Ketubot

that whoever buys from the court does so in order that he may have the benefit of a public announcement,  hence we were informed [that the responsibility for the indemnity still remains upon the orphans]. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED etc. To what limit [of error]?  — R. Huna b. Judah replied in the name of R. Shesheth: To a half.  So it was also taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled, If the court sold for one maneh what was worth two hundred zuz, or for two hundred zuz what was worth one maneh, their sale is valid. Amemar laid down in the name of R. Joseph: A court that sold [one's estate] without a [previous] public announcement are deemed  to have overlooked a law cited in a Mishnah and [their decision]  must be reversed. [You say] 'Are deemed'?  Have they not in actual fact overlooked one,' we learned:  The assessment [of the property] of the orphans  [must be accompanied by a public announcement for a period of] thirty days, and the assessment of consecrated land  [for a period of] sixty days; and the announcement must be made both in the morning and in the evening?  — If [the ruling  were to be derived] from that [Mishnah alone] it might be presumed that it applied only to an agent  but not to a court; hence we were taught  [that the law applied to a court also]. R. Ashi raised an objection against Amemar: IF AN ASSESSMENT OF JUDGES WAS BY ONE SIXTH LESS, OR ONE SIXTH MORE [THAN THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY], THEIR SALE IS VOID, but [it follows] if it corresponded to the actual worth of the land  their sale is valid. Does not this  [apply even to a case] where no public announcement was made?  — No; [it applies only to one] where an announcement was made. But since the final clause [refers to a case] where an announcement was made [must not] the first clause  [refer to one] where no announcement was made; for in the final clause it was taught: IF A BILL FOR INSPECTION,  HOWEVER, HAS BEEN DRAWN UP, THEIR SALE IS VALID EVEN IF THEY SOLD FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ WHAT WAS WORTH ONE MANEH, OR FOR ONE MANEH WHAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ?  — The fact indeed is [that the first clause refers to a case] where no announcement was made, and [yet  there is] no difficulty, for one ruling  refers to objects concerning which public announcements must be made, while the other  refers to objects concerning which no public announcements are made, such as  slaves, movables and deeds. (What is the reason [why no announcement is made in the case of] slaves? — [Because if one were made] they might hear It and escape. Movables and deeds? — Because they might be stolen.) If you wish I might reply:  One ruling  refers to a time when an announcement is made while the others refers to a time when no announcement is made, the Nehardeans having laid down that for poll-tax,  maintenance  and funeral expenses [an estate]  is sold without a public announcement.  And if you prefer I might reply:  One ruling  applies to a place where announcements are made while the other  applies to one where no announcements are made, R. Nahman having stated: Never was a bill for inspection  drawn up at Nehardea.  From this [statement]  one implied that [the reason  was] because they  were experts in assessments; but R. Joseph b. Minyomi stated: It was explained to me by R. Nahman [that the reason is] because they  were nicknamed 'consumers of publicly auctioned estates', Rab Judah ruled in the name of Samuel: Orphans' movables must be assessed  and sold forthwith.  R. Hisda ruled in the name of Abimi: They are to be sold  in the markets.  There is, however, no difference of opinion between them.  One speaks of a place  in the proximity of a market,  while the other deals with one  from which the market is far. R. Kahana had in his possession some beer that belonged to the orphan R. Mesharsheya b. Hilkai. He kept it until the festival,  saying, 'Though it might deteriorate,  it will have a quick sale.' Rabina had In his possession some wine belonging to the orphan Rabina the Little, his sister's son, and he had also some wine of his own which he was about to take up to Sikara.  When he came to R. Ashi and asked him, 'May I carry [the orphan's wine] with my own'  the other told him, 'You may go; it is not superior to your own. MISHNAH. [A MINOR] WHO EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF MI'UN,  A FORBIDDEN RELATIVE OF THE SECOND DEGREE,  OR A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION IS NOT ENTITLED EITHER TO A KETHUBAH  OR TO THE BENEFITS  [OF HER MELOG  PROPERTY]  OR TO MAINTENANCE,  OR TO HER WORN OUT ARTICLES.  IF THE MAN, HOWEVER, HAD MARRIED HER AT THE OUTSET ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WAS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION SHE IS ENTITLED TO A KETHUBAH. A WIDOW WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST,  A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH  WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST,  A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH  WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE. OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN,  OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO A KETHUBAH. GEMARA. Rab taught: A minor who is released by means of a letter of divorce is not entitled to a kethubah  and, much less so, [a minor] who exercises the right of mi'un  Samuel taught: [A minor] who exercises the right of mi'un  is not entitled to a kethubah,  but a minor who is released by a letter of divorce is entitled to her kethubah.  Samuel  follows his [previously expressed] principle; for he laid down: [A minor] who exercises the right of mi'un  is not entitled to a kethubah  but a minor who is released by a letter of divorce is entitled to her kethubah,'  [a minor] who exercises the right of mi'un  is not [through this act] disqualified from marrying the brothers [of her husband],  nor is she thereby disqualified from marrying a priest,  but [a minor who] is released by a letter of divorce is [through this act] disqualified from marrying the brothers [of her husband]  and also from marrying a priest;  [a minor] who exercises the right of mi'un need not wait three months