כתובות 104:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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: ^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ

^ᵃnote:Of twenty-five years. Lit., 'behold she is as at first'.
^ᵇnote:Lit., 'goes out from under her hands'.
^ᶜnote:Cf. supra note 12.
^ᵈnote:Between R. MEIR and THE SAGES.
^ᵉnote:Cf. supra p. 667. n. 12.
^ᶠnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵍnote:That after a period of twenty-five years a widow is presumed to have surrendered her kethubah.
^ʰnote:V. Glos., sc. the statutory kethubah which is one maneh in the case of marriage with a widow and two hundred zuz in that with a virgin.
^ⁱnote:Since this may be regarded as a gift (and not as the legal kethubah) from the husband to his wife.
^ʲnote:Lit., 'conditions', of which the additional jointure is one.
^ᵏnote:Lit., 'like'.
^ˡnote:One who loses the statutory kethubah must also forfeit the additional jointure.
^ᵐnote:By Amoraim.
^ⁿnote:V. supra notes 4 to 6.
^ᵒnote:[MS.M. inserts, He (R. Huna) said he was silenced; cf. Ned. Sonc. ed. p. 242. notes.]
^ᵖnote:I.e., was his question intended to imply incredulity?
^ᵠnote:I.e., he wished in all earnestness to ascertain whether Rab had actually made that statement so that in return for the valuable information he might treat him to a cup of wine. [H] and [H], a play upon the similarity of the letters.
^ʳnote:The tall.
^ˢnote:Who died childless and whose estate was inherited by R. Hiyya.
^ᵗnote:In accordance with the ruling of the Sages in our Mishnah.
^ᵘnote:R. Hiyya.
^ᵛnote:Sc. THE SAGES.
^ʷnote:Cf. supra p. 665. n. 16, second clause.
^ˣnote:Where so much respect was shewn to her by R. Hiyya that he carried her foodstuffs to her on his shoulder.
^ʸnote:[H] (rt. [H] 'to tread'). an authorization following that of another legal document called tirpa (cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p 738. n. 1) which a court issues to a claimant after he had traced the defendant's property. to seize it (to 'tread' on) for the purpose of having it offered for public sale and his recovering the proceeds or the land itself at the Price valued.
^ᶻnote:Lit., 'judged me'.
^ᵃᵃnote:Raba.
^ᵃᵇnote:R. Hiyya.
^ᵃᶜnote:Of the land that was valued at a sum corresponding to that of her kethubah.
^ᵃᵈnote:On which she received the adrakta (according to the opinion of Rabbah). when it was signed (according to Abaye). or when the period of the announcement of the public sale terminated (according to Raba). From such date the land passes into the possession of the claimant and its produce also from that day onwards belongs to him (cf. B.M. 36b).
^ᵃᵉnote:V. supra p. 669. n. 7.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., 'that it was not written in it'.
^ᵃᵍnote:The adrakta referred to all R. Hiyya's landed property. while legally it should have been restricted to those which he inherited from his deceased brother. On his own lands the widow could have no claim whatsoever.
^ᵃʰnote:In agree. melt with the view of Raba (cf. supra p. 669. n. 12). After the claimant discovers a field that belonged to the defendant he reports to the court who value it, and arrange for a period of thirty days for the public announcement. at the end of which the claimant comes into possession (v. B.M. 35b).
^ᵃⁱnote:That the land passes into the possession of the claimant on one of the dates mentioned (supra p. 669. n. 12).
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., 'these words'.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., 'is written'.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., we have not in it'; the land does not pass into the ownership of the claimant until he takes actual possession of it.
^ᵃᵐnote:From a deed.
^ᵃⁿnote:And is deemed to have been entered though the scribe had omitted it (B.M. 140. B.B. 169b). Why then should an error in the adrakta cause its invalidity?
^ᵃᵒnote:[Rightly omitted in MS.M.]
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., 'in that'. In that he had an adrakta made out against R. Hiyya's own property.
^ᵃᵠnote:R. Hiyya.
^ᵃʳnote:R. Hiyya's brother's or his own. Hence he drew up the adrakta on all R. Hiyya's lands.
^ᵃˢnote:Which did not belong to her husband but to his heir and which the court handed over to her in return for her claim.
^ᵃᵗnote:And were legally pledged for her kethubah.
^ᵃᵘnote:By the heir who is well aware that he can at any time re-claim his own land and transfer the property of the deceased to his widow.
^ᵃᵛnote:Cf. supra p. 670, n. 16.
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. supra p. 670. n. 15.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., 'murmur', 'reflection'.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., 'and come to bring out'.
^ᵃᶻnote:Who would be accused of carelessness or indifference in the provision they made for the widow.
^ᵇᵃnote:[H] (plural of [H], 'decree', 'decision'). Var., [H] (plural of [H] 'robbery') v. infra. Cf. B.K. 58b, Sonc. ed. p. 340, n. 1.
^ᵇᵇnote:From which the Sages differed.