Ketubot

'in her virginity'  implies only one  whose entire virginity is intact,  irrespective of whether [previous intercourse with her was] of a natural or unnatural character.  A certain woman  once seized a silver cup on account of her kethubah  and then claimed her maintenance. She appeared before Raba. He [thereupon] told the orphans, 'Proceed to provide for her maintenance; no one cares for the ruling of R. Simeon who laid down that we do not regard part of the amount as legally equal to the full amount. Rabbah the son of Raba sent to R. Joseph [the following enquiry:] Is a woman  who sells [of her deceased husband's estate] without [an authorization of] Beth din required to take an oath  or is she not required to take an oath? — And [why, the other replied, do you not] enquire [as to whether] a public announcement  [is required]? I have no need, the first retorted, to enquire concerning a public announcement because R. Zera has stated in the name of R. Nahman, 'If a widow assessed [her husband's estate] on her own behalf  her act is invalid';  now, how [is this statement] to be understood? If a public announcement  has been made [the difficulty arises,] why is her act invalid? Must we not consequently assume that there was no public announcement, and [since it was stated that] Only [if the assessment was made] 'on her own behalf' is 'her act invalid' it follows, does it not, [that if she made it] on behalf of another  her act is valid?  — [No,] a public announcement may in fact have been made but [her act is nevertheless invalid] because she can be told, 'Who [authorized] you to make the assessment?'  as was the case with a certain man with whom corals  belonging to orphans had been deposited and he proceeded to assess them on his own behalf for four hundred ZUZ, and when later its price rose to six hundred zuz, he appeared before R. Ammi, who said to him, 'Who [authorized] you to make the assessment?'  And the law is that she  is required to take an oath,  but there is no need to make a public announcement.  MISHNAH.IF A WIDOW WHOSE KETHUBAH WAS FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ SOLD  [A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH  FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ OR ONE THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ FOR ONE MANEH, HER KETHUBAH IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN THEREBY SETTLED.  IF HER KETHUBAH, HOWEVER, WAS FOR ONE MANEH, AND SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR' FOR ONE MANEH, HER SALE IS VOID. EVEN THOUGH SHE DECLARED, I WILL RETURN THE DENAR TO THE HEIRS' HER SALE IS VOID.  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: HER SALE  IS ALWAYS VALID  UNLESS THERE WAS  [SO MUCH LAND] THERE AS WOULD HAVE ENABLED HER  TO LEAVE  FROM A FIELD AN AREA OF NINE KAB,  AND FROM A GARDEN THAT OF HALF A KAB  OR, ACCORDING TO R. AKIBA, A QUARTER OF A KAB.  IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND]  TO [THREE] PERSONS, TO EACH FOR ONE MANEH,  AND TO A FOURTH  [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANE HAND A DENAR FOR ONE MANEH,  [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID. GEMARA. Wherein does [the sale of a plot of land] THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ FOR ONE MANEH differ [from the previous case? Is it] because she  might be told, 'You yourself have caused the loss'? [But, then, why should she not, where she SOLD A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, also [be entitled to] say, 'It is I who have made the profit'?  — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: