Ketubot

BUT NOT FROM A TOWN TO A CITY NOR FROM A CITY TO A TOWN.  [A MAN] MAY TAKE OUT [HIS WIFE WITH HIM] FROM AN INFERIOR  TO A SUPERIOR  DWELLING, BUT NOT FROM A SUPERIOR  TO AN INFERIOR  DWELLING. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: NOT EVEN FROM AN INFERIOR DWELLING TO A SUPERIOR DWELLING, BECAUSE THE [CHANGE TO A] SUPERIOR DWELLING PUTS [THE HUMAN BODY] TO A [SEVERE] TEST. GEMARA. One may readily grant [the justice of the ruling that a wife may not be compelled to move] FROM A CITY TO A TOWN, since everything [necessary] is obtainable in a city while not everything is obtainable in a town. On what grounds, however, [can she not be compelled to move] FROM A TOWN TO A CITY? — [This ruling] provides support for R. Jose b. Hanina who stated, 'Whence is it deduced that city  life  is difficult?  [From Scripture] where it is said, And the people blessed all men that willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED etc. What [is meant by] PUTS [THE HUMAN BODY] TO A [SEVERE] TEST'?  — In agreement [with a saying] of Samuel. For Samuel said: A change of diet is the beginning of bowel trouble. It is written in the Book of Ben Sira: All the days of the poor  are evil;  but are there not the Sabbaths and festivals?  — [The explanation, however, is] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: A change of diet is the beginning of bowel trouble.  Ben Sira said: The nights also.  Lower than [all] the roofs is his roof,  and on the height of mountains is his vineyard,  [so that] the rain of [other] roofs [pours down] upon his roof and the earth of his vineyard [is washed down] into the vineyards [of others]. MISHNAH. [A MAN] MAY COMPEL ALL [HIS HOUSEHOLD] TO GO UP  [WITH HIM] TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL., BUT NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT. ALL [ONE'S HOUSEHOLD] MAY BE COMPELLED TO GO UP  TO JERUSALEM,  BUT NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT. [THIS APPLIES TO] BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.  IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL. IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.  IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST A GAIN PAY [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE MUST PAY HER IN THE CAPPADOCIAN CURRENCY. IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA, HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF CAPPADOCIA. GEMARA. What [was the expression,] 'MAY COMPEL ALL'  intended to include? — To include slaves.  What, however, [was the expression  intended] to include according to him who specifically mentioned 'slaves' [in our Mishnah]? — To include [removal] from a superior dwelling to an inferior one. What [was the expression,] 'BUT NONE  MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT' intended to include? — To include a slave who fled from outside the Land [of Israel] into the Land in which case his master is told,  'Sell him here, and go', in order to [encourage] settlement in the Land of Israel. What [was the expression] 'ALL  … MAY BE COMPELLED TO GO UP TO JERUSALEM' intended to include? — To include [removal] from a superior dwelling to an inferior one. What [was the expression,] 'BUT NONE  MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT' intended to include? — To include even [removal] from an inferior dwelling to a superior one; only since as it was stated in the earlier clause,  'NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT it was also stated in the latter clause,  'NONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO LEAVE IT'. Our Rabbis taught: If [the husband] desires  to go up  and his wife refuses  she must be pressed  to go up; and if [she does] not [consent] she may be divorced  without a kethubah. If she desires  to go up  and be refuses,  he must be pressed to go up; and if [he does] not [consent] he must divorce her and pay her kethubah. If she desires to leave  and he refuses to leave, she must be pressed not to leave, and if [pressure is of] no [avail] she may be divorced  without a kethubah. If he desires to leave  and she refuses he must be pressed not to leave, and if [coercion is of] no [avail] he must divorce her and pay her kethubah. IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN etc. Is not this self-contradictory? It was stated, IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL, from which it clearly follows that we are guided by [the currency of the place where the] obligation  was undertaken.  Read, however, the concluding clause: IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL HE MUST AGAIN PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL, from which it follows, does it not, that we are guided by [the currency of the place] where collection is effected?  — Rabbah replied: [The rulings] taught here [are among those in which the claims relating to] a kethubah are weaker [than those of other claimants],  for [the author] is of the opinion that the kethubah is a Rabbinical enactment.  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE MUST PAY HER IN THE CAPPADOCIAN CURRENCY. He is of the opinion  that the kethubah is Pentateuchal. Our Rabbis taught: If a man produces a bond of indebtedness against another [and the place of issue] entered  therein was Babylon, [the debtor] must allow him to collect it in Babylonian currency. If [the place of issue] entered  therein was the Land of Israel he must allow him to collect it in the currency of the Land of Israel. If no place of issue was entered  he must, if it was presented in Babylon, pay him in Babylonian currency; and, if it was presented in the Land of Israel, he must pay him in the currency of the Land of Israel. If merely [a sum of] 'silver [pieces]'  was entered, the borrower may pay the other whatever he wishes.  [This is a ruling] which does not apply to  a kethubah.  To what [ruling does this  refer]? — R. Mesharsheya replied: To that in the first clause,  thus indicating that the law is not in agreement with  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled that the kethubah is Pentateuchal. 'If merely [a sum of] "silver [pieces]" was entered the borrower may pay the other whatever he wishes'. May not one say that [a 'silver piece' merely signified] a bar [of silver]? — R. Eleazar replied: [This is a case] where 'coin' was mentioned in the bond.  May not one suggest [that it signified] small change? — R. Papa replied: Small change is not made of silver. Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have  a God, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no God. For it is said in Scripture, To give you the Land of Canaan, to be your God.  Has he, then, who does not live in the Land, no God?  But [this is what the text intended] to tell you, that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. Similarly it was said in Scripture in [the story of] David, For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods.  Now, whoever said to David, 'Serve other gods'? But [the text intended] to tell you that whoever lives outside the Land  may be regarded as one who worships idols. R. Zera was evading Rab Judah because he desired to go up to the Land of Israel while Rab Judah had expressed [the following view:] Whoever goes up from Babylon to the Land of Israel transgresses a positive commandment, for it is said in Scripture,