1 because it was situated on higher ground and its air was salubrious. On the day when Rabbi died the Rabbis decreed a public fast and offered prayers for heavenly mercy. They. furthermore, announced that whoever said that Rabbi was dead would be stabbed with a sword. Rabbi's handmaid ascended the roof and prayed: 'The immortals desire Rabbi [to join them] and the mortals desire Rabbi [to remain with them]; may it be the will [of God] that the mortals may overpower the immortals'. When, however, she saw how often he resorted to the privy, painfully taking off his tefillin and putting them on again, she prayed: 'May it be the will [of the Almighty] that the immortals may overpower the mortals'. As the Rabbis incessantly continued their prayers for [heavenly] mercy she took up a jar and threw it down from the roof to the ground. [For a moment] they ceased praying and the soul of Rabbi departed to its eternal rest. 'Go', said the Rabbis to Bar Kappara, 'and investigate'. He went and, finding that [Rabbi] was dead, he tore his cloak and turned the tear backwards. [On returning to the Rabbis] he began: 'The angels and the mortals have taken hold of the holy ark. The angels overpowered the mortals and the holy ark has been captured'. 'Has he', they asked him, 'gone to his eternal rest?' — 'You', he replied, 'said it; I did not say it'. Rabbi, at the time of his passing, raised his ten fingers towards heaven and said: 'Sovereign of the Universe, it is revealed and known to you that I have laboured in the study of the Torah with my ten fingers and that I did not enjoy [any worldly] benefits even with my little finger. May it be Thy will that there be peace In my [Jast] resting place'. A bath kol echoed, announcing, He shall enter into peace; they shall rest on their beds. [Does not] the context require [the singular pronoun:] 'On thy bed'? This provides support for R. Hiyya b. Gamda. For he stated in the name of R. Jose b. Saul: When a righteous man departs from this world the ministering angels say to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe, the righteous man So-and-so is coming', and he answers them, 'Let the righteous men come [from their resting places], go forth to meet him, and say to him that he shall enter into peace [and then] they shall rest on their beds'. R. Eleazar stated: When a righteous man departs from the world he is welcomed by three companies of ministering angels. One exclaims, 'Come into peace'; the other exclaims, He who walketh in his uprightness, while the third exclaims, 'He shall enter into peace; they shall rest on their beds'. When a wicked man perishes from the world he is met by three groups of angels of destruction. One announces, 'There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked'; the other tells him, 'He shall lie down in sorrow', while the third tells him, 'Go down and be thou laid with the uncircumcised'. MISHNAH. SO LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE [A WIDOW] MAY RECOVER HER KETHUBAH AT ANY TIME. AS LONG, HOWEVER, AS SHE LIVES IN HER HUSBAND'S HOUSE SHE MAY RECOVER HER KETHUBAH ONLY WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, BECAUSE IN THE COURSE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS SHE HAS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF RENDERING FAVOURS CORRESPONDING [IN VALUE TO THE AMOUNT OF] HER KETHUBAH; SO R. MEIR WHO LAID DOWN THE RULING IN THE NAME OF R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: SO LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER HUSBAND'S HO USE [A WIDOW] MAY RECOVER HER KETHUBAH AT ANY TIME, BUT AS LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE SHE MAY RECOVER HER KETHUBAH ONLY WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. IF [THE WIDOW] DIED, HER HEIRS MUST MENTION HER KETHUBAH WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. GEMARA. Said Abaye to R. Joseph. [Is it logical that] the poorest woman in Israel [should be allowed to recover her kethubah] ONLY WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS and Martha the daughter of Boethus also ONLY WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE As? — The other replied: In accordance with the camel is the burden. The question was raised: Must she, according to R. Meir, lose in proportion? — This must stand undecided. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: SO LONG. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: [Is it reasonable that if] she comes before sunset she may recover her kethubah and that [if she came] after sunset she may not recover it? [Is it likely that] she has surrendered it in that short while? — 'Yes', the other replied. 'all the standards of the Sages are such. In [a bath of] forty se'ah [for instance] one may perform ritual immersion; In [a bath of] forty se'ah minus one kortob one may not perform ritual immersion Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: R. Ishmael son of R. Jose testified in the presence of Rabbi to a statement he made in the name of his father that [the ruling in our Mishnah] was taught only [in respect of a woman] who produces no deed of the kethubah but if she produces the deed of the kethubah she may recover [the amount of] her kethubah at any time. R. Eleazar, however, ruled: Even if she produces the deed of the kethubah she may recover the amount within twenty-five years only. R. Shesheth raised an objection: 'A creditor may recover his debt [at any time]. even if there was no mention of it.' Now, how is this to be understood? If [it refers to a creditor] who holds no bond, whereby [it might be asked] could he recover his debt? Consequently [it must refer to one] who does hold a bond [from which it follows, does It not, that] only a creditor [may recover his due]. because he is not likely to have surrendered his claim, but that a widow [is deemed to have] surrendered? — He raised the objection and he also removed it: This may, in fact, refer to one who holds no bond, but here we are dealing with a case where the debtor admits [his liability]. But, Surely. R. Elai had stated: They taught. 'A divorced woman has the very same rights as a creditor'. Now, how are We to understand [this ruling]? If [it refers to a divorcee] who holds no kethubah, whereby [it might be objected] could she recover her due? Consequently [it must refer to one] who does hold a kethubah, [from which it follows, does it not, that] only a divorcee [may recover her kethubah] because she is not likely to have surrendered it, but that a widow [is deemed to have] surrendered? — Here also [it is a case] where the defendant admits [the claim]. R. Nahman b. Isaac stated: R. Judah b. Kaza learnt in the Baraitha of the school of Bar Kaza, If she claimed her kethubahᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿ
2 she is again entitled to the original period. and if she produced the deed of the kethubah she may recover [the amount of] her kethubah at any time. R. Nahman b. R. Hisda sent [the following message] to R. Nahman b. Jacob: Will our Master instruct us as to whether the dispute [refers to] one who produced a deed of the kethubah or to one who produced no deed of the kethubah,' and with whose ruling does the halachah agree? — The other replied: The dispute refers to one who produced no deed of the kethubah, but [a woman] who produced a deed of the kethubah may recover her kethubah at any time; and the halachah is in agreement with the ruling of the Sages. When R. Dimi came he reported R. Simeon b. Pazzi who laid down in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara: This was taught only in respect of the maneh and the two hundred zuz. To any additional jointure, however, the woman is always entitled. R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan, however, ruled: She is not entitled even to the additional jointure; for R. Aibu has laid down in the name of R. Jannai: The additional provisions of a kethubah are subject to the same rules as the kethubah itself. So it was also said: R. Abba laid down in the name of R. Huna who had it from Rab: This was taught only in respect of the maneh and the two hundred zuz. To any additional jointure, however, she is always entitled. Said R. Abba to R. Huna: Did Rab really say this? — 'Do you wish', the other replied, to silence me or to stand me a drink?' — 'I', the other replied, 'wish to silence you!' The mother-in-law of R. Hiyya Arika was the wife of his brother, and [when she became] a widow lived in her father's bouse. [R. Hiyya] maintained her for twenty.five years at her paternal home [but when] at the end [of the period] she said to him. 'Supply me with my maintenance' he told her, 'You have no [longer any claim to] maintenance'. 'pay me [then', she said'my] kethubah'. 'You have no claim,' he replied- 'either to maintenance or to the kethubah', She summoned him to law before Rabbah b. Shila. 'Tell me', [the judge] said to him, 'what exactly were the circumstances. 'I maintained her', the other replied. 'for twenty-five years at her paternal home and, by the life of the Master, I carried [the stuff] to her on my shoulder'. 'What is the reason', [the judge] said to him, 'that the Rabbis ruled, so LONG AS SHE LIVES IN HER HUSBAND'S HOUSE [A WIDOW] MAY RECOVER HER KETHUBAH AT ANY TIME? Because we assume that she did not claim it in order [to save herself from] shame. Similarly here also [it may well be assumed] that she did not [previously] submit her claim in order [to save herself from] shame. Go, and supply her [maintenance]'. [As R. Hiyya] disregarded [the ruling. the judge] wrote out for her an adrakta on his property. Thereupon he came to Raba and said to him, 'See, Master, how he treated my case', 'He has given you the proper ruling', the other replied. 'If that is the case', [the widow] said to him, 'let him proceed to refund me the produce [he has consumed] since that day to date'. 'Shew me' he said to her, 'your adrakta'. As he observed that it did not contain the clause, 'And we have ascertained that this estate belonged to the deceased', he said to her, 'The adrakta is not properly drawn up'. 'Let the adrakta be dropped'. she said; 'and let me receive [the refund for the produce] from the day on which the period of the public announcement terminated to date'. 'This', he replied. applies only to a case where no error has crept into the adrakta, but where an error occurs in the adrakta the document possesses no validity'. 'But did not the Master himself lay down', she exclaimed, '[that the omission of the clause] pledging property [is to be regarded as the] scribe's error?' — 'In this case', Raba told her, '[the omission] cannot be said to be a scribe's error, for even Rabbah b. Shila originally overlooked the point'. He thought: Since both belonged to him what matters it [whether the widow distrains] on the one or the other. But this is not [the proper view]. For sometimes [the widow] might go and improve those [lands] while those belonging to her husband would be allowed to deteriorate and [the heir might eventually] tell her, 'Take yours and return to me mine', and a stigma would thus fall upon the court. MISHNAH. TWO JUDGES OF CIVIL LAW WERE [ADMINISTERING JUSTICE] IN JERUSALEM, ADMON AND HANAN B. ABISHALOM. HANAN LAID DOWN TWO RULINGS AND ADMON LAID DOWN SEVEN: — IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND HIS WIFE CLAIMED MAINTENANCE, HANAN RULED: ᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱᶜʲᶜᵏᶜˡᶜᵐᶜⁿᶜᵒᶜᵖᶜᵠᶜʳᶜˢᶜᵗᶜᵘᶜᵛᶜʷᶜˣᶜʸᶜᶻᵈᵃᵈᵇᵈᶜᵈᵈᵈᵉᵈᶠᵈᵍᵈʰᵈⁱᵈʲᵈᵏᵈˡᵈᵐᵈⁿᵈᵒᵈᵖ