Ketubot

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: — 55 IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND HIS WIFE CLAIMED MAINTENANCE, HANAN RULED: