Ketubot

'Is it because R. Zebid is a great man  that you turn the law against him? Surely R. Kahana stated that Raba had only raised the question but had not solved it'. Now that it has not been stated what the law is,  [such clothing] is not to be taken away from her if she has already seized them, but if she has not yet seized them they are not to be given to her. We also make her wait twelve months, a [full] year. for her divorce,  and during these twelve months she receives no maintenance from her husband. R. Tobi b. Kisna stated in the name of Samuel: A certificate of rebellion may be written against a betrothed woman but no such certificate may be written against one who is awaiting the decision of the levir.  An objection was raised: The same [law  is applicable to a woman] betrothed or married, even to a menstruant, even to a sick woman and even to one who was awaiting the decision of the levir!  — This is no contradiction. The one  refers to the case where the man claimed her;  the other  to that where she claimed him.  For R. Tahlifa b. Abimi stated in the name of Samuel: If he claimed her  he is attended to;  if she claimed him she is not attended to.  To what case did you explain the statement of Samuel  as referring? To the one where she claimed him?  [But if so] instead of Saying  'A certificate of rebellion may be written against a betrothed woman' it should have been said, 'On behalf of a betrothed woman'!  — This is no difficulty. Read, 'On behalf of a betrothed woman'. Wherein does a woman awaiting the decision of the levir differ [from the man] that no [certificate of rebellion should be issued on her behalf]? Obviously because we tell her, 'Go, you are not commanded [to marry]';  [but. then.] a betrothed woman also should be told, 'Go, you are not commanded [to marry]'!  Again should [it be explained to be one] where she comes with the plea Saying. 'I wish to have a staff in my hand and a spade for my burial',  [this then should] also apply to a woman awaiting the decision of the levir if she comes with such a plea! — [The proper explanation] then [must be this]: Both statements  [refer to the case] where the man claimed,  and yet there is no difficulty. since one  may refer  to the performance of halizah and the other  to that of the levirate marriage. For R. Pedath stated in the name of R. Johanan: [If the levir] claimed her for the performance of halizah his request is to be attended to,  but if he claimed her for the levirate marriage his request is disregarded.  Why [is he] not [attended to when he claims her] for the levirate marriage? Naturally because we tell him, 'Go and marry another woman'; [but then even when he claims her] for the performance of halizah could we not also tell him, 'Go and marry another woman'? Again should the answer be: [Because] he can plead. 'As she is bound to me  no other wife will be given me'. Here also  [could he not plead] 'As she is bound to me no other wife will be given to me'? — [The proper explanation] then [is this]: Both statements  [deal with one] who claimed her for the levirate marriage. but there is really no difficulty. one  being  in agreement with the earlier Mishnah while the other is  in agreement with the latter Mishnah. For we have learned: The commandment of the levirate marriage must take precedence over that of halizah.  [This was the case] in earlier days when [levirs] had the intention of observing the commandment — Now, however, when their intention is not the fulfilment of the commandment, it has been ruled that the commandment of halizah takes precedence over that of the levirate marriage. FOR HOW LONG MAY THE REDUCTION CONTINUE TO BE MADE? etc. What [is meant by] TROPAICS? R. Shesheth replied: [one tropaic is] an istira. And how much is an istira? — Half a zuz.  So it was also taught: R. Judah said: Three tropaics which [amount to] nine ma'ah  [the reduction being at the rate of] one ma'ah and a half per day. R. Hiyya b. Joseph asked Of Samuel: In what respect is he  different [from his wife] that he is allowed [a reduction] for the Sabbath,  and in what respect is she different [from him] that she is not allowed [an addition] for the Sabbath?  — In her case,  since it is a reduction that is made, [the seventh tropaic the husband gains] does not have the appearance of Sabbath pay. In his case, however,  since it is additions that are made,