by the creditor. And today, when all courts in Israel rule that the chattel of orphans is bound to the creditor, if one died and left chattel with claims upon it by a creditor and by (the kethubah of) a woman, whoever comes first acquires it, whether a creditor with an earlier claim or a creditor with a later claim; for there is no law of priority vis-à-vis chattel. And if neither of them came forward, the chattel is divided between them, as stated below (Chapter 10).] R. Akiva says: "There is no mercy in judgment," and it is given to the heirs. For all require an oath, but the heirs do not require an oath.

הַמּוֹשִׁיב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ חֶנְוָנִית אוֹ שֶׁמִּנָּהּ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא, הֲרֵי זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעָהּ כָּל זְמָן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עַל פִּלְכָּהּ וְעַל עִסָּתָהּ:

If one sets his wife up as shopkeeper [to buy and sell in the shop], or if he appoints her a caretaker [to look after his money and to trade with it], he can administer an oath to her whenever he wishes, [an oath similar to a Torah oath on a claim of "perhaps" (you misappropriated, etc.), and he may "roll" onto her (another oath) that she did not "cheat" with her spinning or with her dough.] R. Eliezer says: Even for her spinning and for her dough. [Even ab initio, without "rolling," he can make her swear for her spinning and for her dough. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.]

כָּתַב לָהּ, נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלָיִךְ, אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, אֲבָל מַשְׁבִּיעַ הוּא אֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִךְ וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִךְ וְעַל הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִיךְ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, לֹא הִיא וְלֹא יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא אֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. אֲבָל יוֹרְשָׁיו מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ, וְאֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי וְלֹא לְיוֹרְשַׁי וְלֹא לַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִי עָלַיִךְ וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִךְ וְעַל הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִיךְ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, לֹא הוּא וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו וְלֹא הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, לֹא אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ:

If he wrote to her: "I will impose upon you neither vow nor oath," he cannot make her swear; but he can make her heirs swear [If he divorced her, and she died, and her heirs claim her kethubah from him, they swear the "oath of the heirs," viz.: She did not tell us at her death, and she did not tell us before that, and we did not find among her deeds, that her kethubah had been paid.]; and (he can make) those coming by her authority (swear). [If she had sold her kethubah to others, and she had been divorced and had died, and the buyers had come to claim her kethubah, they, too, swear the oath of the heirs.] (If he wrote:) "I will impose neither vow nor oath upon you, your heirs, or those who come by your authority," he cannot cause to swear either her or her heirs or those who come by her authority; but his heirs can cause to swear: her, her heirs, and those who come by her authority. [If she were widowed and she or her heirs claimed it from the orphans, they require an oath, for he exempted them only from (the exaction of an oath by) him, if her kethubah were claimed in his lifetime.] (If he wrote:) "Neither I, nor my heirs, nor those who come by my authority [(if I sell my property, and you come to collect from the buyers)] will impose either vow or oath upon you, your heirs, or those who come by your authority," neither he nor his heirs, nor those who come by his authority can cause to swear either her, her heirs, or those who come by her authority.

הָלְכָה מִקֶּבֶר בַּעְלָהּ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ אוֹ שֶׁחָזְרָה לְבֵית חָמִיהָ, וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם נַעֲשֵׂית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא, הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבֹא וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ עַל מַה שֶּׁעָבָר:

If she [the one her husband exempted from an oath] went from her husband's grave to her father's house [not occupying herself with the property anymore] or returned to the house of her in-laws and did not become a caretaker, the heirs cannot cause her to swear [in connection with her dealings between the death and the burial. For if the heirs could cause her to swear in this regard, because she would thereby be constrained to bring witnesses as to what she sold and bought for the burial of the dead, the body would remain unburied and would become repulsive.] And if she did become a caretaker, the heirs may cause her to swear as to the future [i.e., that she did not misappropriate anything in her caretaker dealings after her husband's death. For his having exempted her does not avail, the property belonging to the orphans]; and they may not cause her to swear as to what has passed [re her dealings in her husband's lifetime].

הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וּמִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין וְשֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה:

If a woman "impairs" her kethubah (see 9:8), she exacts payment only with an oath. [When one is paid by another, he is not (always) careful to ascertain that he has been paid the exact amount; and this one (the woman), since she was (by her own admission) paid in part, might have been paid in full. And the rabbis imposed an oath upon her so that she be exact (in her reckoning).] If one witness testifies that it has been paid, she can exact payment only with an oath. [This is a rabbinical ordinance designed to set the husband's mind at rest. And these oaths, though instituted by the rabbis, are like Torah oaths, requiring the holding of a (sacred) object. For all oaths instituted in the Mishnah are like Torah oaths.] (If she came to claim her kethubah) from the property of the orphans, or from bound property, or not in his (her husband's) presence, she can exact payment only with an oath. [For if one would claim from the debtor himself, and he would say: Swear to me that I did not pay you, he would have to swear. And we argue for the receiver (of the property), viz.: Perhaps if she had claimed from the debtor (her husband), he would have said: "Swear to me that I did not pay you," and she would have had to swear. Here, too, she has to swear.]

הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתֻבָּתֵךְ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי אֶלָּא מָנֶה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתֻבָּתֵךְ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבָּלְתִּי, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים כֵּיצַד, מָכַר נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כֵּיצַד, מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו לַיְתוֹמִים, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַיְתוֹמִים, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו כֵּיצַד, הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו, אֵינָהּ נִפְרַעַת אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא תוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ:

"If a woman impairs her kethubah": How so? If her kethubah were a thousand zuz, and she said: I received only one hundred, she exacts payment only with an oath. "If one witness testifies that it has been paid": How so? If her kethubah were a thousand zuz, and he said to her: You have received your kethubah, and she said: I did not receive it, and one witness testifies that it was paid, she exacts payment only with an oath. "from bound property": How so? If he sold his property to others, and she claims payment from the receivers, she can exact payment only with an oath. "from the property of the orphans": How so? If he died and left his property to the orphans, and she claims payment from the orphans, she can exact payment only with an oath. "not in his presence": How so? If he went abroad, and she claims, not in his presence, she can exact payment only with an oath. R. Shimon says: Whenever she claims her kethubah, the heirs can make her swear; and if she does not claim her kethubah, the heirs cannot make her swear. [This refers to the ruling of the rabbis (9:4): "If one sets up his wife as a shopkeeper or as a caretaker, he can administer an oath to her whenever he wishes," and (9:5): "If he wrote: 'Neither I nor my heirs will impose either vow or oath upon you,' the heirs cannot make her swear." He (R. Shimon) comes to differ and to say that whenever she claims her kethubah, the heirs can make her swear, even if he wrote: "Neither I nor my heirs will impose vow nor oath upon you." And if she does not claim her kethubah, the heirs cannot make her swear as to her caretakership in her husband's lifetime, even if he (himself) did not exempt her from an oath, R. Shimon differing from R. Eliezer and those of his opinion who say (9:4): "He can administer an oath to her whenever he wishes." The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]

הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְתֻבָּה, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. כְּתֻבָּה וְאֵין עִמָּהּ גֵּט, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אָבַד גִּטִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אָבַד שׁוֹבְרִי, וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב וְאֵין עִמּוֹ פְרוֹזְבּוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִפָּרֵעוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִן הַסַּכָּנָה וְאֵילָךְ, אִשָּׁה גוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְגֵט, וּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִפְרוֹזְבּוּל. שְׁנֵי גִטִּין וּשְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת, גּוֹבָה שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת וְגֵט אֶחָד, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וּשְׁנֵי גִטִּין, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וְגֵט וּמִיתָה, אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּה אַחַת, שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ, עַל מְנָת כְּתֻבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַחֲזִירָהּ. קָטָן שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוֹ אָבִיו, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ:

If she produced a get, but there were no kethubah with it, [in a place where they do not write a kethubah, but rely upon the condition of beth-din], she collects her kethubah. [For the kethubah-condition is (regarded as) an act of beth-din. And (with) every "act of beth-din," it is as if one is holding the deed. And it is only the one manah or the two manah that she collects, but she does not receive the addition unless she produces the kethubah.] (If she produced) a kethubah, but there were no get with it — she saying: I lost my get, and he saying: I lost my receipt; and, likewise, if a creditor produced a deed of indebtedness, but there were no prozbol with it [(Hillel instituted "prozbol" so that the shemitah year not cancel a debt. By the institution of prozbol, one relegates his deeds to beth-din to collect his debt from the debtor whenever he claims it, so that it does not come under the interdict of (Deuteronomy 15:2): "He shall not exact it," the creditor not exacting it at all, but beth-din doing so.], payment is not exacted. [For we suspect that the woman might have collected her kethubah, and that the debt may have been canceled by the sabbatical year.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: From the "danger" on [i.e., after the gentiles had decreed against the observance of mitzvoth and the Jews were afraid to keep their gittin, so that they burned them upon receiving them, and, likewise, with their prozbols], a woman collects her kethubah without a get, and a creditor collects his debt without a prozbol. (If she produced) two gittin and two kethuboth, she collects two kethuboth. Two kethuboth and one get, or one kethubah and two gittin, or one kethubah, one get, and (witnesses that he took her back and) he died, she collects only one kethubah. For if one divorces his wife and takes her back, it is within the framework of the first kethubah that he takes her back. If a minor were married off by his father, her kethubah (written when he was a minor) is valid, for it is within this framework that he kept her (as a wife after he came of age). If one became a proselyte together with his wife, her kethubah (written when they were non-Jews) is valid; for it is within this framework (i.e., that it apply after they became proselytes) that he kept her.