Ketubot

Captives must not be ransomed for more than their value, in the interests of the public.  [This then implies] that they must be ransomed for their actual value even though the cost of a captive's ransom  exceeds the amount of her kethubah. Has not, however, the contrary been taught: [If a woman] was taken captive, and a demand was made upon her husband for as much as ten times the amount of her kethubah  he must ransom her the first time. Subsequently, however, he ransoms her only if he desires to do so but need not ransom her if he does not wish to do so. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: If the price of her ransom corresponded to the amount of her kethubah, he must ransom her; if not, he  need not ransom her?  — R. Simeon b. Gamaliel upholds two lenient rules.  IF SHE SUSTAINED AN INJURY IT IS HIS DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR HER MEDICAL TREATMENT. Our Rabbis taught: A widow is to be maintained from [her husband's] orphans' estate; and if she requires medical treatment, it is regarded  as maintenance. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: Medical treatment of a limited liability may be deducted  from her kethubah but one which has no limited liability  is regarded  as maintenance. Said R. Johanan: Blood letting in the Land of Israel  was regarded as medical treatment of no limited liability.  R. Johanan's relatives had [to maintain] their father's wife who required daily medical treatment. When they came to R. Johanan  he told them: Proceed to arrange with a medical man an inclusive fee.  [Later, however], R. Johanan remarked: 'We have put ourselves [in the unenviable position] of  legal advisers'.  What, however, was his opinion at first,  and why did he change it in the end!  At first he thought [of the Scriptural text,] And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh,  but ultimately he realized [that the position of] a noted personality is different [from that of the general public]. MISHNAH. [A HUSBAND WHO] DID NOT GIVE HIS WIFE IN WRITING  [THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING:] 'THE MALE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE BORN FROM OUR MARRIAGE  SHALL INHERIT THE MONEY OF THY KETHUBAH IN ADDITION TO THEIR SHARES WITH THEIR BROTHERS',  IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE, BECAUSE [THIS CLAUSE] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY BETH DIN. [THOUGH HE DID NOT GIVE HIS WIFE IN WRITING  THE UNDERTAKING:] 'THE FEMALE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE BORN FROM OUR MARRIAGE  SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE AND BE MAINTAINED OUT OF MY ESTATE UNTIL THEY SHALL BE TAKEN IN MAKRIAGE'  HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE, BECAUSE [THIS CLAUSE] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY BETH DIN. [SIMILARLY IF HE DID NOT GIVE HIS WIFE THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING:]  'YOU SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE AND BE MAINTAINED THEREIN OUT OF MY ESTATE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF YOUR WIDOWHOOD', HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE, BECAUSE [THIS CLAUSE ALSO] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY BETH DIN. SO DID THE MEN OF JERUSALEM WRITE. THE MEN OF GALILEE WROTE IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE MEN OF JERUSALEM. THE MEN OF JUDAEA, HOWEVER, USED TO WRITE:  'UNTIL THE HEIRS MAY CONSENT TO PAY YOU YOUR KETHUBAH'. THE HEIRS, CONSEQUENTLY, MAY, IF THEY WISH TO DO IT, PAY HER HER KETHUBAH AND DISMISS HER. GEMARA. R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Why was the kethubah for MALE CHILDREN  instituted?  In order that any man might thereby  be encouraged  to give  to his daughter as much as to his son. But is such a regulation found anywhere else?  Seeing that the All-Merciful ordained that a son shall be heir; a daughter shall not',  would the Rabbis proceed to make a provision  whereby a daughter shall be the heir? — This  also has Scriptural sanction, for it is written, Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters,' and take wives far your sans, and give your daughters to husbands;  [now the advice to take wives for one's] sons is quite intelligible [since such marriages are] within a father's power  but [as to the giving of] one's daughters [the difficulty arises:] Is [such giving] within his power?  [Consequently  it must be] this that we were taught: That a father must provide for his daughter clothing and covering and must also give her a dowry  so that people may be anxious to woo  her and so proceed to marry her. And to what extent?  Both Abaye and Raba ruled: Up to a tenth of his wealth. But might it not be suggested  [that the sons] should inherit [what their mother received] from her father  but not [that which was due to her] from her husband?  — If that were so, a father also would abstain from assigning  [a liberal dowry for his daughter].  May it then be suggested  that where her father had assigned a dowry  her husband must also enter the clause  but where her father did not assign any dowry  her husband also need not enter the clause?  — The Rabbis drew no distinction.  But should not then  a daughter  among sons  also be heir?  — The Rabbis have treated [the kethubah]  like an inheritance.  But should not then a daughter  among the other daughters  be heir?  — The Rabbis made no distinction.  Why then  is not [the kethubah] recoverable  from movables also?  — The Rabbis treated it like the [statutory] kethubah.  Why then should not distraint be made on sold or mortgaged property?  — [The expression] we learned [was] SHALL INHERIT.  May it then  be suggested [that It Is recoverable] even if there was no surplus  of a denar?  — The Rabbis have made no enactment where the Pentateuchal law of inheritance would thereby be uprooted. R. Papa was making arrangements for his son to be married into the house of Abba of Sura.  He went there to write the kethubah for the bride.  When Judah b. Meremar heard [of his arrival] he went out to welcome him.  When, however, they reached the door [of the bride's father's house] he asked leave to depart, when [R. Papa] said to him, 'Will the Master come in with me?'