Ketubot

he must not restore them  if they contain a clause pledging property, because the court would exact payment from such property,  but if they do not contain the clause pledging property, he must return them, because the court will not exact payment from the property;  so R. Meir. The Sages,  however, ruled: In either case he must not return them, because the court will exact payment from the property  [in any case].  Would then the first clause [represent the view of] R. Meir and the final clause that of R. Judah? And should you suggest that both clauses  [represent the view of] R. Meir and that he draws a distinction between a kethubah and notes of indebtedness,  [it could be retorted] does he, indeed, draw such a distinction? Has it not been taught: For five [classes of claims] may distraint be made only on free assets;  they are as follows. [A claim for] produce,  for amelioration shewing profits,  for an undertaking  to maintain the wife's son or the wife's daughter, for a note of indebtedness wherein no lien on property had been entered, and for a woman's kethubah from which the clause pledging security was omitted.  Now what authority have you heard laying down that [the omission from a deed of a record of] a lien on property is not regarded as the scribe's error?  [Obviously it is] R. Meir;  and yet it was stated, was it not, 'a woman's kethubah'?  — If you wish, I might reply: [Our Mishnah represents the view of] R. Meir; and if you prefer I might reply: [It represents the View of] R. Judah. 'If you prefer I might reply: [It represents the view of] R. Judah', for there  she specifically IF HE DID NOT WRITE IN HER FAVOUR etc. Samuel's father ruled: The wife of an Israelite who had been outraged is forbidden to her husband, since it may be apprehended that the act begun  under compulsion may have terminated  with her consent.26 Rab raised an objection against Samuel's father: [Have we not learned,] IF YOU ARE TAKEN CAPTIVE I WILL RANSOM YOU AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE?27  The other remained silent. Rab thereupon applied to Samuel's father the Scriptural text, The princes refrained talking and laid their hand on their mouth.  What, however, could he have replied?  — [That the law]  was relaxed in the case of a captive. According to Samuel's father's ruling how is it possible to conceive a case of outrage which the All-Merciful deemed to be genuine?32  — Where, for instance, witnesses testified that she cried from the commencement to the end. [This ruling],  however, differs from that of Raba; for Raba laid down: Any woman, the outrage against whom began  under It was taught in agreement with Raba: And she be not seized  [only then]  is she forbidden,  [from which it follows] that if she was seized  she is permitted.  But there is another class of woman who is permitted  even if she was not seized.  And who is that? Any woman who began  under compulsion and ended  with her consent. Another Baraitha taught: 'And she be not seized' [only then] is she forbidden  [from which it follows] that if she was seized  she is permitted.  But there is another class of woman who is forbidden  even though she was seized. And who is that? The wife of a priest. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael: 'And she be not seized', [then only]  is she forbidden,  but if she was seized she is permitted. There is, however, another class of woman who is permitted even if she was not seized. And who is that? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,  and who may, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, make a declaration of refusal  [against her husband] and go away. Rab Judah ruled: Women who are kidnapped  are permitted to their husbands.  'But', said the Rabbis to Rab Judah, 'do they  not bring bread to them?'  — [They do this] out of fear. 'Do they  not, however, hand them  their arrows?'  — [They do this also] out of fear. It is certain, however, that they  are forbidden if [the kidnappers] release then, and they go to them of their own free will. Our Rabbis taught: Royal captives  have the status of ordinary captives  but those that are kidnapped by highwaymen are not regarded as ordinary captives. Was not, the reverse, however, taught? — There is no contradiction between the rulings concerning royal captives  since the former refers  [for example] to the kingdom of Ahasuerus  while the latter refers  to the kingdom of [one like] Ben Nezer.  There is also no contradiction between the two rulings concerning captives of highwaymen  since the former refers  to [a highwayman like] Ben Nezer  while the latter refers  to an ordinary highwayman. As to Ben Nezer, could he be called there  'king' and here  'highwayman'? — Yes; in comparison with Ahasuerus he was a highwayman but in comparison with an ordinary robber he was a king. OR, IN THE CASE OF A PRIEST'S WIFE, 'I WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME' etc. Abaye ruled: If a widow was married to a High Priest  it is the latter's duty to ransom  her, since one may apply to her: OR IN THE CASE OF A PRIEST'S WIFE, I WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME',