משנה: הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַייָב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה. הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִיזּוֹנוּ מַה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן אַף הַבָּנוֹת אֵינָן נִזּוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֵן. MISHNAH: The father is not obligated to support his daughter161The ketubah contract with his wife does not force a father to feed his underage or adolescent daughter even though he has the right to receive her earnings.. This inference did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain in the vineyard of Jabneh162The seat of the central rabbinic authority in the time between the two wars with the Romans.: “The sons shall inherit and the daughters be supported.163The original Hebrew text of the ketubah stipulation quoted in Aramaic in Ketubot 4:11:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.4.11.1">Mishnah 12.” Since the sons do not inherit before their father’s death, neither are the daughters supported before their father’s death.
הלכה: הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַייָב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ כול׳. מִצְוָה לַזּוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אֶת הַבָּנִים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. מִצְוָה לַזּוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיִי תַנֵּי. הַבָּנִים עִיקָּר. וְאִית תַּנָּיִי תַנֵּי. הַבָּנוֹת עִיקָּר. מָאן דָּמַר. הַבָּנִים עִיקָּר. לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. מָאן דָּמַר. הַבָּנוֹת עִיקָּר. שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ לְתַרְבּוּת רָעָה. HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. 184Tosephta 4:8, Ketubot.49a">Babli 49a. In these sources, and in the editio princeps corrected following the Babli, “R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is obligatory to feed one’s daughters. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important185The Ketubot.49a">Babli, 49a, identifies this Tanna as R. Meïr, the one who gives preference to the daughters as R. Jehudah, with the same reasoning as given here. In the Tosephta only the first opinion is given, anonymously.. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior186That they should not be forced into prostitution..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁא שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם זָן אֶת בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יוֹדְעִין אָנוּ מִי הָיָה בַמִּינְייָן. עוּקְבָּא אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. עוּקְבָּא. זוֹן בָּנֶיךָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מְנָן מָרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. עוּקְבָּא רְשִׁיעָא. זוֹן בָּנֶיךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי עוּלָּה. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם זָן אֶת בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אִם הָֽיְתָה מֵנִיקָה פּוֹחְתִין לָהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah187In the Ketubot.49b">Babli, 49b, in Peah 1:1:12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.1.1.12">Peah 1:1, Note 59, and eventually in the next paragraph, he is called R. Jehudah bar Ḥanina.: They voted at Usha188The temporary meeting place of the supreme religious authority in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kohkba; cf. Peah 1:1:12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.1.1.12">Peah 1:1, Note 60. that a man has to feed his underage children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we know who participated in that vote189They were important enough to accept their vote as judicial practice. (In today’s practice of the Israeli Rabbinate, support is required to the end of the child’s schooling.). Uqba came before Rebbi Joḥanan190He was sued for child support by either his wife or the local overseer of charity who did not want to spend public funds on Uqba’s children. who said to him: Uqba, feed your children. He answered, Master, why191There is no biblical authority to force me to feed them.? He said to him: Evil Uqba, feed your children. Rebbi Ulla192Probably R. Hila (Ilaï), the tradent of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statements in the Ketubot.49b">Babli, 49b. said, a Mishnah193Ketubot 5:11:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.11.1">Mishnah 5:13. The Mishnah shows that the husband has less revenue and more expenses because of the feeding of his baby. confirms that a man has to feed his underage children, since we have stated there: “If she is nursing, she has to work less and one adds to her food.”
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר חֲנַנְיָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁה בְּכוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ נִיזּוֹנִין מֵהֶן. בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְאִית דְּאָֽמְרֵי לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו קְטַנִּים נִיזּוֹנִין מֵהֶן. אַלְמָנָתוֹ מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אִתְּתָבַת וְלָא אִפְרָשַׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בָּר מָמָל. אִתְּתָבַת וְאִפְרָשַׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים אִם הָֽיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כוֹתֵב. הָא מוֹכָר לֹא. כָּתַב לְבָנָיו וּמָכַר לַאֲחֵרִים מָה הֵן מִסְתַּבְּרָא אִתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אֲנָא לֵית מַתַּת לֵיהּ אִתָא. רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא אַגְרִין לֵיהּ שַׁמָּשָׁא וּמְסַבִין לֵיהּ אִיתָא כְּמָה דוּ דְּהִיא שַׁמְּשָׁא. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted in Usha that if one writes all his property over to his sons, he and his wife are supported by them194Even if the property be given unconditionally and immediately, it is a law promulgated at Usha that the sons have to care for their parents (Rashi, on Babli 49b).. What is the situation of underage children? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥanina: He, his wife and his underage children are supported by them.195The adult sons who inherited from their living parents. What about his widow196She cannot collect her ketubah since her husband died without leaving an estate. Therefore, if the sons supported her during their father’s lifetime, they must support his widow indefinitely.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this was asked but not resolved. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it was asked and resolved, Rebbi Abba said, it seems reasonable that if she ate during her husband’s lifetime then she eats; otherwise, she does not eat. It says only “if one writes”; that excludes the seller. If he wrote to his sons197The sons received only part of the estate; the remainder was sold to outsiders and the proceeds used up. and sold to others, what is here reasonable? Rebbi Ḥanina said, I would not give him anything. Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable that they hire him a servant and marry a wife to him so she should serve him198As a matter of honoring father and mother, not as a monetary obligation deriving from their partial inheritance.?
בְּנֵי בָנִים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. [בְּנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵין בְּנֵי בָנִים כְּבָנִים.] רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה הֲווֹן יָֽתְבִין. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. הוּא בְּנֵי בָנִים שֶׁכָּן הוּא בָנִים שֶׁלְּהַלָּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּנֵי בָנִים קָֽפְצָה עֲלֵיהֶן יְרוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה. 200This paragraph, transmitted here in rudimentary form, is from Gittin 5:4:2-5:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.5.4.2-5.4">Giṭṭin 5:4. The variant readings are indicated by גי. In this text, “here” means the text in Giṭṭin, “there” is a different setting in Yebamot 6:6 (Notes 115,116). The topic of the Mishnah in Giṭṭin is the enforcement of the ketubah contract for the support of a wife and her daughters; the question is whether the ketubah also covers granddaughters. Similarly, here the question is whether the rules of Usha require a man to feed his underage grandchildren (if they have no father or the father is incapacitated.) In Yebamot, the question is whether grandchildren count as much as children in the obligation “to be fruitful and multiply.” The answer there is a qualified yes, while here and in Giṭṭin it is no. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, [grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren201In biblical obligations, grandchildren can be counted as children. But in rabbinic institutions involving monetary obligations, only what is specified counts..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר חֲנִינָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁא בְּמַקְפִּיד אֶת הַזָּקֵן וְהִכָּהוּ יִינָתֵן לוֹ בוֹשְׁתּוֹ שָׁלֵם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁהִקְפִּיד אֶת הָזָּקֵן וְהִכָּהוּ וְנָתַן לוֹ בָשְׁתּוֹ מֻשְׁלָם. אָֽמְרֵי. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה הֲוָה. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥaninah: They voted in Usha that one who insults an Elder or hits him has to indemnify him fully for his shame. It happened, that somebody who insulted an Elder and hit him had to indemnify him fully for his shame. They said, it happened to Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina202It is explained in Baba Qama 8:6 (6c) that the “full payment for shame” is one Roman libra of gold..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה. נִמְנוּ בְאוּשָׁא שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ חוֹמֶשׁ מִנְּכָסָיו לְמִצְוֹת. עַד אֵיכָן. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כֲּהָנָא חַד אָמַר [עַד] כְּדֵי תְרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. וְחָרָנָה אַמָר. כַּבֵּד אֶת יי֨ מֵהוֹנֶךָ. כְּמֵרֵאשִּׁית כָּל־תְּבוּאָתֶךָ. רִבִּי גַמְלִיאֵל בַּר אִינִיָּא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַה חוֹמֶשׁ בְּכָל־שָׁנָה. גָּרַשׂ בְּהִילְכָתָא קַדְמִייָתָא דְּפֵאָה וְלֹא מוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא. 203This paragraph is essentially from Peah 1:1:12-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.1.1.12-13">Peah 1:1, Notes 58–64, as noted by the scribe when he stopped copying the entire paragraph. In the Ketubot.50a">Babli, 50a. Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Proverbs.3.9">Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property” … “corresponding to the first of all your yield”204In Peah it is clear that the inference is from the part of the verse which is not quoted here.. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? {One studies this in the first Halakhah of Peah.}203This paragraph is essentially from Peah 1:1:12-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.1.1.12-13">Peah 1:1, Notes 58–64, as noted by the scribe when he stopped copying the entire paragraph. In the Ketubot.50a">Babli, 50a. Will he not die205If every year he gives away one fifth of his property, soon he will have nothing. This part is formulated differently in Peah: A person is permitted to give to charity one fifth of his property once; from thereon in he is restricted to one fifth of his income lest he die of hunger in the future.? But lest he die in the future.
רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה עֲבַד לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה ממִדְרָשׁ. שֶׁדְּרָשָׁהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִיזּוֹנוּ. מַה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן אַף הַבָּנוֹת לֹא יִזּוֹנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. 206From here to the end of the Halakhah the text essentially is from Yevamot 15:3:3-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.3.3-9">Yebamot 15:3, Notes 34–79 (whose readings are denoted by י); its Tannaïtic parts are paralleled in Tosephta Ketubot 4:9–13. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah insisted on interpreting the ketubah: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explained: ‘The sons shall inherit and the daughters shall be supported.’ Since the sons can only inherit after their father’s death, so the daughters can claim support only after their father’s death.
דְּבֵית הִלֵּל עָֽבְדִין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן לְשׁוֹן הֶדְיוֹט. כָּךְ הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין בְּאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיּאָה שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וַחֲבֵירוֹ חוֹטְפָהּ מִן הַשּׁוּק. וּכְשֶׁבָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בִּקְּשׁוּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מַמְזֵרִים. אָמַר לָהֶן הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן. הוֹצִיאוּ כְּתוּבַת אִימּוֹתֵיכֶן. וְהוֹצִיאוּ כְּתוּבַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן וּמָֽצְאוּ כָתוּב בָּהֶן. לִכְשֶׁתִּיכָּֽנְסִי לְבֵיתִי תְּהַוְייָן לִי לְאִינְתּוּ כְדַת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדָאֵי. The House of Hillel insist on interpretation of the ketubah. Hillel the Elder explained it, using the vernacular. In Alexandria they were writing that a man there became betrothed to a woman. Another man abducted her from a public place. When this came before the Sages, they intended to declare [the children] as bastards. Hillel the Elder told them, bring your mothers’ ketubah. They brough their mothers’ ketubah. They found written there: “When you enter my house you shall be my wife according to the laws of Moses and the Jews.”
בֵּית שַׁמַּי עָֽבְדִין כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי דָֽרְשֵׁי. בְּסֶפֶר כְּתוּבָּה מְלַמֵּד. שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ. שֶׁאִם תִּינָּֽשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר תִּיטְּלִי מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב לֵיכִי. חָֽזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. The House of Shammai insist on interpretation of the ketubah. As the House of Shammai explain, the text of her ketubah document teaches, for he writes: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.
רִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי מֵאִיר. הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מִשֶּׁזָּכָה בָהּ (חֲבֵירוֹ) שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לוֹ. אִם אוֹבִיר וְלֹא אַעֲבִיד אֲישַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטְבָא. Rebbi Meïr insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Meïr explained, if somebody accepts a field as a contractor, at the moment [he] accepts, one estimates how much it is expected to yield and he gives to [the owner]. Because the standard contract reads: “If I let it lie fallow and do not work on it, I shall pay as if from the best.”
רִבִּי יוּדָה עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי יוּדָה. אָדָם מֵבִיא עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כָּל־קָרְבָּן שֶׁהִיא חַייֶבֶת. אֲפִילוּ אָֽכְלָה חֵלֶב אֲפִילוּ חִילְּלָה שַׁבָּת. וְכֵן הָיָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. פְּטָרָהּ אֵינוֹ חַייָב בָּהּ. שֶׁכֵּן הִיא כוֹתֶבֶת לוֹ. וְאַחֲרָן דִּי אַתְייָן לִי עַלָּךְ מִן קָֽדְמַת דְּנָא. Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Jehudah explained: A man brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him “any other obligations that may come to you from me from earlier times.”
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּתוּבָּה מִלְוֶה גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל. לִכְפּוֹל אֵינָו גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא מֶחֱצָה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר. אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לִיקַּח בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְקִין לָהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה. הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לִיטּוֹל אֶת מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כוֹתֵב. תַּשְׁלוּמָהּ מִן נִיכְסֵיהּ דִּי אַתְייָן לִי וְדִי אַקְנָה לִקְבֵּל דְּנָהּ. Rebbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan, she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower explained: nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa explained: a person lending money to another person should not take pledges except in court; he should not enter [the debtor’s] house to take the pledge, for he writes to him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this [sum].”208In the text of Yebamot: “a person lending money to another person should not take pledges from him for more than the value of the loan since he writes for him: It will be paid …” That text should be considered the correct one since (a) it refers to the text of the contract and (b) the statement here is a biblical commandment (Deuteronomy.24.10-11">Deut. 24:10–11).
רַב הוּנָא עֲבַד כְּתוּבָּה מִדְרָשׁ. דָּרַשּׁ רַב הוּנָא. הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ. מַה הַבָּנִים יוֹרְשִׁין אֶת הַמְטַלְטְלִין אַף הַבָּנוֹת נִיזּוֹנוֹת מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין הַבָּנוֹת נִיזּוֹנוֹת מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל. בְּנָן נוּקְבָּן דִיהֲוֹן לֵיכִי מִינַּאי יְהוֹן יָֽתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִיתְזְנָן מִנִּיכְסַיי עַד דְּתִינַּסְּבֹן לְגוּבְרִין. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ. מִן מְקַרְקְעֵי וְלֹא מִן מְטַלְטְלֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָא. אַתְיָיא דְּרַב הוּנָא כְרִבִּי וְדִשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנֵּי. אֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת וְאֶחָד נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן לְמָזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהָבָּנוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת הַבָּנִים מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַבָּנִים וְהָבָּנוֹת מוֹצִיאוֹת מִן הַבָּנוֹת וְהַבָּנִים מִן הַבָּנוֹת וְהָבָּנוֹת מִן הַבָּנִים. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת הַבָּנִים מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַבָּנוֹת וְאֵין הַבָּנוֹת מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַבָּנִים. אָֽמְרֵי. חָזַר בֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא. אָֽמְרִין. יֵאוּת. כְּתוּבָּה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה וּמָזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן פְּלִיגִין. [אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא. בְּכֶסֶף כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן פְּלִיגִין.] וְכֶסֶף כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן לָאו קַרְקַע הִיא. Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. [Even if you say, they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah.]209Inserted here by the corrector who prepared the editio princeps; missing in Yebamot. But is the money stipulated in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate66Deuteronomy.22.19">Deut. 22:19.?
הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנָתַן עֵינָיו בָּהּ לְגָֽרְשָׁהּ וְקָפַץ וְתָלַשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר. הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִיכְסֵי שְׁבוּיִין וְשָׁמַע עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין וְקָפַץ וְתָלַשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר. אֵילּוּ הֵן נִיכְסֵי שְׁבוּיִין. כָּל־שֶׁהָלַךְ אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל־הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם נִשְׁמַע עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְיָרַד לְנַחֲלָה. אֲבָל נִיכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן נִיכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁין. כָּל־שֶׁהָלַךְ אָבִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל־הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְלֹא שָׁמַע עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְיָרַד לוֹ לְנַחֲלָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שָׁמַעְתִּי הֵן שְׁבוּיִין הֵן נְטוּשִׁין. אֲבָל נִיכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן נִיכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁין. כָּל־שֶׁהָלַךְ אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל־הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ הֵיכָן הֵם. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. שָׁבוּי זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. שֶׁאִילּוּ לְדַעַת יָצָא הָיָה מְצַוֵּיהוּ. נָטוּשׁ זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא לְדַעַת. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁ[עִילָּה] הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהַבְרִיחוֹ מִנְּכָסָיו. שֶׁהֲרֵי לְדַעַת יָצָא וְלֹא צִיװָהוּ. רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הַמְטַלְטְלִין אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם נִיכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב. אִילֵּין דִּיקְלַיָּא דְבָבֶל דְּלָא צְרִיכִין מֻרְכָּבָא לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא מֵיעַבְּדִינוּן כְּקָמָה עוֹמֶדֶת לִקְצוֹר וּגְפָנִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִבְצוֹר. “If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas; it was heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father or any person from whom he might inherit went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of broken persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known. Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of broken people. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav210In Yebamot, “Rav Jehudah”. It is impossible to determine the original reading since R. Jacob bar Aḥa, a student of R. Joḥanan, was a great collector of the sayings of earlier authorities.: 211There are two sentences from Yebamot missing here which are needed to make sense of the statement. “Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables [for the rules of broken people]. Rav Sheshet asked”. Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?