Ketubot — Daf 52a

ממזרת ונתינה לישראל אינו חייב לפדותה שאין אני קורא בה ואותבינך לי לאנתו רבא אמר כל שאיסור שבייה גורם לה חייב לפדותה איסור דבר אחר גורם לה אינו חייב לפדותה

לימא כתנאי המדיר את אשתו ונשבית רבי אליעזר אומר פודה ונותן לה כתובתה רבי יהושע אומר נותן לה כתובתה ואינו פודה

אמר רבי נתן שאלתי את סומכוס כשאמר רבי יהושע נותן לה כתובתה ואינו פודה כשהדירה ולבסוף נשבית או בנשבית ולבסוף הדירה

ואמר לי לא שמעתי ונראין דברים שהדירה ולבסוף נשבית דאי אמרת נשבית ולבסוף הדירה אתי לאיערומי

מאי לאו במדיר אשת כהן קמיפלגי ואביי דאמר כרבי אליעזר ורבא דאמר כרבי יהושע

לא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנדרה איהי וקיים לה הוא ר' אליעזר סבר הוא נותן אצבע בין שיניה ורבי יהושע סבר היא נתנה אצבע בין שיניה

אי היא נתנה אצבע בין שיניה כתובה מאי עבידתה

ותו אמר ר' נתן שאלתי את סומכוס כשאמר רבי יהושע נותן לה כתובתה ואינו פודה כשהדירה ולבסוף נשבית או בשנשבית ולבסוף הדירה ואמר לא שמעתי

ואי דנדרה איהי מה לי הדירה ולבסוף נשבית מה לי נשבית ולבסוף הדירה

אלא לעולם דאדרה איהו ואביי מתרץ לטעמיה ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה אביי מתרץ לטעמיה אלמנה לכהן גדול כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב לפדותה ממזרת ונתינה לישראל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאינו חייב לפדותה מדיר אשת כהן נמי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב לפדותה דהיינו אלמנה [לכ"ג]

כי פליגי במדיר אשת ישראל רבי אליעזר אזיל בתר מעיקרא ורבי יהושע אזיל בתר בסוף

רבא מתרץ לטעמיה אלמנה לכ"ג ממזרת ונתינה לישראל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאינו חייב לפדותה כי פליגי במדיר בין אשת כהן ובין אשת ישראל

רבי אליעזר אזיל בתר מעיקרא ורבי יהושע אזיל בתר בסוף:

נשבית חייב לפדותה וכו': ת"ר נשבית בחיי בעלה ואח"כ מת בעלה הכיר בה בעלה יורשין חייבין לפדותה לא הכיר בה בעלה אין יורשין חייבין לפדותה

לוי סבר למיעבד עובדא כי הא מתניתא א"ל רב הכי אמר חביבי לית הלכתא כי הא מתניתא אלא כי הא דתניא נשבית לאחר מיתת בעלה אין היתומין חייבין לפדותה ולא עוד אלא אפילו נשבית בחיי בעלה ואחר כך מת בעלה אין היתומין חייבין לפדותה שאין אני קורא בה ואותבינך לאינתו

תנו רבנן נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בדמיה פעם ראשונה פודה מכאן ואילך רצה פודה רצה אינו פודה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

but if a bastard or a nethinah  was married to an Israelite the latter is under no obligation to ransom her, since one cannot apply to her:  AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE.  Raba ruled: Wherever the captivity causes the woman to be forbidden  [to her husband] it is his duty to ransom her  but where some other circumstance causes her to be forbidden to him  it is not his duty to ransom her. Must it be assumed [that they  differ on the same principles] as the following Tannaim? [For it was taught:] If a man forbade his wife by a vow [from deriving any benefit from him] and she was taken captive, he must, said R. Eliezer, ransom her  and give her also her kethubah. R. Joshua said: He must give her her kethubah but need not ransom her. Said R. Nathan: I asked Symmachus, 'When R. Joshua said, "He must give her her kethubah but need not ransom her" [did he refer to a case] where her husband first made his vow against her and she was then taken captive or even to a case where she was first taken captive and he made his vow against her subsequently?'  And he told me, 'I did not hear [what he exactly said] but it seems [that he referred to] a case where [the husband] made the vow against her first and the woman was taken captive afterwards; for, should you suggest [that the ruling applied also to a woman who] was taken captive first and the man made his vow against her afterwards [the objection could be raised that in such a case] he might make use of a trick'.  Do not they  then differ  in [the case of one] who made a vow against the wife of a priest,  Abaye upholding the view of R. Eliezer  while Raba IS maintaining that of R. Joshua?  — No;  here  we are dealing [with the case of a woman] who, for instance, made the vow herself and her husband  confirmed it,  R. Eliezer being of the opinion that it was he  who put his finger between her teeth  while R. Joshua maintains that it was she herself who put her finger between her teeth. [But] If she herself put her finger between her teeth what claim can she have to her  kethubah? And, furthermore, [it was stated]: Said R. Nathan: I asked Symmachus, 'When R. Joshua said, "He must give her her kethubah but need not ransom her" [did he refer to a case] where her husband first made his vow against her and she was then taken captive or even to a case where she was first taken captive and he made his vow against her subsequently?' and he told me: 'I did not hear [what he exactly said]'. Now if [this is a case] where she herself had made the vow, what difference is there [it may be asked] whether he made the vow first against her  and she was taken captive afterwards or whether she was first taken captive and he then made the vow?  — The fact is that [here  it is a case where] the husband made the vow against her, but Abaye explains [the dispute]  on the lines of his view while Raba explains it on the lines of his view. 'Abaye explains the dispute on the lines of his view', thus: If a widow [was married] to a High Priest no one  disputes [the ruling] that it is the husband's duty to ransom her;  if a bastard or a nethinah [was married] to an Israelite no one  disputes the ruling that it is not his duty to ransom her,  if also one made a vow against the wife of a priest  no one  disputes the ruling that it is his duty to ransom her, since [the principle in this case] is identical with that of a widow [who was married] to a High Priest.  They  differ only in [respect of him who] made a vow against the wife of an Israelite,  R. Eliezer being guided by the woman's original status  while R. Joshua is guided by her subsequent status.  'Raba explains it on the lines of his view', thus: If a widow [was married] to a High Priest, or a bastard or a nethinah to an Israelite no one  disputes the ruling that it is not the husband's duty to ransom her.  They  differ only in [the case where one] made a vow against either the wife of a priest or the wife of an Israelite,  R. Eliezer being guided by the woman's original status  while R. Joshua is guided by her subsequent status. IF SHE IS TAKEN CAPTIVE IT IS HIS DUTY TO RANSOM HER etc. Our Rabbis taught: If she was taken captive during the lifetime of her husband, and he died afterwards, and her husband was aware of her [captivity],  it is the duty of his heirs to ransom her, but if her husband was not aware of her captivity it is not the duty of his heirs to ransom her. Levi proposed to give a practical decision  in agreement with this Baraitha. Said Rab to him, Thus said my uncle:  The law is not in agreement with that Baraitha but with the following  wherein it was taught: [If a woman] was taken captive after the death of her husband it is not the duty of his orphans to ransom her, and, furthermore,  even if she was taken captive during the lifetime of her husband, but he died subsequently, the orphans are under no obligation to ransom her, since one cannot apply to her [the clause in her kethubah:] AND I WILL TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE. Our Rabbis taught: [If a woman] was taken captive and a demand was made upon her husband for as much as ten times her value, he must ransom her the first time. Subsequently, however, he ransoms her only if he desired to do so but need not ransom her  if he does not wish to do so. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: